Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[apple sauce]

I was just reading a book about the "Beatles" which discusses at length how Brian Epstein sold them out and virtually gave away most of their song rites. They believed in him and were really taken advantage of by their manager and record company. I can only imagine how much money they would have been worth if they had gotten a real manager!

[Mairi]

I think he just made a mistake, I'm sure he wasn't that selfish. :-/

[Ydoll Gwyn]

It's wrong to say that Epstein "sold them out", as if there was deliberate intent by him to swindle or rip the Fabs off.

So what happened? Incompetence: a good small-time player suddenly playing, out of his depth, in the big games ...

[An Apple Beatle]

I agree Ydoll, well put. I think he slipped up on merchandise in particular.

He went from running the family department store to managing one of the most lucrative entities on the planet. He didn't know anything about business or copyrights. He gave away 90%. NEMS Enterprises was making 10% on everything that held a legitimate copyright. God only knows how much Nat Weiss is worth is he's still alive.

[adamzero]

Yeah, it's tough to be hard on Leggy Mountbatten, I mean, er, Brian Epstein, and I think the Beatles know that they never would have made it without him.  

1) His music stores bought enough of the early Beatles singles to make sure they charted--that alone was of inestimable value.  

2) He had a vision for them (suits and all) and tirelessly went around to labels and finally to EMI after everyone else had turned them down -- he got a listen where other would-be managers might not have because his family owned a record store.

3) The idea of merchandising was in its infancy.  Barbi herself was only a couple years old.  

4) Nobody knews in 1962-3 that the Beatles would dominate the world so when they looked for a music publisher they didn't even think of the music having value in the future (this was long before oldies radio--rock-n-roll was perceived as disposable music).  

5) Oddly enough, Brian's perception was right in the long run.  The real money in rock-n-roll was not in record sales but in touring.  The Stones have certainly found that out.  I've bet they make more money in their upcoming world tour than in all the record/song royalties combined.  And in this day of downloading, etc., it's all the more true.  It's a shame the Beatles gave up touring.  It's the one thing that might have kept them grounded in their music.   At least It seems to be working for Bob Dylan these days.  

I agree 1000% with what you said and it was very well put.  The only thing I can disagree with is the touring part.  Their tours barely covered their overhead. Back then, touring was a vehicle to sell records. If they had MTV, etc. at their disposal, it would have been different. Plus, their music was advancing so quickly, that it was technically impossible for them to reproduce their songs live. Even in 1966 on their last tour, 'Revolver' had already been released, but they still were relegated to doing the 'old' stuff.

[pc31]

he also sold their cartoon rights away for very little......

[adamzero]

Interesting points, pc and junior.  I guess the one thing that makes touring always lucrative is the access to cash--Leggy apparently walked away with sackfuls from gigs.  And when you're in the 90% tax bracket . . . .

I guess the real telling point about Epstein's limitations as a manager is that he felt that there was nothing for him to do after the Beatles stopped touring.  Geez, that was the point that he really should have started getting control of merchandising, publishing, label negotiations, etc.   Instead of acting as a glorified tour manager.  

Oh well.  Hindsight and all that.  

I hate to say this about our beloved Leggy, but he wasn't very good at coordinating their tours either. I was just looking at their U.S. tours and they were zig-zagging all over the country. The logistics of alot of those dates are just nuts. As Nell once said 'Another show, another flight, another run for your life'. Or something to that effect.

[pc31]

nice guys finish last or die first i forget which....maybe its both in brians case....

[apple sauce]

Yes that is "all true" he was desparatley out of his league on both negotiating song rights and mercahandising, but he did feel very badly about pulling one over on the Beatles by running a contract by them which they "blindly signed" giving "Brian" 25% of their record profit over 9 years! The worst thing about it is he felt terrible about letting "John" down the most because he really liked him. This is all documented via the contracts.

[apple sauce]

And that was written 25% for Brian even if he no longer was managing the "Beatles" at the time that's the kicker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[adamzero]

Just had another thought re. the Beatles getting "screwed."  While they all became fabulously wealthy, this notion that they got ripped off, help them keep their working class hero street cred with the fans.  (Mark David Chapman only went after Lennon after reading a magazine article on how wealthy johnandyoko were.)  

The Beatles would have lost some of their artistic credibility if they had been in on the lunch-box deal or the action figure deal.  Just think how the 60s fans would have reacted to the Beatles if they had tried to mass market themselves ala Kiss.  

[Indica]

Yeah, but from what I gathered..Epstein tried desperately to get copyright on all merchandise..including Lunchboxes etc etc..so the credibility was only kept through mismanagement.



Edit - thats what you are saying..I think.. oops.  :

Just had another thought re. the Beatles getting "screwed."

[adamzero]

Yeah, but from what I gathered..Epstein tried desperately to get copyright on all merchandise..including Lunchboxes etc etc..so the credibility was only kept through mismanagement.



Edit - thats what you are saying..I think.. oops.  :

Yes, it allowed the Beatles to have their cake and eat it too.  (Or should I say lunchbox.)  Which is the ultimate problem for the Beatles who preached love, peace and avoiding the pitfalls of materialism, yet in private seemed to thrive on those material satisfactions.  John and Paul "wrote swimming pools."  Even George, God love him, was into expensive sports cars.  

I love All things must pass, but I have to admit that one song has one of the worst self-righteous lyrics I've ever heard:

"The Pope owns 51% of General Motors/on the stock exchange is the only he's qualified to quote us."

That ain't exactly the Clash and a little disingenuous from a guy tooling around the grounds in a Maserati while the hari krishnas are chanting in the gate house.

But in the ultimate sense, the Beatles problem is our problem.  How can we reconcile a spiritual need with the overwhelming burden of materialism that western culture is grounded in.  Need, need, need, need, need, need . . . .

[andyec]

I think The Beatles made out ok,in spite of being ripped off. Paul's a billionaire. How much better off does he need to be? I guess if everything had made money to the max of its potential,he may be a trillionaire. Poor Paul.

[adamzero]

They were mass marketed. There were lunch boxes, toys, games, you name it. I'll grant you that there weren't Beatle condoms or caskets like KISS, but they had a ton of sh*t out there.

That's what we need.  Beatles Condoms!  Get your Beatles Condoms!  Why don't you start out with our "Rubber Soul"!  Or why don't you do it in the road with our "Day Tripper"?  Hey fellas, she'll want to do more than just hold hands once you strap on the "Helter Skelter" or get a little kinky with the "Sexy Sadie."  Asplendid time is guaranteed for all.

Oh yes, and once you've f'ed yourself to death, can we interest you in the our finest Ringo coffin, in alabaster white with official Beatles logo, complete with Ludwig kick-drum, that will keep perfect time in the hereafter even if you don't.  

That's what we need.