Comments on: Beatles Potentially Might Just Want To Hold Your iPod

By: jpfdeuce

jpfdeuce — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:13:00 +0000

Stuart Sutcliffe only appeared in black and white photos of the Beatles LONG before they became famous. I realize that saying “It’s the Beatles” with an OBVIOUS Rolling Stones picture is a joke that just keeps on giving, but crap man… It’s ridiculous as well.

Ron Wood, Keith Richards, Moon, Mick Jagger and their drummer… That’s who is in the pic. Not John, Paul, George and Ringo

By: billy

billy — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:28:46 +0000

no the hell its not

By: Rod

Rod — Mon, 14 May 2007 02:30:29 +0000

So you guys should do more like this to raise your traffic. One post out of 16 actually responded to the article.

By: James

James — Sun, 13 May 2007 00:02:17 +0000

Has it been confirmed the the Beatles back catalog will be available via iTunes? And you really don’t think it is a big deal?

Not for you, maybe, but good lord they (Beatles/EMI/Michael Jackson if he has not sold the publishing) are going to make one hell of a lot of money from iTunes. And iTunes from them.

This is the motherlode. It costs EMI/Apple NOTHING to release this stuff; no packaging, no cost of cds, no promotion. Nothing. And they will sell these for $9.99 or more. Pure gravy. 100% gravy.

And if you figure that if iTunes makes even 10 or a buck per album… Shit. I’d like a fraction of that.

By: John Biggs

John Biggs — Sat, 12 May 2007 01:48:19 +0000

i just thought it would be funny. I’m sure sir paul isn’t reading this.

By: Kitty

Kitty — Sat, 12 May 2007 00:58:46 +0000

LOL @ John Biggs! Come on. Tell the truth! You purposefully put a pic of The Stones instead of The Beatles up there, LOL!

But what does it all mean, John? That both bands are interchangable? That The Stones are better than The Beatles? Pray do tell… ;)

By: Kitty

Kitty — Sat, 12 May 2007 00:56:39 +0000

Like I said: It’s The Stones. Funny as it is, it’s still The Stones. LOL! Sure, I laughed when I told you guys it was The Stones and I’m laughing now but I don’t think Paul McCartney is laughing. ;)

By: John Biggs

John Biggs — Fri, 11 May 2007 23:26:01 +0000

Not the Beatles? What! How could something so important slipp past our editorial department?

By: Matt Hickey

Matt Hickey — Fri, 11 May 2007 22:39:40 +0000

Joe: Don’t trust the Internets. Trust us. That’s the Beatles. That 5th guy? His name’s Stu.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 11 May 2007 22:23:56 +0000

Right-click the pic and look at the file name…hahaha…it’s definitely The Stones.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 11 May 2007 21:49:59 +0000

yes

By: Callie

Callie — Fri, 11 May 2007 21:27:18 +0000

Dudes, why are you all taking this so seriously? Are being nerdy and having a sense of humor mutally exclusive?

By: Baron

Baron — Fri, 11 May 2007 21:20:52 +0000

Dude, that’s early Rolling Stones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rolling_Stones

By: Tony

Tony — Fri, 11 May 2007 21:20:04 +0000

I’m sure the Rolling Stones don’t appreciate being called The Beatles. (And vice-versa.)

By: Matt Hickey

Matt Hickey — Fri, 11 May 2007 21:15:43 +0000

Nope. It’s the Beatles. Look at the haircuts. That’s Ringo in the shades.

By: Kitty

Kitty — Fri, 11 May 2007 20:51:59 +0000

Okay, now I’m positive that’s a picture of The Rolling Stones. Shame on you Crunchgear! LOL! :p

By: Kitty

Kitty — Fri, 11 May 2007 20:47:24 +0000

Umm… The Beatles were called “The Fab Four” for a reason! Because there was FOUR of them! That picture has FIVE people in it! LOL! :O

And one of the guys in that picture strangely looks like Mick Jagger… Could Crunchgear have gotten their 60’s rockers confused? ;)

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 11 May 2007 20:23:39 +0000

Uhh…that’s not the Beatles in the pic.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 11 May 2007 20:23:38 +0000

…that’s not The Beatles…