With Beatles now on iTunes, who are the last holdouts—and why?

Metallica were the first to cave, in mid-2006. In November of 2007, Led Zeppelin followed; in June 2008, Radiohead finally said OK, computer. Read the full post.

Comments (138 total) Add your comment
Page: 1 3 4 5 6
  • Mindy

    The fact that The Beatles are now on iTunes (and selling well) should make these people rethink some of these arguments. Are they saying their albums are better than Rubber Soul? Revolver? I’m sorry, but if some of the best albums of all time can be split up and sold as individual songs on iTunes, then what is their argument? (And, note: The Beatles ALBUMS are selling well on iTunes, as well.)
    Just be honest folks. Your real argument is this: You don’t make as much money off individual song sales as you do entire album sales. I mean, they aren’t as rich as Paul McCartney, right? LOL.

  • Dani

    Well I wanted Friends in low places but discovered Grath Brooks wasn’t on itunes so I bought his greatest hits used for $.99. Still only added the songs I wanted and spent less. Same w AC/DD and Deff Leppard. People have always skipped or fast forwarded to the songs they liked and there are easy ways to get tracks for even less than itunes. Sorry guys that’s just the way it is.

  • EP Sato

    I tunes is the devil. You can’t take songs off of Itunes on One computer with your ipod and then upload them to another computer. That’s just stupid.

    How many people have more than one computer they use? Between my Wifi station (with the entire music collection), the two laptops and my work computer I’ve got four.

    That means I have to buy these songs four times?

    F that noise jack. Itunes is “I-pointless”

    • digitil

      “I tunes is the devil. You can’t take songs off of Itunes on One computer with your ipod and then upload them to another computer. That’s just stupid.” umm… itunes is the only retailer that gives you DRM free downloads. You can convert your files to MP3 at any bitrate you want right there in itunes and copy it to any device you want.

      • Mariposa

        Actually, that’s not true. Amazon, as well as some smaller online retailers, also offer DRM-free music. In fact, Amazon did that before iTunes.

  • James

    It’s interesting that Frank Zappa predicted music downloading in the early ’90’s and now his catalog is unavailable on iTunes. Why? Because iTunes downloads sound like crap. The only Zappa you can find are Beat The Boot releases which already sound like crap.

  • Jason

    Well – it has hurt AC/DC IMO. They also don’t have a commercially available Greatest Hits CD either. They have some collections with some of their hits together, but nothing with all the big hits in one package. I would buy a hits compilation or anthology by this band, on iTunes or CD. They’ve stuck to their guns, but it hasn’t made me go out and buy all their individual CDs to get the songs I want.

  • Janeway

    Sad to say but these folks are dinosaurs. CDs just like DVDs are a dying breed. Eventually, all forms of entertainment will be bought in the form of downloads. I haven’t bought a CD in at least 3 years. Downloading the songs you like, makes the artist more accessable to the fans. Don’t let these guys kid you, it is all about the money.

  • boocat

    None of the artists who refuse to allow their songs to be sold on i-tunes pale in comparison to the Beatles. Sounds like they’re just full of themselves. Case in point -Garth Brooks. I remember years ago Garth Brooks said his goal was to sell more recordings than the Beatles. I laughed out loud when I read that because it will never happen. Real artists don’t set goals like that. It’s just stupid.

  • digitil

    The holdouts don’t understand the technology. Their music IS available for download on the internet already! I refuse to download it, unfortunately for them. I never copied a beatles song/album from a borrowed CD to my hard drive and never will. Unforunately, again, I did buy a beatles track off itunes last night to check sound quality and was disappointed. Also, the lack of Anthology material is disappointing. Better than nothing though! Digital downloads are a huge win for artists. You think freedom for artists was better back in the 90’s? I love all the underground music that gets pushed to the top by popularity rather than by a monolith recording company’s promotion that sucked all the money out of the consumers pockets.

  • Chip

    Who really cares about Garth Brooks and his egotistical attitude? He makes me absolutely sick thinking he is the closest thing to God. He needs to get a grip on reality. Maybe Trisha will have a couple children with Garth. Then he will stay “retired” another 18 years!

  • Tony

    You ignore digital outlets like iTunes at your peril if you’re a musician. The album-only model is dead, frankly; consumers have railed against it for years, and the idea that iTunes kills music by giving consumers a choice is dubious. If Garth and AC/DC were so all-fired concerned about Art, they’d be making better Art, and with more consistency. They cling to the old all-or-nothing model, and it’s a battle already lost in the digital age. By ignoring iTunes and others giving the buyer an a la carte choice, they’re holding the door wide open to piracy, and all over their fans not wanting fodder.

    Fact is, the die-hard fan will buy anything without question, and will buy a whole album regardless of quality. The casual fan is where these folks have lost touch with both the digital age and their fans. No one wants to spend more than they feel the music is worth, and no longer values waste. If these places are killing the music industry, why are millions upon millions being spent at these places in legal downloads? Piracy exists because there was no choice for music fans. If choice equals socialism, then make me a socialist.

    • Mariposa

      Exactly. There wouldn’t be a market for a la carte downloading if it wasn’t what the consumers wanted. In fact, Garth et al would make more money because casual fans who might not commit to an album would buy the singles (I know I would, but only with Garth Brooks and Bob Seger; I don’t really care for the other hold-outs).

  • Kenneth

    Don’t these artists remember back in the day when people bought 45rpm singles (actually two songs, one on each side). How is itunes that much different?

    As a kid I always bought singles because I couldn’t afford LP’s. Plus except for the one or two hit singles on the album, the rest was all filler junk anyway.

  • Katrina

    As far as I am aware you would be buying a sicsenle to listen to that piece of music, wheras a CD you buy the sicsenle and the physical product. As far as I am aware iTunes currenty typically offers an 15-20% (20 if you are say Rolling stones or other influential act). You also have publishing revenue, tax and the money for the service to take into account.So I would say; tax (17.5%), Publishing might be about (10%), Money to record company/artist (upto 20%), which leaves in the region of 50% for iTunes and most other stores.The problem with these figures for the artist is that record companies and artists usually take a 50:50 split of the above 15-20%. leaving the artist anywhere between 7.5-10% of their rights in their own recorded music (and that percentage is then recouple to the record company before they earn anything).The 70:30 you talk of would be fantastic but as yet doesnt exist, as there is publishing costs, tax etc to think about. iTunes still claims it only makes money becuase of the iPod, and that if they took any less cut they would shut down the service as it wouldnt make business sense.

  • תקליטנים

    naturally like your web site but you need to take a look at the spelling on quite a few of your posts. Many of them are rife with spelling issues and I to find it very bothersome to inform the truth nevertheless I’ll definitely come back again.

  • Lola

    These artist should add their music. As a huge Black Sabbath fan, I wanted to add digital copies to my library. I have all of their records on vinyl- but who wants to take the time to transfer all of that onto a computer? Not me. Guess I’ll have to look at other ways to add them. Black Sabbath=FAIL! Tony Iommi greedy- always has been, guess he will be until he draws his last breath- when it comes to the phenomenal music created with Ozzy Osbourne!! Jerk!

  • Common Cents

    If I were a popular artist , I would want to capitilize on the most monetary consumption as fast as I could as long as my popularity would last. Over time , sales would diminsh as my popularity.
    If I have a couple of real great hits , their staying power will always be popular as similar to the oldies. People will buy them.
    The technology we have now is the new retail for music sales, not like before and will change again in the future.
    More people are more likely to buy the one or two songs that sound good as opposed to an album full of not so good . Sales would increase by more independent singles because of price. Simple as that.
    If the holdouts are of a contractual nature , then thats a whole different animal.

Page: 1 3 4 5 6
Add your comment
The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject - or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.

When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.

Latest Videos in Music


From Our Partners

TV Recaps