Brian was a brilliant promoter rather than a shrewd business manager, and without him, the Boys would never have reached the heights that they did. Brian loved them and would never have intentionally done anything to hurt them. Despite his inexperience, he managed to make them more successful and wealthy than they ever dared dream.
think Brian did the best he could of the time, record percentage returns for the Beatles were industry norm, hence John and Paul persuing song writing where they were told, where the money was. 10% return on merchandising, probably sounded pretty good, with zilch input from the group, except use of their image.
Beyond that bad 10% merchandising deal, I don't see any really serious money deal mistakes made by Brian. The Beatles negotiated a really big cut of that Kansas City concert in their 64 U.S. tour. The EMI record deal percentage was out of Brian's hands at the beginning. He had to accept their offer because other labels were not interested in the band.
Brian Epstein had nothing to do with the exi haircuts the Beatles began to wear . They had them before he ever saw them. Stuart Sutcliffe and George Harrison got theirs from Astrid Kercherr in Hamburg and John and Paul got theirs from Jurgen Volmer in Paris
During that time period, other singers and bands were taken for their share of the recording deals they made, with disk jocks adding to the productions and claiming a percentage to get airplay on their radio stations ~ The Beatles failed to get any reaction here in America so they had to go to lesser labels just to get their music released ~ I think if anything Brian was just a victim of the space and times they were in ~
Brian was a brilliant promoter rather than a shrewd business manager, and without him, the Boys would never have reached the heights that they did. Brian loved them and would never have intentionally done anything to hurt them. Despite his inexperience, he managed to make them more successful and wealthy than they ever dared dream.
think Brian did the best he could of the time, record percentage returns for the Beatles were industry norm, hence John and Paul persuing song writing where they were told, where the money was. 10% return on merchandising, probably sounded pretty good, with zilch input from the group, except use of their image.
Bit harsh - until The Beatles there was no thing as merchandising.
The music business is brutal, period. Sir Paul made his own mistakes, yet he's still a billionaire!
Beyond that bad 10% merchandising deal, I don't see any really serious money deal mistakes made by Brian. The Beatles negotiated a really big cut of that Kansas City concert in their 64 U.S. tour. The EMI record deal percentage was out of Brian's hands at the beginning. He had to accept their offer because other labels were not interested in the band.
Brian Epstein had nothing to do with the exi haircuts the Beatles began to wear . They had them before he ever saw them. Stuart Sutcliffe and George Harrison got theirs from Astrid Kercherr in Hamburg and John and Paul got theirs from Jurgen Volmer in Paris
A. Rest In peace Brian Godbless You Amen. 🕊🕊🕊🕊🕊🦋🦋🦋🦋🦋🌹🌿🌹🌿🌹🌿🌹🌿💐💐💐💐
How could anyone have reached the hight of the Beatles
The Beatles in the cavern club wore leather jackets and tight trousers. Epstein cleaned up their image, dressing them in suits and tight trousers!😊😮
They should have gone on the Sullivan show in leather !
During that time period, other singers and bands were taken for their share of the recording deals they made, with disk jocks adding to the productions and claiming a percentage to get airplay on their radio stations ~ The Beatles failed to get any reaction here in America so they had to go to lesser labels just to get their music released ~ I think if anything Brian was just a victim of the space and times they were in ~
Where do these people get their facts in Nov 61 they already had their hair styles and Ringo wasn't a member at that point
Y LA FOTO CON PATTIE, PENSE QUE HIBA A HABER DE TIPO PERSONAL Y CON ALGUNA RAZÒN.