Brian and Murry not crediting each other properly

[DonnyL]

And again I'll ask in return - Can what Chuck Britz said about Brian producing those earliest session be disproven? If so, then by who?

I'm not claiming that what Chuck said was wrong - just that there's more to the story. I'm sure Brian absolutely produced everything from the beginning, as much as he could with Murry being there in his way. But I also believe Murry was producing as well. I've heard tons of BBs sessions tapes, and what Murry was doing from the control booth in terms of "directing" was a more brusque, blunt, and less articulate version of what Brian did on the sessions to follow (after Murry was gone and Brian moved from the studio floor to the control room). The one aspect of production which Brian had that Murry did not, was the genuine artistic vision. That and a better personality.

As for what Desper said - that's a bit different. He's saying the group humored Murry until he left, then did what they wanted. Therefore, I would NOT credit Murry with co-producing those records. But on the stuff recorded at Western for the first five albums, it didn't work that way: Murry stayed in charge through the final take, and therefore IMO was fulfilling an important aspect of production.

And regarding the legal thing - Joe Thomas is not credited with co-producing TWGMTR, just with "recording" it. Yet I'm think we all know he produced it at least as much as Brian. But he's not credited with production, undoubtedly because of the worded agreement that was reached by the parties involved.

Another point to make is that it's widely known that George Martin did not serve as producer on every single Beatles session: he was infrequently absent, as early as "Yellow Submarine" But they always had someone sitting in the both to guide things along, whether it be Martin's assistant, or whomever. These people are not credited on the records, of course, and I'm sure that's because the contract reads that George Martin alone be officially credited as producer. And I'm not saying those folks had any kind of artistic vision, but rather "produced" in the same practical sense that Murry did (minus his boorish mannerisms). They ARE given credit with producing, however, in the official history of The Beatles sessions, written by Mark Lewisohn.

Getting back to the BBs, both Ed Roach and Geoffrey Cushing-Murray have shared that THEY acted as producer on particular Beach Boys sessions (Ed for a "Love Surrounds Me" session, probably for keyboard overdubs, at Kaye Smith in Seattle, and Geoffrey for Carl's lead vocal on "Goin' South", at Shang-ri-la in Malibu). I could be wrong, but I'm assuming neither of them had any hand in the "artistic vision" side of the productions, but rather the "practical" side of needing somebody in the booth to oversee the proceedings, listen objectively to what was being performed, offer advice when they felt it was needed, and coach/inspire the artist to the best possible outcome. Does that mean they were the sole producer of those cuts? No, but they certainly produced those particular sessions.

Lastly, am I advocating that the official producer credits be changed to include Murry as co-producer on the early stuff? Not really, because I know that won't happen, any more than Brian will be credited (or co-credited with Murry) for producing "Surfin' U.S.A." and "Shut Down": even though I know Nik Venet was no where near Western Recorders on the nights those tunes were recorded, he is legally designated as "producer", so that's how it stands - for eternity, seemingly.

Yeh ... credits in the Beach Boys world are not exactly accurate. Just look at the production credits on the "Ten Years of Harmony" (likely the most accurate) vs. the credits on the original album releases.

I personally think Brian produced the 2012 album about as much as he "executive produced" the MIU Album. Brian Wilson productions are distinct. So are Joe Thomas productions.

There's an interview with Hal Blaine about the "Everything I Need" recording ... How Joe Thomas basically ruined what Hal thought was a great record:

http://www.steve-escobar.com/?p=13

Yes, because quotes about a session held in 1995 are totally applicable to a record recorded in 2011-2012.

You don't know what you're talking about, and are making yourself look foolish.

This is why I rarely post on this board these days. [These sort of personal, mildly confrontational unprovoked responses]

Sounds like Brian Wilson:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FRc_ao2NrIk

Sounds like Joe Thomas:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ujnuQrHdNRQ

... Basic point being that since 1978, most releases that bear some variation of the famous "Produced by Brian Wilson" credit have -- to my ears -- been fairly heavily "sanitized" and cleaned up for release. There are tons of examples of this.

[Cam Mott]

Re. the early sessions, I don't think it is all or none.  I don't think anybody is challenging that Brian was a producer (credited or not) from the beginning. Not every session from the beginning was at Western and Britz wasn't at ever session from the beginning but still I bet almost everyone will agree that the gist of his claim about his first session for the BBs applies universally to most of the sessions except the ones where Brian bowed out as producer.

That does not rule out evidence for Murry also sharing to some extent an uncredited role of producer on some of the early sessions for which there is taped evidence and band member witness (it would be nice to see those quotes).

[DonnyL]

[accidental post]

[Emily]

Re. the early sessions, I don't think it is all or none.  I don't think anybody is challenging that Brian was a producer (credited or not) from the beginning. Not every session from the beginning was at Western and Britz wasn't at ever session from the beginning but still I bet almost everyone will agree that the gist of his claim about his first session for the BBs applies universally to most of the sessions except the ones where Brian bowed out as producer.

That does not rule out evidence for Murry also sharing to some extent an uncredited role of producer on some of the early sessions for which there is taped evidence and band member witness (it would be nice to see those quotes).

A peace maker. Yay! 

[c-man]

Re. the early sessions, I don't think it is all or none.  I don't think anybody is challenging that Brian was a producer (credited or not) from the beginning. Not every session from the beginning was at Western and Britz wasn't at ever session from the beginning but still I bet almost everyone will agree that the gist of his claim about his first session for the BBs applies universally to most of the sessions except the ones where Brian bowed out as producer.

That does not rule out evidence for Murry also sharing to some extent an uncredited role of producer on some of the early sessions for which there is taped evidence and band member witness (it would be nice to see those quotes).

Here's an excerpt from an interview with Carl Wilson, published in the New Jersey-based music paper Aquarian (April 6, 1983), prior to the band's April 8th appearance at Brendan Byrne Arena:
Interviewer: "Your dad managed the group at the start, didn't he?"
Carl: "He co-produced our first record too. He produced "409", "Shut Down", and the first session of "In My Room"."

And here's part of a radio interview with Brian Wilson, conducted by Nikki Wine on October 4, 1980, for The Grapevine program on KHTZ, as reprinted in the BBFUN newletter of November 1980:
Interviewer: "When did you actually start producing records for The Beach Boys? How many records into the whole thing did you take over?"
Brian: "Well, I took over in 1962, mid '62. Nik Venet was producing us in '62, the early part. I took over, well actually my father was producing after Nik Venet, then I took over after my father. That's what happened."

I think there are also more recent examples (like in the last 15 years or so) of Brian crediting Murry with helping to produce the early records.

Again, I wouldn't ever say that Murry produced any Beach Boys records by himself (except maybe the demos that got them signed with Capitol), but that rather he was co-producing with Brian. And even though Brian told Nikki Wine that the first record he himself produced was "Surfin' U.S.A", he also told her that Nik Venet didn't do much other than call out take numbers - which means, if Venet wasn't "fully" producing those records (not there's really much production on there, as I mentioned earlier), and Murry wasn't around for those - that means Brian was, in fact, co-producing with Venet by default (no doubt in the style that Venet himself was quoted by Brad Elliott as describing). And, drummer Frank DeVito recalls that Murry was in the booth for the "Surfin' U.S.A," session - so I can readily envision that as being a Brian-Murry co-production.

[c-man]

Here's another quote - from a Brian interview recorded June 7, 1985 for Westwood One Radio, as reprinted in the February 1986 STOMP!:

Interviewer: "You kind of became the studio leader of the group."
Brian: "In a sense, yeah."
Interviewer: "...and you produced."
Brian: "My dad was too though, he was kind of the leader. He was our producer but I learned, he and I learned from this guy (Gary Usher) how to record, this friend of ours, we were grateful for that."

[Cam Mott]

Thanks.

[guitarfool2002]

My understanding is that Murry chose the Reggie Dunbar pseudonym himself. Which raises an interesting point - despite his well-known megalomania and utter control-freak persona, Murry seems to have been rather coy about getting credit for his actual contributions to the BB's music: in addition to the "Breakaway" example, I'm thinking of how Murry fought to get producer credit for Brian starting with the third album, yet he himself continued to "serve" as Brian's uncredited co-producer for many sessions to come. Apparently he wasn't as interested in making that fact well-known as he was in steering the BBs career as he saw fit.

What exactly were Brian's uncredited contributions to The Many Moods of Murry, and what is the source for that info?

What caught my eye originally was the line in bold, especially "many sessions to come". As it progressed over the next few pages, it got into a wide range of related issues, including what warrants a production credit and various people who were involved weighing in on the matter. Brian would say Murry contributed to several songs, but the main producer (apart from those where Venet actually was at the helm) was Brian Wilson.

And I still disagree with the notion that contributing to the final outcome in a commanding way is worthy of a production credit, for the same reasons I've already mentioned. We'd see all kinds of musicians, engineers, studio staff, and whoever else coming forward with assorted "proof" that they had the idea which propelled the song to great success and how they should have been a credited co-producer based on that idea. Chaos would ensue, and it would be more along the lines of shaking the tree branches and having all the debris fall out rather than people who had legitimate claims...just like any number of ersatz songwriters who come out of the woodwork to say they had the idea for some mega-hit record and want a piece of that pie. Most of them are cranks and hucksters.

Someone being in the booth and giving advice is not a producer. Murry gave all kinds of orders, acted like a drill sergeant, berated and hectored the band (and other staff present)...and hardly anything he said was taken seriously, and when it was his name got mentioned. Ideas like speeding up Caroline No to a higher key - THAT made the record, but that's not worthy of a production credit. That was advice asked for and given, then advice taken...not co-production. He didn't ask for nor did he get producers credit because he didn't produce the other stuff either. And had he gotten it or demanded it, he could have made a lot more in production royalties and points...that 7-figure sum that Capitol failed to pay Brian throughout the 60's and which he had to file a lawsuit at the end of the 60's to actually receive. Brian earned that money by producing those records, just like Venet got credit for what he was contracted to do, and George Martin got credit for the White Album even though he was on holiday for weeks during the sessions. That's how it works. What's the line often thrown around..."but they signed the contract!" Exactly. Unless said contract can be shown to be fraudulent or and outright lie. As some of Murry's contracts were indeed found to be decades later. Another plate for another meal.

My issue was not as much fans chewing the fat and discussing this stuff back and forth, that's cool. It's when and if something official happens to try and retroactively go back and rewrite the entire definition and job description of "producer" in order to do something other than that which fans are discussing and debating on message boards. Because that is a whole different ballgame, and it's quite possibly as ugly as anything could get, both from a PR and personal standpoint. It's the kind of backlash that would happen if someone in the Beatles organization would try to strip either the "Lennon" or the "McCartney" out of that writing credit in order to somehow benefit from doing so. Not good. Not necessary.

Just to restate, the line "many sessions to come" is specifically what stood out. I don't see the proof of this.

[c-man]

My understanding is that Murry chose the Reggie Dunbar pseudonym himself. Which raises an interesting point - despite his well-known megalomania and utter control-freak persona, Murry seems to have been rather coy about getting credit for his actual contributions to the BB's music: in addition to the "Breakaway" example, I'm thinking of how Murry fought to get producer credit for Brian starting with the third album, yet he himself continued to "serve" as Brian's uncredited co-producer for many sessions to come. Apparently he wasn't as interested in making that fact well-known as he was in steering the BBs career as he saw fit.

What exactly were Brian's uncredited contributions to The Many Moods of Murry, and what is the source for that info?

Just to restate, the line "many sessions to come" is specifically what stood out. I don't see the proof of this.

So you're saying you would agree that Murry probably "co-produced" the specific records Carl and Brian say he did? If he did, I would argue that he also co-produced most of the third, fourth and possibly fifth albums, based on his actions being identical to those on the sessions for the ones mentioned by Carl and Brian. In other words, "many sessions to come".

[Cam Mott]

I suppose we can argue about how many is many if that seems relevant to whether or not Murry was an uncredited co-producer.   Despite any of our opinions about what constitutes a Producer or how many is many, we have members of the band not only defining Murry as a Co-producer but Brian himself defining Murry as a Producer.  That seems pretty definitive enough to me.

[c-man]

Here's a quote from David Marks' interview with Ken Sharp for RockCellar Magazine (the expanded version, as posted on the Friday Night Boys blogpost, Sept. 21, 2013), in which David gives Murry some credit for actually influencing the sound of the early records:

"When we first did Surfin’ Safari, Surfin’ U.S.A., and Shut Down at Western, I think Murry got his way a few times. He was obsessed with the guitars being all trebly, which actually benefited the sound overall. You’ve gotta give Murry a little credit there but for the most part Brian was very frustrated with Murry interfering with his musical expression. Brian knew what he wanted before he would go into the studio."

So even though Brian had a vision of the sound he wanted, Murry still prevailed in getting some of this own stamp on those records, sound-wise. That's in addition to the coaching/commanding actions he took as Brian's un-credited co-producer.

[guitarfool2002]

So I'm understanding this, is it being said that a suggestion to put more treble on the guitar would warrant a production credit?

[DonnyL]

So I'm understanding this, is it being said that a suggestion to put more treble on the guitar would warrant a production credit?

[PREFACE: I don't know if Murry deserves a minor co-production credit or not. Sounds like it may be in order for some of the earliest Capitol recordings. And obviously, Brian was the legit Producer for the Beach Boys recordings from Surfer Girl to Friends in my opinion. So I don't think re-writing history and changing label credits serve any function. But for academic purposes, it's an interesting discussion.]

I think a "treble up!" suggestion may or may not constitute a co-production credit, in general.

If someone happens to be in the studio and says, "hey guys, it might sound cool to hear more highs on the guitar amps", then the musicians try it, and like it, and the assigned producer of the session agrees, then I'd say that would not be deserving of a co-production credit.

A different scenario in which a person in a position of authority is INSTRUCTING (as opposed to suggesting) that the treble be turned up (particularly if the musicians or official producer may not be in agreement), and that makes it to the final record ... I think this would be an example of co-producing -- especially if the guitar sound is an important aspect of the production.

... But we're not just talking about the treble suggestion (I think that was just a possible example from the David Marks quote). I'd say the quotes from Brian and particularly Carl are more telling, as presumably are the session tapes that c-man is referring to.

[Cam Mott]

So I'm understanding this, is it being said that a suggestion to put more treble on the guitar would warrant a production credit?

Again, whether it does or doesn't in our opinion, Carl and Brian say Murry was a Co-producer and a Producer of the group.

[guitarfool2002]

So I'm understanding this, is it being said that a suggestion to put more treble on the guitar would warrant a production credit?

[PREFACE: I don't know if Murry deserves a minor co-production credit or not. Sounds like it may be in order for some of the earliest Capitol recordings. And obviously, Brian was the legit Producer for the Beach Boys recordings from Surfer Girl to Friends in my opinion. So I don't think re-writing history and changing label credits serve any function. But for academic purposes, it's an interesting discussion.]

I think a "treble up!" suggestion may or may not constitute a co-production credit, in general.

If someone happens to be in the studio and says, "hey guys, it might sound cool to hear more highs on the guitar amps", then the musicians try it, and like it, and the assigned producer of the session agrees, then I'd say that would not be deserving of a co-production credit.

A different scenario in which a person in a position of authority is INSTRUCTING (as opposed to suggesting) that the treble be turned up (particularly if the musicians or official producer may not be in agreement), and that makes it to the final record ... I think this would be an example of co-producing -- especially if the guitar sound is an important aspect of the production.

... But we're not just talking about the treble suggestion (I think that was just a possible example from the David Marks quote). I'd say the quotes from Brian and particularly Carl are more telling, as presumably are the session tapes that c-man is referring to.

Under those definitions, the majority of the tens of thousands of engineers who were manning the board on a session that turned into a hit record since 1960 could file a claim for a production credit or retroactive "points", and to me that is absurd because they were the engineers and not the producers. Because the engineer on any given session could whack the treble on any of the tracks to give it more punch in the mix along with adding any number of sonic hooks to a given song strictly by doing what engineers do, and those engineers in doing their job made these calls dozens of times an hour during a session without someone like Murry grabbing their shoulders and barking orders at them.

There is a big picture here - again, fans discussing this back and forth is one thing...as you said Donny,  and which I agree 100%, going back and rewriting the history and changing label credits serves no function at all. If it ever should reach that point, and it should not.

With the Beatles alone, people could spend months parsing and putting under a microscope every track they released to go through and credit exactly who did what if the definition of producing a record is stretched to include adding more treble to a guitar track for one example. As already said, it serves no purpose and it would be - literally - a farce. Unless there are legitimate, 100% guaranteed examples where someone legitimately was contracted to produce a record, they produced that record, and through fraud or deception or outright lies didn't get compensated for that work.

So the albums Surfer Girl, Little Deuce Coupe, and Shut Down v2...albums 2-5 in the discography...what exactly did Murry do? Should we start pruning track by track to pick out which suggestions Murry made which made it to the final mix and release, but by bit? "Extended bridge, idea by Murry Wilson?" Apart from suggesting Brian wasn't the producer as credited, or that the credits "Produced by Brian Wilson" which have existed since 1963, what purpose does doing that serve? And why do it? Should all bands' catalogs of classic albums go through the same microscope of scrutiny to make sure every idea that got spoken by someone in or around the band, including management, gets credit?

Here's one to try. Does Dick Lester deserve a production credit for the song "A Hard Day's Night"? Because it was Dick Lester who, in the studio, told the band the film scene he had in mind needed a powerful chord to come crashing in under the scene to kick off the action. That's how George Harrison, John, and Paul came to create that most famous of all "what chord is that?" chord moments in rock history. Without Lester saying it was needed, chances are it wouldn't have been there. Did he produce that song specifically, should he get credit on all releases of the song?

I say emphatically no. Yet Lester qualifies more for such a credit than Murry's "production" that included talking and talking and more talking while Brian was doing most of the actual calling the shots.

Totally unnecessary.

[guitarfool2002]

So I'm understanding this, is it being said that a suggestion to put more treble on the guitar would warrant a production credit?

Again, whether it does or doesn't in our opinion, Carl and Brian say Murry was a Co-producer and a Producer of the group.

For how many songs? The bulk of three albums released in 1963 into 1964? I don't see that being accurate any more than Murry's 'directions' on Help Me Rhonda qualify him for a producer's credit on that single. Bits of ideas here and there versus overseeing full albums' worth of material, yeah - he was their manager. Managers of all forms of entertainment might do what Murry did in telling their actor and dancer clients certain things that led to something big or successful...but they're managers, not producers.

Murry got credit (and paid) for managing the band until he was fired. Brian got credit (and had to fight in court to get paid) for producing the band's records and albums. Right? Right.

What's the issue?

[Cam Mott]

So I'm understanding this, is it being said that a suggestion to put more treble on the guitar would warrant a production credit?

Again, whether it does or doesn't in our opinion, Carl and Brian say Murry was a Co-producer and a Producer of the group.

For how many songs? The bulk of three albums released in 1963 into 1964? I don't see that being accurate any more than Murry's 'directions' on Help Me Rhonda qualify him for a producer's credit on that single. Bits of ideas here and there versus overseeing full albums' worth of material, yeah - he was their manager. Managers of all forms of entertainment might do what Murry did in telling their actor and dancer clients certain things that led to something big or successful...but they're managers, not producers.

Murry got credit (and paid) for managing the band until he was fired. Brian got credit (and had to fight in court to get paid) for producing the band's records and albums. Right? Right.

What's the issue?

The issue is "Brian and Murry not crediting each other properly". 

The how many is enough that Carl and Brian say Murry was a Co-producer and a Producer of the group for that many recordings. 

What is your issue with Carl and Brian's testimony about the way it was for them in their band?

[CenturyDeprived]

So I'm understanding this, is it being said that a suggestion to put more treble on the guitar would warrant a production credit?

[PREFACE: I don't know if Murry deserves a minor co-production credit or not. Sounds like it may be in order for some of the earliest Capitol recordings. And obviously, Brian was the legit Producer for the Beach Boys recordings from Surfer Girl to Friends in my opinion. So I don't think re-writing history and changing label credits serve any function. But for academic purposes, it's an interesting discussion.]

I think a "treble up!" suggestion may or may not constitute a co-production credit, in general.

If someone happens to be in the studio and says, "hey guys, it might sound cool to hear more highs on the guitar amps", then the musicians try it, and like it, and the assigned producer of the session agrees, then I'd say that would not be deserving of a co-production credit.

A different scenario in which a person in a position of authority is INSTRUCTING (as opposed to suggesting) that the treble be turned up (particularly if the musicians or official producer may not be in agreement), and that makes it to the final record ... I think this would be an example of co-producing -- especially if the guitar sound is an important aspect of the production.

... But we're not just talking about the treble suggestion (I think that was just a possible example from the David Marks quote). I'd say the quotes from Brian and particularly Carl are more telling, as presumably are the session tapes that c-man is referring to.

Under those definitions, the majority of the tens of thousands of engineers who were manning the board on a session that turned into a hit record since 1960 could file a claim for a production credit or retroactive "points", and to me that is absurd because they were the engineers and not the producers. Because the engineer on any given session could whack the treble on any of the tracks to give it more punch in the mix along with adding any number of sonic hooks to a given song strictly by doing what engineers do, and those engineers in doing their job made these calls dozens of times an hour during a session without someone like Murry grabbing their shoulders and barking orders at them.

There is a big picture here - again, fans discussing this back and forth is one thing...as you said Donny,  and which I agree 100%, going back and rewriting the history and changing label credits serves no function at all. If it ever should reach that point, and it should not.

With the Beatles alone, people could spend months parsing and putting under a microscope every track they released to go through and credit exactly who did what if the definition of producing a record is stretched to include adding more treble to a guitar track for one example. As already said, it serves no purpose and it would be - literally - a farce. Unless there are legitimate, 100% guaranteed examples where someone legitimately was contracted to produce a record, they produced that record, and through fraud or deception or outright lies didn't get compensated for that work.

So the albums Surfer Girl, Little Deuce Coupe, and Shut Down v2...albums 2-5 in the discography...what exactly did Murry do? Should we start pruning track by track to pick out which suggestions Murry made which made it to the final mix and release, but by bit? "Extended bridge, idea by Murry Wilson?" Apart from suggesting Brian wasn't the producer as credited, or that the credits "Produced by Brian Wilson" which have existed since 1963, what purpose does doing that serve? And why do it? Should all bands' catalogs of classic albums go through the same microscope of scrutiny to make sure every idea that got spoken by someone in or around the band, including management, gets credit?

Here's one to try. Does Dick Lester deserve a production credit for the song "A Hard Day's Night"? Because it was Dick Lester who, in the studio, told the band the film scene he had in mind needed a powerful chord to come crashing in under the scene to kick off the action. That's how George Harrison, John, and Paul came to create that most famous of all "what chord is that?" chord moments in rock history. Without Lester saying it was needed, chances are it wouldn't have been there. Did he produce that song specifically, should he get credit on all releases of the song?

I say emphatically no. Yet Lester qualifies more for such a credit than Murry's "production" that included talking and talking and more talking while Brian was doing most of the actual calling the shots.

Totally unnecessary.

I think these are all fair points, especially the Beatles example. I'm trying to see both sides of the story, yet it's still obviously tough to find the real answer since it's ultimately subjective, particularly with Carl and Brian stating the production input from Murry (who I'm no fan of, by the way!). If any Murry production credit was earned (not in actuality earned on paper, but earned in terms of what's right and fair), I suppose it might just be a smidge here or there. I don't know how that computes to a co-producer credit. When Mike gets a songwriting credit for "Good Night Baby", it seems only fair that the same would apply for any contributions on a similar small, yet not entirely negligible level by Murry, as well as for Dick Lester. Either that, or all such claims (including Mike's) are bogus.

I'll pose this question again... nothing personally against Venet, I'm bringing him up simply because he's the only guy who fits the bill for this unusual example... but do you think it fair to say that Venet and Murry (and Landy, for that matter) gave roughly the same amount of input to the recording process, and that - legal/contractual technicalities aside - ultimately they all deserve the same level of credit (nada)?

I might add, I think that's probably a fair viewpoint to hold, because I can't figure out why (in simple terms of who deserves what), any of them deserve a credit over another. Either they all do, or none of them do, even if Venet certainly never did heinous things like the other two guys. I don't know why it's "right" that Venet gets to keep his credit if he contributed nothing (or next to nothing), and yes I am aware that this was simply the way things were done back then, but again I'm talking about what you and I think is right and fair, outside of what a contract stipulates. After all, Brian could have smoked a bunch of hash and drawn up contracts stating that Jasper Dailey was co-producer of Smile if he wanted to!   Doesn't mean Dailey contributed (or in actuality, deserves) anymore than Venet, from a producer's credit standpoint.

Ultimately, I lose no sleep over who gets what credit, I just am curious as to why there are inconsistencies in terms of what people think is fair and just, when we take out the Venet early '60s contractual reasoning out of the equation.

[Mike's Beard]

Enough to warrant a co-credit? Doubtful. But clearly Murry was performing producer duties unoffically on those early sessions, reguardless of whether he was asked to or not.

[DonnyL]

So I'm understanding this, is it being said that a suggestion to put more treble on the guitar would warrant a production credit?

[PREFACE: I don't know if Murry deserves a minor co-production credit or not. Sounds like it may be in order for some of the earliest Capitol recordings. And obviously, Brian was the legit Producer for the Beach Boys recordings from Surfer Girl to Friends in my opinion. So I don't think re-writing history and changing label credits serve any function. But for academic purposes, it's an interesting discussion.]

I think a "treble up!" suggestion may or may not constitute a co-production credit, in general.

If someone happens to be in the studio and says, "hey guys, it might sound cool to hear more highs on the guitar amps", then the musicians try it, and like it, and the assigned producer of the session agrees, then I'd say that would not be deserving of a co-production credit.

A different scenario in which a person in a position of authority is INSTRUCTING (as opposed to suggesting) that the treble be turned up (particularly if the musicians or official producer may not be in agreement), and that makes it to the final record ... I think this would be an example of co-producing -- especially if the guitar sound is an important aspect of the production.

... But we're not just talking about the treble suggestion (I think that was just a possible example from the David Marks quote). I'd say the quotes from Brian and particularly Carl are more telling, as presumably are the session tapes that c-man is referring to.

Under those definitions, the majority of the tens of thousands of engineers who were manning the board on a session that turned into a hit record since 1960 could file a claim for a production credit or retroactive "points", and to me that is absurd because they were the engineers and not the producers. Because the engineer on any given session could whack the treble on any of the tracks to give it more punch in the mix along with adding any number of sonic hooks to a given song strictly by doing what engineers do, and those engineers in doing their job made these calls dozens of times an hour during a session without someone like Murry grabbing their shoulders and barking orders at them.

There is a big picture here - again, fans discussing this back and forth is one thing...as you said Donny,  and which I agree 100%, going back and rewriting the history and changing label credits serves no function at all. If it ever should reach that point, and it should not.

With the Beatles alone, people could spend months parsing and putting under a microscope every track they released to go through and credit exactly who did what if the definition of producing a record is stretched to include adding more treble to a guitar track for one example. As already said, it serves no purpose and it would be - literally - a farce. Unless there are legitimate, 100% guaranteed examples where someone legitimately was contracted to produce a record, they produced that record, and through fraud or deception or outright lies didn't get compensated for that work.

So the albums Surfer Girl, Little Deuce Coupe, and Shut Down v2...albums 2-5 in the discography...what exactly did Murry do? Should we start pruning track by track to pick out which suggestions Murry made which made it to the final mix and release, but by bit? "Extended bridge, idea by Murry Wilson?" Apart from suggesting Brian wasn't the producer as credited, or that the credits "Produced by Brian Wilson" which have existed since 1963, what purpose does doing that serve? And why do it? Should all bands' catalogs of classic albums go through the same microscope of scrutiny to make sure every idea that got spoken by someone in or around the band, including management, gets credit?

Here's one to try. Does Dick Lester deserve a production credit for the song "A Hard Day's Night"? Because it was Dick Lester who, in the studio, told the band the film scene he had in mind needed a powerful chord to come crashing in under the scene to kick off the action. That's how George Harrison, John, and Paul came to create that most famous of all "what chord is that?" chord moments in rock history. Without Lester saying it was needed, chances are it wouldn't have been there. Did he produce that song specifically, should he get credit on all releases of the song?

I say emphatically no. Yet Lester qualifies more for such a credit than Murry's "production" that included talking and talking and more talking while Brian was doing most of the actual calling the shots.

Totally unnecessary.

An engineer sweetening the sound a little here and there (with no objections from the producer) would fall into the "suggestion" category I mentioned above, in my opinion.

But I do believe that this type of suggestion could also be considered producing. In fact, we often hear Brian doing just that on session tapes ("Carol, can you turn the highs up on your guitar?", etc.). So in my opinion, it comes down to context, and what the person's role is in the proceedings.

Murry's defined role was manager. And he was certainly an authority figure in the early world of the Beach Boys. So I suppose the question that I'm interested in in this discussion is: What role did Murry play in the Beach Boys' recordings? Why was he there? Conventional wisdom says that he was a failed musician trying to make it vicariously through his sons, and was initially a good, go-getting manager who opened lots of doors for the group. But is that it? What exactly was he in the studio for? If he truly was just a nuisance, then so be it. And we have quotes from folks like Chuck Britz saying he didn't do anything helpful. But then we have quotes from Brian and Carl saying he helped produce. And we have session tapes where Murry sounds as if he may be co-producing. I may not be remembering this correctly, but I feel like a read a quote from Brian once, in which he said something like his dad helped him learn to produce.

I don't follow the Beatles stuff, but the example you cited above would most certainly not warrant a production credit. It's a simple suggestion, which the producer can take or leave.

But I'm not sure the David Marks quote about turning up the treble is the best example to focus on.

[Emily]

I'll pose this question again... nothing personally against Venet, I'm bringing him up simply because he's the only guy who fits the bill for this unusual example... but do you think it fair to say that Venet and Murry (and Landy, for that matter) gave roughly the same amount of input to the recording process, and that - legal/contractual technicalities aside - ultimately they all deserve the same level of credit (nada)?

It sounds to me like Murry most likely had altogether more input than Landy or Venet. As someone (I think GuitarFool) pointed out above, we don't know what Landy contributed, but we know he lied about it. We also know that lots of sabotage of his contributions took place (which is good, imo). So who knows in the end what Landyisms got on there?
Everyone seems to agree that, in terms of sound production, Venet had virtually no contribution, though if you are talking about the "project manager" role of a producer, he did book studio time, etc.
It sounds like Murry, on some portion of early work, had sound production input to a degree.
Note: I in no way advocate changing credits.

[Emily]

Just thinking that the crux of the debate here may be: was Murry the boss of the proceedings?
I mean, we all agree at this point that suggestions can come from all over the place and that, even if the person making suggestions was a loudmouth, it's still only a suggestion unless you're the decider,like George W.
Is there evidence that, ultimately, BW wasn't the decider?

[Phoenix]

I thought the crux of the debate was whether Murry THOUGHT he was (co)boss of the proceedings and if he did, why he didn't seek credit for himself, being the glory hound that he was.

[c-man]

So I'm understanding this, is it being said that a suggestion to put more treble on the guitar would warrant a production credit?

Again, whether it does or doesn't in our opinion, Carl and Brian say Murry was a Co-producer and a Producer of the group.

For how many songs? The bulk of three albums released in 1963 into 1964? I don't see that being accurate any more than Murry's 'directions' on Help Me Rhonda qualify him for a producer's credit on that single. Bits of ideas here and there versus overseeing full albums' worth of material, yeah - he was their manager. Managers of all forms of entertainment might do what Murry did in telling their actor and dancer clients certain things that led to something big or successful...but they're managers, not producers.

Murry got credit (and paid) for managing the band until he was fired. Brian got credit (and had to fight in court to get paid) for producing the band's records and albums. Right? Right.

What's the issue?

To be specific, we know Murry co-produced (with Brian) the group's first Western session (resulting in "Surfin' Safari", "409", and "Lonely Sea"), and produced the demo of "Their Hearts Were Full Of Spring" - he's officially credited with such in the liner notes of the officially released Made In California box set, and years before that, he was unofficially credited with producing both sides of their first Capitol single in Brad Elliott's seminal discography "Surf's Up! The Beach Boys On Record 1961-1981". Additionally, Carl is quoted as saying Murry produced "Shut Down" and "the first session of 'In My Room'" (co-produced with Brian would be more accurate). Brian's comments that he (Brian) produced "Surfin' U.S.A." but that his father was producing after Venet, David Marks' naming that song as one on which Murry "got his way" sound-wise, and Frank DeVito's recollection of Murry in the control booth for that session indicate another Brian-Murry co-production there. Session tapes reveal Murry in the booth and in control for the bulk of the Surfer Girl album, the "Little Saint Nick" single, and the basic track and guitar solo of "Fun, Fun, Fun". No session tapes have been found for the new tunes on the Little Deuce Coupe album, but beings as how those sessions were between those for the Surfer Girl album and the "Saint Nick" single, I'd say Murry's role there was likely the same as on the sessions surrounding them.
 
If Beatles session tapes showed that Brian Epstein was in charge of some of their sessions, giving the kinds of orders that George Martin in fact did on Beatles session tapes (notice I said "orders", not "suggestions"), and no one else was, and two of The Beatles were on record as saying he produced or co-produced some of their early records, I would consider him to be producer or co-producer of those records, regardless of how the credits read. And if another Beatle said he deserved some credit for getting their records to sound a certain way, and that those records were probably the better for it, then I would just consider that to be further evidence. This would all be IN ADDITION to his role as their manager.

[c-man]

So I'm understanding this, is it being said that a suggestion to put more treble on the guitar would warrant a production credit?

Um, I don't think that was a suggestion.