Holy cow- remastered Beatles albums release Sept 9…

  • Posted: 01 September 2009 10:50 PM

    Just read from this week’s Barrons that 14 digitally remastered Beatles albums will be released on 9/9/09.

    Is it just coincidence?

         
  • Posted: 02 September 2009 03:14 AM #1

    But the title is “It’s only rock and roll but we like it”. So Deagol thinks the date may have been set to dig at Apple Corps after Jobs wooed them for so long.

    Twenty years litigation between Apple Inc & Apple Corps, and still Steve loved them (he said it on stage “We Love the Beatles”), but if they still won’t sign a deal to come to the iTunes Store, what’s more appropriate than: “If I could stick my pen in my heart, and spill it all over the stage; would it satisfy ya?”.

    But of course The Rolling Stones have never been forgiven in my household for selling “Start me Up” to Microsoft. The Stones/MS angle is further confirmation that the iPods going EOL is in preparation for a new Apple/Microsoft partnership based on Zune HD. :wink:

    edited for elaboration (para 2)

    [ Edited: 02 September 2009 05:49 AM by sleepytoo ]      
  • Posted: 02 September 2009 07:50 AM #2

    I am wondering actually if the Apple event has been set up deliberately to take some of the news away from the Beatles event. A sort of Apple spoiler to the launch.

    Firstly we have the news that all Zunes have been discontinued to be replaced with the Zune HD which has capacities up to 32 gig. Unfortunately for Microsoft and the Zune crew not many people will be talking about / buying their effort once the new iPods have been announced / spec’d.

    Secondly, one assumes that the reason for the date is to release iTunes 9 - as that is a suitable 9 related reason for the event. So we have the Beatles doing their thing on September 9, that animated movie that hits the screen that day and the iTunes 9 event.

    Signature

    .

         
  • Posted: 02 September 2009 08:14 AM #3

    Perhaps the Beatles did a deal with Microsotf! Ballmer would willingly write a very big dollar cheque up front; Jobs would not - he’d want it to work for both parties regardless of payment. It would be a full stop to an era, displaying Beatles, Zune and MS together, mausoleum style, as part of history.

         
  • Posted: 02 September 2009 09:02 AM #4

    My money is on the Beatles joining iTunes on 9-9.  It makes too much sense for both Apple Corps and Apple Inc.  For Apple Corp, why go through all the effort of remastering and a big launch, only on a CD medium that is fast approaching the dustbin of history?  For Apple Inc, who better than the Beatles to launch the “cocktail” business model of full albums with lots of extras, especially since we know that Apple Corps has created a bunch of extras for their launch. 

    This has been a long time in coming, and to call it coincidence that they are both announcing on the same day is too much for me.  Nor does the “spite” explanation work for me.  If the Beatles were still holding out, Jobs would just ignore them.  Holding an iTunes event on the same day as the Beatles remaster launch only gives them more publicity, not less. 

    If you are keeping the new deal quiet for a big announcement, then you don’t use a Beatles lyric in your invitation. That’s too big a hint.  And it has been very quiet the last several months.  Normally you would have heard denials of a deal by both sides by now. 

    To me the more interesting question is whether individual Beatles tracks will be available, or just whole albums.  In the iTunes formative years, Jobs would have rejected album-only release, because he way trying to establish a single track business model.  Now with ITunes firmly in control of all music distribution, and with a new goal of selling whole albums with the “cocktail” model, the stars may have aligned for a deal that makes everyone happy.

         
  • Posted: 02 September 2009 09:27 AM #5

    macorange - 02 September 2009 12:02 PM

    My money is on the Beatles joining iTunes on 9-9.  It makes too much sense for both Apple Corps and Apple Inc.  For Apple Corp, why go through all the effort of remastering and a big launch, only on a CD medium that is fast approaching the dustbin of history?  For Apple Inc, who better than the Beatles to launch the “cocktail” business model of full albums with lots of extras, especially since we know that Apple Corps has created a bunch of extras for their launch.

    That is the point. The record companies are trying to milk their cash cow (ew absolutely horrible mixed metaphor). I think they will do the physical release first to get what is left of the Beatles generation to purchase at top dollar and then will release the iTunes version and such at a later date. I could be wrong on this - EMI does seem to work with Apple but does Apple Corps want to?

    Microsoft put a lot of effort into paying the Beatles to fly out to Vegas for the launch of Rock Band for the Xbox and also provide exclusive content for that platform. I don’t think hey would be happy with Apple “stealing” their launch.

    Signature

    .

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 02 September 2009 09:29 AM #6

    Yawn….

    .... who cares?

    I’m 60, they were “hot” when I was in HIGH SCHOOL and COLLEGE.

    Call it the GEEZER MARKET.

    Signature

    “Even in the worst of times, someone turns a profit. . ” —#162 Ferengi: Rules of Acquisition

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 02 September 2009 10:00 AM #7

    The movie “Across the Universe” increased young peoples interest in the Beatles tremendously.  I can attest to that as I have 3 teenage daughters.

    Signature

    “Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens.”
    - Jimi Hendrix

         
  • Posted: 02 September 2009 10:13 AM #8

    TanToday - 02 September 2009 12:29 PM

    Yawn….

    .... who cares?

    I’m 60, they were “hot” when I was in HIGH SCHOOL and COLLEGE.

    Call it the GEEZER MARKET.

    Either way, this doesn’t significantly impact Apple Inc’s bottom line.  iTunes has won with or without the Beatles, and Apple’s 30% cut of Beatles songs on iTunes, after marginal expenses, will not move the needle.

    So from a financial perspective it is a yawn.  But I’m close to 60 too, and the Beatles have such an emotional tug on me almost 50 years later that for me, if not for the younger crowd, it would be a triumphant coda on Apple Inc.‘s success.

         
  • Posted: 02 September 2009 10:16 AM #9

    rattyuk - 02 September 2009 12:27 PM


    That is the point. The record companies are trying to milk their cash cow (ew absolutely horrible mixed metaphor). I think they will do the physical release first to get what is left of the Beatles generation to purchase at top dollar and then will release the iTunes version and such at a later date.

    If iTunes sells albums only, and at the same price as the CDs, where is the loss of “top dollar”?

         
  • Posted: 02 September 2009 10:38 AM #10

    TanToday - 02 September 2009 12:29 PM

    Yawn….

    .... who cares?

    I’m 60, they were “hot” when I was in HIGH SCHOOL and COLLEGE.

    Call it the GEEZER MARKET.

     

    You do realize that the Beatles have “SOLD OUT” of the mono version box set don’t you ????  It retails for around $250+ and the mono versions are all gone.  Secondly the Stereo version of the box sets are selling out quickly as well .. the mono is a limited edition but the stereo is going to sell like crazy ... the “Geezer market” is very important when it comes to music ... young people have a habit of not paying for music .... ignoring this market makes no sense.  When they are released the box sets will probably be #1 and #2 on the charts ... and once again they are around $250.

    I think the impact on itunes would be big ... not just sales but it would be a psychological boost and confirm iTunes as the standard place to go to get digital music.

    BTW I’m in my late 30s’ and my kids LOVE the Beatles ,  I’m scrambling trying to find the mono box set for our family.

    [ Edited: 02 September 2009 10:48 AM by Gtrplyr ]      
  • Posted: 02 September 2009 11:40 AM #11

    Would Apple Corps have a say in an iTunes deal? Wouldn’t EMI have the controlling rights to the remastered sets? Michael Jackson’s estate will also make a lot of $$ from the new re-release [how many re-releases have the Beatles had so far?]

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 02 September 2009 11:50 AM #12

    woodward - 02 September 2009 01:50 AM

    Just read from this week’s Barrons that 14 digitally remastered Beatles albums will be released on 9/9/09.

    Is it just coincidence?

    Since I’m 40, I’m too young to understand the fuss. How about some U2?

    Signature

    Black Swan Counter: 9 (Banks need money, Jobs needs a break, Geithner has no plan, Cuomo’s grandstanding, .Gov needs a hobby, GS works for money, flash crash, is that bubbling crude?).

    For those who look, a flash allows one to see farther.

         
  • Posted: 02 September 2009 11:58 AM #13

    U2 sold out, abandoned Apple for the Blackberry.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 02 September 2009 12:02 PM #14

    willrob - 02 September 2009 02:58 PM

    U2 sold out, abandoned Apple for the Blackberry.

    But my neighbor still has his iPod U2 edition and what is wrong with selling out? Is selling out a moral decision of some kind?

    Signature

    Black Swan Counter: 9 (Banks need money, Jobs needs a break, Geithner has no plan, Cuomo’s grandstanding, .Gov needs a hobby, GS works for money, flash crash, is that bubbling crude?).

    For those who look, a flash allows one to see farther.

         
  • Posted: 02 September 2009 12:09 PM #15

    willrob - 02 September 2009 02:58 PM

    U2 sold out, abandoned Apple for the Blackberry.

    The advert says “Blackberry loves U2” not the other way round. :-D

    Signature

    .