Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Attempt To "Digitalize" Beatles Goes Sour

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the when-you're-64-and-probably-not-even-then dept.

Music 434

An anonymous reader points to this article at exclaim.ca, which begins "Just when Beatles fans thought the band were finally going digital, the Norwegian national broadcaster has been forced to call off the deal. Broadcasting company NRK has had to remove a series of 212 podcasts, each of which featured a different Beatles song and would have effectively allowed fans to legally download the entire Fab Four catalogue for free."

cancel ×

434 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Is this that important ? (0, Flamebait)

2.7182 (819680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380651)

Can we please move beyond the Beatles ? They're OK but enough already.

Re:Is this that important ? (1, Insightful)

MightyMait (787428) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380677)

Heresy!! :P

Would you say, "Can we please move beyond Mozart"? Some music is timeless.

Re:Is this that important ? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380735)

Like Flock of Seagulls!

Re:Is this that important ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380937)

Dude you are so right! Just consider the lyrics from the Flock of Seagulls hit "I ran": (this is so awesome!!!)

I walked along the avenue.
I never thought Id meet a girl like you;
Meet a girl like you.
With auburn hair and tawny eyes;
The kind of eyes that hypnotize me through;
Hypnotize me through.

And I ran, I ran so far away.
I just ran, I ran all night and day.
I couldnt get away.

A cloud appears above your head;
A beam of light comes shining down on you,
Shining down on you.
The cloud is moving nearer still.
Aurora borealis comes in view;
Aurora comes in view.

And I ran, I ran so far away.
I just ran, I ran all night and day.
I couldnt get away.

Reached out a hand to touch your face;
Youre slowly disappearing from my view;
Disappearing from my view.
Reached out a hand to try again;
Im floating in a beam of light with you;
A beam of light with you.

And I ran, I ran so far away.
I just ran, I ran all night and day.
I couldnt get away.

Re:Is this that important ? (3, Insightful)

Swizec (978239) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380777)

Look I'm sorry but The Beatles are nowhere NEAR Mozart, Bach, Beethoven and the likes. Please don't even hint at the possibility that they might be timeless even taking into account that "timeless" really means "until the end of our civilisation". The moment everybody who remembers them from their youth dies, The Beatles will fade into obscurity and/or will become an musicophiliac's thing.

Hell, Marlene Dietrich was "timeless", now most people don't even know who she was, same goes for people like von Braun, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Marlon Brando etc. etc. All very well known, all very timeless, all almost unknown of amongst the modern youth.

Re:Is this that important ? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380903)

So in order for something to be timeless, it has to be under the genre of classical and predate the 20th century?

Re:Is this that important ? (4, Insightful)

dov_0 (1438253) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381243)

Perhaps timelessness is something only truly proven after a few generations. We can't really say that something from ours or our parents generation is timeless. Only declare hopefully that it will be.

Re:Is this that important ? (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380961)

Nonsense. People always over-glorify that one period of music. Do you really think that the only great musicians in all of human history were born in a span of a hundred years?

The modern youth you describe remember Frank Sinatra and the Beatles just as well as they do Mozart and Bach. Which is to say, vaguely. No music remains truly popular forever. Your definition of timeless as "lasting until the end of civilization" is overly strict. Nothing could meet such a standard, or, if something could, there would be no way for us to know it.

Music can be fairly described as timeless so long as some people in the modern day, who were not around when the music first became popular, still enjoy it. I think the Beatles can easily meet that criterion.

Re:Is this that important ? (2, Interesting)

Swizec (978239) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381065)

Interesting observation actually, I think many more modern youth know Frank Sinatra than they do the Beatles.

Of course not all great music was done in that classical span of a hundred years, but I really wouldn't call The Beatles as something all that worthwhile. Dunno, they just don't seem all that special and most other people under 30 that I ask also seem to agree. Perhaps it's just not what's "in" these days as we seem to be far more into 1950's, 1970's and 1980's music than 1960's. Interesting no?

Also, strangely enough, I can't find a single person above 15 who likes 2000's music. Why is that?

Re:Is this that important ? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26381181)

I'm 47 and I like new music, I actively seek good music I haven't heard 36 thousand times before.
It's harder than it should be, esp. considering I live in Chicago...

I know many 20 somethings who know the Beatles and consider them "classic" as in "From before my time but still worth listening to" Of course they think that about The Clash too...

Re:Is this that important ? (5, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381461)

I'm 47 .... I live in Chicago...

Hi Barak you really should register rather than posting as AC.

Re:Is this that important ? (-1, Flamebait)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381213)

BECAUSE TODAY'S MUSIC INDUSTRY PRODUCES INDUSTRIALIZED MASS MARKET SHIT, AND IMMATURE STUPID KIDS BUY INTO WHATEVER CRAP THEY'RE FED AND FORCE THEIR PARENTS TO BUY IT.

Er. Uh. I mean. Because today's music is just crap, and kids don't know any better.

laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a a a aa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a a Dun duh-duh dun dun, dun duh-duh dun dun, dun duh-duh dun dun, dun duh-duh dun dun...

Re:Is this that important ? (2, Insightful)

2.7182 (819680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381399)

Isn't a filter supposed to keep all those caps out of posts ? Anyway, yes you are right, the Beatles weren't commercial at all. That is evident especially now from how they are being such primadonnas about having their music digitally available (online, whatever).

Re:Is this that important ? (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381089)

Popular for over a hundred years and respected if not liked by a wide range of society. I think a lot frank sinatra might make it but only a fraction of beatles songs. As the summary says, 212songs i'm sure only a handful will get the timeless classification.

Re:Is this that important ? (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381077)

The Beatles were pop music...some good songs, some that I would classify as "weird crap".

Re:Is this that important ? (3, Funny)

Datamonstar (845886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381129)

Yeah, General Custard drinking from a dead dog's eye/nose would definitely be considered "wierd crap" in my book.

Re:Is this that important ? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26381259)

"Yellow Matter Custard"

Re:Is this that important ? (1)

shoemilk (1008173) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381159)

Marlene Dietrich - actress
Chaplin - actor (and still decently well known)
Keaton - actor
Brando - acotr
The only "timeless" person you name that isn't a musician is a scientist. Let me challenge you, name one of Shakespeare's actors. Can't can you? But you sure know who Shakespeare is. Actors and actresses fade away. No one watches old movies, they'll just watch the remake.

Music, however, is different. It gets redone and remade and covered, people remember, it gets taught in school. The Beatles have already outlasted their generation.

Re:Is this that important ? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26381199)

Actually, we don't quite know who Shakespeare is. But we do know his works and pseudonym quite well.

Re:Is this that important ? (-1, Troll)

Swizec (978239) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381255)

The Beatles haven't outlasted their generation. It takes a while for things that are quite popular to really outlast their generation, hell, there's even two beatles left alive. How's that outlasting their generation if even they themselves are still around?

Mozart and other classics HAVE outlasted their generation. Most definitely. But I somehow doubt anyone will know what The Beatles were in a few hundred years, but they'll probably still know Mozart, Strauss and the others. Hell, they might even still know Morrison and Presley, perhaps even some Sinatra. Why? Because they were more than just very popular, very well marketed music.

The only innovation The Beatles did was become the first pop band as we know them today. Talentless and popular. Being the first they perhaps weren't quite talentless, but they were as creative and artistic as Britney Spears.

Re:Is this that important ? (4, Insightful)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381315)

Being the first they perhaps weren't quite talentless, but they were as creative and artistic as Britney Spears.

Let me guess: You don't play any instruments, do you?

Re:Is this that important ? (4, Insightful)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381227)

The moment everybody who remembers them from their youth dies, The Beatles will fade into obscurity and/or will become an musicophiliac's thing.

Kind of like ... oh, any musician ever born? Some prophet, you.

Hell, Marlene Dietrich was "timeless", now most people don't even know who she was, same goes for people like von Braun, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Marlon Brando etc. etc. All very well known, all very timeless, all almost unknown of amongst the modern youth.

Yeah. Kind of like Mozart, Brahms, Beethoven, et al? Or do you hear the modern youth bumpin' those classics as they roll down the block? Yeah, man, music is dead all right. Might as well cut off our ears.

No. How about this one? Fuck the modern youth. What did the modern youth ever know?

Much as you might not like the Beatles, some (but not all) of their rather broad and diverse catalog still stomps the crap out of just about any rock band that ever existed. Yeah, Led Zeppelin was great, too -- but much of their stuff is pompous, self-indulgent claptrap. Pink Floyd was great, but a lot of their stuff was silly, navel-gazing pseudo-intellectual rubbish, with a good measure of holier-than-thou arrogance thrown in. And honestly, I doubt that either of those bands would deny the debt they owe to the Beatles.

And FWIW, at 35 I'm hardly the Beatles' "original fan base." To me, for you to imply that nobody but a bunch of rotting mummies listens to one of the greatest rock bands ever just shows you out as your basic, self-important young person who thinks you know everything. Guess what? The older you get, the more you'll "forget."

And P.S. my last girlfriend's favorite band was the Beatles, and she was 21.

Re:Is this that important ? (1, Interesting)

Swizec (978239) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381319)

It's not that I don't like the Beatles, it's just that whenever I tried giving them the chance to impress me I was like "Ok, so it's like some sort of 1960's version of Britney Spears. Where's the bit that's supposed to make me fall madly in love with their music?" and nobody could ever provide me with an answer.

So perhaps you could enlighten me, WHAT is so awesome about The Beatles, what the flying fuck is so special about them except they had insanely good marketers at a time when music wasn't yet used to the big record companies we know today?

Re:Is this that important ? (2, Interesting)

penguinchris (1020961) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381489)

You're simply wrong - there were Britney Spears equivalents in the 60's, but that's not what the Beatles were. You're thinking of the Monkees, maybe. Good marketing at that time wasn't as important as today - the legitimately good musicians came through on top of the highly commercialized stuff.

Also - it just takes listening to the Beatles to get the answer you seek. They're very good, with very well written lyrics and musical accompaniment. I'm not sure what more of an answer you need than that - just listen to them!

Re:Is this that important ? (5, Interesting)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381503)

OK -- and mind you it's not as if I listen to Beatles records every day or anything -- but for starters it largely depends on what you're listening to.

Most people who talk about the Beatles as "great music" are talking about their later catalog, and I'm certainly among those. My favorite albums are probably Revolver, Rubber Soul, and Abbey Road, and I like some of the stuff in between. I can not listen to songs like "I Wanna Hold Your Hand," so I can't defend them.

As for what makes it good music, believe it or not, at the time a lot of it was highly creative and original. Though a lot of the songs are credited Lennon/McCartney, in truth the Beatles were a band in the truest sense, with all four members contributing. (Witness the fact that none of their solo efforts were as good as the Beatles stuff.)

Furthermore, they really were good musicians, as well as songwriters/arrangers. If you walked up to Jimmy Page tomorrow and told him to his face that you think George Harrison was a better guitar player than he is, he might just agree with you.

As far as Beatles fans go, I myself am a "Paul." I think he wrote great melodies and just really nice songs. You can call them pop if you want, but then all of rock n' roll up until probably the mid-90s could just as easily be categorized as pop.

And I don't think you can really discount that there really hadn't been any music that sounded like that before the Beatles came along. In other words, hindsight is golden.

Example: Me, the first new music that was really compelling to me in my teenage years was Suicidal Tendencies, GBH, the Dead Kennedys, and Minor Threat. Then I discovered Metallica and Slayer, and I ran in that direction. Then one day somebody played me a Black Sabbath record from the 1970s. My reaction? It's crap. It sounds like crap, it's too slow, it's not "heavy," the singing is weak and silly. Well, look -- I was wrong. And really not a single one of those bands I mentioned would have come around had it not been for Black Sabbath. I just wasn't experienced enough, I didn't understand music or recording or anything else enough, to properly be able to appreciate what had come before the bands I was familiar with. I'm thinking a lot of the Beatles-haters in this thread are falling victim to some of the same.

Someone else in this thread said that the Beatles lacked anyone with the "power" of a Jim Morrison. Oh really? And John Lennon had no cultural impact, did he? Interesting.

I'm the first to admit that a lot of the Beatles' stuff is commercial -- particularly, I think they get way too much credit for inspiring the psychedelic movement -- but to pretend that they weren't groundbreaking, highly original, highly creative, highly talented musicians just makes a person sound ignorant.

Re:Is this that important ? (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381513)

What is so special about them? Simply the fact that they made a lot of very good music. In fact, I think there's only one song that I would say that I _dislike_, and that's almost all sitar music. I like the rest in varying amounts, of course.

I think people _do_ often go too much into how the band evolved and changed, but that is part of it. The very early stuff ("She Loves You", "I Want to Hold Your Hand") was very light pop stuff, I guess you could compare it to (egads) Britney Spears. But then the music did get somewhat more sophisticated, putting orchestras in the background of rock music for example. There are also weird experiments they did, like recording music and cutting up the tape and splicing it together randomly, so use as the background music (as far as i remember).

I say this as someone born in '68, and I know people in their 20s who are huge Beatles fans too. I'm not of the Beatles generation, but they're my favorite band.

There was also a good (IMHO) recent movie, "Across the Universe", which used Beatles songs to essentially create the plot... and it even got me to buy the soundtrack, which is remakes of Beatles songs, by the people in the movie.

Not comparable to Britney - progression is key (4, Interesting)

mgkimsal2 (200677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381575)

Watch and listen to the progression they made in just a few short years. Yes, arguably some of the earlier stuff might be dismissed as "teeny bopper" stuff, but even a lot of it had much higher production quality and songwriting quality compared to everything else out at the time. So the quality was head and shoulders above much of their 'competition' at the time.

But watch the artistic progression between
1963 - I Saw Her Standing There / All My Loving
1964 - Can't Buy Me Love / Eight Days a Week
1965 - Drive My Car / Day Tripper / Yesterday
1966 - Taxman / Tomorrow Never Knows / Eleanor Rigby / Rain
1967 - I Am the Walrus / Fool on the Hill
1968 - Revolution / Lady Madonna / The Inner Light
1969 - Something / Because / Get Back

Just in the span of a few years the songwriting quality exploded, and brought with it new production techniques and set new standards for what was considered 'art'.

Most of those songs above can hardly be considered 'teeny bop' music, or comparable with Britney Spears. For one thing, the Beatles were 4 people who increasingly expressed their individuality, yet managed to retain a 'Beatlesque' quality to most of their recordings. Britney is one person, and while she probably expresses herself in her music, it's limited by the perspective of her being one person, not bringing the perspective and talents of multiple people (well, multiple 'named stars') to the equation.

Few artists have displayed such remarkable growth and boundary pushing, while still retaining and growing a fan base, as the Beatles have. Arguably U2 might fit that bill, or perhaps REM. They didn't start off as primarily targeting teenage girls, then progress in to more adult themes later - they simply started targetting college age kids from the get go, so the artistic progression is harder to graph, in my mind.

"Had good marketers"? They had radio DJs, and a manager who dressed them in suits. That was about it. They had no massive PR team, or a marketing department. They had a roadie, and later a press agent, but hardly the stuff of mega-acts today (the Stones' organization comes to mind).

Another angle that captivates people about the Beatles is the 'rags to riches' story. 4 kids coming from essentially an outcast area of England London would have cared to forget, conquered the music world and changed pop culture. Simply the fact that they had such an impact is in itself part of the attraction for many people to discover and listen to their music (to see what the fuss is about).

Something about the music (quality of production, songwriting wit, energy of early performances, sophistication of imagery in later song) continues to entrance a large number of new people every year. You're apparently not one of them. Too bad - it's your loss.

Re:Is this that important ? (1, Insightful)

Dripdry (1062282) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381279)

And how popular was Mozart a generation after he died? Did most people recognize his genius? No. They'd say "Oh that sounds nice!" Modern pop music began with The Beatles, just as Mozart redefined and pushed the boundaries of music theory during his time.

Timeless implies not only mastery of an art, but that music moves anyone from any generation given that they can appreciate it.

Their music is also emotionally timeless. Try listening to Revolver, for instance. If it doesn't move you at all, check your pulse.

Mozart is dying out. How many people do YOU know that would go to a Mozart concert and really appreciate it and be moved by it? It's taught academically in music history, but Amadeus was no more than a fad (and a cad) in his time.

Even up and coming artists cite the Beatles as an influence. They will be timeless. Billy Joel will not be timeless. Sting will not be timeless. Coolio will not be timeless. As someone who disliked the Beatles for 20 years and remained ignorant, but finally listened to their recordings and quickly became a big fan of the fab four, it seems obvious that their music strikes a chord that will resonate for many years to come.

I won't go so far as to say you don't know much about music, but I will say that it may be worth re-examining your views and understanding of music and media history.

Re:Is this that important ? (1)

Swizec (978239) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381357)

To be fair, I know a LOT of people who would go to a Mozart or somesuch concert and truly appreciate it ... if only the tickets for such things weren't obscenely and idiotically overpriced. We've grown up in a time when music can be "found" on the internet for free and have gotten used to it. We don't like spending big bucks on some concert when we can get a similarly good concert in a different genre for free somewhere else.

I'd be just as hard pressed finding people willing to go to a Beatles concert (if it wasn't free) as I am finding people for a Mozart concert.

Re:Is this that important ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26381521)

Listen, I worked in classical music for two years at one of the premier classical management agencies. Even the people there, some of them having spent their lives being a part of classical music, know that what you're saying is so full of crap, it's almost beyond belief.

You'd be hard pressed to find people willing to go to a Beatles concert??? If you mean that were John and George still alive and they had a reunion concert, you'd be hard pressed to find ticket takers, you are bat-shit insane (Or even if you're saying that just Ringo and Paul were to have a reunion concert, no one would go, that'd be just as insane). If you mean you'd be hard pressed for people to see a Beatles cover band, then I still say you're completely wrong (since I've seen Beatles cover bands sell out some 1000+ capacity venues).

And as for the Beatles fading into obscurity, I don't see that any time soon, especially since their catalog is still being raped (see the recent Julie Taymor film or the Cirque du Soleil show Love, or the countless covers of so many of their tunes).

For the record, I'm 24 and have been a Beatles fan since I was probably about 14.

Re:Is this that important ? (1)

passiveNecro (1070344) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381591)

Among my social group (ages 24-27) I would say at least half of us would be willing to spend in the $100s of dollars range to see the beatles and some of us might think about going to a mozart if it were $20.

Re:Is this that important ? (1, Insightful)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381363)

When students use training music that the Beatles wrote to help them learn to play music and musical instruments will the Beatles be as good Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Liszt, etc...
Other than that, they are pop artists that created sounds that contemporary people liked.

Now that being said, "Yesterday" and "Michelle" are popular piano pieces just as "Fur Elise" is.

If the Beatles wrote any Etudes or Sonatas, I'd like to know.

Re:Is this that important ? (1)

ExtremePhobia (1326407) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381415)

Yeah, makes perfect sense. When people like me who have been around for that long die then nobody will remember the Beatles... Ohhh wait, I wasn't, nor were any of my friends, my siblings, their friends... wierd huh? The difference is that we're saying that the Beatles will be Timeless 30-40 years after the fact.

Get off your "I know classic" high horse. You find even college students (non-musical) who can differentiate which compositions belonged to which composer and I'll find you 5 that could SING half a dozen beatles songs... let alone capable of differentiating them from ANY other band.

Re:Is this that important ? (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381423)

That is very true.

One interesting thing about Beethoven that many may not know. As much as he is regarded as a genius, and very famous, there's still a lot of his music that's never been recorded. In fact, there's a lot that's still never been publicly performed. His entire work that's been recorded fits on about 60 cds, there's probably as much again that's never been publicly performed or recorded. This, I have always found astonishing.

Chaplin was a genius, and should never fade away. Everyone should watch "The Great Dictator." It's a must-see movie. Especially now -- since many of us in the West face darker days from more restrictive governments.

Re:Is this that important ? (1)

grub (11606) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381449)


Look I'm sorry but The Beatles are nowhere NEAR Mozart, Bach, Beethoven

and Motorhead!!! :)

Re:Is this that important ? (1)

Chiaro Meratilo (1036598) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381525)

Honestly, I'm pretty sure The Beatles are more popular than most classical music composers. And IMO, Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, etc. are in near-obscurity and are the obsessions of few individuals. I mean, I just found The Beatles a year ago - I'm fifteen. It just carries on with the generations.

Re:Is this that important ? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380787)

Yes, but the Beatles hardly qualify as music, let alone timeless.

Re:Is this that important ? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26381049)

Mozart is in the public domain.

I wish we reformed to copyright system and allow works to become timeless sooner.

Re:Is this that important ? (3, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381053)

[quote]Would you say, "Can we please move beyond Mozart"? Some music is timeless.[/quote]

The Beatles were wildly popular, but their work is quite dated and much of it was lame fluff.
Their now elderly original fan base is dying off, and their work is not the sort that will excite many new fans.

The Beatles didn't have anyone with the personal intensity of a Jim Morrison, or the amazing guitar ability of Jimi Hendrix. Their work was accessable, but tame and not very interesting.

Re:Is this that important ? (2, Insightful)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381225)

It's not like we're talking Aerosmith here. They don't really get a fan base; they're just good.

Re:Is this that important ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26381163)

lol, Louis Armstrong asked this 80 years ago.

Re:Is this that important ? (5, Insightful)

omeomi (675045) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380705)

Am I the only one that's incredibly annoyed by the fact that people seem to have forgotten that CD's ARE DIGITAL?!?!? I know what they mean is digital distribution, but nobody says that. They say things like, "the Beatles are resisting going digital", or "The Beatles are finally going digital with Rock Band", or whatever...You can already listen to the Beatles in digital form. You've been able to listen to the Beatles in digital form for 30 years...

Re:Is this that important ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380731)

You are being pedantic. They are distributing little bits of plastic that contain lots of ones and zeroes. Look, nobody calls book publishing "Alpha/numeric character distribution".

Re:Is this that important ? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380795)

No, but this is like saying that something being published on Google Book Search means that the work is "finally being recorded in written form!"

Re:Is this that important ? (5, Funny)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381151)

Look, nobody calls book publishing "Alpha/numeric character distribution".

Am I wrong for naming content by its content (MIME) type? My mother asked if I would send her pictures of my vacation, and I told her "yep, I'll have those image/jpegs to you in a multipart/mixed by saturday", then she called me a human/x-weirdo and I modem/NO-CARRIER'd her! We haven't spoken since, but at first I thought you were her posting AC before I noticed your improper labeling of publish/multichar so you couldn't possibly be her. Besides, a human/female on http://slashdot.org./article.pl [slashdot.org.] ? No way!

Re:Is this that important ? (0, Redundant)

2.7182 (819680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380743)

Yes yes yes!! Thank you for adding that. It's along the same lines of saying you can only listen to music purchased from iTunes on an iPod.

Re:Is this that important ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380791)

A CD is digital in the sense of being "not analog".

However it is not digital in the more up-to-date sense of "occupying (practically) zero shelf space".

Re:Is this that important ? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380909)

Hmm, why did the guy who posted a less well-thought out version of the same comment 3 minutes later gets modded up as "insightful", while OP gets modded down as "redundant"? Timestamps don't lie.

If that had happened to me I might be thinking, Christ. You know it ain't easy. You know how hard it can be.

Re:Is this that important ? (1)

Dripdry (1062282) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381309)

For heaven's sake mod parent up. Did no one catch the reference?

The way things are goin', they're gonna crucify you!

Re:Is this that important ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26381609)

For heaven's sake mod parent up. Did no one catch the reference?

The way things are goin', they're gonna crucify you!

...like a virgin, touched for the very first time!

Re:Is this that important ? (1)

david@ecsd.com (45841) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381101)

Yes, you are the only one.

Quit being pedantic. It's just not sexy.

Re:Is this that important ? (4, Insightful)

ThinkTwicePostOnce (1001392) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380897)

Well, let's put it this way. The Beatles are WAY more important than YOU are.

All these people who find the Beatles so uninteresting gets me wondering why they're compelled to write and
tell everybody about it. I mean, when I'm uninterested in a slashdot story, I just don't read it! And I
sure don't bother visiting classical music forums in order to announce my disinterest in classical music.

Why, that would be completely stupid!

So basically... (4, Insightful)

Aurisor (932566) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380949)

You're telling us all that you have no interest in people talking about their lack of interest?

Do you..ah...see the problem there?

Re:Is this that important ? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381261)

That's nothing, you should see christian forums. People spend their entire waking lives heckling them about gayness. I used to talk to people who complained how horrible it is that people bitch about gay people, and then go heckle the christian forums and talk about how stupid they were; I had so much fun just spouting four words: "You are a faggot."

Re:Is this that important ? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26381271)

Ha! We know they are not so great since they are half-dead!! Say hello to Timothy Leary in Hell you acid dropping hippie dirtbags. (Except for Ringo. He's cool since he dates 16 year old girls.)

I don't listen to the Beatles, but (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380653)

They probably saw this [goatse.fr] .

In other news, niggers have larger than average penii.

Re:I don't listen to the Beatles, but (0, Offtopic)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381269)

I'm challenging you to justify penii as a real word.

The Old-Fashioned Way (5, Funny)

MightyMait (787428) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380661)

Recently, Paul McCartney said negotiations to get the Fab Four onto iTunes had âoestalled,â leaving some fans more than a little ticked that they still have to listen to the band the old-fashioned way.

What's "the old-fashioned way"? Bit-Torrent?

Re:The Old-Fashioned Way (4, Funny)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380789)

Recently, Paul McCartney said negotiations to get the Fab Four onto iTunes had Ãoestalled,Ã leaving some fans more than a little ticked that they still have to listen to the band the old-fashioned way.

I interpreted that as an official statement from the fake Paul McCartney saying that the fans should listen to the band the old-fashioned way as a tribute to the late real Paul McCartney.

Re:The Old-Fashioned Way (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380829)

Standing on the street outside apple studios.

Re:The Old-Fashioned Way (0, Troll)

ceebee (125986) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380861)

Recently, Paul McCartney said negotiations to get the Fab Four onto iTunes had âoestalled,â leaving some fans more than a little ticked that they still have to listen to the band the old-fashioned way.

What's "the old-fashioned way"? Bit-Torrent?

at a concert you dolt.

Phew! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380895)

They got that digital Beatles genie back in the bottle just in a nick of time. No Fab-Four electrons will cross the intertubes tonight!

Er ... this news from 1997, right?

Re:The Old-Fashioned Way (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381123)

Seriously.

I guess my complete discography in MP3 form is "old-fashioned".

Peace and love and the most overrated band ever (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380695)

For a group closely associated with peace, love and everything good about 60s and 70s counterculture, the Beatles (and their heirs/hangers on/rights holders) certainly seem to behave like craven corporate shills.

Personally I find them to be tremendously overrated too, and not a patch on many of their contemporaries (Pink Floyd, Dylan, Hendrix, The Animals, etc etc etc). Sgt Peppers was rather good though.

Re:Peace and love and the most overrated band ever (1)

Tuidjy (321055) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380825)

I do not see how the above is flamebait. Wrong, may be, but flamebait?

I also like most of Pink Floyd, Bob Dylan, and Jimi Hendrix better than almost all of the Beatles' songs. There's no accounting for taste. Pink Floyd are not really contemporaries, though. They were just getting going when the Beatles broke up.

Re:Peace and love and the most overrated band ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26381075)

They were just getting going when the Beatles broke up.

On the contrary, the Beatles per se only existed from 1960, and Pink Floyd was formed in 1965.

Re:Peace and love and the most overrated band ever (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380889)

Don't forget the group that forced the Beatles to rethink how to make an album (everyone else as well)...

The Beach Boys and Brian Wilson specifically.

Re:Peace and love and the most overrated band ever (1)

Lysdestic (1191833) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381031)

Mod parent insightful... Geez, flamebait?

I've wondered the same thing. The sixties were all about being against "The Man", yet, as the parent said, the people in charge of the music are being corporate shills.

You mods would do well to note that some of the best insight comes from people that disagree with you.

Re:Peace and love and the most overrated band ever (1, Insightful)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381295)

Since when are artists in charge of their music?

counterculture? The Beatles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26381491)

Lennon was counterculture for a few years in the 70's. Paul? Only his veganism. He was a pop king through and through. Ringo wandered off and George was a nice guy who did his own thing quietly.

Their big counterculture album read more like some wankers take on what the media perceived was happening in San Francisco in the 1967 which those in the counterculture denounced with Death of the Hippie march which signified the end and then it became a caricature of itself.
The Beatles followed the fads of the time, spoke of vague meaningless efforts without ever denouncing anything in a system which made them rich. Sure, Lennon tried but the trappings of his life of luxury made him just another spouter of cliches mantras.

Im not defending them since I think ther work is overrated. popular does not equal good.
Sly Stallone is a popular actor.
He is not a very good one.
Britney Spear is a popular 'singer'.
She is not a very good one.
I dont want to compare them to the two above but it helps get the point across.

But 'counterculture' is pushing it with this bunch of fashionable poseurs. About as counterculture as The Mamas and Papas and Sonny and Cher. Both those acts had the lingo, clothes of the era down pat too.

Re:Peace and love and the most overrated band ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26381567)

Considering Michael Jackson owns the Beatles, I'd place the blame on him.

Paul and Ringo loose out (4, Insightful)

grapeape (137008) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380729)

The only ones hurt by the Beatles not being on iTunes and other services are the remaining members. Those that want the Beatles either rip their own cd's or just snag them from torrents. Led Zeppelin finally relented, Pink Floyd gave in, I just find it amazing that a band that embraced technology in its heyday is now completely terrified by it.

Re:Paul and Ringo loose out (0)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380853)

I don't think the surviving Beatles own the rights to the music any more anyway. Paul McCartney pays Michael Jackson whenever he plays a Beatles song live. It's odd, though.

Re:Paul and Ringo loose out (2, Insightful)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381245)

You do realize that while Jackson owns the rights to publish most of the Beatles songs (all but 4) this in no way shape or form effects Paul McCartney when he performs.

No artist pays another artist for performing their song live. So Paul McCartney doesn't pay MJ a penny. The only people who do are those that publish the songs (most commercials, tv shows, movies, etc...). So please don't spout blatant lies people may believe you. Or hell just check snopes before you type.

Re:Paul and Ringo loose out (2, Informative)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381409)

To be specific, this is the article that the GP should check out and thoroughly understand before he starts spouting off like that again
http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.asp [snopes.com]

Re:Paul and Ringo loose out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380867)

Hmm. Have you noticed how Beatles albums have always been marked up $3-4 over new CD's, never mind the $8 or so you expect to pay for back catalogues?

I'm sure they want to protect their premium, but I'm not sure any digital retailer (particularly iTunes) wants to mark up each tune by 25%, just for the Beatles.

I've never been sure how they've got away with this for so long. The day they come down to parity with other albums I swear I'll by the entire back catalog.

http://tinyurl.com/72qy75

vs.

http://tinyurl.com/7kmthh

Re:Paul and Ringo loose out (5, Insightful)

AttillaTheNun (618721) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380913)

It's the label, not the band that is holding things up. The Beatles (only 2 of which are still living) have nothing to do with it.

Given Paul McCartney has left his major label, explicitly calling them out as out-of-touch with the current digital reality, I'd say he's less than terrified by technology.

Re:Paul and Ringo loose out (5, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381009)

The only ones hurt by the Beatles not being on iTunes and other services are the remaining members.

I don't think they're going to be hurt.

The Beatles have the biggest selling back catalogue in the world. The #2 seller AC DC are also not on iTunes.

Both bands think they make more money selling Albums than singles & selling singles on iTunes would cannibalise their album sales.

Not sure if I agree or not, but they've certainly got numbers (huge album sales) on their side.

Digital? (5, Insightful)

Prikolist (1260608) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380741)

Why use the word "digitalize", they have CD's, pretty sure those aren't recorded in analog.
Oh, and I'm sure all the die-hard Beatles fans have complete discographies in "digital" as it is and wouldn't really care about a new way of downloading it.

Re:Digital? (3, Interesting)

AttillaTheNun (618721) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380931)

The only thing die-hard Beatles fans are waiting for are decent remasters to replace the 87-era releases currently available.

Most of those have digital rips of superior vinyl masters, but Apple did provide a teaser of some tracks from a remastered White Album last September to raise expectations once again.

Re:Digital? (2, Funny)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381339)

You mean, remastered to push all the volume levels to max, eliminate the subtle instruments in the background, soft-clip weaker frequencies, and overall reduce the actual audio quality? I'd rather we ditch CDs and go to 96000Hz 24-bit DVD audio with freaking 120dB noise floor. Yes, I went there. No, vacuum tubes won't help. Neither will Monsterscam Cables.

Re:Digital? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380935)

Of coarse they were recorded in analog. Digital recording didn't exist back then.

Re:Digital? (2, Interesting)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380957)

yea, kind of odd though that my kids will not be exposed to nearly as many beatles songs as I was.

Re:Digital? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381451)

yea, kind of odd though that my kids will not be exposed to nearly as many beatles songs as I was.

Well, you weren't exposed to as many Big Band ditties as your grandpa, either. At some point in the next 30 years all the people who ever loved the beatles will die. Then their publisher can keep their stupid back catalog.

Re:Digital? (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381139)

Its not even digitalize... its digitize. The is the fist time i've been a spelling nazi on /. because seriously people.... Firefox comes with a built in spell checker :/ and its a nerd word and its /. .... its sad

Re:Digital? (1)

grub (11606) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381505)


Its not even digitalize... its digitize.

You're both wrong, it's digimotize!

Re:Digital? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381289)

they have CD's, pretty sure those aren't recorded in analog.

I'm pretty sure any beatles recording was made in analog, mixed in analog, and transferred to digital. AAD [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Digital? (1)

dark12222000 (1076451) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381439)

Yes, I'm sure you're right, but the remaining beetles aren't making any money from the make shift digitals.

Besides, most die hard beetle fans would probably be happy to pony up for a lossless discography of the beetles.

It's easy money, it just needs to be seized.

broadcasted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26380821)

the broadcaster can only post podcasts from shows broadcasted in the previous four weeks

Beatles incredibly restrictive (0, Redundant)

NinthAgendaDotCom (1401899) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380837)

They're notoriously restrictive, so much so that I was surprised when I heard them while scanning through FM radio stations on my iAudio, because it had been so long since I'd heard a Beatles song.

MP3s (5, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380877)

The Beatles aren't on iTunes because Apple is pissed at Apple. I was also under the impression that under British law, early Beatles recordings are about to become public domain so there is this sudden urgency to create and sell Beatles music online in some format.

And if I'm not mistaken, there is a Beatles Rock Band game coming out next Christmas.

Copyright and jurisdiction question. . . (4, Insightful)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380999)

"I was also under the impression that under British law, early Beatles recordings are about to become public domain. . ."

How does that work internationally? Can those same recordings still be under copyright in other nations (like the US)? Or, since the UK is the 'home' country of the Beatles, does their copyright term prevail internationally? Even if the recordings are still under copyright, in the US, but are public domain in the UK, can people in the US receive legal copies from someone in the UK, even though it would be illegal for them to further copy those works? I believe a fundamental principle of copyright law is that those receiving works don't need the right to make the copy, but rather the person/company that gives them the copy - leading to, I would think, an ability for someone in the US to be able to *receive* the legal copy from the UK?

Re:Copyright and jurisdiction question. . . (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381127)

I am no lawyer, but I assume US retailers operate by US copyright law, and so on. I would like to see proper clarification however.

Re:Copyright and jurisdiction question. . . (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381177)

It'll be like anything else digital that's illegal in one country but legal in another.

There'll be a server with the files in the country where it's legal with a little banner at the top of its web page saying "These files are legal to distribute in this country but not in some others. Please do not download them if it is illegal for you to do so." There will be no actual checks of any kind, of course.

Just like that Australian branch of Project Gutenberg.

Re:Copyright and jurisdiction question. . . (1)

agrippa_cash (590103) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381277)

IANAL. The copyright is granted by each country on its own terms (generally adhering to the Bern Convention). I vaguely recall that the RIAA was going after uploaders rather than downloaders, but I don't know when or why. When you fix a recording in a nontransitory form (on your HD) you have made a copy, I don't see why the legal status of the file in its country of origin would be relevant, but that doesn't meant is isn't.

Re:MP3s (1)

sukotto (122876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381627)

Don't worry. The Music industry will get copyright extended. :-(

Norwegian would... (1)

ITEric (1392795) | more than 5 years ago | (#26380967)

(this bird has flown?)

If they wanted to push it, they could always rebroadcast the program. I don't blame them for not doing so in light of Apple corp. objections, however.

Not all Beatles fans were around when the music was new (myself included), but it seems to me that if the rights-holders don't get with the program, the next generation could very well be Beatles free.

Wouldn't that be the real tragedy in all this?

Re:Norwegian would... (1)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 5 years ago | (#26381497)

Doesn't all the Beatles music copyright expire over the next ten years (at least in Europe) anyway?

Love The Beatles; sick of their whining. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26381229)

The entire Beatles discography is up for grabs on torrent networks in lossless FLAC or high bitrate mp3s. And it's absolutely ethical to download them for free and save yourself the time of ripping LPs or CDs into your computer.

I'm sort of glad that The Beatles isn't on iTunes. Those clowns at Apple Corps don't deserve the free money for selling the same shit to nostalgic folks who have already purchased all that stuff many times before.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?