Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Beatles May Opt for Own Store to Sell Digital Tracks


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
10 replies to this topic

#1 of 11 OFFLINE   Ockeghem

Ockeghem

    Lead Actor



  • 9,365 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2007
  • Real Name:Scott D. Atwell

Posted March 20 2009 - 02:25 AM

Authored by Mark Hefflinger on March 19, 2009 - 9:42am.

London - The Beatles may opt to offer their long-anticipated digital catalog on their own digital music store rather than on iTunes (NASD: AAPL) or other established retailers, citing a desire to set their own pricing for downloads, the Guardian reported.

"[Apple CEO Steve] Jobs says that a download is worth 99 cents, and we disagree," thirty-year-old Dhani Harrison, a son of the late George Harrison who works at the band's label, Apple Corps, told Blender Magazine.

"We're losing money every day," Harrison told the Guardian.

"So what do you do? You have to have your own delivery system, or you have to do a good deal with Steve Jobs."

Harrison claims to be the driving force behind Apple Corps' decision to license the Beatles' tracks for use in the forthcoming music video game "The Beatles: Rock Band."

Report: Beatles May Opt for Own Store to Sell Digital Tracks | Digital Media Wire

****************

The comment "We're losing money every day" reminded me eerily of Lennon's remark I heard many years ago (I think it was on The Compleat Beatles) regarding Apple Corps. I believe that that amount was quoted somewhere in the neighborhood of $50,000 per week. I recall the line being something like "We're losing $50,000 [a week]. If this continues, we'll be broke in six months."

My good friend Pyegar believed it (Apple Corps) to be a fun experiment, but "... that it made little business sense at the time (or at any time). Basically, it was a "merry pranksters"-style tax dodge, within some naive hope of encouraging undiscovered artists. They did help a few people who went on to musical and visual arts careers, however."

#2 of 11 OFFLINE   Philip Hamm

Philip Hamm

    Lead Actor



  • 6,885 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 23 1999

Posted March 20 2009 - 04:45 AM

Today's apple is nothing like that old apple. The money they are "losing every day" is opportunity cost. They were late to the CD game also.

Also, I think the Beatles should start their own store. Lots of established acts have sold their own music online very successfully. It's easy enough to do, and it's not like they have to worry about people not buying it because it's not on Itunes. Build something like the Amazon dot com download application which inserts the songs into Itunes automatically. It would be foolish for them to make a deal with any distributer, especially Apple computer.
Philip Hamm
Moderator Emeritus

#3 of 11 OFFLINE   Albert_M

Albert_M

    Supporting Actor



  • 532 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 30 2004

Posted March 20 2009 - 04:48 AM

I don't think that they were late to cds. They wanted more saturation of the cd into the market first, just like some movies waited to come out on DVD and now for Bluray.

However, they are foolish to think that the mp3 generation will pay much more than a dollar for a song.

I don't care what they do because I think the digital only kind of purchase is assinine, but I am a minority.

#4 of 11 OFFLINE   WillG

WillG

    Producer



  • 5,220 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2003

Posted March 20 2009 - 04:54 AM

Yeah, the way Dhani said that seems a bit greedy, (although I do thank him for pusing to get a Beatles Rock Band game.)

I know they're The Beatles and all but when the (pretty much) standard for a song download is $.99 why should they demand that people pay more for their stuff? I guess that's their privledge, but I could see people not liking it.
STOP HIM! He's supposed to die!

#5 of 11 OFFLINE   Ockeghem

Ockeghem

    Lead Actor



  • 9,365 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2007
  • Real Name:Scott D. Atwell

Posted March 20 2009 - 05:34 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert_M
I don't think that they were late to cds. They wanted more saturation of the cd into the market first, just like some movies waited to come out on DVD and now for Bluray.

However, they are foolish to think that the mp3 generation will pay much more than a dollar for a song.

I don't care what they do because I think the digital only kind of purchase is assinine, but I am a minority.
Albert,

If it is a minority, I too am part of it, for philosophical reasons.

#6 of 11 OFFLINE   Ockeghem

Ockeghem

    Lead Actor



  • 9,365 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 01 2007
  • Real Name:Scott D. Atwell

Posted March 20 2009 - 05:38 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillG
I know they're The Beatles and all but when the (pretty much) standard for a song download is $.99 why should they demand that people pay more for their stuff? I guess that's their privledge, but I could see people not liking it.
Will,

For my own part, the quality of their music is so much greater (and as a result, far more valuable to me) than just about any other similar genre of music post 1962 that I am willing to spend extra to obtain it. Then again, I now own around 275 LPs and over 150 CDs of their music, so I really don't need too much else these days.*

*Although I will admit that I would love to acquire a 1958 acetate of their rendition of That'll Be the Day. Posted Image

#7 of 11 OFFLINE   Aaron Silverman

Aaron Silverman

    Lead Actor



  • 9,535 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 22 1999
  • Real Name:Aaron Silverman
  • LocationFlorida

Posted March 20 2009 - 07:33 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert_M
However, they are foolish to think that the mp3 generation will pay much more than a dollar for a song.

Maybe he wants to charge less. Posted Image

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert_M
I don't care what they do because I think the digital only kind of purchase is assinine, but I am a minority.

What's wrong with CDs? Posted Image

(Yes, I know what you meant, and I agree.)
"How wonderful it will be to have a leader unburdened by the twin horrors of knowledge and experience." -- Mr. Wick

#8 of 11 OFFLINE   Zack Gibbs

Zack Gibbs

    Screenwriter



  • 1,687 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 15 2005

Posted March 20 2009 - 08:54 AM

All I want to know is what the remasters sound like.
"Because he's the hero that Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now... and so we'll hunt him... because he can take it... because he's not a hero... he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a DARK KNIGHT."

#9 of 11 OFFLINE   Lee Scoggins

Lee Scoggins

    Producer



  • 6,396 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 30 2001
  • Real Name:Lee

Posted March 20 2009 - 09:04 AM

Dhani is a greedy bastard. Jobs is right on the 99 cent mark.

Suddenly I see why the Beatles CDs sell for $19 everywhere.
Viewing: Sony KDSXBR150, Sony Bluray S570, ATT Uverse
Listening: Sony SCD777ES, Benchmark DAC1Pre, VPI/Modwright SWP9SE/Lyra Argo, Audio Research Ref3/VT100, Maggie 1.7s

 


#10 of 11 OFFLINE   AnthonyC

AnthonyC

    Screenwriter



  • 2,341 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 29 2004

Posted March 20 2009 - 09:15 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs
All I want to know is what the remasters sound like.

Ditto. I think Dhani (and the Beatles' Apple in general) are in for a rude awakening when it comes to digital downloads. Even ignoring the fact that they're way behind everyone else in that department, the fact of the matter is, 99% of people who want that material already have it in some form or another. And when it comes to the remasters, I can't imagine most hardcore fans settling for a non-physical release.

#11 of 11 OFFLINE   Philip Klein

Philip Klein

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 81 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 07 2001

Posted March 24 2009 - 03:46 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnthonyC
Ditto. I think Dhani (and the Beatles' Apple in general) are in for a rude awakening when it comes to digital downloads. Even ignoring the fact that they're way behind everyone else in that department, the fact of the matter is, 99% of people who want that material already have it in some form or another. And when it comes to the remasters, I can't imagine most hardcore fans settling for a non-physical release.

Agree 100%
I want the remasters, could care less about digital downloads, It's The Beatles
Keep On Tolkien


Back to Music & Soundtracks



Forum Nav Content I Follow