Talk:Brian Epstein: Difference between revisions
Andreasegde (talk | contribs) |
Top importance |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WPBeatles|A}}{{reqphoto}} |
{{WPBeatles|A|Top}}{{reqphoto}} |
||
==Bill Harry== |
==Bill Harry== |
||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
which drug killed epstein? |
which drug killed epstein? |
||
Epstein's homosexuality -- pretty well settled -- or the infatuation with John -- regardless of whether any overt acts were committed -- may have part of the strain between Epstein & the Beatles. I have added a reference to the Beatles song "Baby you're a rich man" in this section of the article but haven't speculated on whether the homosexuality was the issue but just that the song demonstrates that *something* was strained -- even if the possible fade out lyrics are ignored |
Epstein's homosexuality -- pretty well settled -- or the infatuation with John -- regardless of whether any overt acts were committed -- may have part of the strain between Epstein & the Beatles. I have added a reference to the Beatles song "Baby you're a rich man" in this section of the article but haven't speculated on whether the homosexuality was the issue but just that the song demonstrates that *something* was strained -- even if the possible fade out lyrics are ignored th |
||
Utterly unproven and contradicted by all the comments by the 4 Beatles (and George Martin) both at the time - and in subsequent interviews. The Beatles were aware of and unthreatened by his homosexuality. They openly teased Epstein about his orientation - as was commonplace in that era - especially from the perspective of working class and lower middle-class Northerners. But it didn't bother them. Nor did his being Jewish. (McCartney and Ringo later both married Jewish-born women.) Epstein assiduously avoided playing favorites. Neither John (in voluminous interviews about his songwriting) nor Paul has ever substantiated that that song had anything remotely to do with Epstein. It's a classic Urban Myth. Lennon never held back expressing the origins of songs and people who inspired them c.f. Sexy Sadie, (Maharishi) She Said She Said (Peter Fonda). There was no reason for him not to cite that this song was a "joke about Brian" - IF that had been the case. BTW - English slang of the era used to refer to a gay man included "poof" "queer" "homo" and occasionally "faggot" The word "fag" was not used by the English to describe gay men. (A "fag" in English parlance is a cigarette or a junior factotum in English boarding schools.) One urban myth demolished! Several billion to go....! [[User:Davidpatrick|Davidpatrick]] 23:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Uh, recheck your notes. Lennon in one of his last interviews discusses how his first national news coverage in England happened when "I sent a guy [Bob Wooller, former Cavern MC] to the hospital for calling me a ''fag''." (Wooller at McCartney's 21st birthday party joked about what Lennon and Epstein did in Spain; Lennon had been drinking, and punched Wooller out... not for calling him a cigarette, I'm sure.) [[User:Zephyrad|Zephyrad]] 14:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Not sure what point you're trying to disprove there, but if it's use of the word "fag" or "faggot" then the crucial part of what you wrote is "in one of his last interviews". That would be after living in the US for nearly 10 years then? Of course nowadays we Brits are familiar with most US slang, but even when I was growing up in the 70s "fag" to mean anything other than a cigarette was considered most amusing. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 14:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Mentioned it to check that demolition job, basically... and yeah, Lennon was probably tailoring to suit his audience. Anyway, it's one example of one English guy using "fag" to mean homosexual, so let's never say never. ;-) By the same token, my classmates reading "The Verger" in 1982 cracked up when the former verger became a tobacconist, after noticing there was nobody to help someone "who goes up the streets and wants a fag." I knew what he meant; they didn't. (Oh, yeah, Lennon also mentioned Epstein living a "fag life" in his 1971 ''Rolling Stone'' interview, referring to Epstein's homosexuality.) [[User:Zephyrad|Zephyrad]] 14:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
And speaking of "most amusing"... we also read a poem in English class with a line, 'Allan-A-Dale has no faggot for burning'... you can imagine the possible reactions to that one? Cheers. [[User:Zephyrad|Zephyrad]] 15:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
The slang parlance for homosexuals in England in those less enlightened days of the 1960s ranged from "homo" to "queer" to "nancy-boy" to "poof" to "cissy". The word "fag" had several uses - eg a bothersome task or "a drag" ("mum told me to clean up my room - it's a real fag") a cigarette, a factotum at an English upper-crust prep school. It was not used to describe gay men. The term "faggot" meant sticks used for firewood or a chopped meat dish like meatballs. It was not used to describe gay men. A few people in the UK may have been AWARE of those US usages and the occasional person MAY have used one - but working class and lower-middle-class Northern English lads such as Bob Wooler and John Lennon circa 1963 would not. By 1980 Lennon had lived in the US for 9 years and had absorbed many Americanisms into his speech. And in an interview with a US-based periodical - he undoubtedly used the prevailing word of the era - not the words that he and Bob Wooler would have used in a drunken backyard exchange in 1963. [[User:Davidpatrick|Davidpatrick]] 15:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Not my point... and the ''Rolling Stone'' comment was made around 1971. The boys picked up (and/or were exposed to) a LOT of American slang on their Sixties visits (as Cynthia Lennon noted in her first book); I'm saying it's possible Lennon used that term, that way, to taunt Epstein at least once; maybe even in a recording session. Whether he used it with Wooller in 1963 is moot. Lennon was familiar with the usage, and used it that way at least a couple documented times. (He certainly didn't lose the English usage; Anthony Fawcett recalled Lennon asking to "bum a fag" on a visit, when Lennon was out of smokes.) [[User:Zephyrad|Zephyrad]] 21:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Strengths and weaknesses as a manager== |
|||
I think this article would benefit from a section higlighting '''referenced''' facts & opinions about Epstein's strengths and failings. Many authors have commented on his business naivety and him striking poor initial deals and then not renegotiating: The publishing with Dick James, US merchandising rights, Movie deals, etc. [[User:Design|Design]] 05:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Definitely, as long as it's balanced. The impression I've always got from reading about Brian is that he was a wonderful manager of people and a ''vital''' cog in the Beatles machine, but hopelessly naive and perhaps even too honourable when doing the big deals. On the one hand, he probably (if the books I've read are correct) cost them millions of dollars in lost earnings (especially the merchandising fiasco), on the other hand they might never have even got to London if it weren't for him! We can also see what happened when Mr Epstein had departed... [[Apple Corps]], [[Allen Klein]], break up. --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 16:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
=="The Beatles" vs. "the Beatles"== |
|||
Deciding that "The Beatles" is preferable to "the Beatles" is a very poor decision. I'm almost tempted to let the WP:Beatles people take up the issue because I think they'll find that no one in the non-Wikipedia world agrees with their decision, but I really can't be bothered. Wikipedians make poor decisions all the time, and I have to pick my battles. [[User:Moncrief|Moncrief]] 20:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Why don't you come over to [[Talk:The_Beatles#The_Beatles_or_the_Beatles.3F]] and discuss it? --[[User:Kingboyk|kingboyk]] 20:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
They were called The Beatles. No-one would say "I like Beatles", would they? I have just looked at my copy of Abbey Road, and it says The Beatles. EMI records must know what their artist is called... |
|||
[[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] 02:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 16:27, 12 June 2006
 | The Beatles Unassessed | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Bill Harry
A reader emailed the following comment to us. Please review it and make the appropriate changes to the article.
I've talked with Bill Harry of MERSEY BEAT Magazine, and he has the true version of how Brian Epstein first heard of the Beatles. It wasn't the standard accepted version that you stated: "When several customers began asking for a single they made with Tony Sheridan in Germany, he couldn't find it through any of his record label contacts, and decided to ask the band themselves for details."
That version is Bullshit. Brian first saw the Beatles plastered all over Bill Harry's Mersey Beat Magazine. Bill was pushing his friend John Lennon's band with lots of coverage, and had made a personal appeal and gotten Brian to agree to selling the magazine in Epstein's music store. It was through Bill Harry's personal escort and contacts that Brian first met them. Brian concocted the "record label he couldn't find" story about how he first heard of them, I believe because he was infatuated, and wanted an excuse for visiting and meeting them, especially John, with whom most people believe he had at least an initial romantic interest.
Please contact Bill Harry, editor of Mersey Beat magazine (now online) for the true story details of how Brian got introduced to the Beatles.
Kelly Martin 11:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I read the in Many Years from Now On (McCartney biography), as well...--Deadworm222 19:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Further comments from email:
To reiterate, author Bill Harry, editor of the Mersey Beat Magazine told me unequivocally that Brian Epstein and he had many a conversation about the Beatles, and Bill was well aware of Brian's strong interest in them LONG before Brian claimed he first heard of them October 28, 1961 when Raymond Jones came in to buy a Beatle record.
Kelly Martin 11:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Personal interviews are original research
I don't think the personal statements of Bill Harry can be used here; that would make this a violation of No original research, wouldn't it? To wit,
- Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations.
Kelly, I understand your desire to include this information (see: Talk: Creem), and I don't actually question it's validity, but let's face it, it's not peer-reviewed, accepted history (based on yours and Harry's statements alone). After all, Bill could be lying. Not that he is, but please read up on the Wikipedia concept of 'original research' cited above if you're not clear on this. It simply needs additional coroborration(sp?) to be encyclopedic. Does someone have an actual cite from the book Deadworm222 mentioned? Eaglizard 08:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree entirely. The situation is ambiguous and as often happens - there are conflicting versions of the story. Certain things are clear. Bill Harry was an important individual in the Liverpool music scene. He championed the Beatles in his magazine Mersey Beat. And that undoubtedly helped them build popularity in Liverpool. Brian Epstein's contributions to the success of the Beatles are unquestioned. There was a personal animosity that arose between Harry and Epstein. The roots of this appear to be to do with Epstein buying ownership in Harry's magazine Mersey Beat. In any event - Harry has spent a lot of the past 40 years disparaging the importance of Epstein in the Beatles story. This is a forlorn position since the Beatles (especially John and Paul) and George Martin are all on record expressing belief in how integral Epstein was in the Beatles' success.
This is not to say that Epstein didn't perhaps romanticize the story of how he first heard of the Beatles for early press accounts. (At that point the chances of such a story ever being important even a few years hence would have been so remote that there would have been no downside in offering a mildly fabricated story.) However Epstein's version was always corroborated by his assistant Alistair Taylor.
But the open animus of Harry means that - even if there IS some truth in his version - it is impossible to know conclusively if the story is accurate - or a part of his undisguised dislike of Epstein.
Harry is one of the very few public detractors of Epstein. Another prospective rival for the Beatles' attention in 1961-2 was Sam Leach who was a local promoter. He promoted the Beatles several times. And had some aspirations to manage the Beatles. He was not a huge fan of Epstein - as Epstein got the better of him several times in business. However - unlike Harry - he always acknowledges that the Beatles needed Epstein and readliy concedes that he was vital to their success.
I believe that Bill Harry's opinions on Epstein cannot be the basis for changing established accepted history.
- I appreciate y'all looking into this. I don't have an interest in the article itself; I just read and respond to Wikipedia's email. :) Kelly Martin 11:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
If Harry's account could be cited from a secondary source (not him directly or his website) it could be added to the article as an alternate (but not replacement or "corrected") version. Wyss 20:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Since there has been no discussion on this for over a week I'm removing the PoV tag. Harry's account would be helpful if cited from a reliable secondary source, otherwise it's not acceptable according to WP sourcing policy. Given this, no dispute seems to remain. Wyss 21:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- I added a couple of sentences about Bill Harry's assertions because I do think the typical story has the feel of "self-promotional apocrypha"... not to say our Eppy was a liar, but it wouldn't be the first time an English gentleman allowed a touching (if mythical) story to stand.Eaglizard 22:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Homosexuality
User: Wyss removed some semi-vandal's insertion of "and a homosexual", with the comment "(WP not a tabloid, sexual orientation is not known to be relevant to music management)". My initial reaction was "good edit, obvious vandal", but then I thought, on the other hand... I know gayness is not particularly relevant in most cases, but here it does relate to the oft-repeated speculation about him and Johnny in Spain... It should at least be mentioned, otherwise the words known to have been infatuated with almost seem to come out of nowhere. But that story has been passed around so many times that I have no idea where a cite for it could be found. Perhaps the whole thing about Brian & John & Spain should be deleted? I mean, I know it's just obvious that Brian was gay, and who wouldn't be infatuated with Lennon '63, but does obviousness equate to verifiable? Probably not... Eaglizard 22:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The story about Lennon is a rumour, maybe it's true but it's proven to be wholly unsupportable. Epstein was gay but sexual orientation doesn't belong in the header- he wasn't notable for it, for example. It's ok to allude to it in the text with a supportable citation which has some relevance to the article. Wyss 09:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
which drug killed epstein?
Epstein's homosexuality -- pretty well settled -- or the infatuation with John -- regardless of whether any overt acts were committed -- may have part of the strain between Epstein & the Beatles. I have added a reference to the Beatles song "Baby you're a rich man" in this section of the article but haven't speculated on whether the homosexuality was the issue but just that the song demonstrates that *something* was strained -- even if the possible fade out lyrics are ignored th