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

[bgas]

3) Did his credit/not-credit come as a surprise to Mike on each occasion? Mike looks at the label of  the hot-off-the-press record and says "yay, my name's on there!" or "damn, folied again!"

Someone needs to flat out ask him in an interview. If that was the case, I don't know how he functioned in the group early on...

Well, other than the fact that there was a lot of other money & perks in the situation that kept him going. Either way, he got royally screwed and I don't blame him for having some overall resentment about the band. Very strange.

Do you really think Mike, or any of the guys, spent time looking at the labels?  Other than MAYBE knowing what song was on each album, and I wouldn't be surprised if they didnt know that either, after the first couple of records how many times do you think any of them even looked? 

[Robbie Mac]

Murry was absolutely a factor, no doubt. But you think Murry is the sole, 100% reason, black and white, end of story? Murry may have had a hand (or a huge hand) in making the situation happen, but I can't imagine that Murry had much of anything to do with the situation not getting corrected for so long. And yes, I'm aware of the fact that Brian had mental/drug problems and that rectifying this wouldn't have been a top priority.  

Having tried to follow every post, but not remembering every bit just now, I'd postulate:    Murry had a huge part in this. He obviuosly would have felt it was HIS son that sho9uld get most of the benefits, and I'm just as certain there was the backhanding approach because Mike's father seemd more succesful than Murry himself. So he'es a way he could throw it back at him. 
  as to the Brian is the main blame:  sure It could be BRian knew about every song credit. It seems to me it's just as likely that Murry would put a stack of papers in front of Brian and say >>These all need to be signed by you, I've taken care of evereything<<  and Brian being super on the go ( most of the time) and alos not wanting to be bothered by his dad, would just sign on the line without checking.  It was JUST the Publishing, after all! Not the creative sides which got his juice flowing.
  And, as ya'll have mentiond time and again:  None of us are privy to how the payments were made for anything. It's entirely possible that Brian( if he had any oversight in the matter) allotted more $$ to Mike from incoming $$ to compensate him for his non-credits.
I'd bet that  even Brian and Mike  don't know exactly how the $$ was handled in the day. They just knew it was coming in and there was plenty; Of course Mike  needed more( and more) to cover his increaing ex-harem. And Brian had Dad watching out for him, no matter the acrimony between them, it was still HIS son.   

Exactly.  People are forgetting that Murry, in the context of his own immediate family was considered "poor relations" while Emily was worshipped because she married "up". That Milt Love was far more successful than Murry had to be a huge sticking point that may have subconsciously been an influence that in how Murry treated Milt's and Emily's oldest son.

[Cam Mott]

3) Did his credit/not-credit come as a surprise to Mike on each occasion? Mike looks at the label of  the hot-off-the-press record and says "yay, my name's on there!" or "damn, folied again!"

Someone needs to flat out ask him in an interview. If that was the case, I don't know how he functioned in the group early on...

Well, other than the fact that there was a lot of other money & perks in the situation that kept him going. Either way, he got royally screwed and I don't blame him for having some overall resentment about the band. Very strange.

Do you really think Mike, or any of the guys, spent time looking at the labels?  Other than MAYBE knowing what song was on each album, and I wouldn't be surprised if they didnt know that either, after the first couple of records how many times do you think any of them even looked? 

I do. Especially if they co-wrote the something and superpecially if there they weren't always getting their credit.

[clack]

3) Did his credit/not-credit come as a surprise to Mike on each occasion? Mike looks at the label of  the hot-off-the-press record and says "yay, my name's on there!" or "damn, folied again!"

Someone needs to flat out ask him in an interview. If that was the case, I don't know how he functioned in the group early on...

Well, other than the fact that there was a lot of other money & perks in the situation that kept him going. Either way, he got royally screwed and I don't blame him for having some overall resentment about the band. Very strange.

After reading/hearing several Mike Love interviews, somehow I can hear him saying, "Surprised? Well, yeah! But more like pissed off! Several times I confronted Brian on it, and each time he told me that he'd take care of it. After a while, Brian got so messed up with drugs and mental problems that I knew nothing was going come out of it. Years later, Brian and his attorneys got this huge settlement so I figured it was a good time to pursue the issue again, this time on a legal basis. And a judge agreed with me...."

But Mike did get full credit for the songs he co-wrote from 1966 on, so something changed. But I can't see pre-1966 Mike as an ego-less shrinking violet.

This was not only an occasional mixup. Year after year, hit after hit. We're not talking only royalty money here, we're talking bragging rights. How galling was it to Mike to make such major contributions, say, to 'I Get Around' and 'California Girls', and see the world give sole credit to Brian?

I could see Mike keeping quiet and not complaining after the fact the 1st few times this happened. But why, in 1965, is Mike still contributing lyrics, not knowing whether or not he'll get credited? Should we view him as Charlie Brown and Brian and or Murry as Lucy, assuring him that this time she really, really won't yank the football away when he's trying to kick it?

"Yeah sorry about 'I Get Around' Mike, but we'll make it good on the next one". "Sorry about 'Wendy', Mike -- next one for sure". "Hey, 'When I Grow Up' was a mixup, no doubt about it, but next one we'll make it up to you". "Don't know what happened with 'Dance, Dance, Dance', Mike. We're as puzzled as you are". Etc.

Just very strange. And I'm not suggesting that Mike had some cash-in-lieu-of-royalty deal, because that would have come out in the trial.

[bgas]

Just very strange. And I'm not suggesting that Mike had some cash-in-lieu-of-royalty deal, because that would have come out in the trial.

Yeah, Maybe/Maybe not.
MIKE would definitely not have brought it up or ever mentioned it.
Brian doesn't seem to have taken a huge interest in mounting a defense; so even if there had been pay-to-play he wasn't bringing it to the table either

[KittyKat]

One poster posits a thought-up scenario out of thin air, and people are defending it? It didn't happen. I don't understand people who bend into pretzels to defend Brian from every charge, even ones that involve his Dad or the possibility he was so intimidated by his Dad that he didn't want to give too many songwriting credits to Mike. No doubt Murry would have preferred that Brian not collaborate with anyone.

[Mr. Cohen]

My best guess is that early on, it was Murry's doing that kept Mike off the credits. Later, I think Brian didn't correct it because Murry had sold the rights to those early songs. Remember, that really beat Brian up. He probably figured, 'Why bother?' He made sure to credit Mike fairly for anything after Smile, so I'm not convinced Brian was withholding credits out of spite. There was maybe a period around Smile and Pet Sounds were Brian could've corrected it, but Brian was distracted with grandiose projects and wasn't really getting along with Mike, so it was probably something that just kept getting pushed back until it was too late. Plus, Brian would've had to confront Murry, which was unlikely.

Now, when Brian did get the rights back decades later, I think Melinda and Brian's legal team really spearheaded the anti-Mike sentiment, and Brian kinda hid behind that. Hell, knowing Brian, he probably thought he desperately needed that money to afford his adopted kids or whatever. Who knows?

[Cam Mott]

I think the 8 page letter says a lot but it seems we only want to buy the parts that support our notions of Murry as crap dad and forget the rest. As I remember the letter Murry is worried by Brian's shady business practices right at that very time but we are going to ignore that possibility and assume Brian must have actually been not like that but like we wish he were. Murry is concerned that Brian is being ruined by too much money but we want to excuse Brian by believing Murry actually wanted to scheme to falsely throw more money at Brian and ruin him further presumably. It is just possible that Murry was right and Brian wasn't actually the way we want to believe and he got full of himself and actually intentionally left Mike off the copyrights.

Mike complained to him but Brian didn't do anything about it because apparently Mike believed his excuse and Mike never did anything more proactive about it so maybe Brian passively never corrected it because he wasn't made to. It's dark notions but some young men who have power and feel entitled make mistakes sometimes victimizing those they think they can best get away with it.

These are alternate realities but as possible as any.

As far as Mike not doing anything more about it. So what? Brian didn't doing anything about his publishing for decades, I don't hear anybody wonder why he waited so long. It wouldn't be a surprise to me if it turned out people have a wrong impression of how Mike was/is, just like I think people have a wrong impression of how Brian was.  

[Mr. Cohen]

You're extrapolating a lot from Murry's letter. Maybe he was referring to Brian's contracts with people like Tony Asher and Van Dyke, the ridiculously short studio sessions that were billed for longer, and all the money he paid under the table to the studio musicians and his collaborators in the form of gifts (like new guitars, new cars, etc.). Murry might've thought Brian was cheating the family out of money that belonged to them. Also, Murry couldn't have liked the idea of Brother Records one bit.

Honestly, there's no way of knowing, but I think it's just as likely are your interpretation.

[clack]

My best guess is that early on, it was Murry's doing that kept Mike off the credits. Later, I think Brian didn't correct it because Murry had sold the rights to those early songs. Remember, that really beat Brian up. He probably figured, 'Why bother?' He made sure to credit Mike fairly for anything after Smile, so I'm not convinced Brian was withholding credits out of spite. There was maybe a period around Smile and Pet Sounds were Brian could've corrected it, but Brian was distracted with grandiose projects and wasn't really getting along with Mike, so it was probably something that just kept getting pushed back until it was too late. Plus, Brian would've had to confront Murry, which was unlikely.

Now, when Brian did get the rights back decades later, I think Melinda and Brian's legal team really spearheaded the anti-Mike sentiment, and Brian kinda hid behind that. Hell, knowing Brian, he probably thought he desperately needed that money to afford his adopted kids or whatever. Who knows?

Thing is, Mike was credited on some of the songs. Why those, and not others? Was it totally arbitrary?

I can understand some Murry-initiated shenanigans over credit happening early on and going unaddressed, but by ASL -- and certainly by Today! -- Brian should have straightened this situation out. He had the power to do so. I'm inclined to blame timidity and irresponsibility rather than greed.

[Cyncie]

In an interview that I read recently, Mike puts the blame on Murry and says that Brian just wasn't capable of standing up to him. Wish I could find that again to provide a link, but I can't.

With that in mind, I'm inclined to believe that the simplest answer is the most likely. We have dysfunctional family with a hard nosed father figure in charge and kids making big bucks and living the high life. A few writing credits are left off. Everyone knows but no one wants to rock the boat. Sure, Brian could have confronted Murry and straightened out the situation, but he's the one in the dysfunctional parental relationship. Sure, Mike could have confronted Murry and straightened it out, but this is family and it's easier to take the path of least resistance. Until later, when those credits become a bit more important. And why wouldn't Murry leave a few off but give credit on others? Leaving Mike off completely would be guaranteed to make him stand up for himself. One here and there, not so much.

Mike absolutely has the right to have his name on the credits. Not sure we fans need to play "Heroes and Villains" though.

[filledeplage]

In an interview that I read recently, Mike puts the blame on Murry and says that Brian just wasn't capable of standing up to him. Wish I could find that again to provide a link, but I can't.

With that in mind, I'm inclined to believe that the simplest answer is the most likely. We have dysfunctional family with a hard nosed father figure in charge and kids making big bucks and living the high life. A few writing credits are left off. Everyone knows but no one wants to rock the boat. Sure, Brian could have confronted Murry and straightened out the situation, but he's the one in the dysfunctional parental relationship. Sure, Mike could have confronted Murry and straightened it out, but this is family and it's easier to take the path of least resistance. Until later, when those credits become a bit more important. And why wouldn't Murry leave a few off but give credit on others? Leaving Mike off completely would be guaranteed to make him stand up for himself. One here and there, not so much.

Mike absolutely has the right to have his name on the credits. Not sure we fans need to play "Heroes and Villains" though.

That is probably true.  It's also very possible that the brothers didn't want to take Murry on for fear of how it would affect their mother, living under the same roof.  And, they were sensitive to her position.  Tricky in a family business with a volatile individual.  It seemed that they adored their mom.

And Mike might have wanted to spare his aunt, the "wrath of Murry" as well, and "keep the peace." It may have been a question of holding back for a complex set of factors during those early years, and out of consideration for Audree's position.  JMHO

[guitarfool2002]

How were Brian's other collaborators in the mid-60's handled when it came to royalties, payments, and publishing was a question someone asked. Since so much weight seems to be put on a letter Murry wrote, I thought it would be just as crucial to the story to hear from one of those collaborators directly. To save time I simply copied it from the book itself, "Catch A Wave" by Peter Ames Carlin, but this is Tony Asher describing how his collaboration with Brian for Pet Sounds was dealt with in a business sense with Murry, including publishing, royalties, and for the poster above who suggested a cash transaction "didn't happen", the amount Asher was given by Murry in a lump sum for his work.

Take note of these two paragraphs, pay special attention on how it touches on many of the issues I and others in this thread have raised as possibilities only to have them shot down or dismissed (i.e. 'It just didn't happen'), and also how Asher's memory of how Brian dealt with business deals by most often not dealing with them is something Hal Blaine and David Anderle also reported, involving checks written in 6-figure dollar amounts that Brian had to be coaxed to even take a few seconds to sign.

And note that Asher thinks this is how Murry wanted it or even planned it, as Brian's creative work was the "cash cow" of his business enterprise, he wanted to keep Brian focused on cranking out the hits while he (Murry) took care of the business deals and finances around those songs.

Hmm. Sounds familiar.

Oh, and that little bit in this book excerpt about Asher dealing solely with Murry on these issues of songwriting and business matters.

I'll stop there, judge for yourself:

[guitarfool2002]

Oh, and in that same book are a few sentences buried in a look at the 1967 Capitol lawsuit. The key phrases were that some in the Beach Boys camp were speculating that Murry Wilson may have been involved in the underhanded dealings that the BB's new management and legal reps like David Anderle and Nick Grillo were suing Capitol to recoup, including "producers points" which should have been paid directly to Brian and the whole back royalties and "breakage" issues which Capitol had hidden from the band in their accounting.

And according to the book, at least, the scuttlebutt when all of this was happening around the Capitol lawsuit was that Murry, who signed the contract where all of this stuff was either omitted or hidden, could have gotten a "kick-back" payment on the sly in order to hide the issue.

That's a stretch, it's hearsay in every sense, but it does suggest that as early as 1966-67 there were suspicions that Murry may have been skimming off the top.

If true, it wouldn't be the first time a showbiz parent of celebrity minors acting as "manager" got caught skimming money from their kid(s). Just ask McCauley Culkin and any number of other showbiz kids who filed for emancipation from their parents through the courts.

And someone mentioned things changing regarding the crediting process or whatever around 1967...simple reason, the band brought in a new team of people like Grillo to take over those day-to-day business and legal affairs, surrounding Brother Records, their new venture.

[bgas]

Can you hide these last two posts so Cam doesn't see them?

[clack]

Doling out cash in exchange for credit and royalty rights was how Duke Ellington, for one, operated. Members of his band would come up with a melody, Elliington would pay them for it, work the melody into a complete number, and then claim sole authorship. And then there was Dennis and Charles Manson. So yeah, this was (is?) an actual practice of the music business.

But -- if Mike had made a deal relinquishing authorship rights to 'California Girls', for instance, wouldn't Brian's lawyers bring it up at trial? It doesn't make any sense.

[Dancing Bear]

I think we're trying to decide if Brian was an idiot savant who couldn't be held responsible for his actions back in 1965.

[bgas]

I think we're trying to decide if Brian was an idiot savant who couldn't be held responsible for his actions back in 1965.

or ever

[KittyKat]

Er, doesn't Asher describe getting a $7,500 check plus 25% royalties? In other words, he was getting an advance, then would continue to receive royalties once that advance was tallied if the record sold more than whatever would add up to $7,500. Not to mention the fact that according to the inflation calculator, that's $54,000 in today's money.  Plus, he got his name on the label as a songwriting collaborator, regardless of the percentage he got. The songs said Wilson/Asher, not Wilson 75%/Asher25%. So, even if Mike had this completely hypothetical/probably fictional agreement with Murry and SOT, that still would not prevent him from getting his name on the label as a co-writer. It was also oddly selective in that Mike got his name on some of the early hits but not others, and not "California Girls," but one year after "California Girls," he got his name on the label for "Good Vibrations." Plus standard royalties for whatever percentage split Murry allowed him.

Murry giving Asher a $7,500 advance in 1966 dollars was generous, because if PS bombed, he might not have been able to recover that money. That actually put the risk on Sea of Tunes and Murry. That's also why I tend to think that Murry was not giving cash or gifts of some kind to Mike in lieu or songwriting credits and royalties. There was no guarantee the Beach Boys would keep getting a hit each time out. I don't think Murry would want to give Mike a dime unless the records proved to be bona fide hits. 

[Nicko1234]

Er, doesn't Asher describe getting a $7,500 check plus 25% royalties? In other words, he was getting an advance, then would continue to receive royalties once that advance was tallied if the record sold more than whatever would add up to $7,500. Not to mention the fact that according to the inflation calculator, that's $54,000 in today's money.  Plus, he got his name on the label as a songwriting collaborator, regardless of the percentage he got. The songs said Wilson/Asher, not Wilson 75%/Asher25%. So, even if Mike had this completely hypothetical/probably fictional agreement with Murry and SOT, that still would not prevent him from getting his name on the label as a co-writer. It was also oddly selective in that Mike got his name on some of the early hits but not others, and not "California Girls," but one year after "California Girls," he got his name on the label for "Good Vibrations." Plus standard royalties for whatever percentage split Murry allowed him.

Murry giving Asher a $7,500 advance in 1966 dollars was generous, because if PS bombed, he might not have been able to recover that money. That actually put the risk on Sea of Tunes and Murry. That's also why I tend to think that Murry was not giving cash or gifts of some kind to Mike in lieu or songwriting credits and royalties. There was no guarantee the Beach Boys would keep getting a hit each time out. I don't think Murry would want to give Mike a dime unless the records proved to be bona fide hits. 

There is also the pretty big factor that no documentation has ever emerged suggesting this and none of the group members or anyone else involved in with them at the time has ever mentioned it.

[bgas]

WOW!  Two Ostrich posts in a row...

[SMiLE Brian]

I think Mike only started to care about the credits after the glory years and the mountains of cash stopped coming in.

[Jim V.]

I do not understand why anybody cares so much about any of this. It's settled history.

[Ron]

One poster posits a thought-up scenario out of thin air, and people are defending it? It didn't happen. I don't understand people who bend into pretzels to defend Brian from every charge, even ones that involve his Dad or the possibility he was so intimidated by his Dad that he didn't want to give too many songwriting credits to Mike. No doubt Murry would have preferred that Brian not collaborate with anyone.

Damn... you might have hit on something.


Is it possible, that Brian (who feared his father) got tired of explaing to his dad why he needed a cowriter, so got to the point where he just told his dad that HE wrote the song instead of "Mike helped me" ?   Maybe Brian knew his dad couldn't stand Mike (and his father) and to avoid the issue started lying about what Mike helped on.

There could have even been a spoken agreement between Mike "Well Mike, you know how dad is" and Mike let it slide.  For awhile.

Just a theory, certainly couldn't ever be proven, just speculating here.  

The problem we have is none of it makes sense, which makes a ridiculous theory more likely, since there's something going on that we don't have all the info on.

As for the stuff with Asher, that's largely irrelevant, because all you're showing us is a Murray Wilson who handled business.... as business!  He had Asher negotiate, and then sign away, some of his rights, and agreed to a payment for them.  We have the paperwork for that....  when it comes to Mike's missing credits, there's no paperwork and no business deal where he signed it away.  Murray never would have done that if he was giving Mike something in compensation for it, he'd just write it out and have Mike sign it. 

[CenturyDeprived]

One poster posits a thought-up scenario out of thin air, and people are defending it? It didn't happen. I don't understand people who bend into pretzels to defend Brian from every charge, even ones that involve his Dad or the possibility he was so intimidated by his Dad that he didn't want to give too many songwriting credits to Mike. No doubt Murry would have preferred that Brian not collaborate with anyone.

Damn... you might have hit on something.


Is it possible, that Brian (who feared his father) got tired of explaing to his dad why he needed a cowriter, so got to the point where he just told his dad that HE wrote the song instead of "Mike helped me" ?   Maybe Brian knew his dad couldn't stand Mike (and his father) and to avoid the issue started lying about what Mike helped on.

There could have even been a spoken agreement between Mike "Well Mike, you know how dad is" and Mike let it slide.  For awhile.

Just a theory, certainly couldn't ever be proven, just speculating here.  

The problem we have is none of it makes sense, which makes a ridiculous theory more likely, since there's something going on that we don't have all the info on.
 

I think this theory makes possible sense. Again, we are all speculating here, but I think it could be plausible.

I think Brian has shown time and again that he himself would bend into pretzels to avoid having to confront his dad, or to "have to hear it" from Murry in some sense or another.