Would The Beatles Have Made It Without Epstein?

admin · Post by **admin** » Thu May 15, 2003 4:56 pm

My view is that The Beatles came along at the right time for a number of reasons, but their success was due in large part to the contacts and management of Brian Epstein. While their talent was probably destined to shine through in one form or another, many talented Liverpool musicians did not succeed for lack of promotion. Would they have made it without Epstein?

larrywassgren · Post by **larrywassgren** » Thu May 15, 2003 6:16 pm

I believe they would have made it but not quite as fast. Brian Epstein was definitely great for The Beatles and nobody could have got them the recording contract faster than him. After listening to my friend Alan Stratton last week (who was in The Kansas City Five and saw The Beatles play many times in Liverpool) he said The Beatles definitely had something. They rehearsed relentlessly to get the guitar parts down and those three part harmonies. While other groups may have played the solo to Johnny B. Goode close, George had it down note perfect. The harmonies were flawless and all you have to do is listen to Live At The BBC to know this. And as I found in my group in the 60's, it was impossible to do songs exactly like The Beatles as they had three great singers. Alan said most Liverpool bands had only one good singer too, except for the Searchers and The Swinging Bluegenes and maybe a couple others. The Beatles had it all really and not many groups can say that so I believe they would have made it without Brian but things wouldn't have happened that fast. He did have connections in the music business but in the end really just ended up pounding on doors until he found George Martin. Mona Best had been the manager up to the time they got Brian, I would imagine she could have done the same but of course Pete would still have been a Beatle. Interesting question!!

sneakers · Post by **sneakers** » Fri May 16, 2003 12:24 am

It was the perfect set up. Brian was the coach for the "look" and George was the coach in musical technical mastery. The Beatles were for the most part, anti-establishment. They wore black leathers, smoked ciggys (which was a culture norm), and raised hell. Brian knocked off the ruff edges. I think that if Brian didn't help them we might have gotten to the punk era a little sooner. Brian was a smart man. He saw something in The Beatles that he could market.

joeyr · Post by **joeyr** » Fri May 16, 2003 6:46 am

Of course they would have made it.

They're The Beatles

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Fri May 16, 2003 10:26 am

Today, bands don't need record companies and lawyers to get a product out. The net enables musicians a worldwide audience, and will only get bigger and better at that. If today's avenues were available back in '62, suppose they would have even sought a manager or record company? They'd probably have their stuff on CD Baby and mp3! Perhaps there's talent like that out there now. I say turn off your corporate radios and search the net for the Next Beatles! Revolt! Wait, time for my pill.

larrywassgren · Post by **larrywassgren** » Fri May 16, 2003 11:10 am

Jerry, I feel the same as you. Corporate radio is right. Yesterday at work I heard Sweet Home Alabama twice before my first break. I've been listening to that song for 30 years! It's a classic rock station, classic is the last thing rock and roll was meant to be! You are correct that there are a lot of great groups out there that never get heard. And you've given me something to think about as I didn't realize we could actually search the net for new groups. I guess I just prefer the way things were done back then. But, super talent will break through in whatever way is available for the times. Joe, you're also correct that Brian did the right thing by getting The Beatles into suits and taking off the rough edges. They could then break through to super-stardom and then we see them wearing whatever they pleased, from jeans to psychedelic clothing and back to tennis shoes with striped pants or whatever. The Beatles set the standard for music and also fashion. What a group, I don't know if that could be done today because it seems to me it's getting tougher for the new generation to shock their parents through music(which is what rock has always done). What new style of rock and roll will be next? Just some ramblings by Larry

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Fri May 16, 2003 1:30 pm

Out of the (probably)thousands of composers of each era of classical music, only a handful are recognized by name or composition today. So I feel it will be of the rock era. I personally think rock is long gone. I've been hearing recycled ideas for decades. Shock is an easy way in, perhaps, and thinking back, the Beatles were shocking to many at first, even toned down, appearance-wise. Try to explain to a twenty something their (Beatles) hair, music and attitude were considered shocking to some, and he or she will think you're nuts. The only thing I find shocking about bands going for shock value is that people are shocked by it. It's show biz schtick. What I like is that the fabs didn't have to try. They didn't nick-name themselves The Greatest Band of All Time (or the Kings of Pop). For the most part they showed bemusement with or disdain for the pop making machinery. Ooops, I too ramble. Lastly (to reiterate) I do recommend surfing places like mp3, CD Baby, etc for new or at least diversionary music. You can do it by genre (Beatle-pop is one category on CD Baby). And buy any CD there with a Rickenbacker on the cover!

bottom4 · Post by **bottom4** » Sat May 17, 2003 4:38 am

I like Sneakers comment about getting to the punk era sooner. I believe the Beatles would have made it without Brian - But would they have been a different band without him? We all know how they were compared to the Stone - the good guys verse the bad guys. Interesting what might have been. Any thoughts about that?

carr · Post by **carr** » Sat May 17, 2003 7:08 pm

I think the question is best answered with another question and then some..............
Would the Beatles have met George Martin without Epstein?

Would they have had the vision to look outside Liverpool and the North?

Would they have ( been able to ) back themselves to the extent of an order for huge number of copies of Love me do?

Each man is of his time and I think that Epstein was the catalyst and without him maybe The Beatles would have been only a local event.

{Asbestos undwear on}

bottom4 · Post by **bottom4** » Sun May 18, 2003 2:32 am

John, I think you may be right - these are some of the things we forget about - particularly that "huge" Love Me Do order!

cheers

gt40graham · Post by **gt40graham** » Mon May 19, 2003 9:35 am

It's impossible to answer this question. My opinion is that they probably wouldn't have made it without Epstein. I think that without his help, they would probably have got disheartened and packed it all in. Who knows!

carr · Post by **carr** » Mon May 19, 2003 7:14 pm

I seem to recall statements by the Beatles themselves along the lines that they thought they were only good for a few years.. Had they not made it when they did, maybe Ringo would have owned a hairdressing salon and maybe Paul would have persisted and become a star on the local cabaret scene

admin · Post by **admin** » Tue May 20, 2003 10:31 am

When you think about it, The Beatles narrowly missed having Alan Williams as their manager. During the time that Williams did make arrangements for the group things seemed to be less than ideal. I don't think he would have been able to rein them in as Brian Epstein did.

Epstein was highly organized and his focus very sharp and calculated. While the Beatles didn't like being told what to do, they did respect his business smarts and allowed him to take over in the beginning.

Epstein learned the management scene very well. Unfortunately his own emotional issues took over in spite of his success. It wasn't long after his death that The Beatles went adrift. Epstein took a sizeable commission, however, there was no one to replace the vacuum he left.

I consider that he was the reason that they lasted a few years longer than they expected.

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Tue May 20, 2003 2:24 pm

It is my understanding that while organized and focused, Brian's lack of experience cost the Beatles millions. He virtually, perhaps in some cases literally, gave away merchandising deals, and didn't seek to rein in the "image bootleggers". The Beatles' name and images were on hundreds of items they didn't authorize, thus they didn't profit.

Furthermore, during Brian's association with them, the fabs had gone from boy rockers to men of the world, with egos and drug habits in tow. I doubt they relied on his guidance much in later years (he vetoed the Sgt. Pepper cover, for example). They probably needed someone towards the end, but I doubt they would have listened to anyone at that point.

The Beatles had a contract with Brian. Brian never signed it. But he kept his word.

I felt on the "Anthology" video they didn't give Brian overly high praise. Anyone else notice?

admin · Post by **admin** » Tue May 20, 2003 3:20 pm

Jerry: Good points. Epstein did learn the business through the seat of his pants and as a consequence did not make as much money for the Fab Four as he might have. Nonetheless, I still think he deserves credit for transforming The Beatles from a rather disorganized lot into a more professional group that set them apart from their competition.

That his model of a clean professional image was effective can be seen by the number of groups of the day that adopted the same image. Even those who were not managed by Epstein dressed in suits and worked on a more polished stage performance.