Beatles Appear on iTunes Ahead of Apple Announcement

With the pre release of the music spoiling the surprise, this could end up being a fairly forgettable announcement. Unless there is more to it than just the Beatles.

Now I can rebuy the same music I had on LP, 8 Track, Cassette and CD!  Yay!

Apple’s home page has a photo and link to a Beatle page

An Apple press announcement about the Beatles on iTunes just showed up in my inbox.

C’mon, geoduck and distarr7, surely you haven’t already forgotten what’s already been pointed out in the previous thread (and stop calling me Shirley!):

for lots of (presumably) “us” (= 35ish and beyond) who grew up with vinyl and 8-tracks and even CD’s, yeah, it’s NBD. But for that digital demographics who’ve hardly ever held any tangible musical media in their hands ? for whom downloading is the primary or ONLY means of buying, and for whom iTunes is the primary seller ? this may be substantial.

Gotta look beyond our own little version of the world.

Beatles were 3rd best selling artist of 2009. So, most of us who lived in their time may have their music already, but apparently, a lot of people are still buying their CDs. Now that it’s on the largest music store in the world, I wouldn’t be surprised it it became the top selling artist of 2010, almost 40 years after the band broke up!

this may be substantial.

That’s what I’ve been finding so surprising.

I didn’t expect there would be that much interest in 50 year old music from a young audience. Maybe there’s hope for Moby Grape.

With the pre release of the music spoiling the surprise it would end up a fairly forgettable announcement if that was all.

Now, geoduck, we mustn’t go raining on others’ parades…

Actually, people like my daughter, as my wife reminds me, will, for the first time, be able to expand her library, as she has never had practical access to the full Beatles library (the thought pains me, as ultimately I have to pay for it all). So, for some, this will be a big deal.

cbsofla - My thinking, though, is that most of the generation that’s hardly ever held physical media hardly knows who the Beatles are and they don’t really care. So, how much of it will they buy? The Beatle’s ‘60s pop and the heady, psychedelic later works are completely lost on the Lady Gaga-Kanye-Rihanna-Black Eyed Peas crowd. Beyond that it’s only the Slipknot crowd and the Rascal Flatts crowd, and they aren’t into the Beatles, either.

But for that digital demographics who?ve hardly ever held any tangible musical media in their hands ? for whom downloading is the primary or ONLY means of buying, and for whom iTunes is the primary seller ? this may be substantial.

My thinking, though, is that most of the generation that?s hardly ever held physical media hardly knows who the Beatles are and they don?t really care

You might be surprised. I certainly was. My daughter fits the Lady Gaga generation you describe perfectly, yet is a huge Beatles fan and wants their music on her iPod. My son, two years younger, doesn’t. It’s not the age per se but the music appreciation. This demographic knows where to listen to, and cultivate a taste for, music across genres and generations. Legally obtaining it is another issue.

There’s not much to be guessing here. As I said earlier, in 2009, they were 3rd best selling act. Above almost all of today’s popular music artists. So, obviously, hundreds of millions of people continue to buy their CDs, and that was before, when they were still NOT even available on the largest music store in the world.

We can all keep scratching our heads in disbelief, but apparently, there is something that crosses generations in the music of the Beatles.

but apparently, there is something that crosses generations in the music of the Beatles.

Maybe quality does come out on top sometimes?

Maybe quality does come out on top sometimes?

I used to think so, but I gave up on that notion decades ago. This gives me a glimmer of hope…

Maybe quality does come out on top sometimes?

Y’know, I had the Moby Grape and Grape Jam LP’s. But at that time it wasn’t my taste (70ish?)

I’m with you and Vasic: Lady Gaga et al. notwithstanding, yeah, a LOT of the late 60’s and early 70’s music rocks FINE with lots of kids today. Every time my wife and I go to see Clapton, Police, Petty, whoever, we see plenty of teens or younger with parents, and they seem to enjoy it almost as much as we do. (Certainly not all kids, but a LOT more than we would have expected 10-15 years ago.)

Hendrix, Joplin, pretty much everything from Motown (Detroit), Zep, Beatles and Stones—it’s still kickin’ because yes, it’s solid stuff.

=========

Oddly, apart from the commercial aspect, I see this Beatles deal as something of a “moral victory” for Apple-Cupertino to have gained these rights with Apple-London. It’s being that “first legit music download service” for the boys, and in a way it has nothing to do with how much they do or don’t sell.

Why do we need use iTunes if we have BTjunkie and Pirate Bay? Why should we pay hundreds of dollars if we can get everything just free? So, let’s follow in the footsteps of Stan Marsh and Kyle Brohlovsky. Metallica and Judas Priest are waiting for brave internet users.

Good points about the youngsters buying Beatles, my son enjoys them and has my collection on his iPod Touch. I too have bought and enjoy some music that dates back to the ‘20s and ‘30s such as Oscar Alem?n, Django Reinhardt, and new works of a similar Gypsy Jazz genre. I also buy contemporary music particularly jazz, R&B, and blues. However, I also have a quite a bit Lady Gaga and Amy Winehouse.