They Have Given In: The Beatles’ Catalog Now Dominating iTunes Charts

They Have Given In: The Beatles’ Catalog Now Dominating iTunes Charts

The Beatles/ iTunes standoff (over the name “Apple”) is over, The Beatles’ entire catalog became available on iTunes last Wednesday and since then has continued to dominate the charts.  In the US The Beatles currently dominate a quarter of the iTunes top 200 list.

Reposted from: More at:  Beatles Albums Dominating iTunes Chart, -Maura Johnston

A day after The Beatles’ catalog arrived on iTunes, the band’s albums are storming the iTunes chart. As of 9 a.m. ET on Wednesday, all 17 albums made available on Tuesday were in the top 50 of the digital-music store’s albums chart — and three of those full-lengths — Abbey Road, The Beatles (a.k.a. The White Album and Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band — were in the top 10. The band’s career-spanning box set, which sells for $149, sat at No. 11.

The Top Ten Beatles Songs Of All Time

iTunes doesn’t release exact sales data for its charts, which are updated frequently throughout the day, and digital-album sales from all online merchants, including Amazon and other sites, are broken out separately from overall album totals by Nielsen SoundScan. First-week numbers for the Beatles’ reissues won’t be officially available until next Wednesday, when SoundScan will release sales totals for the week ending November 21.

On the singles side, the highest-selling Beatles song as of 9 a.m. Wednesday was “Here Comes The Sun,” which was at No. 20, behind current hits like Ke$ha’s chart-topping “We R Who We R” and Willow’s “Whip My Hair.” “Let It Be,” “In My Life,” “Blackbird” and “Come Together” were the only other individual Beatles songs in the top 50 at that time.

With The Beatles caving-in to iTunes, who are the remaining few artists to continue to refuse download on iTunes?

Reposted from: More at: With Beatles now on iTunes, who are the last holdouts—and why?, -Leah Greenblatt

Metallica were the first to cave, in mid-2006. In November of 2007, Led Zeppelin followed; in June 2008, Radiohead finally said OK, computer. And yesterday, of course, was the day the Beatles pledged “I Will” to iTunes.
But there are, famously, a few very firm holdouts–artists who refuse to parcel their music for the digital marketplace. Below, the main players, and the reasons they’ve given:
AC/DC: Two years ago, Angus Young explained to the New York Times that they could not abide breaking up their albums for individual track sales: “It’s like an artist who does a painting. If he thinks it’s a great piece of work, he protects it. It’s the same thing: this is our work.”
That same month, frontman Brian Johnson told Reuters, “”Maybe I’m just being old-fashioned, but this iTunes, God bless ‘em, it’s going to kill music if they’re not careful … It’s a…monster, this thing. It just worries me. And I’m sure they’re just doing it all in the interest of making as much…cash as possible. Let’s put it this way, it’s certainly not for the…love, let’s get that out of the way, right away.” (Walmart, however, is all about the love.)
Garth Brooks: Last year, the semi-retired country superstar told writer Lisa L. Rollins, These [Apple] guys are sweet guys, but they’re businessmen, so they understand. … They truly think that they’re saving music. My hat’s off to them. I looked at them right across the table with all the love in the world and told them they were killing it. And until we get variable pricing, until we get album-only [downloads], then they are not a true retailer for my stuff, and you won’t see my stuff on there—with all the love in the world. That’s nothing that they haven’t heard, either.”
Kid Rock: In a 2008 EW feature, he said ”I just don’t like being told what to do. I don’t have a beef with Apple, or iTunes, or any of them. I do have a beef with that it seems kind of socialist of them to charge the same price for every song. What if every car cost $4,000, you know what I mean? A song from my neighbor’s garage band is not the same value as Bruce Springsteen’s ‘Born to Run.’ I just want to decide how my product gets sold with the people who sell it.” (Kid’s rep confirmed to us today that his views have not changed.)
Also still unavailable: The Smiths (aside from their greatest hits, and a few soundtrack one-offs), Tool, Def Leppard, Bob Seger, and the bulk of the Black Sabbath and Frank Zappa catalogs. (iTunes declined to comment for this article.)
Tell us, readers—are these artists hurt by their absence, or is their integrity worth its weight in iBucks? Is the notion of that integrity misplaced? And are fans genuinely affected by the lack of digital availability, or is uploading physical discs into an online library merely a brief chore for a rainy day? Let us know in the comments section below.

How does The Beatles overpowering presence on the iTunes charts affect independent artists?

No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.