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

[Ron]

I've found myself doing the exact same thing, at times in my life I've lied about something just to avoid the issue.  For instance: you go to dinner, the waitress asks what movie you're going to see because she overheard you mention it, so you just say whatever the biggest movie out is... so you don't have to explain whatever weird movie you're going to watch and what it's all about, blah blah blah.

Or somebody asks you where you live and you just tell them the biggest town near you, instead of having to explain to them the minor suburb they've never heard of that's 10 miles from the large town. 

ETC.  Not sure how common that 'trait' is to tell little white lies to make things easier on yourself, but it's an anti-social trait, and i"d say Brian's got serious anti-social traits.

[Ron]

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

It's just interesting.  There's two conflicting premises that we know to be true, so we're just trying to rectify in our minds why there's a disconnect.

1. Brian apparently screwed Mike out of a bunch of money

2. Brian has proven again and again that he not only isn't interested in cheating people out of money, but he's pretty generous when it comes to songwriting credits.

So since both things seem to be true, we're just trying to understand why. 

[Micha]

This is very interesting, as I remember reading Asher got 0.5% (!) or so as royalties, which I found outrageous. Nice to see that that was not the truth.

[CenturyDeprived]

I've found myself doing the exact same thing, at times in my life I've lied about something just to avoid the issue.  For instance: you go to dinner, the waitress asks what movie you're going to see because she overheard you mention it, so you just say whatever the biggest movie out is... so you don't have to explain whatever weird movie you're going to watch and what it's all about, blah blah blah.

Or somebody asks you where you live and you just tell them the biggest town near you, instead of having to explain to them the minor suburb they've never heard of that's 10 miles from the large town.  

ETC.  Not sure how common that 'trait' is to tell little white lies to make things easier on yourself, but it's an anti-social trait, and i"d say Brian's got serious anti-social traits.

The lengths that emotionally abused kids will go to avoid a confrontation with their abusive parent can be HUGE. It makes a lot of sense.

As far as the reason that *Mike specifically* was the one who incurred the grossly unfair screwjob, I cannot think that this was for no reason at all. Of course, it's not in any way, shape or form justified.

Obviously, Mike cowrote more songs with Brian than any other cowriter at the time - but I don't think that's the whole picture why he specifically was the one who got shortchanged in that manner.

Some people here have said that Mike was an "easy target" to be victimized in this way. I think that Murry wanted nobody but his sons to be making the big bucks songwriting money, but that specifically Mike getting as much credit as he deserved was especially unnerving to Murry in a specific way, perhaps moreso than if that cowriter would have been another person (other than a Wilson son). I'm sure that Murry wouldn't have been happy either if that cowriter was Al Jardine, for instance. But for that person to be Mike Love, specifically, was probably viewed as particularly unacceptable, especially considering the ego issues between the families.

I think that there was some undercurrent of bad blood between the Wilsons and Loves, which was somewhere beneath the surface between Brian and Mike, and that is what somehow subconsciously helped make it justifiable in Brian's mind to turn the other cheek and let a ridiculously unfair and unjust situation transpire against one specific person - Mike.  

I think this bad blood element, however buried, was partially there since they were kids, and maybe installed by their parents...but in terms of how those guys interact - even now - it just seems like there was always some odd, unhealthy element of opposing personalities, quiet backstabbing, and passive aggressive behavior, that went both ways. And I think that both men have taken advantage of each other's weaknesses over the years, beyond this songwriting credits issue.

Of course Brian is ultimately the one responsible for letting this crediting situation happen, and I'm not trying to absolve him of responsibility. I'm just curious as to the reasons why these guys did so many of the absurd things that they did (and continue to do).
 

[Ron]

I think that has a lot of credence.


BTW, also worth mentioning.  What do you think about the idea that Mike and Brian kind of had a verbal agreement? 

I've known plenty of people who are 'nice guys' and let people take advantage of them, and then eventually it comes to a head, and they just go ballistic and go WAY over the top, in response to all the disrespect they've taken over the years, and just smiled about. 

Sounds like Mike to a T.

I once worked with a guy who would always come in and work whenever they were short handed.  They'd call him in, he'd do it every time.  He was the nicest guy in the world, 200 times they called this guy in to work, and 200 times he acted like it wasn't that big of a deal, then finally he cussed everybody out, made a huge scene, and quit. 


I'll bet, at one point in time, Mike would have done anything for Brian and didn't want to push it and start a bunch of sh*t by insisting Brian pay him what he was owed.  So he brought it up, but never pushed the point until eventually he just went full on apeshit and sued him.

Even Mike's little soliloquy in court supports that he was STILL trying to 'play nice' with Brian.

[guitarfool2002]

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.  

This statement defies logic, especially coming in a thread where those supporting one side of this issue are repeatedly referencing *one letter* Murry sent to Brian in the 60's where he mentioned shoddy business practices.

Yet Tony Asher's words, this from the guy who actually was involved directly with negotiating with (and accepting payment from) Murry Wilson in the same time frame we're trying to suss out, are "irrelevant"?

With all due respect, that's just ridiculous. I'm not surprised, though, because the blinders are on and seemingly preventing a number of people posting here from seeing even a touch of contrary evidence to what they believe or have come to believe as opinion, that Brian Wilson was the reason why Mike got f***ed over.

At least I'm willing to concede that there was enough fault to go around, but holy sh*t when you have a guy like Asher who was directly involved in this stuff reporting how business was done, and reporting certain "facts" that he saw firsthand, it has to be at least taken into consideration.

It's far from irrelevant, surely more relevant than piggybacking an entire theory that Brian was engaging in "shoddy business" on the strength of one letter from Murry at a time when Murry was full of piss and vinegar over basically all of his dealings with the Beach Boys. Sunrays, anyone???

And some of this strikes me as wrong and even as stubborn of the facts as those who still insist "Mike Love sunk the Smile project", in light of getting many more sides and nuances to the bigger picture, when the truth of it is much more involved and too multifaceted to make a blanket assumption or conclusion like that look ridiculous.

And that part about Murry Wilson and his own "shoddy business" that was being discussed in 1967 relating to the payments Brian never got from Capitol for his production credits and the band itself never got through back payments in royalties, it makes Murry's mention in that letter of "shoddy business" look like the pot calling the kettle black, or in traditional terms "hypocritical", doesn't it?

[guitarfool2002]

Yeah, I agree this is pretty much irrelevant to the topic at hand but anyway...Would Mike be as responsible for not stopping his own brother their manager from stealing this money from the band, as some are claiming Brian should have been for not stopping his father their manager from possibly taking part in "shady business practices" that affected not only Mike but also the entire band's bank accounts?

If anything it also shows a checkered history of the band's various management teams through the years helping themselves to the band's money through shady accounting or outright theft. Not uncommon for anyone in the entertainment biz, just ask Billy Joel whose own relative/manager screwed him out of millions.

 

EX-BEACH BOYS MANAGER SENTENCED IN THEFT By Michael D. Harris, United Press International
Published: Monday, Nov. 28 1988 12:00 a.m. MST

The Beach Boys' former business manager, convicted of embezzling $906,000 from the pioneer surf-rock group, has been sentenced to five years on probation and ordered to make $86,000 in restitution.

Superior Court Judge Gordon Ringer imposed the sentence on Stephen M. Love, 41, who pleaded no contest Oct. 18 to one count of grand theft.Love, a younger brother of Beach Boys lead singer Mike Love and a cousin of group members Brian Wilson and Carl Wilson, was the group's business manager for much of the 1970s before being fired.

Deputy District Attorney Steve Licker said that sometime after July 1982, Love withdrew $906,000 from a court-imposed trust account without the permission of the Beach Boys or a judge who was supervising it.

Licker said the funds Love took were proceeds from the sale of a parcel of land in Santa Barbara involving a partnership between himself and the group.

Several members of the Beach Boys who were contacted by a district attorney's investigator approved of Love's sentence and the amount of the restitution.

Love claimed in a written statement that he took the money as an act of "economic self-defense" when the Beach Boys fired him and after his brother Mike "conceived and orchestrated a group conspiracy to (financially) `bury Steve Love.' "

Love told reporters he was fired by the group because he was a strong advocate against the use of hard drugs.

"In my view, the Beach Boys . . . are all guilty of participating in a conspiracy to stiff me (because of Mike Love's) ongoing personal fraud against me," Love said. "Mike repeatedly boasted . . . that he had fired up the other Beach Boys against me."

Love said he is "estranged totally" from his brother Mike and that the two no longer communicate.

A spokesman for the group was not immediately available to respond to Love's statements.

The Beach Boys currently have their first No. 1 single in 22 years, "Kokomo."

[guitarfool2002]

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

At this point it feels like we could get Mike Love on the record in his own words describing what happened, or what he thought happened and who was most responsible in the big picture, and it wouldn't be sufficient enough proof to convince some folks here if it disagreed with their assumption that "Brian was most responsible for Mike getting f***ed over financially".

[bgas]

Yeah, I agree this is pretty much irrelevant to the topic at hand but anyway...Would Mike be as responsible for not stopping his own brother their manager from stealing this money from the band, as some are claiming Brian should have been for not stopping his father their manager from possibly taking part in "shady business practices" that affected not only Mike but also the entire band's bank accounts?

If anything it also shows a checkered history of the band's various management teams through the years helping themselves to the band's money through shady accounting or outright theft. Not uncommon for anyone in the entertainment biz, just ask Billy Joel whose own relative/manager screwed him out of millions.

 

EX-BEACH BOYS MANAGER SENTENCED IN THEFT By Michael D. Harris, United Press International
Published: Monday, Nov. 28 1988 12:00 a.m. MST

The Beach Boys' former business manager, convicted of embezzling $906,000 from the pioneer surf-rock group, has been sentenced to five years on probation and ordered to make $86,000 in restitution.

Superior Court Judge Gordon Ringer imposed the sentence on Stephen M. Love, 41, who pleaded no contest Oct. 18 to one count of grand theft.Love, a younger brother of Beach Boys lead singer Mike Love and a cousin of group members Brian Wilson and Carl Wilson, was the group's business manager for much of the 1970s before being fired.

Deputy District Attorney Steve Licker said that sometime after July 1982, Love withdrew $906,000 from a court-imposed trust account without the permission of the Beach Boys or a judge who was supervising it.

Licker said the funds Love took were proceeds from the sale of a parcel of land in Santa Barbara involving a partnership between himself and the group.

Several members of the Beach Boys who were contacted by a district attorney's investigator approved of Love's sentence and the amount of the restitution.

Love claimed in a written statement that he took the money as an act of "economic self-defense" when the Beach Boys fired him and after his brother Mike "conceived and orchestrated a group conspiracy to (financially) `bury Steve Love.' "

Love told reporters he was fired by the group because he was a strong advocate against the use of hard drugs.

"In my view, the Beach Boys . . . are all guilty of participating in a conspiracy to stiff me (because of Mike Love's) ongoing personal fraud against me," Love said. "Mike repeatedly boasted . . . that he had fired up the other Beach Boys against me."

Love said he is "estranged totally" from his brother Mike and that the two no longer communicate.

A spokesman for the group was not immediately available to respond to Love's statements.

The Beach Boys currently have their first No. 1 single in 22 years, "Kokomo."

This is rather funny.  Steve Love takes/borrows/steals $906,000 from the BBs and repays $86,000.  Wish I could steal some of their $$ and pay it back on this ratio... I'd be happy with $100K !

[KittyKat]

As for why Tony Asher is proof that Mike possibly signed away his rights, I don't get from that passage that Tony signed away future earnings of royalties. It sounded like the $7,500 was a first payment and advance against future earnings of royalties. Where Tony may have felt screwed was getting only 25%, but still entitles to royalties in the decades after he exceeded $7,500, which he probably did the first year Pet Sounds was released.

Let's put it this way: does Tony Asher still get royalty payments for sales of "Pet Sounds" today? Let's say it sells 10,000 copies this year via iTunes and Amazon mp3 and CD sales. Tony would be earning that same 25% royalty rate. I tend to think he has continued to earn royalties over the years ever since 1966, or he would not have been upset that Mike Love took part of his percentage of "Wouldn't It Be Nice" when the Sea of Tunes suit found that Mike wrote a tiny part of the song and therefore was entitled to a percentage of royalty split. Maybe someone should e-mail Tony and ask if he still gets royalties from PS.

[guitarfool2002]

This is rather funny.  Steve Love takes/borrows/steals $906,000 from the BBs and repays $86,000.  Wish I could steal some of their $$ and pay it back on this ratio... I'd be happy with $100K !

Haha, yeah that's quite a return on an "unauthorized investment"! Let me borrow 20 bucks, I'll repay you $3.75 and we'll call it even.

It's not specifically *relevant*, but at the same time we have a parallel situation where a family member fires another immediate family member as the Beach Boys' "manager" (Brian 'fires' Murry in the 60's, Mike 'fires' his brother Steve in the wake of the CBS contract), and both fired managers still act in certain ways based on what they thought was contractual authority (or 'signatory' power) to take money from the accounts stuffed full of the band's profits and investments. The 1988 news article doesn't mention it but the speculation was that Mike's brother felt like the band didn't pay him what he thought he was owed under the terms of their contract (and two subsequent firings by the band) and the dealings with CBS, so he took the money on his own initiative to cover what he thought they owed him under their agreement.

And Murry, apart from the rumors about shady backroom deals with Capitol and others dating to their first contract, obviously sold Sea Of Tunes and pocketed the money, assuming his arrangement with the band gave him the authority to do that. And that act of Murry's was one of the key reasons why Brian sued and won for his share of that investment which he was due, and that same act which got Brian his back payments was the back payments made to Brian which Mike staked his claim on his share and also won in court.

So you have two family members, as managers, getting into the band's income...how much fault lies with the band members themselves at that point for hiring them, then not being vigilant enough to prevent further wrongdoings after each had been fired?

[guitarfool2002]

As for why Tony Asher is proof that Mike possibly signed away his rights, I don't get from that passage that Tony signed away future earnings of royalties. It sounded like the $7,500 was a first payment and advance against future earnings of royalties. Where Tony may have felt screwed was getting only 25%, but still entitles to royalties in the decades after he exceeded $7,500, which he probably did the first year Pet Sounds was released.

Let's put it this way: does Tony Asher still get royalty payments for sales of "Pet Sounds" today? Let's say it sells 10,000 copies this year via iTunes and Amazon mp3 and CD sales. Tony would be earning that same 25% royalty rate. I tend to think he has continued to earn royalties over the years ever since 1966, or he would not have been upset that Mike Love took part of his percentage of "Wouldn't It Be Nice" when the Sea of Tunes suit found that Mike wrote a tiny part of the song and therefore was entitled to a percentage of royalty split. Maybe someone should e-mail Tony and ask if he still gets royalties from PS.

What you write here is pretty much on the money, Asher did get his share of what came out on Pet Sounds as that 25% publishing deal he got from Murry. But I included that whole thing to show a specific example of how business deals around Brian's collaborators and songwriting in general was handled in the era we're all discussing and trying to figure out. It's a detailed account, directly from a source that actually dealt with Murry on the issues we're talking about, and it details how things were done. It was important to note that, I thought, because it lines up with several points I posted in this thread that were challenged or dismissed out-of-hand, but which I know still exist within the world of the songwriting business.

The part about Asher and "Wouldn't It Be Nice" which Tony found ridiculous was that one of Mike's lawyers apparently suggested during the court testimony and questioning that Brian may have been consulting with Mike about the song's lyrics as Brian would duck out of the studio to use the bathroom, and the implication was that Mike's contribution may have been done over the phone as the band was in Japan while Brian worked the studio sessions in LA.

And as Tony wrote the lyrics with Brian in LA, not involving Mike at all who again was in Asia during the process, he found it ridiculous to suggest clandestine phone calls to Japan during bathroom breaks as the genesis of Mike's contribution.

Mike did add the ad-lib "Good night my baby, sleep tight my baby" as they were cutting the vocals, but that's it.

Tony objected to the percentage of credit Mike's legal suit was trying to claim on that song, because he knew what he wrote in the song and knew that Mike put in an ad-lib during the fade, and trying to claim more of it wasn't being honest.

And on top of that, trying to claim that it was being done on the sly by Brian under the disguise of him using the bathroom when he was possibly calling Mike in Japan to discuss lyrics seemed as ridiculous in court as it does reading it today on this board.

Keep in mind, this is what Tony Asher recalls from the testimony in court. If we want further proof or a report of exactly what was said, I believe the entire case is public record and the transcripts can be accessed or purchased by someone who knows where to get them.

[Dancing Bear]

guitarfool, I don't really get what point you're still trying to make.


- Mike got screwed.

- Brian could have made something about it but didn't.

- Murry was an crook.


Is that about it?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

As for why Tony Asher is proof that Mike possibly signed away his rights, I don't get from that passage that Tony signed away future earnings of royalties. It sounded like the $7,500 was a first payment and advance against future earnings of royalties. Where Tony may have felt screwed was getting only 25%, but still entitles to royalties in the decades after he exceeded $7,500, which he probably did the first year Pet Sounds was released.

Let's put it this way: does Tony Asher still get royalty payments for sales of "Pet Sounds" today? Let's say it sells 10,000 copies this year via iTunes and Amazon mp3 and CD sales. Tony would be earning that same 25% royalty rate. I tend to think he has continued to earn royalties over the years ever since 1966, or he would not have been upset that Mike Love took part of his percentage of "Wouldn't It Be Nice" when the Sea of Tunes suit found that Mike wrote a tiny part of the song and therefore was entitled to a percentage of royalty split. Maybe someone should e-mail Tony and ask if he still gets royalties from PS.

What you write here is pretty much on the money, Asher did get his share of what came out on Pet Sounds as that 25% publishing deal he got from Murry. But I included that whole thing to show a specific example of how business deals around Brian's collaborators and songwriting in general was handled in the era we're all discussing and trying to figure out. It's a detailed account, directly from a source that actually dealt with Murry on the issues we're talking about, and it details how things were done. It was important to note that, I thought, because it lines up with several points I posted in this thread that were challenged or dismissed out-of-hand, but which I know still exist within the world of the songwriting business.

The part about Asher and "Wouldn't It Be Nice" which Tony found ridiculous was that one of Mike's lawyers apparently suggested during the court testimony and questioning that Brian may have been consulting with Mike about the song's lyrics as Brian would duck out of the studio to use the bathroom, and the implication was that Mike's contribution may have been done over the phone as the band was in Japan while Brian worked the studio sessions in LA.

And as Tony wrote the lyrics with Brian in LA, not involving Mike at all who again was in Asia during the process, he found it ridiculous to suggest clandestine phone calls to Japan during bathroom breaks as the genesis of Mike's contribution.

Mike did add the ad-lib "Good night my baby, sleep tight my baby" as they were cutting the vocals, but that's it.

Tony objected to the percentage of credit Mike's legal suit was trying to claim on that song, because he knew what he wrote in the song and knew that Mike put in an ad-lib during the fade, and trying to claim more of it wasn't being honest.

And on top of that, trying to claim that it was being done on the sly by Brian under the disguise of him using the bathroom when he was possibly calling Mike in Japan to discuss lyrics seemed as ridiculous in court as it does reading it today on this board.

Keep in mind, this is what Tony Asher recalls from the testimony in court. If we want further proof or a report of exactly what was said, I believe the entire case is public record and the transcripts can be accessed or purchased by someone who knows where to get them.

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?

[Ron]

Guitarfool, what are you talking about?  The Murray/Asher thing shows that Murray did sh*t by the book.    It's completely irrelevant to the point of Murray doing things off the book... because it illustrates Murray doing something ON the book.

How does a nice story of Tony Asher in a rough business negotiation with Murray (on the books) show that Murray cut a deal with Mike (off the books) ?

[KittyKat]

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?

I sensed from interviews with Tony, that I can recall, that he resented that Mike got credit for an ad-lib riff that is part of arranging, not writing. That traditionally, people who add vocalizatons in studio, even consisting of words or short bits of melody,don't get songwriting credits. The other part is that he's getting less than 25% to begin with, and he wasn't ever happy about getting only 25%. Add to that the fact that WIBN is one of the best selling songs from the album and still gets used in film soundtracks, and I can understand his feelings. Maybe he'd be less resentful if Mike's share were entirely deducted from Brian's share. He'd have a little empathy for Brian, of course, but Brian is a rich guy and Tony is not so his empathy would only go so far.

[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?

I sensed from interviews with Tony, that I can recall, that he resented that Mike got credit for an ad-lib riff that is part of arranging, not writing. That traditionally, people who add vocalizatons in studio, even consisting of words or short bits of melody,don't get songwriting credits. The other part is that he's getting less than 25% to begin with, and he wasn't ever happy about getting only 25%. Add to that the fact that WIBN is one of the best selling songs from the album and still gets used in film soundtracks, and I can understand his feelings. Maybe he'd be less resentful if Mike's share were entirely deducted from Brian's share. He'd have a little empathy for Brian, of course, but Brian is a rich guy and Tony is not so his empathy would only go so far.

But Mike's ad-lib contains words which are on the published lyric sheet, so it really shouldn't matter if it's a part of the "writing" or "arranging" ... It's there on the finished product.

[clack]

My speculation of how it went down:

1) Murry figures "my son is the creative force, my nephew is riding his coattails and doesn't deserve 50% of the royalties for just co-writing some lyrics here and there. I'll give him credit for every fourth song or so that he works on, that seems fair."

2) Mike is not yet the assertive and savvy pro, doesn't want to create a big stink. He confines himself to just complaining (to Brian and to friends).

3) Brian can't even be bothered to cash royalty checks of hundreds of thousands of dollars left lying about his home. He tells Mike he'll take care of the songwriting credits -- and means it each time he assures Mike -- but finds it easier not to do anything about it.

[guitarfool2002]

guitarfool, I don't really get what point you're still trying to make.


- Mike got screwed.

- Brian could have made something about it but didn't.

- Murry was an crook.


Is that about it?

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.

[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.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

guitarfool, I don't really get what point you're still trying to make.


- Mike got screwed.

- Brian could have made something about it but didn't.

- Murry was an crook.


Is that about it?

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.

I can't imagine there being many laughs anytime Mike and Murray were alone in a room ..... Ever since Mike beat the living piss out of Murray on tour, I can't imagine a lot of love (pun not intended) there between them .... Mike going into Murray's office and signing paperwork was probably exactly that: Mike signing whatever papers and getting the fu*k out.

[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.

[guitarfool2002]

Guitarfool, what are you talking about?  The Murray/Asher thing shows that Murray did sh*t by the book.    It's completely irrelevant to the point of Murray doing things off the book... because it illustrates Murray doing something ON the book.

How does a nice story of Tony Asher in a rough business negotiation with Murray (on the books) show that Murray cut a deal with Mike (off the books) ?

Ron, since you're eager to buy into the game here, before placing you bet and throwing down your cards I'd suggest you re-read what I wrote before posting the Asher/Murry excerpt. It wasn't about trying to show that Murry cut a deal with Mike off the books, it was to first answer a direct question others had raised, and beyond that to tie in some of the business practices that some insisted either couldn't happen or didn't happen regarding how these things were handled and still are handled in 2014 regarding songwriting as a business.

I'm getting annoyed at having things questioned or challenged that were already explained or posted earlier, perhaps taking a minute to read through them before doing the knee-jerk reaction thing would be a better tact. Just in case, here it is:

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.

[guitarfool2002]

I can't imagine there being many laughs anytime Mike and Murray were alone in a room ..... Ever since Mike beat the living piss out of Murray on tour, I can't imagine a lot of love (pun not intended) there between them .... Mike going into Murray's office and signing paperwork was probably exactly that: Mike signing whatever papers and getting the fu*k out.

If the process was as you describe, then it was in part Mike's fault for not reading what he was signing, isn't it?

On page 6, a board member who is a published songwriter wrote this:

guitarfool2002, to weigh in on the shadiness still in the songwriting game... I just had a minor hit single released in Japan. It's a song I wrote, for another artist. The management that placed the song smiled in my face and told me they were only interested in building a long term working relationship, and had no intentions of doing anything backhanded. So they send a contract over. Mind you, the song is a week from being released at the time. I almost signed it so I could get my songwriter's fee & settle on the songwriters splits, feeling the pressure of the release date coming up. Admittedly, I'm still a little wet behind the ears when it comes to the business side. But, having some sense, I decided to send it to my publisher first. They took a look at it and told me that if I had signed it, I would've signed away all of my publishing. I swear it wasn't even clear in the contract, but apparently it's what it said. Turns out I didn't have to sign anything at all.. it was all a trap to get me to hand over my publishing. And I still got my songwriters fee.

I think the times may play into it, because I know today I would've flipped a sh*t & got it squared away after the first song came out without my name on it... with Mike jeez..for it to happen again, and again, and again??

Now if that contract had been signed, if "Seltaeb1012002" had not sent that agreement to his publisher for a review and had signed it based on blind trust, on the word of those asking for it to be signed, and on the guarantee that it was all on the up-and-up, no shady stuff involved...and he ended up getting screwed royally out of credits and rights that were his to begin with...

...would you not agree part of the fault would have been on "Seltaeb1012002" for not bothering to review what he was being asked to sign? He did what I've heard as advice in business courses-interviews-books-lectures-seminars, from songwriters and all kinds of music biz folks: If you're asked to sign a contract like this, check with someone before signing it. Because the one time you don't check before signing is the time you'll get f***ed over.

Again, even in 1964 as "I Get Around" had hit #1 and the checks and BMI awards Capitol gold record presentations and Billboard accolades were coming in, at what point didn't having a number one record appear without proper credit raise at least a question from Mike to the guy he went when such documents needed to be signed? And the case settled in the 90's eventually came down to over three dozen songs...

Fool me once...but over three dozen times? It doesn't make sense.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I can't imagine there being many laughs anytime Mike and Murray were alone in a room ..... Ever since Mike beat the living piss out of Murray on tour, I can't imagine a lot of love (pun not intended) there between them .... Mike going into Murray's office and signing paperwork was probably exactly that: Mike signing whatever papers and getting the fu*k out.

If the process was as you describe, then it was in part Mike's fault for not reading what he was signing, isn't it?

On page 6, a board member who is a published songwriter wrote this:

guitarfool2002, to weigh in on the shadiness still in the songwriting game... I just had a minor hit single released in Japan. It's a song I wrote, for another artist. The management that placed the song smiled in my face and told me they were only interested in building a long term working relationship, and had no intentions of doing anything backhanded. So they send a contract over. Mind you, the song is a week from being released at the time. I almost signed it so I could get my songwriter's fee & settle on the songwriters splits, feeling the pressure of the release date coming up. Admittedly, I'm still a little wet behind the ears when it comes to the business side. But, having some sense, I decided to send it to my publisher first. They took a look at it and told me that if I had signed it, I would've signed away all of my publishing. I swear it wasn't even clear in the contract, but apparently it's what it said. Turns out I didn't have to sign anything at all.. it was all a trap to get me to hand over my publishing. And I still got my songwriters fee.

I think the times may play into it, because I know today I would've flipped a sh*t & got it squared away after the first song came out without my name on it... with Mike jeez..for it to happen again, and again, and again??

Now if that contract had been signed, if "Seltaeb1012002" had not sent that agreement to his publisher for a review and had signed it based on blind trust, on the word of those asking for it to be signed, and on the guarantee that it was all on the up-and-up, no shady stuff involved...and he ended up getting screwed royally out of credits and rights that were his to begin with...

...would you not agree part of the fault would have been on "Seltaeb1012002" for not bothering to review what he was being asked to sign? He did what I've heard as advice in business courses-interviews-books-lectures-seminars, from songwriters and all kinds of music biz folks: If you're asked to sign a contract like this, check with someone before signing it. Because the one time you don't check before signing is the time you'll get f***ed over.

Again, even in 1964 as "I Get Around" had hit #1 and the checks and BMI awards Capitol god record presentations and Billboard accolades were coming in, at what point didn't having a number one record appear without proper credit raise at least a question from Mike to the guy he went when such documents needed to be signed? And the case settled in the 90's eventually came down to over three dozen songs...

Fool me once...but over three dozen times? It doesn't make sense.

What exactly was Mike supposed to do? Fight Murray and bring the Beach Boys machine to a standstill when they were firing on all cylinders?

Let's keep in mind the should-be-obvious fact that Mike knows more about the situation and the people involved than you or I ever will.