Why did Searchers Keep Tito Burns?

admin · Post by **admin** » Fri Dec 01, 2000 6:29 am

A number of the Searchers, including John McNally and Chris Curtis, would seem to have reached the conclusion that Tito Burns was not an effective manager. I am wondering why they chose him in the first place and why they stayed with him for as long as they did.

jjr · Post by **jjr** » Fri Dec 01, 2000 6:51 pm

Peter,

I think John said, in his interview at the Searchers website, that they went with Burns because they thought he could do more for them in London, and I assume, the areas outside of Liverpool. Plus he already had some biggies under contract- Dusty Springfield for one. And I assume once he had them they couldn't get out of the contract in the short term. (You have to read how they got out of it it to believe it.)Apparently he worked them hard, and put them on grueling tours, which cut into studio and composition time, and may have affected their recording career, unlike the Beatles who were playing larger, and fewer venues.

They weren't picked up by Brian Epstein- somebody was drunk when he saw them, and I've read two different versions of who. I don't think that was bad, they would have been swallowed up and wound up like the rest of the stable.

If you look at it, they did it exactly the opposite of the Beatles. Beatles get manager,who comes up with plan, then develops their career, gets them record contract. Searchers get discovered by record producer (Hatch), who is specifically looking for Liverpool group to sign-then get manager. Absent-overall plan and guidance.

admin · Post by **admin** » Sat Dec 02, 2000 6:03 am

Good analysis John. After reading your post, I went back to the Chris Curtis interview with Spencer Leigh. In response to Leigh's question, "How did you get signed to Pye Records?" Chris replied Quote:The Beatles had just hit and Les Ackerley, the manager of the Iron Door club, told us to put some songs on tape. He let us have the club for an afternoon and we got a weeny tape recorder and recorded the whole act. He took it to Decca, who didn't want it, but then he took it to Pye. Tony Hatch jumped at it as he wanted to be the George Martin to the Searchers - or, at least, he wanted to be on the bandwagon.

"Sweets For My Sweet" was on the tape and he asked us to record that for our first session. I think Les Ackerley hoped to be our manager but we signed with Tito Burns as we were told he could do a lot more for us in London. I felt very sorry for Les and for us as we didn't enjoy working for Tito Burns. He really worked his artists too - they were always on tour or making records. Whenever you saw the Zombies, they were like zombies.
John, it would seem that Chris felt that Tito was driving his artists hard but perhaps with regard to both touring and "making records." It must also be acknowledged that the Zombies were reasonably successful. I guess we will never know whether this might have been due to or in spite of Tito Burns.

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:56 am

Well...The Zombies were successful right out of the box with two big American hits but due to management or record company problems (and they were on UK Decca, not the smartest of labels) they fell off the charts pretty quickly despite producing some truly magnificent singles. So may be it was Tito Burns management again...interesting question.

Jeff

admin · Post by **admin** » Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:39 pm

Ok, to check out the hypothesis further, who else did Tito Burns manage in the 1960's.

jjr · Post by **jjr** » Mon Dec 04, 2000 11:55 pm

I believe, from the Chris Curtis interview, Dusty Springfield.Don't know if he managed the Springfields before that.

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Tue Dec 05, 2000 2:56 am

There was speculation that Tito Burns played a big part in Tony Jackson's departure from The Searchers. He certainly managed Tony for a while after he left the band. Maybe Tito Burns thought he could double his commission by having two acts.
There was also a widespread attitude amongst agents that the 'group' thing would not last and that solo acts would come back in vogue again.

admin · Post by **admin** » Tue Dec 05, 2000 9:52 am

John: Thanks. I had forgotten that Chris Curtis commented on Dusty Springfield's dissatisfaction with her management in his 1997 interview with Spencer Leigh. Chris speaking of Dusty recalled: Quote:"Yes, and she could be funny and vindictive like me. We were on tour with her and Roy Orbison. When we got to Liverpool, she was really peeved with her road manager. She rang up George Henry Lee's and asked for some cheap crockery and they sent it round to her dressing-room at the Empire. One by one, she threw every piece of crockery down the corridor, and the road manager never did anything wrong again."

admin · Post by **admin** » Tue Dec 05, 2000 9:56 am

Tim: Given the dissatisfaction of The Searchers and Dusty Springfield with Tito's guidance he may have needed all the stars he could get in those days. On the other hand, however, I am wondering if The Searchers disliked Tito Burns from the beginning, why Tony Jackson would give him a second try? Was Tito a factor in Tony's short career?

jjr · Post by **jjr** » Tue Dec 05, 2000 7:23 pm

Pete,

Like Tim, I read,someplace, that Tito Burns decided to split Tony from the band because at the time he was the 800 lb. gorilla with the girls, and that he may have been responsible for Tony being late for gigs and sessions, or not showing up at all. If that happened, it wouldn't have taken much to fan Chris' animosity, and turn Mike and John toward thoughts of replacements.

Why would he do it? Two acts for the price of one. He already had the Searchers, including Tony. Tony would be starting up from scratch, and I don't think he wanted to go back to playing the Iron Door in Liverpool. He starts with an agent, bookings, and probable entree to a record contract.

I think there may have been some residual bad blood between Tony and the band that lasted awhile. So, did Burns go light on Tony's career to avoid annoying the goose that was laying his golden eggs?

admin · Post by **admin** » Tue Dec 05, 2000 9:17 pm

Good points John as always. I agree that Burns would be in a conflict of interest position that would perhaps risk upsetting The Searchers. But the more I learn of his management style I wonder if upsetting his clients upset him. I suspect that Tito realized that Tony had to go and if he did, why not be a part of whatever profits Jackson might bring in.

keith_gompertz · Post by **keith_gompertz** » Sun Dec 31, 2000 10:33 am

Just a short note before you all get carried away but Tito Burns was a well known Dance band leader here . When those days ended he did what many do - he went into Agency/management. He was big at the time - ,unlike Epstein. Incidentally, I saw Rod Argent and Colin Blunstone this summer (The Zombies). Now, there is a highly talented band. Just too 'high brow' for the class conscious UK.

admin · Post by **admin** » Mon Jan 01, 2001 3:45 am

Keith, thanks for the historical information with regard to Tito Burns. Outside of Epstein do you have information about any of Tito's contemporaries in the management field? Also, I and wondering if you are able to identify any of the artists that Tito represented outside of The Searchers and Dusty Springfield. Without question the Zombies were ahead of their time, having a level of complexity in their music may not have been readily accepted.

admin · Post by **admin** » Sun Mar 11, 2001 4:28 pm

John: I am wondering if The Searchers were correct when they thought that Tito Burns could do more for them in London. Did he deliver in this regard? Did they have more performances there? Did they have more London connections with Tito?

Ed · Post by Ed » Sun Mar 11, 2001 6:18 pm

Is Tito Burns still alive? If so what is he doing these days?