BEATLES catalog being remastered for iTunes Download (1 Viewer)

[Mark_TS]

Beatles Catalog To Be Remastered, Offered Online (Apr 11, 2006)

The Beatles' entire back catalog will soon be available for download - but only when each track has been digitally remastered to perfection. Up until now, the Fab Four are one of the few acts to have resisted making their work available at the iTunes Music Store. They were similarly the last stars to release their catalog onto compact disc.

But the boss of their record label Apple Corps, Neil Aspinall, revealed the development in London's High Court, where the company is currently battling Apple Computer over its logo.

He said, "We're remastering the whole Beatles catalog, just to make it sound brighter and better and getting proper booklets to go with each of the packages.(for retail store sales) I think it would be wrong to offer downloads of the old masters, as I am making new masters. It would be better to wait and try to do them both simultaneously so that you then get the publicity of the new masters and the downloading, rather than just doing it ad hoc."
---
from Starpulse Newsblog

hmmm....Apple has Apple in court, yet they are remastering the catalog for iTunes music store downloads...

 

[Garrett Lundy]

Nowhere in the original article do they say that the Beatles songs will be sold on iTunes (which has been prohibited for years before iTunes was even a shareholders wet dream).

I'm worried about this "remastering". I'm putting money on over-EQ's, no dynamic range, and clipping...... Mmmm. craptastic.

 

[Mark_TS]

I dont seriously believe that once BEATLES music becomes downloadable, that APPLE will allow everyone except iTMS in on the deal...after all, were talking money-and Apple knows that APPLE can scratch Apples back....and vice-versa

 

[Jeff_A]

:wink:

 

[Jeff_CusBlues]

I really don't care how the remastering comes out unless the download offered is lossless.

 

[Josh Simpson]

Now THAT would be something very nice... and they would be the first on iTunes to do that, correct?

 

[Brad P]

As long as Peter Mewtilator doesn't touch these remasters, there's hope.

 

[Marvin]

Aside from the remastering question, I don't see the point of having the Beatles' catalog being downloadable. As I understand it, downloading a song is desirable if you don't want to have to buy an entire CD that has only one or two worthwhile songs. Certainly that doesn't apply to Beatles CDs.

 

[Jeff_CusBlues]

Josh, I'm not sure if anything has ever been offered in a lossless format at iTunes. I'm sure there are others who know and may post. I'm not a big fan of downloading compressed files, and I also like to read the material provided with the CDs. I guess I'm just getting old, and this announcement doesn't excite me at all. LOL

 

[Garrett Lundy]

A bad remaster will inflict the new CDs also...... (DOOM!)

 

[Josh Simpson]

I agree. If the remaster isn't good, it won't matter if I buy them on cd or if they are compressed or not on iTunes.

Here's hoping for a quality remaster, preferrably in both mono and stereo.

 

[GuruAskew]

I disagree, I think a lot of people would prefer to pick and choose from the pre-"Rubber Soul" stuff than buy it all. I love the Beatles but there's plenty of filler on those early albums. Also, many albums on iTunes are available as entire albums only. If they don't want people buying individual tracks then they won't allow them to, it's that simple.

 

[Matt Birchall]

. . .And I'm one of those people.

I've got the 1962-1966/Red album, and then Rubber Soul, and everything after that. Sure, there are a few early tracks that aren't on the Red album that I'd like to have--but not enough to go out and buy the CDs they're on.

 

[Marvin]

OK, suit yourself. But you're missing a lot of good music.

 

[Matt Birchall]

. . .And I'm totally comfortable with that.

 

[Marc Colella]

I think it's hilarious that their remastering the back catalog seems to be based around selling higher quality MP3s. CDs almost seem like an afterthought, and the Hi-Rez formats don't enter into the equation at all.

To most, MP3s aren't viewed as an inferior sounding format. I've often heard reviews and statements that better sounding MP3 players and higher bitrate MP3s are being touted as "audiophile quality".

 

[Joe Karlosi]

You said it. It's all a matter of personal opinion, but the Beatles' albums are a unique case where everything's worth listening to, all the songs. There will certainly be favorites and some non-favorites, but it's good stuff.

I think dowloading in general is absurd, and especially so for The Beatles' impressive catalogue. Just give us the remastered UK discs.

 

[LanceJ]

I've also seen things like that written - scary.

Think about it: more and more kids will never know the fun of putting on a record or CD, turning the volume knob to 75% of maximum and hearing the music of Zep, Sonic Youth, Prince, etc fill their room. Fuzzy sounding MP3 files and crummy plastic earbuds just aren't the same. :frowning:

 

[Vegas 1]

Personally I don't think any of the Beatles albums have filler songs, but that's just MHOP. Now the Rolling Stones that's another story.

 

[Ken Chui]

Are the Beatles available for download through iTunes? (You'll have to excuse this ol' fuddy duddy, as I still buy CDs ) The only reason I'm asking is that I came across an interesting piece on President Bush's iPod (not to politicize this thread; I just found it strangely relevant and coincidental)