New Mike interview in HuffPost

[SMiLE Brian]

Craig, could you post all your research and posts in a BBs lawsuit thread.

[guitarfool2002]

Craig, could you post all your research and posts in a BBs lawsuit thread.

I'll gather them together, sure! The only thing is there are so many missing pieces still out there, but it would be good to have a place to keep adding to it for reference. I'd still like to find a way to find and read the actual court papers short of posting the full transcripts.

[guitarfool2002]

I thought of another angle to consider about credits and the process of turning ideas into a final product. Going back to something Donny L had posted about how things develop in the studio, it's right on the money in a lot of cases. There is a free-flowing process where ideas are tried and changed on the spot, unless it's one of those producers who would go into a session like Zappa who had every note of music precisely charted out. But even then, one musician making a mistake might actually cause a bigger change if the mistake is one of those "happy accidents", so there are still variables.

But what about film and filmmaking in general?

The movie Goodfellas has a terrific  scene just after "Billy Batts" gets destroyed in the bar. They put him in the car trunk, then go to Pesci's mother's house to get some tools.

And the scene that follows is at the breakfast table, and after setting up the premise and the props/scenery, Scorcese left it up to Pesci, DeNiro, Liotta, and his mother to improvise the dialogue as they're eating breakfast and Batts is still stuffed in the trunk of Liotta's car.

That scene was successful and memorable mostly due to the skill and the humor of the actors, who weren't reading a script but just riffing off each other. So their own "dialogue" actually became the script, yet they're not credited for writing the dialogue in the official credits. I'd argue a fully written script of dialogue would not have played as well or have been as personal for the character development as the improvisation.

It's interesting to try to micro-manage exactly what contributions to a finished work of art are worth more to the overall product versus what gets an "official" credit.

[leggo of my ego]

By playing an instrumental?

 I guess we can pretend Mike's lyrics are as accomplished as those backing tracks and playful mastery of 60s studio technology if it makes some people feel better. For some reason threads analyzing the lyrics rather than the music don't seem to be very popular, tho. Maybe an extensive exegesis of those California Girls lyrics will change my mind and I'll understand they are just as brilliant as the music.

I doubt it, as they make me cringe. Warmth of the Sun works when people use it in this context... then I go: "well, alright... good point." I'll just pretend you said Warmth of the Sun and nod.

Enjoyed all the legal gibberish and details on this thread! Please put all this kind of stuff in a book and not some thread where a one line response tell you to take a rest or something.

Good Vibrations had a cohesive message in the original verse while the revised verse comes across with a more homogenized flower-power kinda vibe. The idea of a mysterious, invisible "connection" between boy/girl  is replaced with  tangible, sensual stimuli...colorful clothes, perfume.

just my two sense. 

[KittyKat]

One thing that needs to be pointed out as to whether writing "just" the lyrics to "California Girls" deserves 50% of the songwriting credit -- Brian gave 50% credit to Van Dyke Parks for the lyrics he wrote for "Smile." He went out of his way and fought with his dad to make sure Van Dyke got 50% for Smile songs, just for writing the words, not music.  Gary Usher and Roger Christian only got 25% for their lyrical work, according to the splits assigned by Murry and Brian for those two lyric writers. So, a precedent was set by Brian himself that may have led to resentment (and the rewarding of percentages in the lawsuit judgment was done by the jury and judge).

There may be some who hate the lyrics to "California Girls," but the record sold millions of copies (certainly more than anything from Smile ever did in any iteration). It might not be your taste, but a lot of people may have bought that record partly based on the appeal of the lyrics. After all, that was the era when there were songs with titles such as "I'm A Girl Watcher" and "Music to Watch Girls By" were big hits.  There's always going to be arguments as to whether lyrics are as important as music, but they do have something to do with commercial appeal, which is a matter of dollars and cents (and lawsuits).

[DonnyL]

One thing that needs to be pointed out as to whether writing "just" the lyrics to "California Girls" deserves 50% of the songwriting credit -- Brian gave 50% credit to Van Dyke Parks for the lyrics he wrote for "Smile." He went out of his way and fought with his dad to make sure Van Dyke got 50% for Smile songs, just for writing the words, not music.  Gary Usher and Roger Christian only got 25% for their lyrical work, according to the splits assigned by Murry and Brian for those two lyric writers. So, a precedent was set by Brian himself that may have led to resentment (and the rewarding of percentages in the lawsuit judgment was done by the jury and judge).

There may be some who hate the lyrics to "California Girls," but the record sold millions of copies (certainly more than anything from Smile ever did in any iteration). It might not be your taste, but a lot of people may have bought that record partly based on the appeal of the lyrics. After all, that was the era when there were songs with titles such as "I'm A Girl Watcher" and "Music to Watch Girls By" were big hits.  There's always going to be arguments as to whether lyrics are as important as music, but they do have something to do with commercial appeal, which is a matter of dollars and cents (and lawsuits).

Good points here. I do think Mike Love is a great songwriter, and certainly deserves his credit for lyrics and especially for the 'hook' type parts ('she's real fine, my 409', 'round round get around') ... But on the other hand, things like 'Good Night/Sleep Tight' do not deserve a co-write as far as I'm concerned. I mean, it's like trying to get a songwriting credit for a 'ba-ba-ba' or something.

I think Mike's best work is on the Wild Honey album personally -- a real solid collection of tunes ... and you can hear a lot of Brian-Mike teamwork there.

[Micha]

And if anyone has a few minutes to spare, three to be exact, watch this video. A 1994 Newsmagazine piece on the end of the lawsuit with the interview where Mike breaks into tears and sobs singing "Brian's Back", and cites "Good Vibrations" as one where he wrote the hook even though that song's credit was always given to Wilson-Love. Just watch it for the history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxnWvfJ1Q6E

Man, that is the jerkiest I've ever seen Mike! I wonder what he took that day! Or some kind of TM diet side effects again?

What's wrong with being a fan of Brian Wilson, one of greatest composers of the 20th century?

Nothing, as all the world outside of a dozen delusional guys here knows.

Something the Brianistas will never grasp is that defending and not condemning Mike doesn't equal with hating Brian or not appreciate his giant talent.

[Micha]

I just had a fight with my wife via sms...

Who won?

[Cam Mott]

One thing that needs to be pointed out as to whether writing "just" the lyrics to "California Girls" deserves 50% of the songwriting credit -- Brian gave 50% credit to Van Dyke Parks for the lyrics he wrote for "Smile." He went out of his way and fought with his dad to make sure Van Dyke got 50% for Smile songs, just for writing the words, not music.  Gary Usher and Roger Christian only got 25% for their lyrical work, according to the splits assigned by Murry and Brian for those two lyric writers. So, a precedent was set by Brian himself that may have led to resentment (and the rewarding of percentages in the lawsuit judgment was done by the jury and judge).

There may be some who hate the lyrics to "California Girls," but the record sold millions of copies (certainly more than anything from Smile ever did in any iteration). It might not be your taste, but a lot of people may have bought that record partly based on the appeal of the lyrics. After all, that was the era when there were songs with titles such as "I'm A Girl Watcher" and "Music to Watch Girls By" were big hits.  There's always going to be arguments as to whether lyrics are as important as music, but they do have something to do with commercial appeal, which is a matter of dollars and cents (and lawsuits).

Good points but haven't you heard, Brian wasn't capable of advocating for a co-author so the credit must go mostly to Murry. [runs, then skips, then runs faster]

[KittyKat]

Is it a matter of record what percentage Mike received for songs that he originally was credited with, pre-lawsuit?  For example, "Fun, Fun, Fun." If he got the same deal as Usher and Christian, he likely only got a 25% credit for writing lyrics.

[Wirestone]

Something the Brianistas will never grasp is that defending and not condemning Mike doesn't equal with hating Brian or not appreciate his giant talent.

Of course it doesn't.

It's just that most Kokomaoists don't grasp it either. I'd take them more seriously if they did.

[Dancing Bear]

Is it a matter of record what percentage Mike received for songs that he originally was credited with, pre-lawsuit?  For example, "Fun, Fun, Fun." If he got the same deal as Usher and Christian, he likely only got a 25% credit for writing lyrics.

AGD used to have lots of percentages, I think. I remember being disappointed about Let the Wind Blow, because the percentage kind of denied that Mike had something to do with the music, how it's often rumored.

[guitarfool2002]

Is it a matter of record what percentage Mike received for songs that he originally was credited with, pre-lawsuit?  For example, "Fun, Fun, Fun." If he got the same deal as Usher and Christian, he likely only got a 25% credit for writing lyrics.

I covered this several pages ago if more info is needed - Mike in Goldmine (summer 1992 interview) says it was around 30%, Tony Asher got 25% plus a $7,500 payment when he met with Murry to sign the Pet Sounds contracts in 1966. If both Roger Christian and Gary Usher got around 25% for their lyrics, then that would seem to have been a standard cut for Sea Of Tunes lyric collaborations.

[guitarfool2002]

And again to repeat for the record, Mike's case in part was suing for 30% of Brian's 10 million settlement. Take that percentage for whatever you want to assume about it, but it seems more than coincidental that the percentage sought was around the exact same percentage originally given to the majority of BB's lyricists in the 1960's.

[Micha]

And Kokomaoist is as nasty as Brianista. No need to be nasty on either side.  And why are there sides?

Actually I don't think either of them is nasty, I find those words funny. "Apologist asshole" or "Mike hating nincompoop" would be nasty. There are sides because the Brianistas take it usually pretty presonal when someone says something in favor of Mike.

Something the Brianistas will never grasp is that defending and not condemning Mike doesn't equal with hating Brian or not appreciate his giant talent.

Of course it doesn't.

It's just that most Kokomaoists don't grasp it either. I'd take them more seriously if they did.

You mean that attacking Mike doesn't equal thinking Brian is an angel? I don't think Kokomaoists see it that way. Actually I doubt Kokomaoists really exist because that would mean they think Kokomo is great and Brian is just some pathetic egomaniac drugged out control freak. Apologist is a better term to describe their arguing, not as funny a term though.

[Wirestone]

I think it's your maturity level that adds the most to board discourse. Congratulations, sir.

Thanks, I'm still trying to figure out what exactly you bring to the board that's of any worth. Apart from your monthly hissy fits - they're priceless.

I aim to please.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

And Kokomaoist is as nasty as Brianista. No need to be nasty on either side.  And why are there sides?

Actually I don't think either of them is nasty, I find those words funny. "Apologist asshole" or "Mike hating nincompoop" would be nasty. There are sides because the Brianistas take it usually pretty presonal when someone says something in favor of Mike.

Something the Brianistas will never grasp is that defending and not condemning Mike doesn't equal with hating Brian or not appreciate his giant talent.

Of course it doesn't.

It's just that most Kokomaoists don't grasp it either. I'd take them more seriously if they did.

You mean that attacking Mike doesn't equal thinking Brian is an angel? I don't think Kokomaoists see it that way. Actually I doubt Kokomaoists really exist because that would mean they think Kokomo is great and Brian is just some pathetic egomaniac drugged out control freak. Apologist is a better term to describe their arguing, not as funny a term though.

Kokomaoists think Brian is great and think Mike is great too! They love The Beach Boys and forgive all their sins because the sins are just another layer on the cake. And yeah, they dig Kokomo AND Smile.... It's really quite easy.

The credit thing will always be tricky in music because, in the end, we're listening to a performance not looking at sheet music, and much of that performance ain't there on the page.... When Sinatra went into the Capitol studio, he was "the singer" and he stood at a music stand and looked at the lyric soneone else wrote while the musicians looked at music sheets someone else wrote the arrangements for using someone else's chord sequence as a guide.... Bob Dylan did away with all that, and ever since, it's been tricky..... As fans, I think it's important to value (and not devalue) each piece of the puzzle that is a rock/pop record almost equally and not just heap all the praise on the credited writer. Then it's a breeze. Springsteen understood this when he lobbied the RR HOF to create the "sideman" catagory for induction.

[DonnyL]

I'm completely lost with the 'Kokomoist vs. Brianista' stuff guys ... what is the deal here ?!?

It's like some people are having a legit discussion, and others are acting like politicians or something. Or there is some background/inside joke that I missed somewhere.

[DonnyL]

Tony Asher got 25% plus a $7,500 payment when he met with Murry to sign the Pet Sounds contracts in 1966.

Inflation calculator says:

"$7,500.00 in 1966 Has the same buying power as: $54,201.16 in 2013"

!!!

[guitarfool2002]

Some of it comes from a debate tactic which can be taught and learned through observation, based on redirection and distraction. When a point is made, the discussion of that point can be skillfully turned into an "if...then" assumption about the person making that point and their motives. If the tactic is skillfully applied, it makes the original point less of an issue as the person citing the point tries to defend their own motives behind making it rather than the point itself.

I blame a lot of it on the "politics as spectator sport" phenom that has played out since the era of televised debates and talk shows, where we're surrounded by any number of pundits and talking heads using these same learned tactics which look and feel a lot different as we're watching it unfold in real time versus reading transcripts of, say, the Lincoln-Douglas debates where the inflections and mannerisms are lost to the history and all we have is the words themselves.

It could be compared to the difference between someone who has sold cars for a living going to buy a new car and knowing the sales strategies and tactics versus someone with no knowledge of how the game is played going to buy the same car. You recognize it if you know what to look for.

There *is* a middle ground in these Beach Boys issues if all the diversions can be sifted through to find it.

[drbeachboy]

I'm completely lost with the 'Kokomoist vs. Brianista' stuff guys ... what is the deal here ?!?

It's like some people are having a legit discussion, and others are acting like politicians or something. Or there is some background/inside joke that I missed somewhere.

Wirestone came up with a new "It" word and tries to wedge it in every thread where Mike is mentioned.

[Wirestone]

I'm completely lost with the 'Kokomoist vs. Brianista' stuff guys ... what is the deal here ?!?

It's like some people are having a legit discussion, and others are acting like politicians or something. Or there is some background/inside joke that I missed somewhere.

Wirestone came up with a new "It" word and tries to wedge it in every thread where Mike is mentioned.

I wish I'd come up with it. The origins are further back.

However, the whole point is that "Brianista" is and has been used as a term of contempt, for those who supposedly prioritize Brian's contributions above all. The name refers rather pointedly to the Sandanistas, left-wing political revolutionaries in  Nicaragua. (They were big in the 80s.)

There has never been an equivalent, widely used term for people who rush to the defense of Mike at the expense of sense, logic or facts. "Kokomaoist," given that it also shoehorns in foreign politics, seems ideal.

[Dancing Bear]

Surely, both sides are just as bad... Take a look at the first page of the message board and count how many Mike bashing threads there are, and then count how many Brian bashing threads there are.

[DonnyL]

Surely, both sides are just as bad... Take a look at the first page of the message board and count how many Mike bashing threads there are, and then count how many Brian bashing threads there are.

The concern is that 'sides' have been designated at all.

[Dancing Bear]

Surely, both sides are just as bad... Take a look at the first page of the message board and count how many Mike bashing threads there are, and then count how many Brian bashing threads there are.

The concern is that 'sides' have been designated at all.

It's been this way since I first stepped in a Beach Boys' message board in 1996.