Talk:Apple Records

message: 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. news.com: Apple vs. Apple: Perfect harmony? 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. legalzoom.com: Apple v Apple: What is at the core of The Beatles’ Apple Records vs. Apple Ipod… 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yep, good idea. I'll do it now. --kingboyk 14:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Paragraph 

message: :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. news.com: Apple vs. Apple: Perfect harmony? 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. legalzoom.com: Apple v Apple: What is at the core of The Beatles’ Apple Records vs. Apple Ipod… 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yep, good idea. I'll do it now. --kingboyk 14:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal battle with Apple Computer

message: A discussion has been started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles#Apple_Records_artists. --kingboyk 18:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple artists - red links 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Grapefruit error 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Come Together v. Cometogether 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rapple nothing to do with Apple 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Beatles" vs. "the Beatles" vs. "The Beatles" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Beatles capitalisation RfC 

message: 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)
thread_title:  should this comma be removed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revisions 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)