Attempt To "Digitalize" Beatles Goes Sour 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."
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:1, Insightful)
Would you say, "Can we please move beyond Mozart"? Some music is timeless.
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Paul and Ringo loose out (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Digital? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Is this that important ? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ? (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Peace and love and the most overrated band ever (Score:1, Insightful)
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:Is this that important ? (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Paul and Ringo loose out (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
So basically... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Copyright and jurisdiction question. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
"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:Paul and Ringo loose out (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:1, Insightful)
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 ? (Score:3, Insightful)
[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 ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Paul and Ringo loose out (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Is this that important ? (Score:2, Insightful)
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:Peace and love and the most overrated band ever (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ? (Score:2, Insightful)
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 ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:3, Insightful)
You've got some very good points in your comment regarding the Beatles. However, if someone doesn't care for the Beatles, it doesn't necessarily mean that the band sucked; just means that the person doesn't care for the music.
I tend to agree - my parents were big Beatles fans, and I've tried to listen to some of it. Just doesn't get me going the same way other music does. The band could be the best thing the world has ever produced, but if I don't like it, I'm probably not going to truly appreciate it as much as those that do enjoy it.
Not a thing in the world wrong with not liking the Beatles.
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not a thing in the world wrong with not liking the Beatles.
Of course not. But "Britney Spears of the 60s"? Ridiculous.
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:5, Insightful)
II can't find a single person above 15 who likes 2000's music. Why is that?
Define your terms. I'm an old guy (53), and I like a lot of music made in this century, but I despise the dreck that makes it to the top of the charts. The current A&R policy for pop music is driven by a business model based on focus groups [beforethemusicdies.com]; it's a dinosaur, thrashing its tail in its dying throes, crushing a few of the tiny mammalian successors that will eventually reign supreme!!!!
I feel better now.
But I still wish radio didn't suck so much.
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. You sounded sort of rational and convincing until this point, where your Beatles fanboyism came gushing out.
Led Zeppelin, I think it's widely acknowledged, are great for their guitar work and for bringing that style of music to the (white) masses and into the popular consciousness, but in their own right are probably not "great" musicians in the historical sense. But Pink Floyd... to say "a lot of their stuff was silly navel-gazing pseudo-intellectual rubbish" whilst defending the band which wrote lyrics like:
and
is just laughable. In fact, let me go one further. The Beatles are to Pink Floyd what Coldplay is to Radiohead: one writes catchier and perhaps more memorable songs than the other, but the other truly composes music rather than coming up with a good tune, and dares to create totally new musical concepts rather than tweaking and refining a reliable formula. I will admit the Beatles went through their creative phases, but your anti-Floyd attack is just stupid.
So, let's look at the rest of your ramblings:
Well, go into any half-decent music shop and I'll bet you find more Mozart, Brahms and Beethoven recordings on the shelf than Beatles, Floyd and Zeppelin. So it will be interesting to see how many Beatles CDs there are on the shelves (or whatever the 2038 equivalent is) in, say, 30 years time. I'd bet that many 'kids' will perhaps listen to a best of, a few will delve deeper, and most will have heard 1 or 2 songs, mostly those that the band and rights holders seem to kindly license to advertisers.
I direct you to one Mr Bob Dylan. While your boys were singing "She loves you yeah yeah yeah", he was writing "A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall" and "Masters of War". By the time the fab four got to something really interesting like Sargeant Pepper's, Dylan had (a) been the first popular musician to take a truly electric sound on the road, (b) reinvented himself from folk hero to rock rebel and in the process understood for the first time the true nature of modern musical stardom and the complex relationship between the superstar and the audience (c) written songs of huge cultural and musical significance like "Subterranean Homesick Blues" and "It's Alright Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)", (d) released easily the longest and most substantial 'single' to that date in the form of "Like a Rolling Stone", (e) invented a totally new sound (the "thin wild mercury sound" of Blonde on Blonde) and released arguably the most consistently good rock album ever in the process, (f
Yes, The Beatles ARE that good (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a reason the Beatles are still as popular as they are, and it's not some corporate conspiracy.
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:3, Insightful)
the Beatles weren't commercial at all.
I trust that was sarcasm...
Help! Hard day's night... those lamentably bad films...
The Monkees! was a tongue-in-cheek parody of the Beatles' commercialism.
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh i'm sure beatles is just as popular as motzart NOW. Buuuut i think when the beatles are 250years old we will see a big difference. Hell i think in 50 years the beatles will be a good deal less relevant than Mozart. Thats the point.
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Pop music is like chocolate: it may taste really good, but in the back of your mind, you know it's bad for you.
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Most people who talk about the Beatles as "great music" are talking about their later catalog..."
fail.
Honestly, they don't walk on water, but the Beatles' early pop music was night-and-day different from what had gone before.
No syrup, no sap - at least compared to the industry around them. In their earliest releases as a quartet with George Martin producing, the Beatles made music that was spare, direct, harmonically complex and hummable.
Sure it was fun, but Pop is supposed to be. The harmonies of "Hold Me Tight", the energy of "It Won't Be Long", the jangle, falsetto and close harmony of "Ticket to Ride" - dude, you may not like Pop, but just say so. As pop music goes, there hasn't been much greater.
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm 26 and also live in Chicago. I consider the Beatles classic, classical music classic, and hope that one of my most favorite bands I've traveled the world to see (Nine Inch Nails) will be something my (eventual) children will see as classic because of the style. Deciding if music is "classic" is like deciding if abstract art is "art". It's all up to the viewer/listener.
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Perhaps timelessness is something only truly proven after a few generations."
Given that the length of a "generation" is commonly defined to be 20 to 25-years (genealogy) and the early works of the Beatles is around 1962, I'd say that criteria has been met. YMMV.
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:2, Insightful)
How did The Beatles play a sub genre of a music genre that was invented more than a decade later? The Beatles started out in 1960. Punk in the seventies. Punk has influences, like any other genre, but it's hardly the same genre, if genres are supposed to have meaning at all.
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:3, Insightful)
"The Beatles wrote straight-up, standard pop music."
Rubbish! The Beatles created a new genre of music. A good one too. Britney Spears just continued the manufactured pop popularised by The Spice Girls.
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:1, Insightful)
Give it time, you'll like the Beatles. Everyone starts off disliking the Beatles and thinking they're over-rated until they reach the age of about 18-19 and start to discover proper music.
If you can't respect the Beatle's work then you're really out of touch with all they have done.
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Beatles wrote straight-up, standard pop music
First, if you can fit Beatles music into a single genre, then you probably haven't listened to much more than their most popular stuff. Secondly, was 'standard pop music' even a genre in 1960? Or is it one defined as 'stuff that sounds like the Beatles?'
I do agree that they're massively overrated. They have some really great songs, like Norwegian Wood, and a lot of trash. The same is true of most of the great composers, who jotted down a huge amount of trash to please various members of the nobility.
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is this that important ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you completely. I'd also like to take this opportunity to point out that Pythagoras was an idiot. After all, we currently have below average high school students doing more complex mathematics than he ever did.
The quote "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of Giants" isn't only applicable to sciences.