Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2010 19:11:35 GMT -5
The Beatles songs in the iTunes Top 100 in the UK are the most random ever. Why is "Twist And Shout" there twice for goodness sake?
|
|
Nick
8x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2004
Posts: 8,682
|
Post by Nick on Nov 16, 2010 19:12:53 GMT -5
^The reason I said .69 is because they have a section on their front page for 80's and 90's singles at this low price.
Quite a big list.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2010 19:25:36 GMT -5
69 cent songs are priced that way because they are od and unlikely to sell for 1.29
The Beatles songs, although old, will sell well at 1.29
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2010 20:32:06 GMT -5
Beatles Arrival at iTunes Prompts Mixed Web Reaction November 16, 2010 - Digital and Mobile | Rock and Pop
By Glenn Peoples
It wasn’t exactly an appearance on “The Ed Sullivan Show,” but the Beatles’ debut at iTunes made waves on Tuesday.
The news brought out commentary all across the Internet, much of it negative. Many people dismissed the value of adding vintage -- albeit still popular and relevant -- catalog to the world’s biggest music store. The timing of the event was seen by some to be years too late. Others pointed out that the digital tracks can be acquired (illegally) elsewhere by anybody with only the slightest interest in looking.
One sentiment in particular was that labels need to reach out to young fans rather than their grandparents. While it may be true that music companies need to better target youth culture, especially how they listen to music, here are a couple points worth considering.
First, the record business is not a zero-sum game. Labels are indeed reaching out to young consumers. Take a look at the pop charts and you’ll see just as much youth as ever. Just because labels have active catalog departments doesn’t mean they’re not also actively signing and developing new artists. How they embrace new business models and new forms of experiencing that music is a totally different issue. Even so, just because EMI added the Beatles to iTunes does not mean the company diverted valuable resources from business development tasks.
Second, today’s youths may like the Beatles' music more than their parents and older siblings. This can be seen in a new Edison Research study of 12- to 24-year-olds. In 2000, the age group’s top 10 artists included Eminem, Limp Bizkit and Backstreet Boys. In 2010, the top 10 included Eminem, Taylor Swift and, perhaps surprisingly, the Beatles (at No. 7). Chalk it up to YouTube or P2P, but kids today probably care more about the Beatles than similarly aged kids 10 and 20 years ago. In light of this, it’s probably a pretty good time to put the Beatles on iTunes. Christmas gift card season is coming up soon and young Americans will be buying a lot of downloads.
Here’s a sample of online reaction to today’s Beatles news:
-- paidContent: “[W]hile the rereleases will likely contribute worthwhile sales to iTunes Store, and incremental licensing income to troubled EMI, the net boost mat not be as great as it could have been had it come when pent-up demand was even more evident, two years earlier, and before that demand was satisfied by 2009’s remasters.”
-- MediaMemo: “If you really want to gripe, here’s something: Apple (and/or the band) doesn’t know how to handle the mini-songs on the second half of “Abbey Road” and has made the silly decision to sell them as individual tracks. So if you really want to hear all 23 seconds of “Her Majesty,” but you don’t want to buy the whole album, you’ve got to shell out $1.29. But whatever. Buy the whole album.”
-- Forrester’s Mark Mulligan: “Thank goodness that is out of the way; now we can focus on important developments. The fact that securing the content of a band old enough to be most young music fans’ grandfathers (and some) is a sad reflection of the state of the digital music market. The digital music market (and the young music fans that record labels desperately need to get engaged) needs new music products, not yesteryear’s hits repackaged.”
-- The Guardian: “The Beatles have been held out as the pinnacle that online music stores want as the songs to sell -- yet if someone really wants them on their iPod, they can go and buy the CD in a shop and just rip it (and get it in better quality to boot). Is there anyone left who wants the songs yet doesn't have them?”
-- Vanity Fair: “In the wake of Facebook’s re-revolutionary e-mail/instant message/SMS service, the addition of the Fab Four to iTunes may disappoint customers hoping for a more technologically exciting revelation…Others among us, however, will be relieved that Apple’s announcement contains no promises about a forthcoming product customers are destined to love. Instead, it is simply a promise to provide access to something we know we already adore.”
|
|
|
Post by KeepDeanWeird on Nov 16, 2010 21:39:41 GMT -5
This is an opportunity for Billboard to fix the Hot 100 to allow any song (no matter how old) to chart for any reason as long as it has enough points. (For example, when MJ died airplay and digital sales of some of the singles would have resulted in re-entry to the chart.) This stupid rule of has to be out of Top 50 for 20 weeks AND being serviced/promoted is ridiculous. How are the Beatles tracks any different than Glee's? They are being promoted by release to iTunes. Glee's trax are on one show, no airplay, etc. The Beatles still get airplay, blah, blah, blah. They made the change for the Billboard 200, the Hot 100 should be the same. If Glee or Taylor Swift can chart 5-10 tracks for a single week, why can't others? (Also, remember how Billboard's rule skipped Uncle Kracker's "Smile" earlier this year and it took readers to notify them. Add up the sales and airplay points and put out a true chart.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2010 22:06:48 GMT -5
I agree
I have always been a believer that a popularity chart should reflect the most popular items of the chart, anything less and it is not a popularity chart
|
|
|
Post by ListenToItTwice on Nov 16, 2010 22:09:52 GMT -5
The Beatles songs in the iTunes Top 100 in the UK are the most random ever. Why is "Twist And Shout" there twice for goodness sake? Once for album version, once for "Box Set" version. Let It Be is charting about five different ways right now.
|
|
Music Fan
5x Platinum Member
Imma Be Boom Boom Pow because I Gotta Feelin' I'm Alive
Joined: April 2008
Posts: 5,268
|
Post by Music Fan on Nov 16, 2010 22:16:06 GMT -5
This is an opportunity for Billboard to fix the Hot 100 to allow any song (no matter how old) to chart for any reason as long as it has enough points. (For example, when MJ died airplay and digital sales of some of the singles would have resulted in re-entry to the chart.) This stupid rule of has to be out of Top 50 for 20 weeks AND being serviced/promoted is ridiculous. How are the Beatles tracks any different than Glee's? They are being promoted by release to iTunes. Glee's trax are on one show, no airplay, etc. The Beatles still get airplay, blah, blah, blah. They made the change for the Billboard 200, the Hot 100 should be the same. If Glee or Taylor Swift can chart 5-10 tracks for a single week, why can't others? (Also, remember how Billboard's rule skipped Uncle Kracker's "Smile" earlier this year and it took readers to notify them. Add up the sales and airplay points and put out a true chart. or at least a separate chart that includes the actual "Hot 100"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2010 0:27:43 GMT -5
The Beatles already invaded the Hot 100 once, do your really want to see them do it again? ;)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2010 10:08:16 GMT -5
Most popular Beatles' songs on iTunes this morning?
"Here Comes The Sun" at #19, "Let It Be" at #24, "In My LIfe" at #29
3 albums in the top 10, "Abbey Road" at #7, "The Beatles"(white album) is at #8, and "Sgt. Pepper" is at #9.
|
|
vstreamer
New Member
Joined: October 2005
Posts: 307
|
Post by vstreamer on Nov 17, 2010 10:23:24 GMT -5
I count 61 Beatles songs in the I-Tunes Top 200.
|
|
Hefty Hanna
Diamond Member
a prettier jesus
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 20,343
|
Post by Hefty Hanna on Nov 17, 2010 12:16:03 GMT -5
The entire rock chart is Beatles music. I love it. I bought about five songs so far.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,882
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Nov 17, 2010 12:20:15 GMT -5
Has Billboard commented on why it won't take the same action toward the Hot 100 as it did for the Billboard 200?
|
|
|
Post by ListenToItTwice on Nov 17, 2010 12:41:34 GMT -5
The entire rock chart is Beatles music. Well not quite, but 91.5% isn't too shabby if you ask me. ;) All Beatles albums (17) are in the top 47 of album chart, led by 7. Abbey Road, 8. White Album, and 9. Sgt. Pepper's. They have 65 songs in the top 200 overall, led by 17. Here Comes the Sun, 23. Let it Be, and 25. In My Life.
|
|
Dammn Baby
8x Platinum Member
Watchin' 'em all go...
Joined: December 2007
Posts: 8,073
|
Post by Dammn Baby on Nov 18, 2010 0:30:40 GMT -5
Has Billboard commented on why it won't take the same action toward the Hot 100 as it did for the Billboard 200? Probably because it would expose how stupid the Hot 100's qualification system is. To me, a song should have to be actively promoted as a single to chart on the Hot 100. It devalues the chart and makes it completely meaningless when any old album track can chart.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2010 0:43:17 GMT -5
Has Billboard commented on why it won't take the same action toward the Hot 100 as it did for the Billboard 200? Probably because it would expose how stupid the Hot 100's qualification system is. To me, a song should have to be actively promoted as a single to chart on the Hot 100. It devalues the chart and makes it completely meaningless when any old album track can chart. Why? Much like the album chart which finally got it right this year, shouldn't these charts reflect what is truly popular during the week? Otherwise you do not have a true popularity chart
|
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by jebsib on Nov 18, 2010 13:55:40 GMT -5
I think the Hot 100 originally created recurrent rules because in those early days (1992) they felt that the chart would be clogged by dozens of older songs, not allowing the necessary exposure for newer records. Thus, at the request of the record labels, older titles were relegated to the new recurrent chart. Be glad this isn't November 1991 when you were removed after 20 weeks if you appeared UNDER number 20!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2010 14:39:18 GMT -5
The Hot 100 should not be including these old ass songs. It is used for the music industry to see whats popular. Maybe it makes sense for the albums chart so stores can get more shipments of older albums in if they see an older album is selling really well. But what is it going to matter to anyone if a Beatles song gets a lot of airplay this week? iTunes doesnt need to restock its downloads. Radio isnt going to start playing 50 year old Beatles songs just because theyre getting all these downloads because they hit itunes this week
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2010 1:15:49 GMT -5
You know what's really sad for the industry? Some of those "old ass" Beatles' songs and albums are selling more than some of the current music out there.
What does that tell you?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2010 1:17:18 GMT -5
Not only that
The top selling album of the 2000s was a Beatles album
|
|
|
Post by Where will Mimi be? on Nov 19, 2010 17:19:03 GMT -5
where will these chart I hope they don't hog up BEp and Mimi?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2010 18:47:25 GMT -5
where will these chart I hope they don't hog up BEp and Mimi? What does the Beatles catalog being on the iTunes chart have anything to do with BEP or Mariah Carey?
|
|
Caviar
Diamond Member
Queen X
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 30,913
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his
|
Post by Caviar on Nov 19, 2010 18:56:09 GMT -5
#fml
|
|
Hefty Hanna
Diamond Member
a prettier jesus
Joined: August 2007
Posts: 20,343
|
Post by Hefty Hanna on Nov 19, 2010 19:03:53 GMT -5
The Hot 100 should not be including these old ass songs. It is used for the music industry to see whats popular. Maybe it makes sense for the albums chart so stores can get more shipments of older albums in if they see an older album is selling really well. But what is it going to matter to anyone if a Beatles song gets a lot of airplay this week? iTunes doesnt need to restock its downloads. Radio isnt going to start playing 50 year old Beatles songs just because theyre getting all these downloads because they hit itunes this week Actually, a lot of stations have been spinning Beatles music this week. I heard 'Hear Comes The Sun' and 'Eleanor Rigby' while shopping this week.
|
|
pnobelysk
Diamond Member
Joined: November 2009
Posts: 10,116
|
Post by pnobelysk on Nov 19, 2010 21:51:19 GMT -5
a lot of stations play beatles in general a lot, they are pretty popular u know...
|
|
Dammn Baby
8x Platinum Member
Watchin' 'em all go...
Joined: December 2007
Posts: 8,073
|
Post by Dammn Baby on Nov 20, 2010 12:35:59 GMT -5
Probably because it would expose how stupid the Hot 100's qualification system is. To me, a song should have to be actively promoted as a single to chart on the Hot 100. It devalues the chart and makes it completely meaningless when any old album track can chart. Why? Much like the album chart which finally got it right this year, shouldn't these charts reflect what is truly popular during the week? Otherwise you do not have a true popularity chart I prefer the Hot 100 to be a barometer of what current singles are popular. Not singles from 1983, or random album tracks that people are buying on iTunes. Hot Digital Tracks and Hot Digital Songs are perfectly fine for tracking that.
|
|
Hot AC Archiver
2x Platinum Member
And the countdown continues...
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 2,383
|
Post by Hot AC Archiver on Nov 20, 2010 12:38:01 GMT -5
I think the Hot 100 should be left alone, but why can't BB introduce a "Comprehensive Singles Chart", which includes all singles regardless of age? It would be a complimentary chart to the Hot 100, not a replacement of any kind.
|
|
Sir Benji
Diamond Member
The One
Joined: April 2008
Posts: 13,351
|
Post by Sir Benji on Nov 20, 2010 13:33:13 GMT -5
lololol @ half of y'all being pressed about this Beatles thing if you ask me it's not that big of a deal i'm not a huge fan i know i'm gonna get more flack than i have ever seen for this statement, but i find them highly overrated. However, i do agree that they are one of the greatest bands ever off of their influence alone.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2010 14:30:46 GMT -5
The Hot 100 should not be including these old ass songs. It is used for the music industry to see whats popular. Maybe it makes sense for the albums chart so stores can get more shipments of older albums in if they see an older album is selling really well. But what is it going to matter to anyone if a Beatles song gets a lot of airplay this week? iTunes doesnt need to restock its downloads. Radio isnt going to start playing 50 year old Beatles songs just because theyre getting all these downloads because they hit itunes this week Actually, a lot of stations have been spinning Beatles music this week. I heard 'Hear Comes The Sun' and 'Eleanor Rigby' while shopping this week. Maybe classic rock or other rock or even adult contemporary stations but I dont think the nations biggest pop stations are putting Beatles music into rotation this week or even interested in doing that. I prefer the charts how they are. I dont want to see old Beatles songs clogging the charts just because they finally got released to itunes this week
|
|
pnobelysk
Diamond Member
Joined: November 2009
Posts: 10,116
|
Post by pnobelysk on Nov 21, 2010 10:09:56 GMT -5
Actually, a lot of stations have been spinning Beatles music this week. I heard 'Hear Comes The Sun' and 'Eleanor Rigby' while shopping this week. Maybe classic rock or other rock or even adult contemporary stations but I dont think the nations biggest pop stations are putting Beatles music into rotation this week or even interested in doing that. I prefer the charts how they are. I dont want to see old Beatles songs clogging the charts just because they finally got released to itunes this week of course not top 40 stations. they are called top 40 for a reason. its rare to hear a 90's song on there, let alone a 60 or 70's
|
|