The deal with iTunes has "stalled", and since iTunes is supposed to have a three-month exclusive before any CDs are released, it looks like plans for remastered CDs have "stalled", too.

[www.wcsx.com]

This is utter shit. A pox on the Beatles/EMI for holding back. They are the worst example of a band neglecting modern technology in order to give fans better sounding albums.

SIIIIIIIIIIIIIGH

I wonder what it is that EMI wants that that Paul isn't willing to give them.

Quote
lamemodem2
I wonder what it is that EMI wants that that Paul isn't willing to give them.

Maybe he's asking for an arm and a leg...

Quote
lamemodem2
I wonder what it is that EMI wants that that Paul isn't willing to give them.

He's just pulling their leg!

Simon
myspace.com/koningsimon

Waiting for Michael Jackson to lose control. Which will be quite soon.

I hope that the remasters, whenever they come, also will be in SACD or DVD-A formats and also in surround.
Mats

Judging from a survey from one of the financial journals the Beatles/Apple hardly need to do anything with their product. They still seem to out earn ALL other artists per year.
Must be galling for Sir Mick.

What gets me is that the Beatles carp about the bootlegs, over the years...don't they get it ?

Basically, there were successful, and don't have to do anything to "sell" their, but it has to "smart", knowing how much ALL the $$$$ they have lost, just because of their stupid behavior.

When you REALLY listen to their music, it's Pure POP Crap...the Stones have so MUCH over them !

The Stones are still around...NUFF SAID !



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-12-08 16:25 by stonesmusicfan.

iTunes has a three month exclusive on CDs? In what sense? New? Do reissues count?

Quote
skipstone
Waiting for Michael Jackson to lose control. Which will be quite soon.

This has been predicted for years.I suspect that when it happens Sony will get his share. I'm not sure that this would be make Paul very happy either.

Perhaps Paul/Apple ought to look at the situation at EMI and see if they can get control of the recording rights (he owns all his solo material of course).
EMI sem to be on the skids (BBC Radio documentary this Saturday).

Strange days, indeed.

Beatles are pop crap?
Man you must be on some heavy drugs!The Beatles were (and still are) the greatest musical thing of the 20th century and one of the greatest of all times.I love the stones but that's just it.

As long as Dr Ebbets and Purple Chick(which does their stuff for free,if you paid for it whoever sold it is ripping you off!) are doing their thing I aint gonna miss Apples remasters too much!

Quote
Silver Dagger
This is utter shit. A pox on the Beatles/EMI for holding back. They are the worst example of a band neglecting modern technology in order to give fans better sounding albums.

The have always treated their fan base like CRAP.

Quote
Silver Dagger
This is utter shit. A pox on the Beatles/EMI for holding back. They are the worst example of a band neglecting modern technology in order to give fans better sounding albums.

This is not very important. If CDs didn't exist you should be happy with your vinyls but THEY MADE AVAILABLE A LOT OF OUTTAKES AND ALTERNATE VERSIONS. The Stones are always editing CDs with new technology but always the same CDs. WHERE ARE THE ALTERNATE OR OUTTAKES. In the vaults OK. My best band are the rolling stones because they had the energy and this special way of life but I think lennon/macartney are the best songwriters of the 20th century.

Quote
stonesmusicfan

Quote
Silver Dagger
This is utter shit. A pox on the Beatles/EMI for holding back. They are the worst example of a band neglecting modern technology in order to give fans better sounding albums.

The have always treated their fan base like CRAP.

Can you give some examples of this? In what areas have the Stones done a better job? Where is the Rolling Stones version of Anthology? While I think Anthology's essential tracks could probably fit onto an EP, at least it exists.

Quote
stonesmusicfan
What gets me is that the Beatles carp about the bootlegs, over the years...don't they get it ?

Basically, there were successful, and don't have to do anything to "sell" their, but it has to "smart", knowing how much ALL the $$$$ they have lost, just because of their stupid behavior.

When you REALLY listen to their music, it's Pure POP Crap...the Stones have so MUCH over them !

The Stones are still around...NUFF SAID !

Why so bitter? First off I love the Stones. But the Beatles were a far superior act. They only recorded together for 8 years - 12 albums, nearly all killer very little filler. Lennon/McCartney the greatest songwriters ever, Harrison not far behind. Their back catalogue has largely been managed with integrity and they have opened their archves in a manner which we would all give Heather's other leg to see the Stones do.

Slagging The Beatles to big up the Stones is childish and does the Stones no favours.

Quote
jlowe
Judging from a survey from one of the financial journals the Beatles/Apple hardly need to do anything with their product. They still seem to out earn ALL other artists per year.
Must be galling for Sir Mick.

Indeed. But Sir Mick isn't dead and dead musicians with a cultish following sell by the bucketload (not their corpses, hopefully).

I vote for Ms Mills' working leg to be handed over post haste.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-12-11 23:21 by Father Ted.

Well, regardless of their status and any band fan wars, I would love to hear The Beatles albums remastered properly. There is no denying The Beatles were - and still are (print doesn't change eh?) awesome.

McCartney's waiting for Jacko to forfeit the publishing, and seeing how the gloved one is selling his very glove itself right now, that may not be far off.

I forgot all about that "curious actin' feller" being involved.

Quote
From4tilLate
McCartney's waiting for Jacko to forfeit the publishing, and seeing how the gloved one is selling his very glove itself right now, that may not be far off.

See my earlier note -11 December...don't hold your breath!.
I agree the Beatles catalouge has generally been managed better than the Stones.
However, with the 1963-71 material (the crown jewels) they have basically no control over.
I think ABKCO have managed the product better of late, no coincidence that Allen Klein is probably taking more of a back seat.
The post 1971 material -well, there have been enough negative comments on this site so I won't repeat whats been said. I asume they have COMPLETE control over this period, so its really down to Mick.
They need a Neil Aspinall figure!
Perhaps if Alan Dunn isn't too jaded after 40 years servitude he could do the job. Must have time on his hands, right now.

Found this. Is this just as bad as Allen Decline and ABKCO? Doesn't sound very smart regardless:

[www.nytimes.com]

The Beatles being called pop crap makes me laugh. Ludicrous!

Quote
skipstone
Found this. Is this just as bad as Allen Decline and ABKCO? Doesn't sound very smart regardless:

[www.nytimes.com]

Thanks for the update, Skipstone. Looks like it's anyone's guess whether the Stones or the Beatles will deliver remasters first.

Hopefully at least one of them will in '09.

Drew

Capital/EMI has screwed with their catalog for years - it's maddening.

So the entire Stones catalogue has been remastered, from 1964 to 1991, and yet The Beatles have had nothing done except, what, One? Whatever that most recent hits comp was. Wasn't that fixed up remastered goodly (ha ha)? It sounded pretty damn good I thought. Nice hits comp too.

So where's the damn rest!? Augh!

Is their a list of just Paul Mccartney lead vocals Beatles songs, thanks