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

[clack]

You have to remember, by late '67 a new ethos had taken hold in rock. Bands weren't cool unless they played their own instruments on a record, and their songwriting was now expected to be in-house. In addition, most bands now practiced a more democratic structure. One guy calling all the shots had become rare.

Add that to Brian possibly wanting to take a step back, then Brian's choice of writing 1st with Mike, and a little later on with Carl, Dennis, and Al, seems to be a very natural thing to do. Plus, the WH lyrics don't show any sign of the strain that the co-writes of MIU and KtSA sometimes display. You might have a stronger case regarding Brian's reluctance to be paired with Mike in the late 70's as opposed to the late 60's.

[CenturyDeprived]

You have to remember, by late '67 a new ethos had taken hold in rock. Bands weren't cool unless they played their own instruments on a record, and their songwriting was now expected to be in-house. In addition, most bands now practiced a more democratic structure. One guy calling all the shots had become rare.

Add that to Brian possibly wanting to take a step back, then Brian's choice of writing 1st with Mike, and a little later on with Carl, Dennis, and Al, seems to be a very natural thing to do. Plus, the WH lyrics don't show any sign of the strain that the co-writes of MIU and KtSA sometimes display. You might have a stronger case regarding Brian's reluctance to be paired with Mike in the late 70's as opposed to the late 60's.

I think those are all valid points, clack.

I think the choice ultimately reflects it being a "natural thing to do" more than an actual "desire".

[Gabo]

he would never have to sue brian

[urbanite]

I wonder if the failure of the Beatles to give Mike Love credit on "Back in the USSR" affected him, and if he threatened them with a lawsuit.

[KittyKat]

What is the point of a four page thread started by someone who rejects every argument to his  initial thesis with lengthy multi-paragraph responses? Not to mention the fact the events that transpired happened nearly fifty years ago. 

Okay, we agree, you're right. Poor sensitive Brian had his vibe harshed by Mike Love and was trembling and vomiting every time Mike came to his house to write songs for the dreadful "Wild Honey" album, when he could have been making more high-budget teenage symphonies to god. I'm sure Capitol Records would gladly have advanced him hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep making tracks with the very expensive Wrecking Crew.

[CenturyDeprived]

What is the point of a four page thread started by someone who rejects every argument to his  initial thesis with lengthy multi-paragraph responses? Not to mention the fact the events that transpired happened nearly fifty years ago.  

Okay, we agree, you're right. Poor sensitive Brian had his vibe harshed by Mike Love and was trembling and vomiting every time Mike came to his house to write songs for the dreadful "Wild Honey" album, when he could have been making more high-budget teenage symphonies to god. I'm sure Capitol Records would gladly have advanced him hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep making tracks with the very expensive Wrecking Crew.

Hmm... I have conceded multiple times that several posters in this thread, who don't necessarily see exactly eye-to-eye with me, have nonetheless made points that I have found valid. I've *never* stated it was a black and white situation, as you sarcastically in an over-the-top manner have claimed that I see things as. There is nuance involved. And I've often experienced quite the opposite - I've had some people in this thread not find it in themselves to admit that maybe a valid point has been made by me, and some people refuse to answer a hypothetical question when I've nicely asked.  And I'm not quite sure what decade the events took place has any bearing whatsoever on a discussion of how fans on a message board are interpreting a situation.

[Gabo]

I wonder if the failure of the Beatles to give Mike Love credit on "Back in the USSR" affected him, and if he threatened them with a lawsuit.

He didn't actually write any of the song....

[urbanite]

Sounds like his contribution to Wouldn't It Be Nice.

[leggo of my ego]

1) Mike "Balloon Head" Love 

2) A Guilt-free Brian 


3) Instead of     Murry went to

[Ron]

If Mike had always been properly credited on (and properly compensated for) all BB songs that he co-wrote from the inception of the band, how do you think BB history would’ve played out differently? While there’s little doubt that Mike held a justified grudge/bitterness (at least to some degree, or maybe to a huge degree) about being screwed out of credits by Murry (and Brian’s non-action to rectify things), one has to wonder how much of Mike’s actions, way of seeing things, and interaction with Brian/Brian’s other lyricists were affected in one way or another by a chip of some sort that he presumably had on his shoulder.

I have to think that there was lots of passive aggressive stuff going on between Mike and Brian (and vice versa) that may have stemmed from Mike’s non-credits, but at the same time, I’m almost of the opinion that a good deal of their interrelationship (and the band’s history) would have remained unchanged overall (sans a difference in their respective bank accounts).
 

I don't think it would have changed much.  Mike is the type of guy who demands (instead of commands) respect, and often feels disrespected.  I think he had a bigger problem with the drug abuse anyways.

[Gabo]

Sounds like his contribution to Wouldn't It Be Nice.

Well he penned the words and melody of the tag. I think he deserves the credit.

[filledeplage]

If Mike had always been properly credited on (and properly compensated for) all BB songs that he co-wrote from the inception of the band, how do you think BB history would’ve played out differently? While there’s little doubt that Mike held a justified grudge/bitterness (at least to some degree, or maybe to a huge degree) about being screwed out of credits by Murry (and Brian’s non-action to rectify things), one has to wonder how much of Mike’s actions, way of seeing things, and interaction with Brian/Brian’s other lyricists were affected in one way or another by a chip of some sort that he presumably had on his shoulder.

I have to think that there was lots of passive aggressive stuff going on between Mike and Brian (and vice versa) that may have stemmed from Mike’s non-credits, but at the same time, I’m almost of the opinion that a good deal of their interrelationship (and the band’s history) would have remained unchanged overall (sans a difference in their respective bank accounts).

It is an interesting question. And, much of it is at Murry's doorstep. But, Murry did use the same pushiness to advance the band.  "But for" Murry pushing the door open, there might not be the BB's.  That said, lyricists must be properly credited. It is their intellectual property.  And Murry could have have had some "sibling rivalry" going on, that had nothing to do with his kids or nephew, and used Brian to defraud Mike, because of Murry's issues. 

And maybe Brian "intended" to get Mike his lyric credit but just could not take Murry on. That is just a bully victim.  And, not being a doctor in that field, I would not give an opinion.  It is behind them, and probably a relief. Some one else decided, and we cannot re-write history. It is what it is.

Mike had no choice. A "third party" can look at the facts and decide.  But, blood and that "band bond of brotherhood"is still thicker than water.  Just look at all those kids, who resemble each other and choose to work together in a musical context, to honor their legacy.  They are now a "village." It's all good. 

[Cam Mott]

We are all over the place but I'll pitch in again that I think the role of Murry in cheating Mike seems very sketchy to me and Brian gets off way too easy with fans.

Murry had no financial stake in under-reporting co-authors. His publisher royality was the same whether one author or 100 authors. What is his motive to under report?

IF Brian was a co-owner of the publishing he wouldn't have any motive as a publisher to under-report but as an author he would have a financial motive to under-report his co-authors to publishing. As a author/publisher Brian actually signed the incorrect publishing forms.

This picture of Brian being pushed around by Murry seems odd too in light of Brian being able to fire Murry and Murry's 8 page letter complaining among other things about his son's shoddy business practice and he, Murry, not being able to control or not having any control over his son.

[filledeplage]

We are all over the place but I'll pitch in again that I think the role of Murry in cheating Mike seems very sketchy to me and Brian gets off way too easy with fans.

Murry had no financial stake in under-reporting co-authors. His publisher royality was the same whether one author or 100 authors. What is his motive to under report?

IF Brian was a co-owner of the publishing he wouldn't have any motive as a publisher to under-report but as an author he would have a financial motive to under-report his co-authors to publishing. As a author/publisher Brian actually signed the incorrect publishing forms.

This picture of Brian being pushed around by Murry seems odd too in light of Brian being able to fire Murry and Murry's 8 page letter complaining among other things about his son's shoddy business practice and he, Murry, not being able to control or not having any control over his son.

First, Cam, I'm not privy to the trial transcript.  But, Brian has said that they "fired Murry." To be fired, you had to have had a position.  It is generally accepted that Murry had managerial power.  If he could charge them a fine for naughty words, he had power and control.  Power and control are key elements of management.  We don't know how much Murry was paid. (I don't.)

Second, we know that there was a trial, and that Mike was awarded a certain amount of compensation.  There was sufficient evidence for a judge to make that award. 

Third, I'm not giving Brian a pass. Kids can't always challenge their parents, effectively in a business context. Were Murry not a parent/manager, it might have been easier.  And, Murry had minors like David and Carl under his supervision.  Additionally, Murry was from an era when parents had absolute control of a family. No ifs, ands or buts. 

You gotta take the good with the bad.  Murry got them out there.  But it hampered them when they, as adults when they have to break out as independent artists. 

The entertainment industry was full of parents and others who took fortunes from the young people in their control in the industry.  And they were not protected.  They may have been no different.

[Cam Mott]

My point is Brian stood up to his Dad in business. He also stood up to Capitol and the Boys in business. It seems to me in getting pushed around Brian was the pusher, not the pushee. Murry didn't profit from the cheating unless someone has info that has not been made public. Brian did profit from the cheating because he got more or all of the royalty pie. Brian wrote the songs with Mike and signed the paperwork [as a co-publisher it seems to be presumed] which did not show Mike as a coauthor, we've seen them on-line. All of the benefit, motive, method, and responsibility seems to lie on Brian.

Poor Ol' Murry, on top of all the other accusations against him, gets to hold the bag on this one too.

[filledeplage]

My point is Brian stood up to his Dad in business. He also stood up to Capitol and the Boys in business. It seems to me in getting pushed around Brian was the pusher, not the pushee. Murry didn't profit from the cheating unless someone has info that has not been made public. Brian did profit from the cheating because he got more or all of the royalty pie. Brian wrote the songs with Mike and signed the paperwork [as a co-publisher it seems to be presumed] which did not show Mike as a coauthor, we've seen them on-line. All of the benefit, motive, method, and responsibility seems to lie on Brian.

Poor Ol' Murry, on top of all the other accusations against him, gets to hold the bag on this one too.

We don't know what anyone did unless we were eyewitnesses.  Somehow it seems that Murry sold the Sea of Tunes catalog. He must have had credible authority to do that. 

Without documents to ascertain who did what, whether they came from the record company, or several of them, it does seem that Murry was the manager/agent.  The employee/employer relationship can be complex. 

And, I'd  never go out on that limb to speculate about the arrangement.  But, I'm thinking about it, from the "result" of the court, not from the beginning.

When kids don't go to a parent's funeral, it speaks volumes about past relationships and resolution.  It was reported that only Carl went to Murry's.

When a person gets a profit they shouldn't, then they get "disgorged" of those profits and then they go to the offended party.  It is unjust enrichment.  And we can't know what anyone thinks, but the court can infer from facts and circumstances and proof that a percentage of money went to the wrong person.  That could be the case.  And, as fans, we don't know.   But, if they were fined for swearing, I'm thinking that old Murry was seriously in charge, at least for the first years of the band.  JMHO

[Cam Mott]

I'm not clear are you thinking it might be Murry's fault or responsibility or Brian's?

[filledeplage]

I'm not clear are you thinking it might be Murry's fault or responsibility or Brian's?

My take is that Murry formed the business policy, and was the decision maker, at least in the early days.


 

[Cam Mott]

I'm not clear are you thinking it might be Murry's fault or responsibility or Brian's?

My take is that Murry formed the business policy, and was the decision maker, at least in the early days.

I'm sure he did but you can't submit authors that aren't on the paperwork. Brian was the writer who knew who the authors were and he signed forms which did not show all of the authors and he was supposedly also a publisher. On top of that Brian is the one who profited as an author, publishers cut was the same regardless of authors. Isn't that right?

[filledeplage]

I'm not clear are you thinking it might be Murry's fault or responsibility or Brian's?

My take is that Murry formed the business policy, and was the decision maker, at least in the early days.

I'm sure he did but you can't submit authors that aren't on the paperwork. Brian was the writer who knew who the authors were and he signed forms which did not show all of the authors and he was supposedly also a publisher. On top of that Brian is the one who profited as an author, publishers cut was the same regardless of authors. Isn't that right?

Duress.

[Cyncie]

Well, I'm pretty used to seeing Cam defend Mike at every drop of his Beach Boys cap. But, "poor Murry?" That one's got me scratching my head. Even Mike Love pretty clearly blamed Murry for the whole authorship issue in his latest interview.

 Mike needs to say something controversial so the universe will straighten out again.

[guitarfool2002]

Cam, I need to correct and amend two statements you made on this page.

1. "Murry didn't profit from the cheating unless someone has info that has not been made public"

Murry cashed the check when he sold Sea Of Tunes and kept all of the money. So anything "due" to anyone else went to Murry's account, and to the best of my knowledge he never split that profit.

2. "I'm sure he did but you can't submit authors that aren't on the paperwork"

Changing credits on copyright forms and other similar songwriting forms was regularly practiced by unscrupulous or dishonest music biz folks. Read the book "Hit Men" or any other account of Morris Levy's business practices. He was known to - if not given the ol' wink-and-nod treatment by his cohorts and fellow record execs - change the credits on songwriting forms after the artists filled them out to reflect him as a cowriter on songs he had nothing to do with. His peers made jokes about him doing this. He eventually had to pay back through his company(s) a large sum of money to artists he ripped off this way.

The Band's Robbie Robertson told the story of going to New York with his then-boss Ronnie Hawkins, seeing a record's label with a song he had written co-credited to another writer he didn't even know, and Ronnie told him to keep hush-hush about it because that's the way it was done. And if anyone questioned it, a guy packing heat might show up in the office to convince them to keep it hush-hush and go along. This was the record business in many circles.

This has nothing to do with specifically impugning or accusing Murry, let me restate that, but you *could* or *can* submit authors that weren't originally on the paperwork if you're dishonest and as Morris Levy was legally charged and eventually held responsible for doing just that. So you can't say something can't be done when someone who was in Murry's position in his own network of publishing companies was known to do the same thing on a regular basis before during and after the 60's. It was illegal, but it happened often enough to be a running joke in the business.

[guitarfool2002]

And, on a more philosophical/psychological level, at what point do we ask why the hell Mike never did anything about this if all of this wronging was being directed his way by "Uncle Murry" and "Cousin Brian" for decades without a correction?

Rekicking a dead horse from another thread, I know, but still...we'll point fingers at Cousin Brian all day long for not doing enough, but the question of why the f*ck would Mike sit back and watch his money - which he was entitled to based on his work - just get ripped out of his hands every time a check came in and not be proactive enough to step in and claim what was his? It's Brian's fault because of his inaction, yet Mike's inaction and reliance on a "promise" to make things right is accepted without challenge?

How does that work?

At some point, part of it falls on the guy who's been getting ripped off for three or four decades and taken no action to correct it, surely nothing in a proactive sense that would help right the wrongs he felt were being done to him. You feel sorry if someone goes to their local auto repair shop and gets cheated somehow. You feel less sorry if they return to that same shop and the same mechanics knowing it's a clip-joint, and gets ripped off again.

You start to ask "dude, what the f*ck???" if that person goes back to that same shop yet again, gets ripped off yet again, and wonders why he keeps losing money and not getting the work done that was promised them in return.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (Albert Einstein)

[Cam Mott]

Cam, I need to correct and amend two statements you made on this page.

1. "Murry didn't profit from the cheating unless someone has info that has not been made public"

Murry cashed the check when he sold Sea Of Tunes and kept all of the money. So anything "due" to anyone else went to Murry's account, and to the best of my knowledge he never split that profit.

2. "I'm sure he did but you can't submit authors that aren't on the paperwork"

Changing credits on copyright forms and other similar songwriting forms was regularly practiced by unscrupulous or dishonest music biz folks. Read the book "Hit Men" or any other account of Morris Levy's business practices. He was known to - if not given the ol' wink-and-nod treatment by his cohorts and fellow record execs - change the credits on songwriting forms after the artists filled them out to reflect him as a cowriter on songs he had nothing to do with. His peers made jokes about him doing this. He eventually had to pay back through his company(s) a large sum of money to artists he ripped off this way.

The Band's Robbie Robertson told the story of going to New York with his then-boss Ronnie Hawkins, seeing a record's label with a song he had written co-credited to another writer he didn't even know, and Ronnie told him to keep hush-hush about it because that's the way it was done. And if anyone questioned it, a guy packing heat might show up in the office to convince them to keep it hush-hush and go along. This was the record business in many circles.

This has nothing to do with specifically impugning or accusing Murry, let me restate that, but you *could* or *can* submit authors that weren't originally on the paperwork if you're dishonest and as Morris Levy was legally charged and eventually held responsible for doing just that. So you can't say something can't be done when someone who was in Murry's position in his own network of publishing companies was known to do the same thing on a regular basis before during and after the 60's. It was illegal, but it happened often enough to be a running joke in the business.

Yes, both true.

But #1 in context was Murry did not profit as a publisher from Mike being left off of the authorship, only the other author(s).

Re #2, those examples are of a publisher adding names for profit from songwriting royalties, in this context names are left out and the publisher Murry didn't profit from songwriting royalties. In this context the profit motive would be with Brian right? 

[Cam Mott]

And, on a more philosophical/psychological level, at what point do we ask why the hell Mike never did anything about this if all of this wronging was being directed his way by "Uncle Murry" and "Cousin Brian" for decades without a correction?

Rekicking a dead horse from another thread, I know, but still...we'll point fingers at Cousin Brian all day long for not doing enough, but the question of why the f*ck would Mike sit back and watch his money - which he was entitled to based on his work - just get ripped out of his hands every time a check came in and not be proactive enough to step in and claim what was his? It's Brian's fault because of his inaction, yet Mike's inaction and reliance on a "promise" to make things right is accepted without challenge?

How does that work?

At some point, part of it falls on the guy who's been getting ripped off for three or four decades and taken no action to correct it, surely nothing in a proactive sense that would help right the wrongs he felt were being done to him. You feel sorry if someone goes to their local auto repair shop and gets cheated somehow. You feel less sorry if they return to that same shop and the same mechanics knowing it's a clip-joint, and gets ripped off again.

You start to ask "dude, what the f*ck???" if that person goes back to that same shop yet again, gets ripped off yet again, and wonders why he keeps losing money and not getting the work done that was promised them in return.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (Albert Einstein)

It all occurred over a period of only a few years in the mid-60s and wasn't on every song. 

Shouldn't the example be more like you are the mechanic working for your uncle and maybe cousin, doing outstanding work but not getting paid for occasional jobs for a few years out of a long career for which your coworker, who is your cousin/boss, gets all the credit and pay but blames the other boss? I suppose he didn't want to lose his job.

I'm not much into blaming victims but I guess we can blame Mike for trusting too much and being too loyal and not standing up hard enough for himself. However when Mike did stand up for himself he kinda gets blamed for doing that too.