Beatles sell 2.25 million albums in 5 days

Yawn ...

How could "The Beatles" sell anything? The group broke up in the 1970s and half the members are dead.

Beelzebub: Because young people don't buy music.

No new day artist can sell more than 100,000 albums, there are rare cases where someone might sell 1 million copies with mega TV promotion (something like American Idol or the X factor), but gone are the days where artists would sell 50+ million copies based on their music alone.

Beelzebub

Because they are the greatest rock group of all time. Serious fans of music will always prefer CDs or even old LPs. The quality of the latest Beatles releases is far superior to anything that can be downloaded.

At this point The Beatles are a corporation, and still a band in the copyright sense, thus they will still sell records, even after all members have passed. I dare say next to Elvis, they are among the greatest, world changing, awe inspiring bands of all time. There are now 2.25 million reasons proving it.

I will add my resources tto etch it towards 2.26 million and climbing in the future. The combination of John and Paul's talents, voices, creativity and social movement of the times is well, something that shook young people to activity and thinking beyond the box.

smartacus: "is far superior to anything that can be downloaded" you'll have to correct this sentence in the past tense...

Because they are the greatest rock group of all time

..and also..

Michael Jackson, who owned the rights to the music, had debts to settle. No his estate needs the money. SO please go and buy a Beatles album today!

Look, "its been a hard days night" and we all have been working like dogs, so when I get home to you, I find the things that you do, will make me feel all right." How pure and beautiful those songs were penned and performed. Maybe we should get Hatoyama to start the Tali's education reform listening to the Beatles!

Wonder who will benefit from this. Whacko and Sony had joint ownership of the rights, but the milky nutbag is dead and the extent of his ownership was uncertain. Hmmm.

@pump.

It's awesome that you love Elvis and rate him there with the Beatles - but .. realistically they are on different planets all together. Elvis was an inspired entertainer and great vocalist, even defined an era of cool and rebellion. But the Beatles changed and revolutionized music at a musical level; like Miles Davis. Their music transcends arguments of who is best or is most important.

In years to come they will be honoured and spoken of in the same way that we speak of Gregor, JS Bach, Telemann, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky or Stockhausen.

As a musician I have complete respect for people's love of music - whether it be Britney and Take That or J Cage and Stravinsky.. But I also know which has more of an impact on the field of music and as such, is more likely to survive. Elvis was truly a great - but is he even as important as say Robert Zimmerman?

JMann

As a musician also, I think you missed my point. Without giving a lengthy thesus, I merely attempted to single in on comparative performers who, being from different generations, changed the world in some manner. And still sell tons of records. No, I would not say Zimmerman is any less important than Elvis, or the Beatles, yet I would stop short of including Britney`s name with the likes of Tchaikovsky or Robert Johnson...

Moderator: Stay on topic please.

I feel sorry for Ringo as he won't get a penny for a remastered drum roll

Hey! The great thing about The Beatles is that it is music 101. You can also sing along to most all their songs because you can actually make out what their singing. In addition, their early stuff is a lot of fun. It was made for Rock Band gaming media.

I bought the "Please, Please Me" and "A Hard Day's Night" re-mastered cd's and I wasn't even born when they hit the scene so long ago. Will continue to buy.

it is music 101

Like room 101?

The quality of the latest Beatles releases is far superior to anything that can be downloaded.

Incorrect, there is no limit to the quality that can be downloaded.

if the money is going to Whacko Jacko's estate, i'd rather borrow it from a friend and copy it

if the money is going to Whacko Jacko's estate, i'd rather borrow it from a friend and copy it

Exactly - if the artist(s) can`t benefit from your purchase, why go through the proper channels.

if the money is going to Whacko Jacko's estate

Whacko Jacko had his own merits, his own music so different from the Beatles'. 'I wanna hold your hand' was the first single I could afford with my pocket money in the early 60s. Bought numerous singles and LPs after that. I would feel very strange buying the remastered releases that benefit MJ's estate. I can still play my old vinyl . . . And, by the way, remastered albums, in spite of what people tell you, are not necessarily better than the originals, as they do not convey the atmosphere in which the recordings were done.

if the money is going to Whacko Jacko's estate, i'd rather borrow it from a friend and copy it

Where is this motivation to copy coming from? Does it matter who gets the money at the end of the day...The bottom line is you lose some

im not to surprised its the beatles