PDA

View Full Version : Brian the manager


Lovely Rita
Jul 31, 2000, 09:31 AM
How important was Brian to the Beatle's actual success? I know that he was a good manager, but that he also lost the Beatle's a whole lot of money...what do you think?

Jerry
Jul 31, 2000, 09:44 AM
I sense another can of worms has just opened. I think Brian was extremely essential to their success. Forget the money issue. They had more success in that department than anyone could hope to have. Ok, so Ringo had to sell furniture in the 70s, but he's doing fine now that the Anthology series came out. Brian was Brian. I'll leave it up to everybody else to explain why he was so important.

------------------
Webmaster - BeatleLinks.net
http://www.beatlelinks.net

Glenn
Jul 31, 2000, 09:54 AM
Well, it's impossible to quantify exactly how important Brian was. While not a showbiz expert, he managed the most popular group of all time through success after success after success. He got them down to London for their audition which led them (with a little luck) to George Martin. Also, though John hated it, putting them in suits was a big victory of Brians', because there's no way they would have succeeded in that era dressed in leather and swearing onstage etc. He may not have understood alot of things, but Brian truely loved the Beatles, and that's very valuable in a manager.

beatlemethisbeatlemethat
Jul 31, 2000, 01:03 PM
He discovered the Beatles and gave them a chance when no one else would. And I also think he kept the group together in a sense, because i remember reading that after Brian died, thats when the group started to break up.

pat
Jul 31, 2000, 02:10 PM
All of the above is true, but if any of you have ever met Alan Williams, who was the first manager of The Beatles, you will understand the difference. Firstly, Brian really and truly BELIEVED in 'his boys' with all of his being, and wanted so much for them to achieve success, not just because he loved them, but also because he just knew that they were something special. Secondly, Brian, unlike the likes of Alan Williams and the Hamburg venue managers, did not exploit the band, if he had, then they all would have made much more money, he wanted success for their sakes as much as his own. His own success was more important to him in terms of proving his ability to his ever despairing family than monetary success.
I believe that Brian was essential to The Beatles, and that when he died, their 'togetherness' died with him.That's my opinion anyway. Love & Hugs.

jtal909
Jul 31, 2000, 03:14 PM
So what if he didn't predict the unprecedented merchandising possibilities. He brought them into the international light.

bearkat77
Jul 31, 2000, 04:16 PM
In my opinion, Brian was the man who brought the Beatles to the world. If he hadn't gone to the Cavern Club to check them out, the Beatles would probably not have achieved the fame and success that they did.

------------------
Bearkat77's Beatlemaniac Page (http://www9.50megs.com/bearkat77)

Lovely Rita
Jul 31, 2000, 05:37 PM
While I agree with you all totally about how Brian was a mandatory factor in the beatle's success, another question has been raised in my mind. Someone pointed out how when Brian killed himself, the beatles began to break up. However, wasn't Yoko a large factor in the break-up as well? That is what I have heard, anyway. Do you think that it was good that the beatles broke up? Was it just for the better? I am a total beatles fan,but would they have continued to have such success had they stayed together? Every group fades away eventually. They will always be remembered as the greatest group of all time, and will definitely be remembered by die-hard fans like us. However, you don't see them being played on tv all the time and stuff. Now you just here the occasional "the beatles may get back together"or "They might have a reunion". Nor do you hear teenage girls screaming out how much they love Paul or John. Everyone has moved on. I wasnt even alive when the beatles were on their rampage across the U.S. and yet, I know all the songs and albums just as good or better than people who WERE around during that time. So, I guess the bottom line is......Was it for better or worse that the Beatles broke up? And would a reunion be a good idea?

lennon-mccartney
Jul 31, 2000, 05:43 PM
Brian didn't kill himself! It's just conspiracy.

------------------
http://www.angelfire.com/stars/LennonMcCartney/lennonmccartneylink.gif (http://www.angelfire.com/stars/LennonMcCartney)

bearkat77
Jul 31, 2000, 07:56 PM
Some conspiracy! Next, you'll say that Elvis is still alive. http://www.beatlelinks.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/wink.gif

------------------
Bearkat77's Beatlemaniac Page (http://www9.50megs.com/bearkat77)

jtal909
Jul 31, 2000, 08:48 PM
I saw Elvis at a gas station in New Jersey last week.

Glenn
Jul 31, 2000, 09:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Arial, Sans-Serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jtal909:
I saw Elvis at a gas station in New Jersey last week.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, but that's only because he traded shifts with Jim Morrison.http://www.beatlelinks.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/grin.gif

SleepyHead
Jul 31, 2000, 11:05 PM
Brian understood that presence is everything when you're getting someone's attention. He knew the Beatles had something, look at the attention they had already received, so he taught them to grab attention with their appearance as well. (Okay, so maybe he more like demanded it http://www.beatlelinks.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/smile.gif )
At any rate, while the boys were out garnering more attention from the public, Brian was the bulldog who chased from company to company trying to get industry attention for them.

And he found the horseshoe that lead to the lads conquering the world.

------------------
Bearkat77's Beatlemaniac Page (http://www9.50megs.com/bearkat77)

lennon-mccartney
Aug 01, 2000, 08:15 AM
Elvis died in '63 http://www.beatlelinks.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/wink.gif

------------------
http://www.angelfire.com/stars/LennonMcCartney/lennonmccartneylink.gif (http://www.angelfire.com/stars/LennonMcCartney)

PennyLane
Aug 01, 2000, 09:25 AM
I thought that Epstein's death was originally presumed to be a suicide, but was later discovered to be an unintentional drug overdose. The 'note' that was found had been left from a previous attempt. Or, maybe I'm just plum wrong.

Lovely Rita
Aug 01, 2000, 12:21 PM
Wow, that was a hell of a long paragraph that I wrote before...sorry everyone! You know Penny, you may be right. I have actually heard both possibilities about Brian. However, I always believed that it was a suicide because if he had wanted to do it before, odds are he would want to do it again. And did. But, I could be wrong...that is always what I just thought. I am Elvis!!!!!!!!!
-Lovely Rita (but really Elvis) j/k!

beatlemethisbeatlemethat
Aug 01, 2000, 12:45 PM
i think the Beatles might haved used Yoko as a factor of the "breakup" because they had to blame someone. One person cant break something. If Yoko had came earlier in their career, I think they would have been together for as long as they were. They were all growing apart, wanting new things for themselves. I think Paul was the only one who wanted the whole Beatle fame because he tried to keep them together. And things do get old after so many years doing it and spending almost everyday of 13 years or so together. Because we have to remember they were doing this whole band thing even before the Beatles were big.

jodie
Aug 01, 2000, 08:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Arial, Sans-Serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lennon-mccartney:
Elvis died in '63 http://www.beatlelinks.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/wink.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what did elvis die of?
i heard he died on the toilet&gt;hehehe
but seriously folks

eppy was essential to the beatles, and all that stuff other people have already stated.

------------------
all my lovin'
jodie

ps.
jodie rock n' rules

jtal909
Aug 01, 2000, 09:53 PM
In "The Beatles", by Hunter Davis, it states the following about Brian's death: " He had died from the cumulative effect of bromide in a drug he had been taking for some time. The drug was Carbitrol. The amount of bromide in him was only a 'low fatal level' but he had taken repeated 'incautious self overdoses' which had a cumulative effect enough to kill him". The last dose was over a depression that weekend guests had not shown up and his weekend was ruined.

[This message has been edited by jtal909 (edited August 01, 2000 at 10:56 PM).]

SleepyHead
Aug 02, 2000, 02:39 AM
Yo, I hates to burst your bubble, guys, but Elvis was alive and kicking in the 70's... I was watching TV when the announcement that Elvis had died was made, and I wasn't even born until 1964.

Unless I'm greatly mistaken, he died on August 16, 1977.

------------------
Bearkat77's Beatlemaniac Page (http://www9.50megs.com/bearkat77)

beatlegirl
Aug 02, 2000, 09:27 AM
he was important 2 the beatles cuz when he died it fall apart,he was gay i read he & John had sex!!!

lennon-mccartney
Aug 02, 2000, 09:56 AM
When I said he died in '63 . . . . well, you're all intelligent people, just THINK.

------------------
http://www.angelfire.com/stars/LennonMcCartney/lennonmccartneylink.gif (http://www.angelfire.com/stars/LennonMcCartney)

Harbidge
Aug 02, 2000, 01:41 PM
Where the HELL did you read that Beatlegirl?

------------------
Did Paul McCartney die in a car crash on November 2nd, 1966? Visit Paul is Dead - The Conclusive Evidence (http://www.paulisdead.web.com), read the clues and decide for yourself.

pat
Aug 02, 2000, 04:11 PM
Len-Mac. 'course Elvis died in '63, the year of Beatlemania! (well he may as well have!)
The accepted truth re Brian, is that it was an accidental death, due to an accumulation of prescription drugs, and their injudicious use. No question that he had kept the band together up to then, but I personally feel that the end was nigh anyway, regardless of any outside forces, the band was ready to implode. Thats my tuppence worth!

Glenn
Aug 02, 2000, 04:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Arial, Sans-Serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by beatlegirl:
he was important 2 the beatles cuz when he died it fall apart,he was gay i read he & John had sex!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I've read several books that make reference to this. John once blew up at a party and beat up someone (Bob Wooler I think) so bad that he had to be taken to the hospital. The reasoning being that this person (Bob?) had made mention of the supposed tryst between John and Brian. I've read it, but I have no idea if it's true or not.

lennon-mccartney
Aug 02, 2000, 04:40 PM
Glenn, me old mate!
It's true. John then sent a letter to Bob, saying "ever so sorry Bob, what can I say?"

------------------
http://www.angelfire.com/stars/LennonMcCartney/lennonmccartneylink.gif (http://www.angelfire.com/stars/LennonMcCartney)

Lovely Rita
Aug 03, 2000, 10:02 AM
I read that too, beatlegirl, in The Love You Make. Whether it's true or not, I have no idea.

beatlegirl
Aug 03, 2000, 01:11 PM
I read that in The love you make & Blackbird a book about Paul MCcartney

beatlemethisbeatlemethat
Aug 03, 2000, 01:26 PM
i dont think it happened. I read in an interview with him, this is what he said:
"I was on holiday with Brian Epstein in Spain, where the rumors went around that he and I were having a love affair. Well, it was almost a love affair, but not quite. It was never consummated. But it was a pretty intense relationship. It was my first experience with a homosexual that I was conscious was homosexual. He had admitted it to me. We had this holiday together because Cyn was pregnant, and I went to Spain and there were lots of funny stories. We used to sit in a cafe` in Torremolinos looking at all the boys and I'd say, "Do you like that one, do you like this one?" I was rather enjoying the experience, thinking like a writer all the time: I am experiencing this, you know..."

i think John looked up to Brian maybe as a father figure since he never had a father.

Original Fan
Aug 03, 2000, 04:01 PM
John was always looking for "kicks," so maybe he did try a homosexual romp with Brian. Those rumors were ever-present, anyway. In any event, Brian Epstein may have cost the boys a lot of money, but, as I've previously stated, everything they did was precedent. People took advantage of them, and they probably didn't realize their own worth for quite a while. Without Brian's persistence, however, who's to say how far they would've gone, if anywhere at all? He went to bat for them. He had the connections, influence and FAITH needed to put the Beatles out there.

lennon-mccartney
Aug 03, 2000, 04:05 PM
Lennon was no Barrow boy.

------------------
http://www.angelfire.com/stars/LennonMcCartney/lennonmccartneylink.gif (http://www.angelfire.com/stars/LennonMcCartney)

beatlegirl
Aug 03, 2000, 04:10 PM
I think it's just a rumor,john not gay!!

Beatle Baby *14*
Aug 03, 2000, 04:52 PM
yeah stef

john not gay
paul not gay
george well....

i read that book. Wanna hear the quote.


"pete shotton recalls:

john said,'eppy kept on and on at me so i finally pulled down me trousers and said,
stick it up me f**cking arse then.
He said actually thats not what i like to do.
"oh yeah an what exactly do you like to do?"

I CANT GO ON BUT IF YOU GET THE BOOK BLACKBIRD ITS ON PG. 80.


--------
Broadway is dark tonight...
young man sitting in an old man's bar waiting for his time to die.

did you hear what johhny reznik said about the beatles. "john could come back from the dead get the group back together and i wouldnt pay more than twenty bucks to see it"


that was harsh


if i fall along the way pick me up dust me off
if i feel to tired to make it keep my breath so i can walk.

------------------
love ya lots
*LILLY*

Original Fan
Aug 03, 2000, 05:11 PM
I never suggested John was gay. I only intimated that he was always willing to try new things. We'll never really know about him & Brian anyway. I don't care one way or the other.

Lovely Rita
Aug 03, 2000, 05:12 PM
I don't know about the others, but I was never saying that John was gay! He was just always looking for "kicks". I read that he went on vacation with Brian, and everyone was making accusations. He denied it then. But, when Epstein died, that John admitted that they did do it once. Whether this is true or not, I don't know.
-Lovely Rita

Beatle Baby *14*
Aug 03, 2000, 05:14 PM
pete shotton says john admitted it to him.

------------------
love ya lots
*LILLY*

beatlemethisbeatlemethat
Aug 03, 2000, 09:19 PM
well, john might have been joking. or maybe he just let pete believe what he wanted to believe.

SleepyHead
Aug 04, 2000, 04:26 AM
John had an insatiable appetite for a lot of things, apparently. Music, sex, and shocking people.

I believe he made the statement to Pete (why on earth would Pete lie about it?), but as to whether he felt he could confide in Pete or he just wanted to shock his old mate, your guess is as good as mine.

------------------
Bearkat77's Beatlemaniac Page (http://www9.50megs.com/bearkat77)

Beatle Baby *14*
Aug 04, 2000, 08:32 AM
I hope he wanted to shock him, as i could never think of john that way. We all love him!!!!

Original Fan
Aug 04, 2000, 03:44 PM
S.H., You're right on target, once again! Whether or not he did or didn't, he's still the One & Only John Lennon. Does it really make any difference?

beatlemethisbeatlemethat
Aug 04, 2000, 08:01 PM
well, the way John comes off as is the type of person that is like "oh yeah, of course, i did it" kind of cocky in a way.

------------------
Peace, Love, and Beatles,
Stefanie

Beatle Me This, Beatle Me That (http://beatlemethisbeatlemethat.virtualave.net/)

//0-0\\//0-0\\//0-0\\
"After all is said and done, you can't go pleasing everyone, so screw it"
--John Lennon

Eppy
Aug 08, 2000, 08:51 AM
I heard that someone was talking about me. Go fig it was the Meter Maid. Of course the Epster was important! W/out him the Beatles never would have reached the magnitude that they did. I'm sure at least John's genius wouldn't have gone unnoticed, but would it have warrented a comeback 30 years after the fact? I think not. As for Lennon-McCartney, whats up w. you & conspiricies? No one's gonna believe if you cite everything off as such. And as for Elvis? The Big Epper WAS Elvis, after Eppy ODed, all of the "sightings" were fake. Thanks for listening to my two cents!

Lovely Rita
Aug 08, 2000, 09:03 AM
Your 1st post and you're messing with Len-Mc!!!!!!!! Way to go Eppy! Just beware........I do believe Len-Mc has a 'thing' with conspiracies! http://www.beatlelinks.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/smile.gif
-Lovely Rita

lennon-mccartney
Aug 08, 2000, 03:29 PM
If I cook, I'll usually do baked beans on toast. Sometimes I'll throw a pizza in the oven.

------------------
http://www.angelfire.com/stars/LennonMcCartney/lennonmccartneylink.gif (http://www.angelfire.com/stars/LennonMcCartney)

jtal909
Aug 08, 2000, 06:40 PM
Without Brian Epstein, the Beatles might still be eating sandwiches on stage.

PennyLane
Aug 09, 2000, 01:16 PM
Well, I am sure that eventually they would have gotten noticed, but not as soon.

jtal909
Aug 10, 2000, 03:02 PM
The Beatles were original and exciting and no doubt they would have made it big with good management. But how big, is the question. As it turns out with Brian, they became international and opened the doors of popular music.
Penny, I was joking around a little.
I love the fact that they ate food on stage, played with their backs to the audience at times, told inside jokes, and were rude and crude at times. They were the original punks of rock and roll. And probably only us who read the books are aware of this.

lennon-mccartney
Aug 10, 2000, 03:07 PM
Exactly!
I hate the misconceptions, and The Beatles being sweet and innocent, and the rolling stones being the opposite - what a joke!

------------------
http://www.angelfire.com/stars/LennonMcCartney/lennonmccartneylink.gif (http://www.angelfire.com/stars/LennonMcCartney)

Eppy
Aug 10, 2000, 05:54 PM
Hey! Don't dis the Stones! Sure, they may not hold a candle to our beloved Fab Four, but they had some good stuff. But I agree w. you that everyone percieved J,P,G,&R wrong. They weren't Care Bears before Dylan made them stoners.

Original Fan
Aug 11, 2000, 09:02 AM
Reading books was not necessary, really. Enough folks from the Beatles' past were more than willing to share stories of the boys' early years with the media. We fans were informed of their antics in Hamburg and their scruffy appearance before Brian "cleaned them up." One difference was the journalism standard at that time. No graphic sexual conduct or drug-taking was revealed, just hinted at. But, we knew from the get-go that our boys were no angels.

jtal909
Aug 12, 2000, 02:38 PM
I was only 12 in 1964. I was already into the radio, rock and roll and Cousin Brucie. I flipped when I heard the Beatles, and bought every record they put out that I could get my hands on. I was, however, a little too young to have seen them live, and know about the pre-Beatlemania days. It wasn't until I started reading the books did I know about the details of Hamburg and such.

Original Fan
Aug 13, 2000, 04:08 PM
jtal: You know the CUZ? Too much!!!

lennon-mccartney
Aug 13, 2000, 04:26 PM
Was he he fella who played all the beatles records? They kept ringing him up, and he'd play what they wanted - and they become friends? Is that him, or is it not? THAT - maybe the question!

------------------
http://www.angelfire.com/stars/LennonMcCartney/lennonmccartneylink.gif (http://www.angelfire.com/stars/LennonMcCartney)

jtal909
Aug 14, 2000, 03:32 PM
I believe it was Murray The K who got to know the Beatles. He actually talked his way into their hotel at first, called his radio station and did his show on the phone. they got to know him and called in often.
Cousin Brucie was another popular New York dj personality. I used to struggle to stay up till ten p.m. with the transistor radio under my pillow to hear his R&R show.

Original Fan
Aug 15, 2000, 05:49 AM
jtal's right. Murray Kauffman a/k/a Murray the K, not only attached himself physically to the boys while they were in the U.S., but he even traveled to the U.K. where he did a radio show from a TV studio where the Beatles were taping a Shakespearean take-off. (If memory serves, it was goof on A MID-SUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM.) Murray christened himself the Fifth Beatle; John called him Muffy the Cow! His nightly radio shows were practically devoid of all other music besides that of the Beatles. He knew we couldn't get enough of them, and he provided us with what we (his listeners) wanted.

Lovely Rita
Aug 15, 2000, 05:48 PM
Ok....I'm officialy confused
-Lovely Rita

Original Fan
Aug 15, 2000, 06:12 PM
Rita, dear, "Cousin" Bruce Morrow and Murray (the "K") Kauffman were 2 of the most popular N.Y. disc jockeys on the radio during the height of Beatlemania. Brucie is still going strong, God bless him, but Murray passed away several years ago. They devoted tremendous amounts of air time to the Fab Four.

jtal909
Aug 16, 2000, 08:49 AM
For those of you in the tri-state area, on 104.3 FM, at 12 noon weekdays, the professor Scott Muni (who was also a NY dj during the later stages of Beatlemania) starts his show with a block of Beatle songs and first hand commentary.

Lovely Rita
Aug 16, 2000, 09:09 AM
Oh Original..........What would I do without you? http://www.beatlelinks.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/grin.gif

Original Fan
Aug 17, 2000, 04:37 PM
Lovely: Not to worry. I'll be here for you.

Paul_McCartney2002
Aug 17, 2000, 11:15 PM
I think that if he hadn't died that a lot of the things that brought about the brack up would not have happend he was like there glue, he sort of held them together. Stupid Yoko!

bearkat77
Aug 27, 2000, 05:01 PM
I just thought you all would like to know that on this date in 1967 the Beatles manager Brian Epstein dies of a drug overdose.

------------------
Bearkat77's Beatlemaniac Page (http://www9.50megs.com/bearkat77)

Apple Scruff
Nov 13, 2002, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Arial, Sans-Serif">Quote:</font><HR>Originally Posted By Lovely Rita:
How important was Brian to the Beatle's actual success? I know that he was a good manager, but that he also lost the Beatle's a whole lot of money...what do you think?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Brian Epstein was majorly important to the Beatles' success in almost every way imagineable. I was reading some books about Brian and, although a lot of his personal life was jumbled up, he had his head on right when it came to being a manager. It is certainly not a simple job, and the Beatles as we know them today wouldn't be as huge if it weren't for Brian. He absolutely took them under his wings and guided them, and he was also a loyal, kind person.

I think Brian Epstein should get a little more credit. I know he basically does, but there aren't a lot of discussions about him. I was listening to an interview by John and he said Brian was "a beautiful man." He also said that after Brian's death, the group was basically over. They needed him very much, although it doesn't appear they thought so at the time. His impact on their success is probably too great for words.



------------------
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams." ~Eleanor Roosevelt

[This Message Has Been Edited By Apple Scruff On November 13, 2002 11:35 AM]

angelgodiva
Nov 13, 2002, 10:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Arial, Sans-Serif">Quote:</font><HR>Originally Posted By Glenn:
Well, it's impossible to quantify exactly how important Brian was. While not a showbiz expert, he managed the most popular group of all time through success after success after success. He got them down to London for their audition which led them (with a little luck) to George Martin. Also, though John hated it, putting them in suits was a big victory of Brians', because there's no way they would have succeeded in that era dressed in leather and swearing onstage etc. He may not have understood alot of things, but Brian truely loved the Beatles, and that's very valuable in a manager.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I couldn't have said it better myself.



------------------
And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.

Apple Scruff
Nov 13, 2002, 10:50 AM
You know what I think? I think Brian Epstein was the greatest, most important manager in rock and roll history. Maybe I'm taking a long shot, but measure the Beatles success. Go on and measure it. They appealed to practically everyone. OK, alright...maybe the Elvis manager dude is important, but wasn't he an ass anyway? Brian was certainly not. A genuine human being.

------------------
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams." ~Eleanor Roosevelt

[This Message Has Been Edited By Apple Scruff On November 13, 2002 11:50 AM]

angelgodiva
Nov 13, 2002, 10:54 AM
I couldn't agree with you more--and John wouldn't have listened to him if he hadn't thought so too, you can be sure of that!

------------------
And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.

Magill
Nov 13, 2002, 10:58 AM
Ya know. I've often wondered if Brian hadn't died if the Beatles would have stayed together longer. It's funny (not literally, of course) that Brian thought the guys didn't need him anymore and that's why he got depressed. When in all actuality, the band couldn't survive without him. Just my opinion.

------------------
"I'm not really a career person. I'm a gardner, basically." George, 2000

Soon we'll all be Brainwashed.

bitagirl
Nov 13, 2002, 11:07 PM
Yeah, thats a good point Magill...

I think Brian helped create the aura of the Beatles...with their image and everything. I think he made them acceptable for the public at that time, which helped them become as big as they did.

------------------
"You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom. "
- Malcolm X

anurag
Nov 14, 2002, 06:30 AM
The Beatles felt sort of helpless once Brian died.He managed everything for them.They tried to make Magical Mystery Tour by themselves which unfortunately didn`t turn out too well.

------------------