Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[JakeH]

[edit] The unsent '65 letter from Murry to Brian indicates that - [edit]

Pardon for this intrusion, but I wasn't aware that the '65 letter was never sent. I've always assumed that while it's possible that he never sent it, the natural presumption would be that Murry mailed it (and that Brian subsequently read it). Not doubting you, but can you clarify the basis for saying it was unsent? Thanks.

[Empire Of Love]

Directed to all of the "blame Brian" implications versus blaming Murry...Read this and see who Mike blamed in 2004. Key lines in bold

Mojo magazine, 2004, Mike Love interview:

There was a lot of disharmony in the band following those years, but Love points out that there was always something “not entirely harmonious” about The Beach Boys. “Certainly never as harmonious as the sounds made around the microphone,” he says, “because from very early on, my Uncle Murry was involved. He basically took over publishing of the songs Brian and I wrote. He was always pretty tough to deal with. I think he was a thief. He could be very obnoxious; I mean he was terrible to his sons – emotionally, physically and financially. Definitely an abusive person. Brian and I ended up firing him at one point, so I think his way of getting back at me was not include me on the co-authorship of many, many songs, including California Girls and I Get Around. So from the very beginning of our song writing together, there was always that negative vibe underneath it all.”

He complained about it at the time? “Yes, but my cousin Brian would usually say, 'Well my dad f***ed up.' He said that at least a half-dozen times when I'd bring it up. I blame my uncle a lot more in the cheating of Mike Love because my cousin Brian was so shaky for so many years. He has auditory delusions and mental illness [which] made him very afraid to speak up for himself. He was very hard-pressed to protect my interests in our collaborative efforts, let alone his own.”

History has demonstrated that song writing cases are very hard to win, so one has to wonder how Love was able to convince a court. “Well, ironically, my cousin Brian wanted to settle the issue but he was unable to because he was in a consevatorship due to his mental state. The conservator was a lawyer who said that the statute of limitations had expired. That's what Brian was told, so that's the course he had to follow. But because of everything that went on with Murry and the selling of the catalogue, it could be considered fraud. So I was able to plead my case. In court my attorney would say something like, '“She's real fine, my 409”. Did Mike Love make that up?' And Brian would say, on the witness stand, 'That sounds like something Mike would do.' They'd bring him out of the courtroom and tell him, 'You're going to go bankrupt if you keep saying things like that!' In his own way, he was trying to rectify things, even though his attorney didn't want him to pay. He even told me he wanted to, on the phone and in person, before all this happened. But it was his attorney who forced me to go to court to resolve the issue. I certainly don't have any animosity or hard feelings towards Brian, especially understanding his state of mind at the time. But he knows what I wrote and so do I.”


Mike in his own words, 2004. Based on his own words at that time, Mike doesn't blame Brian as much as some posters here seem to do.

Whoa.  Thank you for posting that GF, I was unaware of this information.  It seems he has completely changed his story.  It is almost like Mike is slowly building a case, publicly, for a rewrite of history.  The question is why?  For fame?  Another lawsuit?  Fascinating stuff.

EoL

[Emily]

[edit] The unsent '65 letter from Murry to Brian indicates that - [edit]

Pardon for this intrusion, but I wasn't aware that the '65 letter was never sent. I've always assumed that while it's possible that he never sent it, the natural presumption would be that Murry mailed it (and that Brian subsequently read it). Not doubting you, but can you clarify the basis for saying it was unsent? Thanks.

Well, for heaven's sake, it's certainly not an intrusion. I'm actually glad you asked, because I remember when I first read about the letter I read it was never sent and that got lodged in my mind as fact, but now I've looked and can't find the source and am not sure what it was basing that on. Images of the actual hard copy of the letter can be seen here: http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/12/all-i-tried-to-do-was-make-you-all.html
It's not folded; it's not signed; it has edits all over it- it kind of seems like a draft (?) - but you're right, that's some slight, but certainly not definitive, evidence that this paper wasn't sent as a letter, but perhaps a fair copy was sent. I don't know. And I'll go back and edit my post so as to not spread misinformation. Thank you.

[clack]

Yes, read that interview critically.

 Mike would complain to Brian -- in 1963, 1964, and 1965, the years in question, when Brian was at the height of his influence and power, producing, arranging, and writing not only for the Beach Boys but for other acts as well, and Brian would shrug, take the royalty checks and credit due Mike, and say yeah, Dad messed up, sorry about that.

Are we really saying that there was no way that Brian could have insisted on Mike getting credit, while Gary Usher, Roger Christian, and others were getting their due? Was Brian already so mentally disabled, even in 1963, that he could not have fought for Mike if he were determined to?

I'm not saying that Brian was acting in bad faith, only that he was, in these instances, weak. Being weak and not standing up for those you should stand up for is a betrayal. Brian betrayed Mike out of weakness, and not just once but every time Mike contributed significantly to a song and Murry left Mike's name off the publishing.

Brian was too intimidated by his father to fight him. I understand that, I don't think less of him because of that -- his sensitivity, his vulnerability contributed to making him a great artist -- but let's call a spade a spade. Brian wronged Mike.

[Emily]

Yes, read that interview critically.

 Mike would complain to Brian -- in 1963, 1964, and 1965, the years in question, when Brian was at the height of his influence and power, producing, arranging, and writing not only for the Beach Boys but for other acts as well, and Brian would shrug, take the royalty checks and credit due Mike, and say yeah, Dad messed up, sorry about that.

Are we really saying that there was no way that Brian could have insisted on Mike getting credit, while Gary Usher, Roger Christian, and others were getting their due? Was Brian already so mentally disabled, even in 1963, that he could not have fought for Mike if he were determined to?

I'm not saying that Brian was acting in bad faith, only that he was, in these instances, weak. Being weak and not standing up for those you should stand up for is a betrayal. Brian betrayed Mike out of weakness, and not just once but every time Mike contributed significantly to a song and Murry left Mike's name off the publishing.

Brian was too intimidated by his father to fight him. I understand that, I don't think less of him because of that -- his sensitivity, his vulnerability contributed to making him a great artist -- but let's call a spade a spade. Brian wronged Mike.

I agree with you, with the caveat that of course Mike could have confronted Murry about it. If Brian was having difficulty doing it, instead of bringing it to Brian, Mike could have brought it to Murry. The fact that he kept bringing it to Brian may indicate that he, too, found it too difficult to confront Murry. I mean, it underscores how much all of these guys seem to have danced around Murry's involvement.

[CenturyDeprived]

Yes, read that interview critically.

 Mike would complain to Brian -- in 1963, 1964, and 1965, the years in question, when Brian was at the height of his influence and power, producing, arranging, and writing not only for the Beach Boys but for other acts as well, and Brian would shrug, take the royalty checks and credit due Mike, and say yeah, Dad messed up, sorry about that.

Are we really saying that there was no way that Brian could have insisted on Mike getting credit, while Gary Usher, Roger Christian, and others were getting their due? Was Brian already so mentally disabled, even in 1963, that he could not have fought for Mike if he were determined to?

I'm not saying that Brian was acting in bad faith, only that he was, in these instances, weak. Being weak and not standing up for those you should stand up for is a betrayal. Brian betrayed Mike out of weakness, and not just once but every time Mike contributed significantly to a song and Murry left Mike's name off the publishing.

Brian was too intimidated by his father to fight him. I understand that, I don't think less of him because of that -- his sensitivity, his vulnerability contributed to making him a great artist -- but let's call a spade a spade. Brian wronged Mike.

I agree with you, with the caveat that of course Mike could have confronted Murry about it. If Brian was having difficulty doing it, instead of bringing it to Brian, Mike could have brought it to Murry. The fact that he kept bringing it to Brian may indicate that he, too, found it too difficult to confront Murry. I mean, it underscores how much all of these guys seem to have danced around Murry's involvement.

If Mike approached Murry about it, there would surely have been hell to pay. Murry was a vindictive SOB. He fired and blacklisted Dave first chance he could, and who knows what wrath Mike would've faced. And ditto for Brian. Brian was traumatized, walking around in a stilted physical manner (as Brian himself has described)... Brian may well have feared for his own *physical* safety if he were to push the subject with his dad and keep pushing it, not letting it die.

Mike seems to have currently forgotten this part of the story, yet he clearly remembered it back in 2004. He is clearly resentful about all sorts of other stuff which he is now misdirecting into harping about this topic, all while omitting all the sympathy he appeared to previously have for Brian's role in the crediting. I have sympathy for Mike not being credited, but some reporter needs to ask him about that 2004 interview and why his sympathy for Brian evaporated.

[Debbie KL]

Yes, read that interview critically.

 Mike would complain to Brian -- in 1963, 1964, and 1965, the years in question, when Brian was at the height of his influence and power, producing, arranging, and writing not only for the Beach Boys but for other acts as well, and Brian would shrug, take the royalty checks and credit due Mike, and say yeah, Dad messed up, sorry about that.

Are we really saying that there was no way that Brian could have insisted on Mike getting credit, while Gary Usher, Roger Christian, and others were getting their due? Was Brian already so mentally disabled, even in 1963, that he could not have fought for Mike if he were determined to?

I'm not saying that Brian was acting in bad faith, only that he was, in these instances, weak. Being weak and not standing up for those you should stand up for is a betrayal. Brian betrayed Mike out of weakness, and not just once but every time Mike contributed significantly to a song and Murry left Mike's name off the publishing.

Brian was too intimidated by his father to fight him. I understand that, I don't think less of him because of that -- his sensitivity, his vulnerability contributed to making him a great artist -- but let's call a spade a spade. Brian wronged Mike.

I agree with you, with the caveat that of course Mike could have confronted Murry about it. If Brian was having difficulty doing it, instead of bringing it to Brian, Mike could have brought it to Murry. The fact that he kept bringing it to Brian may indicate that he, too, found it too difficult to confront Murry. I mean, it underscores how much all of these guys seem to have danced around Murry's involvement.

If Mike approached Murry about it, there would surely have been hell to pay. Murry was a vindictive SOB. He fired Dave first chance he could, and who knows what wrath Mike would've faced. And ditto for Brian. Brian was traumatized, walking around in a stilted physical manner (as Brian himself has described)... Brian may well have feared for his own *physical* safety if he were to push the subject with his dad and keep pushing it, not letting it die.

Mike seems to have currently forgotten this part of the story, yet he clearly remembered it back in 2004. He is clearly resentful about all sorts of other stuff which he is now misdirecting into harping about this topic, all while omitting all the sympathy he appeared to previously have for Brian's role in the crediting.

Yes.  And it oddly seems not that complicated.  Brian finally got his due from Irving Music (or part of it anyway) and Mike sued shortly thereafter.  Brian appears to have had poor representation over decades, sadly. 

Now Brian has a stable legal and management team looking after his interests.  They seem to be constantly attacked here by certain posters.  He's still the great artist - likely with a bit less energy than he had 50 years ago.  But we're still getting beautiful stuff.  His management team deals with assaults from fans, and one might assume, other interests.  They've likely made mistakes over the past 20+ years. Who wouldn't in this difficult situation?
In any case, I'm delighted that Brian has solid people supporting him - whether they are his band, his attorneys and management, his family or his friends.  He does well to this day, based on his remarkable gift and genuine sweetness that imbues what he does.

I guess the mystery is, why must he, and those who defend him, have to be attacked with such fervor? Mike feels vilified?  I'll bet Brian and his supporters feel the same.  I certainly do.

[Cam Mott]

Yes, read that interview critically.

 Mike would complain to Brian -- in 1963, 1964, and 1965, the years in question, when Brian was at the height of his influence and power, producing, arranging, and writing not only for the Beach Boys but for other acts as well, and Brian would shrug, take the royalty checks and credit due Mike, and say yeah, Dad messed up, sorry about that.

Are we really saying that there was no way that Brian could have insisted on Mike getting credit, while Gary Usher, Roger Christian, and others were getting their due? Was Brian already so mentally disabled, even in 1963, that he could not have fought for Mike if he were determined to?

I'm not saying that Brian was acting in bad faith, only that he was, in these instances, weak. Being weak and not standing up for those you should stand up for is a betrayal. Brian betrayed Mike out of weakness, and not just once but every time Mike contributed significantly to a song and Murry left Mike's name off the publishing.

Brian was too intimidated by his father to fight him. I understand that, I don't think less of him because of that -- his sensitivity, his vulnerability contributed to making him a great artist -- but let's call a spade a spade. Brian wronged Mike.

Brian told Mike Murry was to blame, Mike blames Murry and Brian. Brian had a responsibility as a co-publisher (he thought he was a co-owner of Sea of Tunes). 

I believe Van Dyke Parks says he got full 50% credit at this very same time in collaboration with the very same Brian with the very same Murry as co-publisher. Was that full crediting Murry's fault too?

[filledeplage]

Yes, read that interview critically.

 Mike would complain to Brian -- in 1963, 1964, and 1965, the years in question, when Brian was at the height of his influence and power, producing, arranging, and writing not only for the Beach Boys but for other acts as well, and Brian would shrug, take the royalty checks and credit due Mike, and say yeah, Dad messed up, sorry about that.

Are we really saying that there was no way that Brian could have insisted on Mike getting credit, while Gary Usher, Roger Christian, and others were getting their due? Was Brian already so mentally disabled, even in 1963, that he could not have fought for Mike if he were determined to?

I'm not saying that Brian was acting in bad faith, only that he was, in these instances, weak. Being weak and not standing up for those you should stand up for is a betrayal. Brian betrayed Mike out of weakness, and not just once but every time Mike contributed significantly to a song and Murry left Mike's name off the publishing.

Brian was too intimidated by his father to fight him. I understand that, I don't think less of him because of that -- his sensitivity, his vulnerability contributed to making him a great artist -- but let's call a spade a spade. Brian wronged Mike.

Brian told Mike Murry was to blame, Mike blames Murry and Brian. Brian had a responsibility as a co-publisher (he thought he was a co-owner of Sea of Tunes).  

I believe Van Dyke Parks says he got full 50% credit at this very same time in collaboration with the very same Brian with the very same Murry as co-publisher. Was that full crediting Murry's fault too?

Cam - First, so are we to understand after the split, forming BRI, that Sea of Tunes was still the publisher?  I don't have any Brother stuff around  to look at right now.

Second, I have re-read this section around paragraph 18 or so.  And I notice that the author used very non-committal language with respect to both Brian and Mike.

"Love's name didn't make it onto the publishing credits for many of the early hit songs...Brian 'apparently' (non-committal as to Brian) knew what his father was up to but was too scared of him to do thing about it...Even so, Love 'seems' (non-commital as to Mike) to blame both of them, although on occasion, (what does that mean?) he does acknowledge how cowed Brian was by his dad."  

This non-committal language is only an impression or based on whatever else he may have read.  And it might save him from a lawsuit, by using such non-committal language.  It cannot be taken as fact and he uses them both for Brian and Mike.  The two words "seems" and "appears" are red-flags for potential doubt, or a subjective impression.  Such language, was often used by teachers and by social workers making assessments to provide room for error.  

It does seem that Murry was as devious as they come.  He was not so stupid, to not compensate a non-family member, but marginalized their involvement to control the profits from publication. And, I also agree with CD, with respect to what he said about Murry getting rid of David.  JMHO  

[Cam Mott]

All of the under-crediting seems to have happened before the incorporation of BRI on January 11, 1967.

Mike's opinion on who did what seems to be based on hearsay from Brian.

[filledeplage]

All of the under-crediting seems to have happened before the incorporation of BRI on January 11, 1967.

Mike's opinion on who did what seems to be based on hearsay from Brian.

Cam - wiki has Brother as being formed in mid-1966 (says October but I thought it was sooner) as a record label and holding company.

If Brian's "ownership" was "illusory" (legal term of art) then Mike could have asked to run interference with Murry, for proper attribution, until the cow jumped over the moon.  It would have been futile. I just looked at the SOT letterhead with the famous letter as though it was written in the course-of-business rather than to a co-owner/son, where one would use personal stationary.  The corrections make it look as though he had a secretary draft it for him.  

If Murry was paying Van Dyke, as you say he got 50%, from Murry, did he have some control in BRI?  Carlin on p. 97 has Parks working through the end of the summer with Brian (I assume that is the summer of 1966, prior to GV being released in October under Capitol.)

And, there is this other entity that released "Breakaway" on Capitol, called "Bri-Mur" Publishing Company. It says it was produced by Brian Wilson-Murry Wilson.    

[guitarfool2002]

I'll put aside the obvious points for now (i.e. what Mike actually *said* in that 2004 interview and how he put the blame almost entirely on Murry) and get into the speculation, maybe to offer another scenario. Again, apart from how Mike actually described what happened with Murry and the credits.

If we take Tony Asher's word, combined with Mike's and others, we can be reasonably certain Murry was the primary go-to guy with anything regarding publishing, payments, etc. Brian did not get directly involved in those financial dealings, again according to at least Asher (posted earlier in this thread) and others. He signed the paperwork that Murry was in charge of regarding the songs, as did Mike.

What if...Mike took his concerns to Brian, and Brian took them to Murry, and Murry said "I'll fix it, Brian" but never did?

What if...Mike took his concerns to Murry, and Murry said "I'll fix it, Mike" but never did?

What if...Mike took his concerns to Murry, and Murry said as he did to Tony Asher "Take it or leave it" and never changed the credits?

In other words, all of the "blame Brian" charges are based on the fact that Brian did not act forcefully enough on Mike's behalf to force Murry to change the paperwork on those song credits to get Mike his credits.

The "blame Brian" charges hinge on Brian repeatedly being asked by Mike to change the credits, and any inaction in actually fixing the paperwork is blamed on Brian.

It completely leaves Murry's role out of the scenario, and Murry was the key person in the scenario who could change and file the paperwork.

What if both Brian AND Mike hit the same brick wall whenever Murry was approached about fixing the paperwork and credits? What if Murry made Brian and Mike the empty promises of "I'll fix it" that are being hung solely around Brian's neck to the point where some are accusing Brian of ripping Mike off deliberately and as part of a conspiracy?

When you're dealing with a person like Murry who Mike called "a thief" who was "financially abusive" to his own sons, i.e. he took advantage of his own sons and we have seen proof of this, how are those leveling charges at Brian not considering Murry's role in this?

Mike realized it, at least based on what he said in 2004. A thief not only steals, but also lies and makes empty promises to cover the theft.

[filledeplage]

I'll put aside the obvious points for now (i.e. what Mike actually *said* in that 2004 interview and how he put the blame almost entirely on Murry) and get into the speculation, maybe to offer another scenario. Again, apart from how Mike actually described what happened with Murry and the credits.

If we take Tony Asher's word, combined with Mike's and others, we can be reasonably certain Murry was the primary go-to guy with anything regarding publishing, payments, etc. Brian did not get directly involved in those financial dealings, again according to at least Asher (posted earlier in this thread) and others. He signed the paperwork that Murry was in charge of regarding the songs, as did Mike.

What if...Mike took his concerns to Brian, and Brian took them to Murry, and Murry said "I'll fix it, Brian" but never did?

What if...Mike took his concerns to Murry, and Murry said "I'll fix it, Mike" but never did?

What if...Mike took his concerns to Murry, and Murry said as he did to Tony Asher "Take it or leave it" and never changed the credits?

In other words, all of the "blame Brian" charges are based on the fact that Brian did not act forcefully enough on Mike's behalf to force Murry to change the paperwork on those song credits to get Mike his credits.

The "blame Brian" charges hinge on Brian repeatedly being asked by Mike to change the credits, and any inaction in actually fixing the paperwork is blamed on Brian.

It completely leaves Murry's role out of the scenario, and Murry was the key person in the scenario who could change and file the paperwork.

What if both Brian AND Mike hit the same brick wall whenever Murry was approached about fixing the paperwork and credits? What if Murry made Brian and Mike the empty promises of "I'll fix it" that are being hung solely around Brian's neck to the point where some are accusing Brian of ripping Mike off deliberately and as part of a conspiracy?

When you're dealing with a person like Murry who Mike called "a thief" who was "financially abusive" to his own sons, i.e. he took advantage of his own sons and we have seen proof of this, how are those leveling charges at Brian not considering Murry's role in this?

Mike realized it, at least based on what he said in 2004. A thief not only steals, but also lies and makes empty promises to cover the theft.

GF - Tony's work would have been for the most part as I understand, Pet Sounds.  That would have been under the old regime of Capitol and (Sea of Tunes.)

So Tony would have been dealing with Murry.  But, post release of Pet Sounds and the Capitol cash-in of Best of Vol. I,  in July of 1966, it appears that Brother was at it's beginning.  It seems that it would defeat the purpose of cutting off Capitol after the "firing" of Murry, there was still an active context for the publication aspect.  

The SOT issue is one of "exclusivity" of complete ownership and control as to Murry.  And the false representation that Brian had any input seems to be a sort of nullity.  So, without dealing directly with Murry, it appears that Murry had full control and is the reason that the record companies could "work him" and "work with him" with all the conflicts of interest that were pled in the suit Brian initiated in 1989 as was in the LA Times stories.  Brian appears to have no control.  

The letterhead for SOT has no names listed.  If Murry had put his own name on the SOT letterhead as president of the entity, (and not Brian's as a co-owner) it would have tipped everyone off as to the owner-operator.  If his and Brian's names were listed as co-owner-operators, then it would be hard to dispute that Brian was not an owner-operator, even in "name only" and without real control.  By leaving his (Murry's) name off the letterhead (the one I saw) creates that ambiguity.    

And, if Murry was stealing from his son/s  and getting away with it, as it appears he did, a nephew is lower on that chain and less likely to be attributed properly.  Murry was clever to create the ambiguity and the disparate treatment for inside and outside family members, as had he defrauded an outside person, and they had sued for royalties, his scheme to defraud his family (both kids and others) would have likely been uncovered at an earlier point in time.  



 

[guitarfool2002]

Brian appears to have no control.  

Mike agreed in 2004. In fact, Mike pretty much points the finger of blame directly at Murry and gives reasons why, in detail, to Mojo magazine in 2004 (and other interviews beyond 2004 which I've read and can reference). Tony Asher agreed through various comments posted here, stating Brian did not get involved in those business details.

So we have to wonder why are some still trying to blame Brian for financial and legal issues over which he had - in your own words - "no control", and issues for which Mike himself blamed Murry and gave reasons to back it up?

[filledeplage]

Brian appears to have no control.  

Mike agreed in 2004. In fact, Mike pretty much points the finger of blame directly at Murry and gives reasons why, in detail, to Mojo magazine in 2004 (and other interviews beyond 2004 which I've read and can reference). Tony Asher agreed through various comments posted here, stating Brian did not get involved in those business details.

So we have to wonder why are some still trying to blame Brian for financial and legal issues over which he had - in your own words - "no control", and issues for which Mike himself blamed Murry and gave reasons to back it up?

GF - when I read anything that has the words (going back to teaching and working with social workers) "appears" or "seems" the red flag goes right up for me. "Brian apparently knew what his father was up to but was too scared of him to do anything about it."

[The writer left the whole section out between the 1989 Brian suit and the 1993 suit which should not have happened if the lawyers had paid Mike as there appeared to have been some understanding to do that.]   The 1993 suit appears to have held Brian harmless for this and held the lawyers responsible. This was not unimportant to include for context.     

And I didn't get that impression because both words were used for both guys.  Brian had no control. 

Further down the page, Mike says"...Brian wanted to settle, but he was in a conservatorship that wouldn't him. I give him credit for that."  Maybe that balances it out and gives more context?   

[guitarfool2002]

Brian appears to have no control.  

Mike agreed in 2004. In fact, Mike pretty much points the finger of blame directly at Murry and gives reasons why, in detail, to Mojo magazine in 2004 (and other interviews beyond 2004 which I've read and can reference). Tony Asher agreed through various comments posted here, stating Brian did not get involved in those business details.

So we have to wonder why are some still trying to blame Brian for financial and legal issues over which he had - in your own words - "no control", and issues for which Mike himself blamed Murry and gave reasons to back it up?

GF - when I read anything that has the words (going back to teaching and working with social workers) "appears" or "seems" the red flag goes right up for me. "Brian apparently knew what his father was up to but was too scared of him to do anything about it."

[The writer left the whole section out between the 1989 Brian suit and the 1993 suit which should not have happened if the lawyers had paid Mike as there appeared to have been some understanding to do that.]   The 1993 suit appears to have held Brian harmless for this and held the lawyers responsible. This was not unimportant to include for context.     

And I didn't get that impression because both words were used for both guys.  Brian had no control. 

Further down the page, Mike says"...Brian wanted to settle, but he was in a conservatorship that wouldn't him. I give him credit for that."  Maybe that balances it out and gives more context?   

So how would you address or respond to those people including some posting to this thread who are still attempting to blame Brian for those things over which he had "no control"?

[filledeplage]

Brian appears to have no control.  

Mike agreed in 2004. In fact, Mike pretty much points the finger of blame directly at Murry and gives reasons why, in detail, to Mojo magazine in 2004 (and other interviews beyond 2004 which I've read and can reference). Tony Asher agreed through various comments posted here, stating Brian did not get involved in those business details.

So we have to wonder why are some still trying to blame Brian for financial and legal issues over which he had - in your own words - "no control", and issues for which Mike himself blamed Murry and gave reasons to back it up?

GF - when I read anything that has the words (going back to teaching and working with social workers) "appears" or "seems" the red flag goes right up for me. "Brian apparently knew what his father was up to but was too scared of him to do anything about it."

[The writer left the whole section out between the 1989 Brian suit and the 1993 suit which should not have happened if the lawyers had paid Mike as there appeared to have been some understanding to do that.]   The 1993 suit appears to have held Brian harmless for this and held the lawyers responsible. This was not unimportant to include for context.     

And I didn't get that impression because both words were used for both guys.  Brian had no control. 

Further down the page, Mike says"...Brian wanted to settle, but he was in a conservatorship that wouldn't him. I give him credit for that."  Maybe that balances it out and gives more context?   

So how would you address or respond to those people including some posting to this thread who are still attempting to blame Brian for those things over which he had "no control"?

GF - I would suggest that they educate themselves with any an all info, including the LA Times, etc. about where the poison started,  and that is 100% with Murry's pen, with a minor who could not have contracted at that time.       

[clack]

Leave personalities out of it for the moment. Say that writer A and writer B collaborate on a number of songs over a number of years. The music publisher systematically leaves writer B off the credits, with writer A then getting all the money and all the acclaim.

Does writer A have a moral responsibility to writer B to do all that is in his power to rectify the situation? If so, in this case is there evidence that Brian made serious efforts to rectify the ongoing situation?

[guitarfool2002]

Mike again addressing this in his own words, this time from a Sept. 6 2011 interview:

Q: How is your relationship with Brian?

A: Well, there have been issues, but they weren't between Brian and me a lot of times. They were between other people that were controlling his life — my uncle [Murray Wilson] not crediting me for writing. I wrote every word to "California Girls" and most of the words in "Help Me Rhonda" and "I Get Around," but I wasn't credited, and they were big hits! Brian even said, "Hey, Mike wrote those words." He wanted to rectify things, but was in a conservatorship, which means that other people administer your stuff. For whatever reason they didn't want to rectify those wrongs, but they were rectified.

http://clatl.com/atlanta/is-the-beach-boys-mike-love-a-hero-or-villain/Content?oid=3930863

[CenturyDeprived]

Mike again addressing this in his own words, this time from a Sept. 6 2011 interview:

Q: How is your relationship with Brian?

A: Well, there have been issues, but they weren't between Brian and me a lot of times. They were between other people that were controlling his life — my uncle [Murray Wilson] not crediting me for writing. I wrote every word to "California Girls" and most of the words in "Help Me Rhonda" and "I Get Around," but I wasn't credited, and they were big hits! Brian even said, "Hey, Mike wrote those words." He wanted to rectify things, but was in a conservatorship, which means that other people administer your stuff. For whatever reason they didn't want to rectify those wrongs, but they were rectified.

http://clatl.com/atlanta/is-the-beach-boys-mike-love-a-hero-or-villain/Content?oid=3930863

And again, Mike with the "wrote every word" for Cali Girls. How does only the verses equate to every word? Mike also recently admitted he didn't write the choruses.

For people who say Brian's words can't be trusted due to inconsistencies because of his mental state, I ask: what's Mike's excuse?

[Empire Of Love]

Leave personalities out of it for the moment. Say that writer A and writer B collaborate on a number of songs over a number of years. The music publisher systematically leaves writer B off the credits, with writer A then getting all the money and all the acclaim.

Does writer A have a moral responsibility to writer B to do all that is in his power to rectify the situation? If so, in this case is there evidence that Brian made serious efforts to rectify the ongoing situation?

I don't see anyone denying that writer A has a moral responsibility to do everything in his power to rectify the injustice dealt to writer B.  What is being argued is two things:

1. Writer A was limited in power at least due to his fragile mental state, past abuse, and fear of future abuse.  Just as in a court of law, even for killing someone, there is an insanity plea, so some are arguing something similar for Writer A.  Was he insane, not exactly, but were his abilities impaired to the point of lessening his legal culpability?  Arguably, yes.  The question is: does this also limit his moral culpability?  I think a case can be made that it does.

2. Writer B also has a responsibility to stand up for himself, but he didn't.  Why not?  Whatever the answer is, he feared the publisher would seek retribution, he feared the publisher would fire him, etc, any excuse that gets Writer B off the hook would equally apply to Writer A.  If B didn't stand up for himself out of fear and that is ok, why not give the same benefit to A?  Granted the publisher could not have fired Writer A (because he was the golden goose, whereas Writer B was more replaceable), yet we know the publisher used other forms of manipulation to control Writer A, that's what people like this do.  No doubt the fear for A would have been as real as the fear for B.

To me, to blame Brian while letting Mike off the hook is not fair.  In most cases one would look at Brian and assume he was in on it because he stood to profit.  However, in this case, we know Murry was truly abusive, physically, emotionally, mentally, and who knows how else, to an already fragile Brian and that he screwed Brian by selling the catalog - proof Brian also had reason to fear crossing his father.  To find more fault with Brian than with Mike is unfair.  As GF is pointing out, Mike agreed with this assessment in 2004.  I want to know why he has changed his tune in the intervening years?

EoL

[GhostyTMRS]

Like GF, I've read those articles as well. I've always took it that Mike was upset at Murry's mismanagement (no doubt Murry failed to credit Mike deliberately, so the money would pour into the Wilson family coffers). Brian is probably guilty of negligence at best, but he's certainly not the main culprit in all of this. Why this has seemingly changed (at least according to the Rolling Stone interview), I have no idea.

I think the few people on this thread that are solely sticking it to Brian for screwing Mike over are oversimplifying things (to put it politely). To comment on Debbie's post, I think the handful of people on this board that are blaming Brian are such a small number of folks as to be completely irrelevant. In the outside world, Brian is practically eligible for sainthood. Even people who don't know anything about Brian will call him a genius or brilliant or the nicest guy who ever lived because that perception is so woven into the fabric of music culture. I wouldn't worry about a few bad apples on this particular board. If there's any sure thing in rock and roll history, it's Brian's status as a beloved and sympathetic figure.   


...and with the court case won, Mike's name has been amended to any and all songwriting credits wherein he played a significant role, so posterity is now in Mike's favor. What's done is done. The wrong was righted, etc.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Like GF, I've read those articles as well. I've always took it that Mike was upset at Murry's mismanagement (no doubt Murry failed to credit Mike deliberately, so the money would pour into the Wilson family coffers). Brian is probably guilty of negligence at best, but he's certainly not the main culprit in all of this. Why this has seemingly changed (at least according to the Rolling Stone interview), I have no idea.

I think the few people on this thread that are solely sticking it to Brian for screwing Mike over are oversimplifying things (to put it politely). To comment on Debbie's post, I think the handful of people on this board that are blaming Brian are such a small number of folks as to be completely irrelevant. In the outside world, Brian is practically eligible for sainthood. Even people who don't know anything about Brian will call him a genius or brilliant or the nicest guy who ever lived because that perception is so woven into the fabric of music culture. I wouldn't worry about a few bad apples on this particular board. If there's any sure thing in rock and roll history, it's Brian's status as a beloved and sympathetic figure.   


...and with the court case won, Mike's name has been amended to any and all songwriting credits wherein he played a significant role, so posterity is now in Mike's favor. What's done is done. The wrong was righted, etc.

"If there's any sure thing in rock and roll history", it's myKe luHv's status  as a power hungry tool who will never be satisfied until he has rewritten history specifying he and he alone is AS talented as Brian Wilson. It's way past time for him to get off his high horse and come back down to earth with the rest of the mortals and be thankful for how his life has played out. How about a nice, big slice of humble pie your highness?

[Andrew G. Doe]

If we take Tony Asher's word, combined with Mike's and others, we can be reasonably certain Murry was the primary go-to guy with anything regarding publishing, payments, etc.

Givern that Murry, along with Brian, was the co-owner and co-founder of Sea of Tunes 1962-1969 and manager 1961-1964, I'd say we can be ab-so-lute-ly certain that Murry was the go-to guy for the publishing documentation, and the correct filing of same.

[Cam Mott]

Leave personalities out of it for the moment. Say that writer A and writer B collaborate on a number of songs over a number of years. The music publisher systematically leaves writer B off the credits, with writer A then getting all the money and all the acclaim.

Does writer A have a moral responsibility to writer B to do all that is in his power to rectify the situation? If so, in this case is there evidence that Brian made serious efforts to rectify the ongoing situation?

Especially if one of the writers is the group's Producer and thinks he and his father are co-owners of the publishing company.  

Brian was quite capable of standing up to Murry in very powerful ways and he did, even firing his father. Brian did have control over the crediting, according to Van Dyke Parks, giving VDP full credit on the songs he got credit for.