Posted November 14, 200816 yr watching these daytime programmes where one goes about rumaging for hidden treasures/antiques and often beatles memorabillia turns up.. it dawned on me the other day just how tacky early beatles merchandising was! mugs, calenders, magazines, figures, all sorts... and heres me insisting that they werent a 'boyband'! lol.. tbh that claim would be hard to refute given that in the early days so much official tat was produced and clearly aimed at a teenage market. it appears that out of all the early pop groups emerging from the 60's , the beatles were the worst culprits as i rarely ever (if at all) see any such tat by other acts. although all the material appears to be from their early years (mop top), and it appears to cease by about 65, does this devalue them as an act? isnt the truth possibly that in their early years they werent much better then any other cheesy pop group of today? tbh i think the early beatles were WORSE then either mc fly or busted (or oasis...lol)!!!! but lets not forget... the beatles EVOLVED.
November 14, 200816 yr It's possible back in the early days, because thay were so huge, everyone was jumping on the bandwagon making tacky souvenirs where they had no control over what was sold. Once they set up Apple they took control of their business, and anything not done through them was probably blocked. I'm not sure. I think if you look at other icon's whether it was the Royal family, Elvis, Princess Diana or Hollywood filmstars, etc you always get tacky souvenirs.
November 15, 200816 yr I think if you look at other icon's whether it was the Royal family, Elvis, Princess Diana or Hollywood filmstars, etc you always get tacky souvenirs. You're certainly right when it comes to Elvis. Right from the earliest days of his success and particularly just after he died. EPE tried to put a lid on people exploiting Elvis for commercial reasons, but, quite honestly, EPE have often excelled themselves, producing the most incredible tat when most Elvis fans would rather they concentrated on the music.
November 15, 200816 yr Author i get the impression though that beatles tat stopped long before apple, imagery is all 'mop-top'. im also under the impression that they DID have control over it, or brian epstein, a shrewd businessman.
November 15, 200816 yr It's possible back in the early days, because thay were so huge, everyone was jumping on the bandwagon making tacky souvenirs where they had no control over what was sold. Once they set up Apple they took control of their business, and anything not done through them was probably blocked. I'm not sure. I think if you look at other icon's whether it was the Royal family, Elvis, Princess Diana or Hollywood filmstars, etc you always get tacky souvenirs. That was exactly the case, and one of the reasons they set up Apple Corps was to control and take legal action against unauthorised tat merchandise being produced in their name. Paul McCartney "Everyone got ripped off back in the 1960s...."
November 15, 200816 yr im also under the impression that they DID have control over it, or brian epstein, a shrewd businessman. :rofl: You really don't know much about the Beatles. He was a useless businessman compared to the likes of Dave Clark, Don Arden, Peter Grant & Allen Klein. I don't have the time to go into a essay why, but I sure as hell could right a lot of bullet points regarding control of merchandise, Northern Songs, Record Company Royalty points, etc. Considering he was manager of the biggest band of the 1960s in monetary terms he did a poor to awful job of running the band. He might have been a great man manager (& he is recognised for it), but as a businessan he was out of his depth & naive (and that is putting it nicely).
November 15, 200816 yr :rofl: Considering he was manager of the biggest band of the 1960s in monetary terms he did a poor to awful job of running the band. He might have been a great man manager (& he is recognised for it), but as a businessan he was out of his depth & naive (and that is putting it nicely). If it hadn't been for Brian Epstein's moulding of the band - into four, cute, polite, smartly-dressed blokes from the northwest and his amazing persistence and belief in them - George Martin would never have agreed to give them a go! And the whole Beatles thing may never, ever have happened. And back to the subject of the merchandise - people may not approve of the very existence of it .... but compared to today's shoddy sh/te ... it was bloody high-quality stuff - at least people got value for money. Norma
November 15, 200816 yr If it hadn't been for Brian Epstein's moulding of the band - into four, cute, polite, smartly-dressed blokes from the northwest and his amazing persistence and belief in them - George Martin would never have agreed to give them a go! And the whole Beatles thing may never, ever have happened. That's not what Richard was saying though... Rich was saying he was a good MAN manager (which would come under your whole "moulding" argument), but when it came to the fiscal side, he perhaps wasn't so great.... As for the whole "tacky souvenirs" argument... In the early 60s, really, how much control could an artist have of how his or her image was used...? Not a lot I would imagine.. I can actually think of one other band who probably got into this whole merchandising thing even more than The Beatles, of course it was later in the 70s, but I reckon KISS were far bigger culprits of this than The Beatles; and they actually completely endorsed EVERYTHING that had their image on it, no matter how tacky it was (going as far as KISS lingerie ffs :lol: ).... So, I would say there were worse culprits than The Beatles....
November 15, 200816 yr That's not what Richard was saying though... Rich was saying he was a good MAN manager (which would come under your whole "moulding" argument), but when it came to the fiscal side, he perhaps wasn't so great.... As for the whole "tacky souvenirs" argument... In the early 60s, really, how much control could an artist have of how his or her image was used...? Not a lot I would imagine.. I can actually think of one other band who probably got into this whole merchandising thing even more than The Beatles, of course it was later in the 70s, but I reckon KISS were far bigger culprits of this than The Beatles; and they actually completely endorsed EVERYTHING that had their image on it, no matter how tacky it was (going as far as KISS lingerie ffs :lol: ).... So, I would say there were worse culprits than The Beatles.... Sorry by 'not tacky' I was talking about the quality of the workmanship of the mementos! You're right in that everything and anything that could have 'The Beatles' put on it was given the go ahead! Norma
November 16, 200816 yr Author :rofl: You really don't know much about the Beatles. He was a useless businessman compared to the likes of Dave Clark, Don Arden, Peter Grant & Allen Klein. i wouldnt argue against that.. but not being in their league doesnt equate to him being that bad does it? surely the fact that he created the look they initially had and steered them toward success prove he was competant enough?... im unaware for all his shortcomings that he was a bad manager although he could have been better...
November 16, 200816 yr Author That's not what Richard was saying though... Rich was saying he was a good MAN manager (which would come under your whole "moulding" argument), but when it came to the fiscal side, he perhaps wasn't so great.... As for the whole "tacky souvenirs" argument... In the early 60s, really, how much control could an artist have of how his or her image was used...? Not a lot I would imagine.. I can actually think of one other band who probably got into this whole merchandising thing even more than The Beatles, of course it was later in the 70s, but I reckon KISS were far bigger culprits of this than The Beatles; and they actually completely endorsed EVERYTHING that had their image on it, no matter how tacky it was (going as far as KISS lingerie ffs :lol: ).... So, I would say there were worse culprits than The Beatles.... whats kiss got to do with it? the subject is THE BEATLES, not tack merchandise in the music world :)
November 16, 200816 yr Author That was exactly the case, and one of the reasons they set up Apple Corps was to control and take legal action against unauthorised tat merchandise being produced in their name. Paul McCartney "Everyone got ripped off back in the 1960s...." wasnt he refering to the music though? ive seen plenty of interviews with 60's stars who were being payed peanuts whilst the record companies/ management raked in thousands. do we actually KNOW who was resposible for early beatles tat? could anybody produce it with or without permission? my impression is that they could only produce it WITH permission.
November 16, 200816 yr Copyright laws weren't so rigorously enforced then and anybody could get away with making just about anything. Who was going to sue them all! Epstein obviously didn't have a clue about the business side of things.
November 16, 200816 yr I have just looked this up and apparently Epstein negotiated with one Nicky Byrne who set up Seltaeb to handle all the merchandising for The Beatles. The split was 90-10 in Byrne's favour! It was later renegotiated but FFS that was stupid.
November 16, 200816 yr whats kiss got to do with it? the subject is THE BEATLES, not tack merchandise in the music world :) Well, EXCUSE ME for giving an example of a band who were as bad, if not worse for merchandising than The Beatles were..... :rolleyes: I didn't see you b**ch at Tilly for mentioning Elvis memorabelia.... :P
November 17, 200816 yr Author Well, EXCUSE ME for giving an example of a band who were as bad, if not worse for merchandising than The Beatles were..... :rolleyes: I didn't see you b**ch at Tilly for mentioning Elvis memorabelia.... :P because you often do that... wander off topic :P
November 17, 200816 yr Author I have just looked this up and apparently Epstein negotiated with one Nicky Byrne who set up Seltaeb to handle all the merchandising for The Beatles. The split was 90-10 in Byrne's favour! It was later renegotiated but FFS that was stupid. that was stupid... perhaps he thought that there wasnt much of a market for tacky merchandise so wasnt bothered. ive heard of that happening before... alls well until the merchandise starts selling! lol
November 17, 200816 yr because you often do that... wander off topic :P And you don't....? :rolleyes: :P Anyway, if the wider subject is tacky merchandise and artists (which it is..), then of course mentioning KISS is relevant, I reckon they gave bands of today even more ideas as far as merchandising goes than The Beatles or Elvis did... KISS did tacky lingerie, like a LOT of bands do nowadays when you go to their merch stalls. Nicky Byrne never thought of that one did he...? :lol: :lol: :P
November 17, 200816 yr Author And you don't....? :rolleyes: :P Anyway, if the wider subject is tacky merchandise and artists (which it is..), then of course mentioning KISS is relevant, I reckon they gave bands of today even more ideas as far as merchandising goes than The Beatles or Elvis did... KISS did tacky lingerie, like a LOT of bands do nowadays when you go to their merch stalls. Nicky Byrne never thought of that one did he...? :lol: :lol: :P no...the subject is the beatles, not tacky merchandise per-se we expect it from certain quarters, im highlighting that the 'oh so precious beatles' are as guilty as hell!...lol.. or are they?... i dunno, i doubt if we will know the truth as to the bands input into it, or their say in it. we are summising, thats all.
November 17, 200816 yr Author thinking about this.... epstein might not have been the shrewdest of businessmen, but ffs, he was 'mr merseybeat' and it was epstein that managed and promoted other huge merseybeat acts like gerry and the pacemakers, billy j kramer and the dakotas... even cilla black! so the best businessman? nope, but he was far from the worst!
Create an account or sign in to comment