Talk:Apple Records

Removed Paragraph

I removed the following new paragraph:

Legal battle with Apple Computer

In 1978, Apple Records filed suit against Apple Computer for trademark infringement. The suit settled in 1981 with an amount of $80,000 being paid to Apple Corps. As a condition of the settlement, Apple Computer agreed to stay out of the music business. The case arose in 1989 again when Apple Corps sued, claiming violation of the 1981 settlement agreement. In 1991 another settlement of around $26.5 million was reached. In September 2003 Apple Computer was sued by Apple Corps again, this time for introducing iTunes and the iPod which Apple Corps believed was a violation of the previous agreement by Apple not to distribute music. The date for this trial has been set for March 27, 2006 in the UK. At the present time the Beatles' songs are not available for download from any legal music download sites, including the iTunes Music Store.

First of all, it seems to confuse Apple Corps with Apple Records. This article is specifically about the record label, not the holding company. Secondly, Notable litigation of Apple Computer already exists.

A fine piece of writing though so I'll paste it here and start a dialogue. --kingboyk 20:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll move this to Apple Corps with a 'main article' link. One moment. --kingboyk 21:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved and looks great. --kingboyk 21:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No doubt that you've moved it to the right place. BUT, I think some reference to this should remain in the Apple Record article. I came to this page specifically looking for this, but had to find it on the talk page. Apple Records is, after all the music arm of Apple Corps. --MrFizyx 23:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No I didn't think so, because the case rumbles on and it involves Apple Corps, not Apple Records. We don't want the case spread over 4 articles, that would be crazy (Apple Records, Apple Corps, Notable litigation of Apple Computer, Apple Computer). I prefer to keep the business side in Apple Corps, and let this article concentrate on the label and its recordings. Isn't that best? --kingboyk 23:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What if we were to list under see also: Apple Corps litigation of Apple Computer? This would be for folks like myself who admittedly come to the page a bit confused about the division between Apple Records/Apple Corps. --MrFizyx 14:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, good idea. I'll do it now. --kingboyk 14:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Apple artists - red links

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles#Apple_Records_artists. --kingboyk 18:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Rapple Records

I always thought that Rapple Records was a RCA thing? warpozio 07:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It was an RCA/Apple release I think, and not a "real" record label. Probably barely worthy of a mention (if at all). --kingboyk 09:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's worthy of a (brief) listing: it was a joint release (Nilsson was on RCA), and the film was given limited release by Apple Films. And currently unavailable on CD! RAYMI80.68.39.212 17:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Grapefruit error

Although I have NOT removed it, Grapefruit were NOT signed to Apple Records, merely Apple Publishing. Their releases were on RCA. Please change. RAYMI--80.68.39.212 14:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... That might explain why I've barely heard of this band. Mary Hopkin was the first non-Beatle surely? (The "Our First Four" set). --kingboyk 09:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I am going to change the article. Grapefruit did have 2 top 30 hits. The first artists MEANT to have a release on Apple were McGough and McGear, with their eponymously titled album. McCartney produced. This eventually came out on Parlophone, as certain copyright issues weren't solved by the time of release. Whether this relates to the label itself, or to the fact that the two artists were signed to Parlophone as Scaffold members is unclear. RAYMI (runner up in Beatle Brain of Britain 1985 and 1990)

Thanks. If you know your Apple inside out please see the "todo list" I've affixed. NB: Wherever possible, please cite sources. Most Beatle articles are woefully lacking in this regard. Ask me if you need any help with wiki syntax etc. --kingboyk 11:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit of an Apple freak, and I will try to improve certain bits; however, I am a complete numpty when it comes to computers, so I can't affix ANYTHING, just edit! RAYMI.

Apple Corps Web Page

The web address of Apple Corps is http://www.applecorps.com but I do not know how to add it. It is a placeholder web page. Could someone help out and add that? A Beatles Fan Who Knows

Independent Record Label?

Why is Apple Records in the Independent Record Label category? Aren't they owned by EMI? I don't want to change it and piss someone off, so I figured I would ask first. Dlmccaslin 04:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Apple is owned by The Beatles. --kingboyk 12:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct, the label was owned by The Beatles, but distributed by EMI. Confusion could arise because the Beatles were contracted to record for EMI and were not therefore allowed to record for their own label instead. EMI allowed Beatles records to be pressed with physical Apple labels, but it will be noted they had EMI (ie Parlophone) catalogue numbers, whereas non-Beatles Apple releases had Apple's own numbers. Thus, at a glance, a record like "Hey Jude" appears to be an Apple record - which technically it isn't, and hence it would falsely appear Apple was part of EMI.

Give the (wo)man a cigar :) --kingboyk (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Come Together v. Cometogether

Since this has already led to mistaken edits, I guess somebody should say in here that "Cometogether" is the name of a 1971 film for which Apple Records produced a soundtrack. Do not change that link to the page for the song "Come Together." Maybe confusion could be avoided if somebody provided a link to a source that confirms both the film and Apple's connection? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Altar of Kez (talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Rapple nothing to do with Apple

The article mentions "Son of Dracula" as released on Rapple. As mentioned above, this is nothing to do with Apple and is just a play on words, Ringo and Beatle friend Nilsson involved in the film/ soundtrack. It was a one-off joke (R for ringo, and Apple) and had nothing legally to do with Apple Records so far as I am aware, and in my view is worthy of a footnote at most - certainly not on a par with Zapple which was conceived by The Beatles and released work by Harrison and Lennon. Should this be deleted if it really does have nothing to do with Apple? 81.96.161.52 17:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the placement of Zapple alongside Rapple was ill-advised, and have reverted it. I've removed all mention of Rapple altogether for now but don't object at all to it being restored if it's found to be important and sourcable (but probably not into it's own section). --kingboyk (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes on Beatles involvement

In response to the "to do" list, I have entered brief notes on how each Apple artist connected to The Beatles and who worked with whom. There is plenty of scope for expansion here, with acts like Badfinger working off and on with the group members over several years. However I have tried to keep it succinct. I am happy to provide more if this is of use on this page. 81.96.161.52

B-class

I have upgraded this to B-class. I seriously think it's close to a GA with some work. (The 'Other artists and their Beatle connections' list is a bit of a problem though.) --andreasegde (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Then again, I'm not sure if this shouldn't be merged with Apple Corps. --andreasegde (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't be nice at all... this works well as a seperate article imho. --kingboyk (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Beatles" vs. "the Beatles" vs. "The Beatles"

This article needs to be edited by someone to standardize references to use "The Beatles", rather than "the Beatles" or "Beatles" alone. --Orayzio (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Beatles capitalisation RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning the band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

should this comma be removed

In a line about Yoko Ono being an artist appearing on the Apple label, I see:

"with Lennon usually performing, and directing the band"

If the intent is to say that Lennon was directing the band, consider removing the comma. I don't know quite enough about the situation, otherwise I'd be able to edit it myself. OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Revisions

I've pulled the article about a bit, largely to add many links that were missing, but also to clarify the text as far as possible. It seems to me that there's still some confusion between Apple Publishing and Apple Records—an example seems to be Focal Point (the "apparently deleted link" mentioned in my edit summary) from the list of acts that auditioned by didn't make it onto the label. Were they really signed to AR, or only to AP? Was Brian Epstein really involved in signing them? It seems to me he may have survived long enough to be involved in the early days of Apple Publishing, but surely not those of Apple Records—unless there is some error in the dating of events? Only careful weighing of the sources, I presume, will produce a tenable answer. Anyway, I self-reverted my previous removal of the mention of Epstein from the paragraph on Focal Point, just in case. Harfarhs (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Apple Records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110630082702/http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/11/16itunes.html to https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/11/16itunes.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006123708/http://www.vinylnet.co.uk/label-discography.asp/label/12/Apple-records-discography.html to http://www.vinylnet.co.uk/label-discography.asp/label/12/Apple-records-discography.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)