Are the Beatles Coming to iTunes Today?

[Magnumload]

[citation][nom]chaohsiangchen[/nom]Yet another evidence of drug abuse and affinity to Beetles.I've been sober all my life (which is about twice your age) without influence from drugs, alcohol or any chemicals, and I find watching Yellow Submarine at age 18 is one of the most torturous mental pollution I've ever experienced in my life. It was worse than recruit training in Taiwanese Army.[/citation]

LOL. That's your opinion. But damn no drugs? no nothing?
Not even that green stuff?
I'm sorry.

 

[nitto555rchallenger]

Yoko Ono was a %$@#! back then and she's still one today. I love the Beatles and she was one "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" trip a way firth then the band.

 

[chaohsiangchen]

[citation][nom]Brother Shrike[/nom]I had to wikipedia Mandy More. Somehow I doubt that Mandy More is more influential than the Beatles. I'm 15, so you really can't say that the Beatles aren't relevant and aren't popular.[/citation]

They are relevant and popular because music industry/media complex were hyping them for the last 5 decades. I had enough of them shoving mediocre and bad works to the public, and some uneducated people with utterly no taste fell for their trap and willfully give money to them. You want good music? Good, start from Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and all the way to Coltrane and Armstrong, then you will know what's good R&R and what is music industry/media complex hype. Given your age, you shouldn't listen to anything before 1900 yet, throw away your junk pop music and replace them with Mahler and Tschakovsky.

 

[backbydemand]

[citation][nom]chaohsiangchen[/nom]They are relevant and popular because music industry/media complex were hyping them for the last 5 decades.[/citation]
There is an old saying, "You can't polish a turd"

There is only so much that media hyping a product will go before the actual content stands up on its own. There is probably ten times the amount of media money and hype surrounding the average boy band today because they need all the help they can get. After a couple of albums the band splits up because they have no lasting appeal, (New Kids On The Block anybody?). What some people call media hype is in fact industry recognition of achievement, and rightly so, because if the Beatles were so bad then no amount of media exposure would have made people go out of their way to buy over a billion records over half a century.

 

[snarfeck]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Also, in the 10 years since Mandy Moore released her first record, she has sold 10 million. Pretty impressive.By the time the Beatles had got to be just 1 year from their first record they had sold over 100 million, and held twelve positions on the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart, including all the top five positions. Neither feat has been matched by any other artist to date. In the 8 years the band were together they sold over 545 million record and to todays date sales are up over a billion.So in all fairness, I have to ask the question, who the fuck is Mandy Moore?[/citation]

you guys can't take a joke! i was just trying to lighten up everyone's day. i guess mandy moore wasn't the way to go about it.

 

[backbydemand]

[citation][nom]snarfeck[/nom]you guys can't take a joke! i was just trying to lighten up everyone's day. i guess mandy moore wasn't the way to go about it.[/citation]

You got that right, if you were going to make a joke comparison, maybe someone who had sold less than 10 million records and had a 10 year career. In all fairness, I think I agree with this website
http/www.blender.com/lists/67198/50-worst-artists-in-music-history.html
And maybe comparing the Beatles to Insane Clown Posse would have been a slightly more obvious sarcasm. They sold 6.5 million records, I didn't realise they stacked shit that high!

 

[trih]

The beatles, couldn't care less.

 

[Guest]

The Beatles of course! With Jacko out of the way, the new copyright holders have been very forthcoming!

 

[Andraxxus]

Yeah BTW who took over the copyright after MJ.