What if the band had their own Geffen/Azoff/Grant type Manager?

[Juice Brohnston]

Like or loathe the management styles of guys like Irv Azoff or Peter Grant, one thing can be said is that they were willing to go to battle for their clients 110%.

No secret that the Beach Boys management has historically been, well, a tad unstable. Would the band have had a more successful career with a 'pit bull' manager who had the bands best interests as a sole motivator?

Or is this a case of a group that would have found a way to drive away solid management.

[D409]

It seems fairly obvious from their chequered history that our heroes would definitely have benefited from a strong manager - God Only Knows what would have happened with a bit of stability, continuity and consistency.

[Cam Mott]

You mean a Murry?

[Wirestone]

You mean a Murry?

Obviously not, given that the folks mentioned above were not the abusive fathers of the bands in question.

[Emily]

Here we go...

[Cam Mott]

Here we go...

Ha ha ha.

[MikestheGreatest!!]

I don't think management would have made much of a difference in the group's history, the way it turned out.  They actually put out great music until 15 Big Ones and much of it died a commercial death, not for management reasons, but just simply the music they were putting out was not in synch stylistically with the changing times.

Kind of like how a group like the Guess Who put out some fine albums after their AM hits dried up, but no one cared to listen.  Also I guess the problem of being such a hit driven act and the hits suddenly drying up.

Never did understand why Wild Honey the single did not do better.  Must have been some sort of Heroes and Villains backlash.  Thought the theremin and organ break alone would have made it a bigger hit.

But as much as I liked some of the late sixties singles, it really did not surprise me that they were not bigger hits. They were very pleasant most of them, but just not very exciting or ground-breaking.  Perhaps the same charge could be made about the albums, though they were musically very strong, but just not the type of music kids were getting into at that point.  I remember in high school a very high IQ kid putting me down for listening still(!) to the BBs when I should have been listening to the emerging Grand Funk.  But he was like a couple of year's younger and that made all the difference in tastes!  Though now I listen to GF and the BB's, ha!

Maybe if Tom Parker had managed them he could have saved their career.  Maybe they needed their own Comeback Special!

[Emily]

I think their marketing and PR was always kind of weak. I think a Brian Epstein, who left the music alone but knew how to get it out there and really knew how to build an image and then move the image as fashion changed would've been good.
They also needed someone who would properly look after their contracts and ensure that the other end was fulfilled properly.

Edited to add: though if someone were to say that the Beatles' image changed with the times in spite of, rather than because of, Brian Epstein, I wouldn't argue. I'm ambivalent.

But my point is, still, that I think the BB's biggest problem (professionally of course) was/is image.

[Sheriff John Stone]

I really wish it would've happened, or at least been given a chance. A strong manager might've saved them from themselves. But, I get the feeling a strong manager-type would've either resigned on his own or been fired. With their bad habits and personalities, the Beach Boys were not conducive to taking advice.

[Emily]

I don't think that the band necessarily needed advice. I think the band did the band's job perfectly well - they wrote, recorded and played live quality music. I think what they needed was better quality representation.

[Magic Transistor Radio]

Murray was perfect for them in the early days. After he was let go, Brian was capable of taking charge for a few years but had a break down. It took a few years for the other guys to really get hit quality songs written and recorded. By then it was too late. Jack Reiley with all his flaws helped them with their image at the same time Carl was ready to produce and the guys could write songs at a top level. They were really heading in a good direction, but Endless Summer and fans negative reactions in concerts to the deeper songs put an end to it. Although, there was an effort in the mid 70s from some band members to progress again (especially Dennis and Carl), they were both out voted and had addictions that other wise Al or even Brian might have voted to follow.

[Bean Bag]

I really wish it would've happened, or at least been given a chance. A strong manager might've saved them from themselves. But, I get the feeling a strong manager-type would've either resigned on his own or been fired. With their bad habits and personalities, the Beach Boys were not conducive to taking advice.

Yup. The Beach Boys would just over rule, argue, disagree for the sake of disagreeing and drive someone out the moment anything went wrong. If Mike liked an idea, Denny and Carl would fight it and vice versa, or whatever. Im sure there were windows of opportunity and good advice got implemented, but the 5-headed monster usually ate itself.

Take Holland.  The band was still pushing the boundaries of their music, and its a decent record, but it was a logistical nightmare. Moving to Holland to record?  Not going to Holland to record -- they all moved to Holland. Even when something was good, there was a freight train full of bad ideas in tow.

So yes, a good manager could have avoided all this, but the 5-headed monster was unstopable and would have simply eaten him. But it is an interesting question, that's for sure.

[Mike's Beard]

No decent manager could have guided the train wreck the band had become by the mid 70s. Despite being a turd, Steve Love got the band a ton of money during his time in charge, I don't see what a Geffen/Azoff/Grant type could have done differently. Maybe fire Pamplin sooner?

[Phoenix]

What if?

Fed up, he would have quit before September 3, 1977 or jumped out of the window before they touched down that night.


As stated, those mentioned "were willing to go to battle for their clients 110%."  The problem is unlike Page (and Plant?) or Frey and Henley, the Beach Boys were TOO democratic, so the band itself could never agree on the reason FOR a battle in the first place.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I can't conceive of any rock manager who could handle the band in the 70s. They'd run screaming after a few months.

[barsone]

It seems fairly obvious from their chequered history that our heroes would definitely have benefited from a strong manager - God Only Knows what would have happened with a bit of stability, continuity and consistency.

One thing for sure, with any type of stable management and a band that remained cohesive as a unit,  we'd have NO Smiley Smile board !!

[Lonely Summer]

I don't think poor management was the problem. Take the "Brian is Back" campaign, for example. Would a better manager, a stronger manager gone against the idea of wheeling a broken down Brian into the studio and onstage when he wasn't ready? Brian was seen as the BB's cash cow, for better or worse.  I guess the feeling among some in the band must have been "a broken down Brian with a ravaged voice is still better than anything anyone else can come up with". So yeah, in the short term, it got the band a lot of attention, got them a top 10 single and a hit album...but then people started listening to that album, and thinking "this is not what we were promised; this is not Summer Days and Summer Nights, this is not All Summer Long, or Pet Sounds, for that matter!" And most of those fans never bought another Beach Boys album again.

[KDS]

It's hard to say.   I think Jack Rieley did the best he could in the early 70s. 

The only thing I can say is that better management would've at least had The Beach Boys not still wearing those blue striped shirts onstage when they were promoting Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations. 

[HeyJude]

I know this is perhaps not quite what the original question posed, but I'm more interested in the band (or BRI really) having good management. Managing BRI now would be a very different task from managing the BBs in the 70s or 80s.

What they need now is someone that can either smooth stuff out and convince the members to worth together or, if that can't work, get everyone on the same page for the *brand* even if they won't work together. Meaning, a huge archival program that not only satisfies fans, but gives the band more cred and builds up more hype. A manager that can get Mike Love and Brian Wilson to promote each others' projects on Facebook (not that that specifically is needed; it would be more an indicator of working towards a common goal even if they don't want to work together). A manager that, if Mike is going to continue to use the BB name, keeps the relationships lubricated enough that Brian and Al don't get "warnings" to not use their own trademarked name too prominently.

I do think, had they had a better manager in past years, they wouldn't perhaps be in the position they are now; so splintered and sometimes adversarial. You wouldn't have this weird situation where the corporation is letting Mike use the name, but some of the band members kind of begrudgingly let it happen.

Had they had better management, the manager wouldn't necessarily be able to change the members' personalities, but they could have shown the members why doing things a certain way would ultimately benefit everyone. Sweeten deals enough to where the benefit outweighs the ego.

[KDS]

I know this is perhaps not quite what the original question posed, but I'm more interested in the band (or BRI really) having good management. Managing BRI now would be a very different task from managing the BBs in the 70s or 80s.

What they need now is someone that can either smooth stuff out and convince the members to worth together or, if that can't work, get everyone on the same page for the *brand* even if they won't work together. Meaning, a huge archival program that not only satisfies fans, but gives the band more cred and builds up more hype. A manager that can get Mike Love and Brian Wilson to promote each others' projects on Facebook (not that that specifically is needed; it would be more an indicator of working towards a common goal even if they don't want to work together). A manager that, if Mike is going to continue to use the BB name, keeps the relationships lubricated enough that Brian and Al don't get "warnings" to not use their own trademarked name too prominently.

I do think, had they had a better manager in past years, they wouldn't perhaps be in the position they are now; so splintered and sometimes adversarial. You wouldn't have this weird situation where the corporation is letting Mike use the name, but some of the band members kind of begrudgingly let it happen.

Had they had better management, the manager wouldn't necessarily be able to change the members' personalities, but they could have shown the members why doing things a certain way would ultimately benefit everyone. Sweeten deals enough to where the benefit outweighs the ego.

You hit the nail on the head.

[linusoli]

In a way it feels like David Anderle came the closest to this in 1966. But he may have been more interested in managing Brian Wilson, than the Beach Boys as an entity.

[Emily]

I think the biggest challenge was when there were two seismic shifts that occurred in fairly quick succession in the mid to late 60s: a major cultural change and BW's increasing personal problems and subsequent lessening engagement with the band.
If an extremely competent and culturally sensitive manager helped guide their career through this, accepting that BW needed "personal time" and helping the band move on professionally, I think many of the issues during the period when many above say no one could've helped may have been diverted or at least their impact lessened. I think much of what happened later, and continues to happen now, is fallout from this period.

[barsone]

I know this is perhaps not quite what the original question posed, but I'm more interested in the band (or BRI really) having good management. Managing BRI now would be a very different task from managing the BBs in the 70s or 80s.

What they need now is someone that can either smooth stuff out and convince the members to worth together or, if that can't work, get everyone on the same page for the *brand* even if they won't work together. Meaning, a huge archival program that not only satisfies fans, but gives the band more cred and builds up more hype. A manager that can get Mike Love and Brian Wilson to promote each others' projects on Facebook (not that that specifically is needed; it would be more an indicator of working towards a common goal even if they don't want to work together). A manager that, if Mike is going to continue to use the BB name, keeps the relationships lubricated enough that Brian and Al don't get "warnings" to not use their own trademarked name too prominently.

I do think, had they had a better manager in past years, they wouldn't perhaps be in the position they are now; so splintered and sometimes adversarial. You wouldn't have this weird situation where the corporation is letting Mike use the name, but some of the band members kind of begrudgingly let it happen.

Had they had better management, the manager wouldn't necessarily be able to change the members' personalities, but they could have shown the members why doing things a certain way would ultimately benefit everyone. Sweeten deals enough to where the benefit outweighs the ego.

You hit the nail on the head.


KDS  +1       As usual Hey Jude, you are right on !!   "Sweetened Deals"  vs  "ego"    Money has killed many friendships in this business over the years.   Fractured relationships are very hard to heal, in a band and in life.  The point, as you noted, is they don't appear (sic and sad) to want to work together anymore, which when one is 70+ years old, father time will march on in spite of the fans wanting one more BB tour.  It doesn't matter what political party one belongs to, or what country one lives in, when your over 70, it takes ALOT to change ones mind. And as a result of all the missteps over the years, we all continue to yearn for just one more time, that, sadly just isn't going to happen.  Probably time to put on Summers Gone...........

[KDS]

I know this is perhaps not quite what the original question posed, but I'm more interested in the band (or BRI really) having good management. Managing BRI now would be a very different task from managing the BBs in the 70s or 80s.

What they need now is someone that can either smooth stuff out and convince the members to worth together or, if that can't work, get everyone on the same page for the *brand* even if they won't work together. Meaning, a huge archival program that not only satisfies fans, but gives the band more cred and builds up more hype. A manager that can get Mike Love and Brian Wilson to promote each others' projects on Facebook (not that that specifically is needed; it would be more an indicator of working towards a common goal even if they don't want to work together). A manager that, if Mike is going to continue to use the BB name, keeps the relationships lubricated enough that Brian and Al don't get "warnings" to not use their own trademarked name too prominently.

I do think, had they had a better manager in past years, they wouldn't perhaps be in the position they are now; so splintered and sometimes adversarial. You wouldn't have this weird situation where the corporation is letting Mike use the name, but some of the band members kind of begrudgingly let it happen.

Had they had better management, the manager wouldn't necessarily be able to change the members' personalities, but they could have shown the members why doing things a certain way would ultimately benefit everyone. Sweeten deals enough to where the benefit outweighs the ego.

You hit the nail on the head.


KDS  +1       As usual Hey Jude, you are right on !!   "Sweetened Deals"  vs  "ego"    Money has killed many friendships in this business over the years.   Fractured relationships are very hard to heal, in a band and in life.  The point, as you noted, is they don't appear (sic and sad) to want to work together anymore, which when one is 70+ years old, father time will march on in spite of the fans wanting one more BB tour.  It doesn't matter what political party one belongs to, or what country one lives in, when your over 70, it takes ALOT to change ones mind. And as a result of all the missteps over the years, we all continue to yearn for just one more time, that, sadly just isn't going to happen.  Probably time to put on Summers Gone...........

Considering everything that's happened in the last 25-30 years, I think we were darn lucky to get the album and tour in 2012.  Just imagine, the Beach Boys recording career would've ended with the SIP album.   

Instead, we got a fitting swan song for the studio career. 

[Lonely Summer]

In a way it feels like David Anderle came the closest to this in 1966. But he may have been more interested in managing Brian Wilson, than the Beach Boys as an entity.

Exactly. I don't think Anderle had any real interest in the group.