New Mike interview in HuffPost

[guitarfool2002]

First, does it say somewhere that Mike asked for or was awarded more credit on under credited songs he had signed or just credit on uncredited songs he never had the chance to sign? Second, either way it leaves Brian signing papers that he knew and admits were wrong in not crediting Mike at all.

Good question - it's all in the transcripts somewhere, I've been asking for several pages about these details. Specifically, the 35 songs on which the case was decided, were they uncredited, under-credited, or both? The 48 that were introduced and 13 dismissed during the case, what were those 13 songs and why were they eliminated? The 79 songs mentioned at the outset, how did that 79 get edited down to 48, and why?

That's a great question to raise.

On the second point, I could go on and on but I need to shorten it. Not repeating myself, but please consider the basis on which Brian's legal team filed and won their lawsuits, and what Mike's legal team filed and won with their lawsuit(s).

Do the reports that Mike's filing in one instance asked for 30% of Brian's 10 million settlement at least raise an eyebrow? And that was filed on what was claimed in part to have been a breach of contract or a breach of an agreement that Brian's lawyers had made with Mike's lawyers to pay in exchange for Mike's testimony?

He won, of course, and punitive damages were paid based on what the *lawyers* did, specifically taking Brian out of that responsibility in the judgement.

Add some of this up:

- Mike in Goldmine complains about the "30%" cut he was given on the songs in the 60's, yet when the case is filed alleging Brian's legal team breached their agreement to pay Mike, they ask for 30%. Coincidence? So was the 30% cut which Mike signed on those songs really an under-credit if they sought that same amount from Brian's settlement on those songs?

- Brian's team had a number of lawsuits, to repeat again, filed in Sept 1989 and again in Sept 1990. Among the claims used to take them to court was fraud, conflict of interest, breach of contract, validity of the contract due to the age of the participant, the fact that a court never recognized the original 1962 "agreement" as a valid contract due to those issues, legal misconduct, advising Brian to sign documents which contained false information, the validity of an agreement signed by a person under mental duress, and many, MANY more issues.

They won, too. Based in some ways on the fact that Brian had been the victim of fraud, misleading or incompetent advice both legal and business, a conflict of interest between his legal representation and the company buying the songs from Murry (the Brother lawyer at that time (1969) was affiliated with A&M and was on their board, and apparently did not disclose that fact which is a conflict of interest case), and the sale of property based on what could have been an invalid contract from the day it was agreed to.

Explain how Brian the individual was supposed to right all of these wrongs when he himself eventually won a major, multifaceted legal battle on the basis he was duped and misled if not outright fraudulently conned into agreeing to the sale of Sea Of Tunes based on flawed contracts and false documents, where not only his father but also his lawyers were acting against his interests in the sale?

Again, he won based on those charges.

And Mike's team eventually got their victory on the basis of Brian's legal team breaching their agreement to Mike's legal team to settle on Mike's 30% cut of the 10 million settlement in exchange for Mike's testimony in the case.

Again, it's full of so many twists, turns, and facets it's impossible to boil it down to a case of pointing a finger at someone, yet that's what we're still seeing here. It's Brian's fault...not that simple. Unless it's also his fault that a jury found he was duped and misled into a contract agreement that wasn't valid and into signing documents that deliberately included false statements if not outright forgery, by the very legal team he was paying in 1969 that turned out to have as much interest if not more in the party (A&M) that stood to profit the most on the deal.

Again, Brian was supposed to know that everything that was being done around Sea Of Tunes was either right or wrong and could correct it when the case his legal team proved to the tune of 10 million showed that he was being duped and signing documents which were deliberately false, by his father and his legal team at the time?

Brian's team proved their case, Mike's team proved theirs - the details show what was proven versus what those on the "Mike" or "Brian" side may want to think happened.

[Cam Mott]

I'd be interested to know all of that but it is irrelevant to what happened between Brian and Mike in the early 60s.

Mike settling for some under-credit for himself isn't equal with, doesn't legitimize, and doesn't excuse being denied of any credit by a second party. A second party with a double conflict of interest in that Brian profited from more royalties with fewer coauthors and that Brian claims he was also an owner of SOT who then would have co-responsibility to submit true records. Even submitting under credited authorship would have been Brian's co-responsibility to prevent/correct.  What happened 30 years later doesn't change that.

[filledeplage]

I'd be interested to know all of that but it is irrelevant to what happened between Brian and Mike in the early 60s.

Mike settling for some under-credit for himself isn't equal with, doesn't legitimize, and doesn't excuse being denied of any credit by a second party. A second party with a double conflict of interest in that Brian profited from more royalties with fewer coauthors and that Brian claims he was also an owner of SOT who then would have co-responsibility to submit true records. Even submitting under credited authorship would have been Brian's co-responsibility to prevent/correct.  What happened 30 years later doesn't change that.

This is all stuff that was 50 years ago, and you have teens up against those with "superior bargaining power" and sometimes "undue influence."  Cool with the music, but working in and for a snake pit.  People generally don't have a grip on business as adults (even though 18 is the legal age of contract) until they've bought a house, a car, and have been independent in a working context.  The logistics are huge.  Old Murry knew the game.  The kids (and they were kids) at the time were no match for that scheme. 

Shame on those thieves with a conflict of interest.  There is a "special place" for them. 

And I'll    to that! 

[guitarfool2002]

(even though 18 is the legal age of contract)

I'm on board with what you've written and agree, so i didn't quote it, but on the definition of a "minor", it has varied from state to state and in the case of California in 1962 a "minor" was defined as a person under 21. Of course since then individual states have changed their definitions, just as the voting age was lowered federally to 18 and the drinking age was raised to 21. That definition of a minor as it existed when Sea Of Tunes was formed opened the door for Brian's case to suggest the very nature of the business was called into question as a minor like Brian at the time cannot enter into a legally binding contract, and points were made that the business agreement behind Sea Of Tunes had not been recognized by a court. Confusing, with some room for discussion and correction.

It's confusing as hell, but that's my understanding of it.    I think.

[guitarfool2002]

I'd be interested to know all of that but it is irrelevant to what happened between Brian and Mike in the early 60s.

Mike settling for some under-credit for himself isn't equal with, doesn't legitimize, and doesn't excuse being denied of any credit by a second party. A second party with a double conflict of interest in that Brian profited from more royalties with fewer coauthors and that Brian claims he was also an owner of SOT who then would have co-responsibility to submit true records. Even submitting under credited authorship would have been Brian's co-responsibility to prevent/correct.  What happened 30 years later doesn't change that.

Consider again how both Mike's legal team and Brian's legal team presented and filed their cases in order to win.

Brian's involved the validity of the Sea Of Tunes contracts and business agreements dating back to 1962, and targeted the misconduct and conflicts of interests which led to the sale of the songs to A&M, both exposing the legal problems and conflicts and the nature of Murry's role in the Sea Of Tunes business and how he sold the songs. Therefore, those parties were found at fault, and Brian's team collects the 10 million settlement.

Mike's filing and case focused on Brian's legal team's breach of the agreement they had made with Mike's legal team. They won their case based on the settlement payout Brian had received. Brian's legal team paid the penalty through punitive damages based on their conduct in forming an agreement with Mike's team in exchange for testimony, then not meeting the terms of the agreement by not giving the back payments and future credits they sought. It was in simple terms a basic breach of contract/agreement case.

As Andrew posted earlier, Brian's legal team miscalculated their moves and it cost Brian 5 million - their bad. Mike's legal team played it smart and had their open door through the broken agreement, which was a slam dunk that they could easily show the testimony did not receive the return they were promised.

Was Mike's case based on showing that Brian himself had willfully and knowingly deprived him of 40 years of income and royalties, along with future income on those songs, by deliberately withholding or misstating credit? Or was the case based on a breach of contract issue that also depended on Mike's team proving that he was entitled to back payments and credits in the first place? They could not have gone to court without being able to show that Mike was not credited.

But...and I'm willingly sticking my neck out on this one...did the terms of Mike's successful lawsuit and eventual settlement assess any punitive damages based on proof that Brian Wilson had deliberately acted or even conspired to shut Mike out of the credits dating back to 1962?

If it did, I'll gladly admit I'm wrong and apologize for it. But reading as much as I could on this case short of finding the full decision, the award to Mike was given on Brian's 10 million settlement based on a breached agreement by Brian's lawyers regarding the credits on those 35 songs from the Sea Of Tunes catalog which were the basis of Brian's settlement and which Mike could prove he deserved credit for, rather than finding Brian himself guilty of misconduct in the crediting process and assigning a punitive damage award based on that misconduct.

Simplify all that...whew.... ...were Brian's actions or inaction when the songs were originally credited a key element in Mike's victory, or was it breach of contract from 1992 that sealed the victory?

[SurfRiderHawaii]

I still don't understand how Mike wrote the lyrics to a huge hit, California Girls, got no credit (to his great financial detriment ), and did nothing about it for 20 some years. I mean, how could he  sing it, see it on the charts, the 45s, LPs, all missing his name, and do nothing about it?

[Niko]

It's possible he did try, but got nowhere by just asking.

[filledeplage]

(even though 18 is the legal age of contract)

I'm on board with what you've written and agree, so i didn't quote it, but on the definition of a "minor", it has varied from state to state and in the case of California in 1962 a "minor" was defined as a person under 21. Of course since then individual states have changed their definitions, just as the voting age was lowered federally to 18 and the drinking age was raised to 21. That definition of a minor as it existed when Sea Of Tunes was formed opened the door for Brian's case to suggest the very nature of the business was called into question as a minor like Brian at the time cannot enter into a legally binding contract, and points were made that the business agreement behind Sea Of Tunes had not been recognized by a court. Confusing, with some room for discussion and correction.

It's confusing as hell, but that's my understanding of it.    I think.

It is confusing as hell; you're correct!  Usually something can be voided if obtained by fraud, misrepresentation of material information.  Adults, too.

And, the emancipation status to marry does vary, as does alcohol.  And parents pay tuition but the kids can hide their grades! A court can offer rescission for minors.  

And, I think that a minor can enforce a contract but not the adult. So they can breach.  And medical treatment consent is 15, living apart from parents, and managing their own finances (Findlaw - CA)

The issue is the BB kids and their contracts. Complex.  It isn't just age, but the "other" factors.  And the industry.  I'd never blame anyone looking in the rear view mirror of the 1950's and early 60's.  It was beyond their control.

[leggo of my ego]

Okay Mikes not a Vulture or a Mercenary evil. Just a hard-luck roc-n-roll star who needed a few million real bad.

Poor Baby!  

[Sheriff John Stone]

I still don't understand how Mike wrote the lyrics to a huge hit, California Girls, got no credit (to his great financial detriment ), and did nothing about it for 20 some years. I mean, how could he sing it, see it on the charts, the 45s, LPs, all missing his name, and do nothing about it?

It's very possible that he did; we don't know for sure that he didn't. You have to admit it would be out of character for Mike Love to NOT pursue it to some extent, even a little bit.

The Beach Boys were touring extensively, having hit records, making TV appearances, and making money. Basically they were well on their way to becoming one of the most popular groups in the world. Mike probably didn't want to risk going from all of that to becoming the lead singer of The Marksmen.

[guitarfool2002]

I still don't understand how Mike wrote the lyrics to a huge hit, California Girls, got no credit (to his great financial detriment ), and did nothing about it for 20 some years. I mean, how could he  sing it, see it on the charts, the 45s, LPs, all missing his name, and do nothing about it?

Thank you for posting this, not specifically for the point you raised (which I've questioned for years and agree with) but for opening up another angle that I think might make a larger point more clear.

Bear with me for a minute, and widen the focus into the legal angles of the case.

Would it have been easier in legal terms to convince a jury that Brian Wilson since 1962 had deliberately withheld and misstated songwriting credits in order to gain financially? It touches on the issue of acting with malice or malicious intent, and the proof would need to be shown that first, Mike was entitled to credits and payments which he had not received, and that the man sitting at the defense table knowingly denied him of those credits, which would go to malicious intent in terms of the legalities.

Or was it easier to go in front of the jury with the claims that Brian's legal team made an agreement with Mike's legal team and by not paying and crediting as agreed in the wake of Brian's legal victory and settlement with A&M and other parties involved, they had breached that agreement? In doing so, the issues of the song credits were able to be introduced into the case and made a part of the decision without needing to prove to that jury that Brian himself had acted with malice since 1962 by not ensuring Mike got the credit on the songs. So they played it as a breach of agreement case rather than a case against Brian Wilson, and they could prove more easily what happened in 1992 with all members involved alive and present in court versus proving someone's intent when other parties directly involved were deceased.

Long story short: Mike could prove he never got proper credit for California Girls in 1965 since he wrote the lyrics but received nothing in return. Mike's team could prove an agreement was made with Brian's team in 1992 but never followed through. Could they prove beyond a doubt that Brian's actions in not crediting Mike dating back to 1965 were knowing and malicious in legal terms? It's easy to prove Mike deserved credit, much harder to prove Brian knowingly denied him credit out of malice, and that would have been the legal standard to prove it. Proving wrongdoing that happened in 1992 is easy compared to proving malicious intent that happened in 1965.

I don't think I can be any more clear on that point, though I may be wrong, and thanks to Oregon River Rider above for triggering that angle which I couldn't quite express before.

[jamsvet]

Wow, 18 pages and counting.

"ML: I learned that when you do the best job that you can do, some people will idolize you, others won't care and some will vilify you. I believe it is important to remain humble and thankful for the blessings in our lives, for the tremendous opportunities that are a result of our musical success."

[Jonathan Blum]

I still don't understand how Mike wrote the lyrics to a huge hit, California Girls, got no credit (to his great financial detriment ), and did nothing about it for 20 some years. I mean, how could he  sing it, see it on the charts, the 45s, LPs, all missing his name, and do nothing about it?

The same way the fricking Beatles could miss out on huge slabs of royalties and merchandising money and then nearly go bankrupt thanks to Apple Corps, the same reason Dennis was so famously bad about managing money, the same way young bands have been exploited throughout the whole rock era and beyond:  because the music industry is practically designed to make sure that talented young people without much business experience don't actually think about the money end of things.  Until it's too late (the industry hopes).

The whole schedule of a rock star is filled with immediate distractions which keep them from taking the time to look at their business affairs in any detail.  Even before you get into questions of drug abuse or mental illness.  The usual management strategy is, keep enough money flowing in that the stars don't think about it, and don't realize how much you haven't passed on to them.

Mike nearly going bankrupt in the early '80s would have been a big wake-up call -- possibly the first time since the band started that it would really have clicked that the money flowing in was not coming from some sort of bottomless reservoir.  Even when their sales dropped off in '68, as far as I know Mike wasn't in danger of losing his house.  That changes your perspective.

I had a similar wake-up call in my late 20s, about how much I'd been neglecting my financial affairs.  In some ways I'm still hearing bits of that wake-up call at 41.  I find it all too plausible that neither Brian nor Mike would address the problem for twenty years...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

[SurfRiderHawaii]

I still don't understand how Mike wrote the lyrics to a huge hit, California Girls, got no credit (to his great financial detriment ), and did nothing about it for 20 some years. I mean, how could he sing it, see it on the charts, the 45s, LPs, all missing his name, and do nothing about it?

It's very possible that he did; we don't know for sure that he didn't. You have to admit it would be out of character for Mike Love to NOT pursue it to some extent, even a little bit.

The Beach Boys were touring extensively, having hit records, making TV appearances, and making money. Basically they were well on their way to becoming one of the most popular groups in the world. Mike probably didn't want to risk going from all of that to becoming the lead singer of The Marksmen.

I don't know. Makes no sense. Song hit #3 in the US. The BBs were at their popular peak. Mike was already credited on a bunch of hits.

Murry or not, I woulda been on that. What, Murry is gonna fire the lead singer? Mike was dispensable?

[Sheriff John Stone]

I still don't understand how Mike wrote the lyrics to a huge hit, California Girls, got no credit (to his great financial detriment ), and did nothing about it for 20 some years. I mean, how could he sing it, see it on the charts, the 45s, LPs, all missing his name, and do nothing about it?

It's very possible that he did; we don't know for sure that he didn't. You have to admit it would be out of character for Mike Love to NOT pursue it to some extent, even a little bit.

The Beach Boys were touring extensively, having hit records, making TV appearances, and making money. Basically they were well on their way to becoming one of the most popular groups in the world. Mike probably didn't want to risk going from all of that to becoming the lead singer of The Marksmen.

I don't know. Makes no sense. Song hit #3 in the US. The BBs were at their popular peak. Mike was already credited on a bunch of hits.

Murry or not, I woulda been on that. What, Murry is gonna fire the lead singer? Mike was dispensable?

To you and me, no, Mike was not dispensable. But who knows what Murry was capable of doing. I know David Marks was much more dispensible than Mike but look what happened to him (thus my Marksmen reference). We do know that Murry was very confident that he could take a couple of guys - The Sunrays - and turn them into "another Beach Boys". So, maybe Murry thought Mike was expendable. More importantly, maybe MIKE THOUGHT MURRY THOUGHT Mike was expendable. Just sayin'...  

EDIT: Also, after Summer Days (And Summer Nights), the album that "California Girls" appears on, Mike had a, shall we say, reduced role in the next two studio albums, Pet Sounds and SMiLE. Coincidence? It's possible that Mike sensed some "changes"....

[SurfRiderHawaii]

I still don't understand how Mike wrote the lyrics to a huge hit, California Girls, got no credit (to his great financial detriment ), and did nothing about it for 20 some years. I mean, how could he  sing it, see it on the charts, the 45s, LPs, all missing his name, and do nothing about it?

The same way the fricking Beatles could miss out on huge slabs of royalties and merchandising money and then nearly go bankrupt thanks to Apple Corps, the same reason Dennis was so famously bad about managing money, the same way young bands have been exploited throughout the whole rock era and beyond:  because the music industry is practically designed to make sure that talented young people without much business experience don't actually think about the money end of things.  Until it's too late (the industry hopes).

The whole schedule of a rock star is filled with immediate distractions which keep them from taking the time to look at their business affairs in any detail.  Even before you get into questions of drug abuse or mental illness.  The usual management strategy is, keep enough money flowing in that the stars don't think about it, and don't realize how much you haven't passed on to them.

Mike nearly going bankrupt in the early '80s would have been a big wake-up call -- possibly the first time since the band started that it would really have clicked that the money flowing in was not coming from some sort of bottomless reservoir.  Even when their sales dropped off in '68, as far as I know Mike wasn't in danger of losing his house.  That changes your perspective.

I had a similar wake-up call in my late 20s, about how much I'd been neglecting my financial affairs.  In some ways I'm still hearing bits of that wake-up call at 41.  I find it all too plausible that neither Brian nor Mike would address the problem for twenty years...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

I still don't understand how Mike wrote the lyrics to a huge hit, California Girls, got no credit (to his great financial detriment ), and did nothing about it for 20 some years. I mean, how could he  sing it, see it on the charts, the 45s, LPs, all missing his name, and do nothing about it?

The same way the fricking Beatles could miss out on huge slabs of royalties and merchandising money and then nearly go bankrupt thanks to Apple Corps, the same reason Dennis was so famously bad about managing money, the same way young bands have been exploited throughout the whole rock era and beyond:  because the music industry is practically designed to make sure that talented young people without much business experience don't actually think about the money end of things.  Until it's too late (the industry hopes).

The whole schedule of a rock star is filled with immediate distractions which keep them from taking the time to look at their business affairs in any detail.  Even before you get into questions of drug abuse or mental illness.  The usual management strategy is, keep enough money flowing in that the stars don't think about it, and don't realize how much you haven't passed on to them.

Mike nearly going bankrupt in the early '80s would have been a big wake-up call -- possibly the first time since the band started that it would really have clicked that the money flowing in was not coming from some sort of bottomless reservoir.  Even when their sales dropped off in '68, as far as I know Mike wasn't in danger of losing his house.  That changes your perspective.

I had a similar wake-up call in my late 20s, about how much I'd been neglecting my financial affairs.  In some ways I'm still hearing bits of that wake-up call at 41.  I find it all too plausible that neither Brian nor Mike would address the problem for twenty years...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

Apples and oranges Jon. Mike was Brian's main songwriting partner, but Mike doesn't get his credit for a huge hit?  Just really weird Mike let it go at the time. A lot different than a Lennon/McCartney tune where Ringo adds 5 words and gets no credit. Bad analogy I know.  The dude says he wrote all the words to a huge hit???

[Jonathan Blum]

Apples and oranges Jon. Mike was Brian's main songwriting partner, but Mike doesn't get his credit for a huge hit?  Just really weird Mike let it go at the time.

How often do you think 1965 Mike Love actually even looked at the label of their twelfth hit single in three years, to spot that it was labeled "(Wilson)" rather than "(Wilson/Love)"?

He had a few other things on his mind at the time.  And no one was gonna encourage him to pursue it.  Certainly not when he's a 24-year-old with money flowing in and no need to worry.

Cheers,
Jon Blum

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Apples and oranges Jon. Mike was Brian's main songwriting partner, but Mike doesn't get his credit for a huge hit?  Just really weird Mike let it go at the time.

How often do you think 1965 Mike Love actually even looked at the label of their twelfth hit single in three years, to spot that it was labeled "(Wilson)" rather than "(Wilson/Love)"?

He had a few other things on his mind at the time.  And no one was gonna encourage him to pursue it.  Certainly not when he's a 24-year-old with money flowing in and no need to worry.

Cheers,
Jon Blum

Jon, it was VERY clear in the lawsuit Mike was well aware of it. Knowing Mike's ego, without a doubt. When the gold record arrived, certainly. Hell, how many times does Mike quote the polls and charts in comparing the band to the Beatles and Stones. We are to believe he had no time to read Billboard Mag during all the tour travel?

[CenturyDeprived]

I still don't understand how Mike wrote the lyrics to a huge hit, California Girls, got no credit (to his great financial detriment ), and did nothing about it for 20 some years. I mean, how could he sing it, see it on the charts, the 45s, LPs, all missing his name, and do nothing about it?

It's very possible that he did; we don't know for sure that he didn't. You have to admit it would be out of character for Mike Love to NOT pursue it to some extent, even a little bit.

The Beach Boys were touring extensively, having hit records, making TV appearances, and making money. Basically they were well on their way to becoming one of the most popular groups in the world. Mike probably didn't want to risk going from all of that to becoming the lead singer of The Marksmen.

I don't know. Makes no sense. Song hit #3 in the US. The BBs were at their popular peak. Mike was already credited on a bunch of hits.

Murry or not, I woulda been on that. What, Murry is gonna fire the lead singer? Mike was dispensable?

To you and me, no, Mike was not dispensable. But who knows what Murry was capable of doing. I know David Marks was much more dispensible than Mike and look what happened to him (thus my Marksmen reference). We do that Murry was very confident that he could take a couple of guys - The Sunrays - and turn them into "another Beach Boys". So, maybe Murry thought Mike was expendable. More importantly, maybe MIKE THOUGHT MURRY THOUGHT Mike was expendable. Just sayin'...  

EDIT: Also, after Summer Days (And Summer Nights), the album that "California Girls" appears on, Mike had a, shall we say, reduced role in the next two studio albums, Pet Sounds and SMiLE. Coincidence? It's possible that Mike sensed some "changes"....

You really can't help but wonder if so much of Mike's resistance to those albums was based not only on fear of the band's new music "failing" in general, but more about him throwing a passive aggressive lyric-questioning tantrum out of him feeling threatened that the place he had attained in the band that was being stripped away from him in favor of cousin Brian's "art" music. He surely felt he needed/wasn't wanted anymore (or as much as before).

I can empathize with how that must've felt, and it must've sucked... but still, how one wishes Mike could've held onto his ego more at the time.  If Mike could just fess up to this (to however small a degree), it would go miles to making improving what people think of him. He'd be humanized as a person who has made some mistakes, but has some self awareness. There's no part of me that believes that Mike hasn't thought about this to himself at one point or another. And maybe that sad fact is what fascinates me about the Lovester (who I do not hate, just feel sad that he can't/won't change)... I'm holding out hope that while these guys are still on planet Earth, that this past stuff can still be acknowledged and made better to some degree. Sometimes, people only want to hear the word "sorry" from others (I know some people think Mike has nothing to apologize for, ever, but I just don't see it that way).  

[Phoenix]

Murry or not, I woulda been on that. What, Murry is gonna fire the lead singer? Mike was dispensable?

I don't know about anything else but I do know you're right about that point.  At least not at that time!

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Not that this is the gold record that Mike got (repro), he surely must have noticed when he got his copy. Bruce would have for sure as it was the first hit he was on. Mike would surely have noticed when he got his Endless Summer Gold Record.

[DonnyL]

My assumption based on stories I've read over the years is that Mike was aware that he didn't get the credit when the record came out, and confronted Brian about it. Brian said something like, 'Yeh, sorry, my dad messed up, we'll fix it'. And over the years, it wasn't fixed, Mike moved on to other things, then Sea of Tunes was sold in '69 ... which was a big deal for Brian. Keeping in mind the group sued Capitol and their finances were in disarray ... it wasn't like Mike was gonna hassle a fragile Brian or an ill Murry about it. And by the late '60s, the value of the group's early hits was at an all-time low.

I'm sure Mike started taking mental notes by the time of the Endless Summer resurgence, but what was he gonna due about it? Sue? Not in that time frame.

I believe Mike only stepped in because Brian won his own settlement ... I mean, he wanted to get his piece of the pie as well.

The thing that seems weird to me about it is that some of the claims that he made could very well be considered 'arrangement' as opposed to actual composition (like the 'good night baby' tag in 'Wouldn't it Be Nice'). It seems like some liberties were taken regarding what he 'composed'.

Then again, you have little things like 'round round get-around' ... I mean, that's the hook. The thing Terry Melcher said about a Mike Love element being present in all of the group's biggest hits rings true in my opinion.

I think that Mike deserved the credits, but maybe the way the lawyers went about getting it was a little weird ... but that's often the case with using the law to your advantage I suppose.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Who really cares when or why Mike noticed? The thing is, as a cowriter he deserved credit regardless of how one feels about him.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Who really cares when or why Mike noticed? The thing is, as a cowriter he deserved credit regardless of how one feels about him.

It's what we do Billy. Why did Brian abandon Smile? Why did Dennis cancel his solo tour. It's interesting. Crap, most of these threads are looking back at why. C'mon man!

[Jonathan Blum]

My assumption based on stories I've read over the years is that Mike was aware that he didn't get the credit when the record came out, and confronted Brian about it. Brian said something like, 'Yeh, sorry, my dad messed up, we'll fix it'. And over the years, it wasn't fixed, Mike moved on to other things,

Yeah, that's the difference I'm getting at -- it's not just a matter of spotting it, it's a matter of pursuing it.  Being reminded to keep chasing it up while all the other mishegoss of life is going on.

Like I said -- God knows I did initially know about some of the financial things I screwed up in my mid-20s.  But they fell off my radar.

Cheers,
Jon Blum