How would BB history be different if Mike had received proper cowriting credits?

[guitarfool2002]

Why does Tony Asher care if Mike gets credit and a percentage due to the "Goodnight Baby" part? It's a part of the song, like it or not, and his name (Asher's) is still there regardless, so what business is it of his?

It's his business because he wrote 98% of the lyrics, and had to sit and listen to a lawyer suggest otherwise in a court of law!

He was commenting on being asked about this during the actual case, where one of Mike's lawyers made the ridiculous suggestion, in court, that Mike's contribution to the song came from clandestine phone calls Brian had placed to Mike from Los Angeles to Asia, which is where Mike and the band were as Tony was working on Pet Sounds, under the guise of using the bathroom during breaks.

It's a fucking insult to know what you wrote, when you wrote it, and who was there when you wrote it only to have a lawyer try to suggest otherwise. And that's where Tony Asher's problem with that issue seems to have come from, not the credits on the album but the attempts to show Tony had not written what he had written on the strength of a conspiracy theory that Brian and Mike had been collaborating over the phone when Brian would take a bathroom break.

Now, come on, we're going to impugn Tony Asher or question why he'd take offense at something so ridiculous as that?

And on a personal opinion note here, if I wrote, say 100 words used in a song and someone else wrote 6 or 8 words, and that someone later wanted to claim equal credit for those 8 words versus my 100, I'd probably tell them to f*** off. 

Or maybe Hal Blaine should sue for songwriting credit on "Be My Baby" and all of the others that used that exact same beat of his to propel the song, since it's an integral part of the song, right?

See, it's not that simple of an issue to be boiled down to naive suggestions like that.

Well, on the "Brian could have been using the toilet phone to call Mike in Japan" part: yeah, that's hideously repulsive, but for the rest of it: Mike also sang those lines and was in the band. Tough sh*t for Tony.

Tough sh*t? How does it work when you tell someone who wrote every line of that song, every word and phrase, "tough sh*t" when the guy who ad-libbed "good night baby, sleep tight baby" has a legal team asking for equal if not greater credit for the song's lyrics? That is seriously f***ed up logic by anyone's standards, UNLESS an agreement was in place establishing such credits. And the crux of establishing the burden of proof for Mike's percentage rested on the bathroom-break telephone conspiracy, which is batshit crazy.

How does that work in all logic and rules of percentages when a 98% contribution is somehow considered equal to 2% in terms of compensation?

Asher agreed to at the time and got 25% cut, as KittyKat said that's what he signed and got, end of story in that regard. But at the same time he received that 25% cut for what amounted to 98% of the song! How are Mike's 6 words now equal to what Tony wrote?

And I'd imagine Tony Asher if asked that question would get pretty angry, maybe as angry as Mike in that Goldmine interview where he starts reeling off song titles where he didn't get credit when he knows what he did and didn't write and which ones he knew he deserved credit for.

Yet the same guy's legal team tried to equate "Good night baby, sleep tight baby" with the whole of the song's lyrics that were written when Mike was touring Japan? No.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Why does Tony Asher care if Mike gets credit and a percentage due to the "Goodnight Baby" part? It's a part of the song, like it or not, and his name (Asher's) is still there regardless, so what business is it of his?

It's his business because he wrote 98% of the lyrics, and had to sit and listen to a lawyer suggest otherwise in a court of law!

He was commenting on being asked about this during the actual case, where one of Mike's lawyers made the ridiculous suggestion, in court, that Mike's contribution to the song came from clandestine phone calls Brian had placed to Mike from Los Angeles to Asia, which is where Mike and the band were as Tony was working on Pet Sounds, under the guise of using the bathroom during breaks.

It's a fucking insult to know what you wrote, when you wrote it, and who was there when you wrote it only to have a lawyer try to suggest otherwise. And that's where Tony Asher's problem with that issue seems to have come from, not the credits on the album but the attempts to show Tony had not written what he had written on the strength of a conspiracy theory that Brian and Mike had been collaborating over the phone when Brian would take a bathroom break.

Now, come on, we're going to impugn Tony Asher or question why he'd take offense at something so ridiculous as that?

And on a personal opinion note here, if I wrote, say 100 words used in a song and someone else wrote 6 or 8 words, and that someone later wanted to claim equal credit for those 8 words versus my 100, I'd probably tell them to f*** off. 

Or maybe Hal Blaine should sue for songwriting credit on "Be My Baby" and all of the others that used that exact same beat of his to propel the song, since it's an integral part of the song, right?

See, it's not that simple of an issue to be boiled down to naive suggestions like that.

Well, on the "Brian could have been using the toilet phone to call Mike in Japan" part: yeah, that's hideously repulsive, but for the rest of it: Mike also sang those lines and was in the band. Tough sh*t for Tony.

Tough sh*t? How does it work when you tell someone who wrote every line of that song, every word and phrase, "tough sh*t" when the guy who ad-libbed "good night baby, sleep tight baby" has a legal team asking for equal if not greater credit for the song's lyrics? That is seriously f***ed up logic by anyone's standards, UNLESS an agreement was in place establishing such credits. And the crux of establishing the burden of proof for Mike's percentage rested on the bathroom-break telephone conspiracy, which is batshit crazy.

How does that work in all logic and rules of percentages when a 98% contribution is somehow considered equal to 2% in terms of compensation?

Asher agreed to at the time and got 25% cut, as KittyKat said that's what he signed and got, end of story in that regard. But at the same time he received that 25% cut for what amounted to 98% of the song! How are Mike's 6 words now equal to what Tony wrote?

And I'd imagine Tony Asher if asked that question would get pretty angry, maybe as angry as Mike in that Goldmine interview where he starts reeling off song titles where he didn't get credit when he knows what he did and didn't write and which ones he knew he deserved credit for.

Yet the same guy's legal team tried to equate "Good night baby, sleep tight baby" with the whole of the song's lyrics that were written when Mike was touring Japan? No.

Calm down, man! Please! .... I'm just saying Mike's contribution as being an "ad-lib" and not part of the "writing" is really just our opinion here on this board. He contributed words and vocal melody. Words and melody which he also sang wonderfully on the amazing record. Give him credit.

[guitarfool2002]

I'm perfectly calm! It just defies all logic to basically suggest Tony Asher should accept "tough sh*t" as a response to being challenged on what was written, who wrote it, and how much credit should be doled out.

I'm just saying, put yourself into his shoes for a minute: You wrote what Tony wrote lyric-wise on WIBN, and a guy tries to claim equal credit for the last six words of the song...as equal to and as deserving of equal credit or financial compensation for those last ten seconds of music and six words as you get for everything lyrical from the opening verse to the ad-lib.

On lyrical and poetic merits alone, I'd say the guy who wrote a rhythmic phrase that flows as well as "maybe if, we think and wish and hope and pray, it might come true..." and matches it accent by accent with the follow up: "baby then, there wouldn't be a single thing we couldn't do..." is deserving of more credit than "good night baby".  

Many English teachers might agree with that...

Or better yet, Mike Love may have also gotten the answer "tough sh*t" as early as the 60's when he complained about song credits for things he knew he wrote...and we know how well that held up in court. 

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I'm perfectly calm! It just defies all logic to basically suggest Tony Asher should accept "tough sh*t" as a response to being challenged on what was written, who wrote it, and how much credit should be doled out.

I'm just saying, put yourself into his shoes for a minute: You wrote what Tony wrote lyric-wise on WIBN, and a guy tries to claim equal credit for the last six words of the song...as equal to and as deserving of equal credit or financial compensation for those last ten seconds of music and six words as you get for everything lyrical from the opening verse to the ad-lib.

On lyrical and poetic merits alone, I'd say the guy who wrote a rhythmic phrase that flows as well as "maybe if, we think and wish and hope and pray, it might come true..." and matches it accent by accent with the follow up: "baby then, there wouldn't be a single thing we couldn't do..." is deserving of more credit than "good night baby".  

Many English teachers might agree with that...

Or better yet, Mike Love may have also gotten the answer "tough sh*t" as early as the 60's when he complained about song credits for things he knew he wrote...and we know how well that held up in court.  

Tony Asher has been widely regarded as the genius who wrote Pet Sounds with Brian Wilson. His hame is on every song but one. Aside from that one track, he shares the credit on two others for lyrics.... Mike is a guy who was admittedly screwed out of credits and $$$ on many many songs. He also sang the words he contributed for Wouldn't It Be Nice, as well as came up with the vocal melody. That's a bit more than just coming up with words. Asher's lyrics on WIBN are sublime, but Mike's part is pretty cool too..... I just don't get all this kicking the odd man out here while he's down.

I don't know what the credit/percentage breakdown is for "It's About Time" but I know Bob Burchman grumbles about Al's name being on the credits for whatever lyrical contribution. But The Beach Boys are a band, Al's in the band and once a lyricist like Burchman or Asher's work is done, the band still needs to go make the record. And during this process things happen.

[guitarfool2002]

Things happen, sure...like Van Dyke not getting credit for "Sail On Sailor". 

But I have to ask: Do you think Mike's "Good Night Baby" should be considered equal to what Tony Asher wrote for the song? In percentages, it defies logic to me to suggest 6 words are equal to the rest of the song in terms of compensation and percentages, which is close to what Mike's team tried to claim in the court case. And again, the insult was to suggest a conspiracy theory about transcontinental phone calls made during bathroom breaks as the "proof" Mike did more than "good night baby".

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

VDP did get credit on Sail On Sailor

[guitarfool2002]

VDP did get credit on Sail On Sailor

Aye, but was it the correct credit considering he and Brian wrote the tune in '71 and he was carrying around a cassette of it which featured him and Brian at the piano writing it, but featured none of the names who would eventually get credit? Or maybe I'm asking, considering the names that got credit by the time it actually showed up on a record, did he get the right credits for what he did versus some of those other names listed on the credits?

Again, opening up another can of worms here that I really don't feel like opening here. 

But, see what Van Dyke has said about that issue, if he ever talked about it in more detail. Maybe I'm thinking of something else, who knows. But most of that song's creation could have been a Wilson-Parks credit.

[Niko]

I read an interview where VDP said he had to fight for a writing credit after the other co-writers pushed their way in. He seemed pretty bitter about it.

[guitarfool2002]

I read an interview where VDP said he had to fight for a writing credit after the other co-writers pushed their way in. He seemed pretty bitter about it.

That's the one.    I knew I wasn't dreaming it up.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

you guys are right, but, alas, his name is there in the center label of Holland from 1973

If the other folks listed in the credits did indeed contribute, then they deserve to be there as well.... It's a lot easier just to accept such things. All parties who contributed got credit. Happy ending! Is VDP bitter that the credit doesn't simply read VDP/Brian Wilson? I can understand that, but he did his work and others finished the song and made the record. Such is life.

[Dancing Bear]

Well, if you and Ron and whoever else is playing the "I don't get it" card here, there's not much more I can add because it's been spelled out already, in several areas of this discussion.

And one of the main things - just for those who post "I don't get it" or "what are you talking about" as replies - is that simplifying this entire issue that exists on possibly tens of thousands of pages in court transcripts, legal filings, and related documents related to this case is impossible.

Again I compare it to those who stand by the opinion that Mike Love was responsible for the demise of Smile. It's an opinion that was and may still be held by many who haven't taken the time to look into the history and the big picture of the stories behind Smile will offer as a knee-jerk opinion and gut reaction.

So Ron, and Dancing Bear, and Cam, and the rest posting "what are you talking about?" or "I don't get it" replies, think how you would reply or react if you're having a discussion on the Beach Boys and the person you're talking with says "Mike Love killed the Smile project."

It's an unfair assumption, right? It's an unfair case of pointing a finger at one person based on perhaps faulty or incomplete information that others have offered as fact rather than opinion, right?

And your reaction to that hypothetical person saying to you "Mike Love killed the Smile project" is how I feel when I read folks here laying the bulk of the blame on Brian Wilson for not doing enough dating back to 1963 to right the wrongs that were being done to Mike Love, while at the same time Mike himself was signing away thousands of dollars every time he went into Murry's office to do the paperwork as he saw records released and awards being given for successful songs which he knew he co-wrote yet wasn't getting credit.

The paralell to "Mike Love killed the Smile project" would be "Brian stole money from Mike". No one's saying that.

While it's ridiculous to say that "Mike killed Smile", it's a fact that Brian and Mike had issues during Smile. That's what we're saying. Mike wasn't credited for songs he wrote period. For whatever reason Brian could have intervened and didn't period.

Maybe I just don't get it, you're right.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

VDP did get credit on Sail On Sailor

Aye, but was it the correct credit considering he and Brian wrote the tune in '71 and he was carrying around a cassette of it which featured him and Brian at the piano writing it, but featured none of the names who would eventually get credit? Or maybe I'm asking, considering the names that got credit by the time it actually showed up on a record, did he get the right credits for what he did versus some of those other names listed on the credits?

Again, opening up another can of worms here that I really don't feel like opening here.  

But, see what Van Dyke has said about that issue, if he ever talked about it in more detail. Maybe I'm thinking of something else, who knows. But most of that song's creation could have been a Wilson-Parks credit.

VDP's bitterness aside, SOS seems to be a pretty straightforward story: he and Brian wrote the song (or VDP mainly did) back in 71 and then by the time is was recorded by The Beach Boys for Holland someone had completely re-written the lyrics (this is exactly what Brian's said) .... Most likely Jack Rielly but with enough of the original lyrics remaining by whoever else contributed back when Brian shouted out "Who's got some words?" at the piano! If VDP wanted the song all for himself, he should have recorded and released it by himself. Record making is not painting a picture on a canvas and is a collaborative situation in such circumstances. VDP got credit and the song is roundly praised as being a great Wilson/Parks track.... Sometimes people need to learn to be happy with what good fortune they manage to get in life..... This is really nothing to compare with Mike getting robbed of the credit and $$$ for many a song.

[Nicko1234]

WOW!  Two Ostrich posts in a row...

 

Evidence.

[Cam Mott]

I've got to catch up but I guess the Asher story shows Murry was a tough negotiator but he got you on the publishing even if you were a stranger and pushing back and even gave advances. Asher didn't get 50% but it has been claimed by a BBs scholar [who will BE nameless] paperwork showed that neither did Mike until like 1967 or something when he did get credit at all. AGD may have to help me out with those stats if he BE privy to them. So that would be something else Mike put up with over publishing and even in the trial Mike didn't claim any amount of credit, just that he deserved credit if that soothes any hard feelings over WIBN.

So to my eye it is still a mystery and Brian is still the pivot point and still had the responsibility.

Yeah the 8 page is better evidence to my mind then our feelings about what somebody might have felt or stories about unrelated practices and people.

[El Molé]

Mike's "Good Night Baby" sort of borrows from earlier parts of the song and isn't much of a lyrical contribution at all in terms of words alone, but (and apologies if this has been covered already) .......... isn't the point that it changes the "story" told in the song and gives a resolution that didn't previously exist in the lyric? So that rather than being solely a story of a couple longing for an as yet unknown future together, it resolves at the end with that future realised in some way. That yearning for a future together has become a reality and they can now "say goodnight and stay together". We know that because Mike sings it at the end. For that reason alone, I think Mike deserves more credit than (say) the proportion of the words that he wrote.

Mike's lyrics in isolation don't mean much and would arguable not deserve any sort of significant credit, but in the context of Tony Asher's lyrics they then add significant meaning (for better or worse) and become quite significant in my opinion. They aren't an equal contribution to the rest of the lyrics but they are significant in some way.

[Robbie Mac]

For edification, this is what Craig is referring to when he talks about Tony Asher, Mike,  and WIBN. This is from the interview that Mike Wheeler and the members of the first cabinessence.com message board conducted with Mr. Asher back in April of 1996.

Mike recently sued Brian for writing credit to around 30 songs among which was "Wouldn't It Be Nice". What role did Mike have in writing that song?
None, whatsoever. As most people know, the Beach Boys were on tour during the writing of that song. During the trial, Mike's attorney asked me how I could be so sure Mike hadn't influenced the writing of that song. "After all, " he speculated, "wasn't Mr. Wilson out of your sight from time to time? Didn't he go to the bathroom, or leave the room periodically for one reason or another? And couldn't he have been taking a phone call from Mr. Love during one of those absences?" These guys get paid big bucks for this kind of absurdity. At any rate, I answered that, while it was true Mr. Love could have called Mr. Wilson on one of those occasions, it was doubtful it had any influence, since "Wouldn't It Be Nice" was one of the few songs I wrote the entire lyric to by myself at home. "Mr. Love did not then," I explained, "and I pray does not now, have my home phone number."
So where does Mike's claim come from? Is he just making this stuff up out of some kind of jealousy or rage toward Brian or does he really believe he wrote some of the lyrics to that song?

I think he would say that it is based upon things that were added at sessions that could be characterized, I suppose, in the loosest sense of the word, as lyrics. I'm talking about background vocals like the typical "doo-wha's" and "dum-diddies" that occur in many songs, not only from the Beach Boys. Lyrics of that type have always been considered part of the "arrangement" of songs and those supplying them, such as vocal arrangers, have never been given part of the songwriting royalties for such contributions, although I suppose an argument could be made that they should. Actually, I believe that a far stronger argument can be made for giving arrangers royalties so at least part of their compensation would be based upon the success of a record since their arrangement, like the producer's production, is -- in my opinion -- often a real factor in the commercial-ness of the record. But I wouldn't favor giving everyone who ever wrote a "ram-a-lam-a-ding-dong" part of the songwriting credits.

[guitarfool2002]

I'm calm, so please bear with me as I reply to some of these points individually before putting up a new idea/notion which may tie it together more clearly, or at least it was something that hit me after re-reading these posts and thinking about another aspect which hasn't been covered.

Again, I'm calm, I just had my 4 cups of coffee...

[guitarfool2002]

The paralell to "Mike Love killed the Smile project" would be "Brian stole money from Mike". No one's saying that.

While it's ridiculous to say that "Mike killed Smile", it's a fact that Brian and Mike had issues during Smile. That's what we're saying. Mike wasn't credited for songs he wrote period. For whatever reason Brian could have intervened and didn't period.

Maybe I just don't get it, you're right.

It's not about getting it, necessarily, but I just don't think folks are seeing eye-to-eye on some of the details and inner workings that *may* have played a part in this, and are choosing instead to generalize, assume, and conclude based on details and inner workings that are either unknown, or not understood enough to form those kinds of conclusions.

I think people may be suggesting Brian stole money from Mike through inaction, what's the legal term for that? because there is one, it's like being an accessory after the fact or something by not reporting a crime or not stepping in or helping to conceal it. So I *do* think some are posting here with the notion that Brian helped steal money from Mike by not doing more on his behalf.

One thing we could straighten out: For those who expected Brian to do more...please tell me *at what time* are you referring to when Brian promised Mike to "fix" these issues, and where does that information come from? Mike's lawsuit stems from something Brian's lawyers told Mike's lawyers during Brian's case in the early 90's, is there another "promise" we're referring to that Brian was to have acted on and fixed before that?

I want to understand where you're coming from, and get on the same page.

[Cam Mott]

I read an interview where VDP said he had to fight for a writing credit after the other co-writers pushed their way in. He seemed pretty bitter about it.

Murry didn't own the publishing at the time, conveniently dying previously to avoid blame probably. I wonder who was responsible for proper attribution at the time? Maybe Irving was trying to make a point to the coauthors.

[guitarfool2002]

General comment and analogy to consider here:

Let's say several of us read a book review, and the review interests us enough to buy that book.

Let's say three of us buy the book, and reading the review we have a general synopsis of the plot.

We all read the introduction, and the first two chapters.

The book starts to drag, so we each start skipping ahead.

One of us skips to chapter 6, then skims chapter 8, and then goes immediately to the final two chapters to see what happens at the end.

Another skips to chapter 4, then 11, then the last chapter.

Still another reads chapters 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, skips 10 and 11, but reads the last two.


Consider:

- We all know how it starts and ends.
- We all know who the main characters are.
- We all have some idea of the story arc or plot that leads from the beginning to the final chapter.

BUT...Have any of us read the entire book? Can we hold a discussion and be on the same page if someone's opinion of how the ending came about hasn't seen the same chapters as the rest? Would any of us be able to dismiss outright the importance of certain details that came out in those chapters we skipped but which others had read?

It's reaching the same outcome, again we each know how it ended. But since no one has read the whole book, we're weighting the chapters we're most familiar with more heavily in how they affected the outcome, versus someone else who may weigh the chapters *they read* more heavily in the same way.

Point is - None of us has read the entire book.

Consider not dismissing possibilities or other theories in light of that, because we each have a lot of chapters to fill in, and unfortunately with an issue like this, it's spread out over 50 years+ of history and 99% of what happened is off the record or simply unknown, lost to history if it was never raised in an interview or unearthed in a lost document somewhere.

[Cam Mott]

What I'm referring to is Mike has said he brought it up to Brian at some point(s) before the trial. According to an eyewitness Brian said in court that Mike was owed credit. Maybe somebody could look up the various statements about it.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

El Mole hit it on the head! Mike's comtributions are pivotal to the song regardless of exactly how many word he brought or didn't bring. Therefore credit is due and was given. Next!

I'm only on 2 cups of coffee so far and am way too calm!! ;o

[guitarfool2002]

What I'm referring to is Mike has said he brought it up to Brian at some point(s) before the trial. According to an eyewitness Brian said in court that Mike was owed credit. Maybe somebody could look up the various statements about it.

Thanks for that, Cam, I just wanted to narrow this down: From what i remember, and may have even posted in another thread, the case of Mike versus Brian in the 90's hinged on something Brian's lawyers told Mike's lawyers which was a "this-for-that" in exchange for Mike testifying on Brian's behalf in Brian's suit for *his own* back payments due from the Sea Of Tunes sale, and again Brian won that settlement based on the terms of that original sale of SOT by Murry Wilson and the subsequent money Brian didn't collect due to a deal the court found had indeed cost Brian tens of millions of dollars.

So Mike was promised - by the lawyers who called him to testify for Brian - that his credits would be dealt with, and they were not. And as we all know, Mike had a case there, and he won his share.

But consider this: At this time in history, Brian due to the issues of conservatorship and the mess he was in with Dr. Landy and involving Carl, and the Wilson family, and even Stan Love...

...under a legal decision made at this same time, Brian was not legally able to write a check for anything, and all of his finances went through that conservator agreement, which basically strips the individual of the ability to make financial decisions on his/her own without going through that court appointed conservator, on the decision from the court that the person is not mentally or physically able to make those kind of decisions on his own.

That's another angle of this to consider, if the "promises" were in fact limited to the time of Brian's lawsuit against Irving/Almo.

He could have told his lawyers to cut Mike a check for 25 million and deliver it to him the next morning, and under the conservator decision he was legally unable to do that on his own. And that's even if he thought Mike deserved that payment, which as you say he himself expressed during the trial, and after.

Just consider that as another chapter we need to re-read.

[guitarfool2002]

El Mole hit it on the head! Mike's comtributions are pivotal to the song regardless of exactly how many word he brought or didn't bring. Therefore credit is due and was given. Next!

I'm only on 2 cups of coffee so far and am way too calm!! ;o

Under this logic, Hal Blaine could sue for and receive songwriting credit for "Be My Baby", since his drumbeat anchors the entire song and is one of the main hooks.

Under this logic, Paul Tanner could have sued for songwriting credit on "Good Vibrations" since his Theremin/Tannerin part is one of the main hooks of the entire song, as familiar and as talked-about as almost any other aspect of that record.

And the list goes on...

Don't ignore what Tony Asher said in the 1996 interview that Andy posted above just to make it agree with your own conclusions, because what Tony said about arrangers adding key parts and parts added in the studio off-the-cuff is a great point outside of the topic we're discussing, as well as being relevant to the issue.

Next? Hardly.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

If those people chose to pursue those examples in a court of law: who knows?

Claiming writing credit for a drum beat is one thing but Mike's contribution for WIBN contains words and a vocal melody. It's 30 seconds of a 2:30 song. Hardly insignifigant. Disliking Mike or some lawyers shtick does not somehow remove Mike's contribution from the vinyl, cassette, CD, MP3 etc etc...

Brian likely contributed much less to Dierdre than Mike for WIBN but got credit. It's not the end of the world.