The Smiley Smile Message Board

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

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

Mike would just have found something else to bitch about. It's simply his nature

By not receiving credit, he becomes an 'uncredited artist'. Imagine if he had the praise for writing those songs from the beginning...his ego would have gotten huge!

I don't believe much would have changed.. BW was// is still The Producer.. And architect  of the backing tracks + vocal stacks.. He also set the tone of the story line of the songs + wrote words also.. He had the falsetto every one loved and in the beginning Brian + Mike were the main vocalist..  Brian had total veto power on any song and what was released for many years.. What would have changed history more would have been if Brian stayed on as a performing member and not gone away and if he had a large success as a independent record producer.. And of course the drug problem..

I think a better and more important question is "How would BB history be different if Mike had been the lyricist on PET SOUNDS?"

I'm waiting for the day when you can surf again?

Perhaps he was, hence it's inclusion as an instrumental...

Not sure about that. I think that Mike just got a bit frustrated because he never really got the credit that he probably deserved. So he stood up for himself, which is fine, but at some point he just started overcompensating. I guess the same thing must have happened to Carole Kaye.

Acknowledging up front that Mike didn't get all of the credit he should have, he did become rich and famous as the lead singer of one of the world's most loved rock and roll bands.  Mike was a great lyricist on many tunes, but over time, his skill as a songwriter faded.  This is a long winded way of saying, that I don't think it would have changed the band's history if he had been given proper credit.   

The album wouldn't be much different. Mike would be around Brian more - influencing/dissuading Brian from heavy drug use perhaps. And with Brian's increased exposure to the Lovester, I wonder if Mike would've persuaded Brian to keep the theme of Smile simple....or would Smile have ever crossed Brian's mind?

Fascinating question....anyone else have thoughts?

I think Mike Love providing the lyrics to Pet Sounds would've in no way diminished the power of the LP. I mentioned to Brian, that in light of the amazing work Mike was producing for their '64/'65 songs, Mike -- who could go deep and romantic with the best of them -- would've made the PERFECT choice to supply the lyrics for Pet Sounds. When asked point blank about why he didn't go to Mike in view of Today! and the amazing success of their 1965 singles, Brian could only muster, "Y'know. . . I don't know. . . I DO NOT KNOW!"

Whatever your personal opinions about the music and albums produced by the band in 1966/1967, Mike Love was put on ice artistically by Brian and by the time he was allowed back in, in America at least, nobody gave a sh it about the Beach Boys. It was like Bobby Vinton in 1965. Imagine being sidelined and knowing that you could've helped save the team. (And maybe that's why he's always been so protective of the live act, he's never allowed that to slip out of his grasp.)

To deliver the goods on "Good Vibrations" and be shelved in place of yet another temporary outsider was where the dissension REALLY started. Not Murry or Brian screwing him out of credit and dough (although that didn't help) -- it started with the fact that, like he's said every chance he's been given since -- he took Brian's "crazy" music and made the PLANET sing along with it. Van Dyke Parks didn't (and in truth didn't want to), and although that wasn't what he was hired to do, he was being artistic and oblique on someone else's dime in someone else's gig. Perhaps Mike Love wouldn't have been as "brave" with Smile knowing that "putting asse s in seats" applied as much to to record sales as it did to auditoriums. Obviously, I'm glad Smile exists. I love it. But had Mike Love been given the spot he deserved artistically in the band in 1966, the place that "Happy Together," those massive Association singles, and all the other great sunshine pop of the era -- I think -- would've belonged to the Beach Boys. They might never have gotten the "FM" respect they deserved, but they wouldn't have been relegated to Top 20 also-rans as the decade wore on. There's no doubt in my mind that had they been on the same page, Wilson/Love could've owned '67.

The debate about Mike and the credit and the money is the symptom to a bigger issue -- and that was being all but benched for Pet Sounds and Smile after delivering gold for so long.
What he's saying when he does his "Mr. Positivity" dance is essentially: "I made good for the brand. I never blew it when it meant everything."

That's really what it is.

  Mike actually wrote the lyrics for "I'm Waiting for the Day"! His only real Pet Sounds writing credit.

Great post, Howie.

That is one of the best posts on here Howie.  Really made me think about it, especially the analogy of Mike being put on ice.  Up to that point you are right he had delivered the goods and maybe around 65/66 he was really growing as a lyricist (Today album onwards) and probably felt that the chance to further develop and hit the heights with Brian had been taken away from him.  By the time he was needed again maybe he had lost the creative momentum and felt it easier to look backwards to the early hits for lyrical inspiration.

And the lyrics are great as are his I Know There's an Answer rewrite lyrics. Mike deserves a bash now and then but some people really blind themselves to the fact that in the 60's the guy was in a league of his own as a first class lyric writer.

I think that a recent Brian interview where he said "Y'know. . . I don't know" about why he didn't want to work with Mike at this time is simply Brian not wanting to get into the tough emotional territory of answering the question in a fully truthful way within a public arena. Nothing new there.  IMO there's no way he could answer the question truthfully without it getting ugly in some sense.

While Mike was undeniably able to write great, from-the-heart lyrics when he wanted to (Kiss Me Baby, Please Let Me Wonder, etc)... it's also very possible that if getting an entire album's worth of heartfelt lyrics out of Mike meant a good amount of struggle for Brian (dealing with possible resistance and/or an "attitude" about it all - even if just an indirect undercurrent), that Brian wouldn't have been able to function at his utmost top level, and Brian's own creative heights could have been compromised. Or at least, Brian may have subconsciously felt that would be a possible thing that could've happened if he'd kept writing more or less exclusively with Mike at that time.

IMO, around the Pet Sounds era, Brian likely sensed that he truly needed/craved to write with someone who would willingly be in a subordinate role relatively speaking, where Brian was ultimately the unquestioned boss, and could write about subjects he wanted to write about without dealing with an overbearing sarcastic personality. Just because Mike would usually relent and give in ultimately to Brian, doesn't mean that Brian didn't have to go through some emotional turmoil (or at the very least an unpleasant experience of resistance) when dealing with his cousin - even if there could be beautiful art as the end result. Not saying that all Brian's writing with Mike was that way, but I'd imagine that trying to write an entire Pet Sounds album with Mike would almost certainly have been a VERY tough thing for both parties to go through without a metric ton of friction.

When creating art at the level that Brian was creating at, and at a time when Brian was *really* reaching for the stars and actively trying to push boundaries in a huge way and departing from the Beach Boys comfort zone norms... what artist wants to be put into a position of having to justify/defend the artistic (and ultimately less commercial for the short term, but most profound and career-defining for the long term) vision that they were undertaking at the time? Just because Mike was occasionally capable of writing at a very good, deep emotional level, doesn't mean that it didn't make *perfect* sense for Brian to want to stop working with Mike for this project.

On both a creative and commercial level, I believe it does make perfect sense.

Coming off Today! and "Dance, Dance, Dance," "Help Me, Rhonda" "Let Him Run Wild," and "California Girls" and passing him over for Pet Sounds was an insane risk. With no blockbuster coming off the LP, who did he got to for the next single?

Even riskier was dumping him again for "Good Vibrations."

Regarding my chat with Brian -- this was hardly a situation where Brian was rushing through an interview or shying away from anything uncomfortable. Discussing why he chose Tony Asher over Mike Love was probably the most benign subject we covered.

Wenner wasn't entirely wrong with his prickish comment about chasing the Beatles.

What Brian never fully got was that Wilson/Love's TRUE peers were Holland-Dozier-Holland -- and all three of those guys knew that to truly f*** with the formula and score a smash was to do it TOGETHER.

Again - if the guy (Mike) who did have a track record of writing some good lyrics, also was nonetheless beginning to be a BIG thorn in Brian's side from a creative standpoint, and if Brian's intuition was that continuing to work with this guy (within the framework of the same power structure) could compromise Brian's full creative juices, how does it add up that it would still make sense for Brian to keep working with Mike at this time?

I could perhaps buy into your theory (just a bit) if somehow Mike would have agreed to be utilized by Brian ONLY when Brian wanted Mike's input on songs, but absolutely without any of the pushy type of attitude and continued grilling/questioning of Brian's creative plans that would have most certainly come with the territory. That was not gonna happen with Mike's personality and sense of creative entitlement for having written past hits.

Howie posts are great, he makes solid points.  I thought BW hooked up with Tony Asher as a lyricist because Mike and the guys were on the road, while he stayed in L.A. and wrote and put together the new songs.  Which led me to wondering how did BW and Tony Asher connect?  

I totally agree with the point that to reach for new creative highs and to experiment is great, but simultaneously you have to produce hit songs or you will lose your foilowing.  Mike was let back in at some in the last 60's to write with BW again.  It doesn't seem like he was able to come up with very much besides Do It Again.

Because he was in a band.  ;D

Just kidding, your post was great. You represented what probably went through Brian's head in late '65 very well, without suggesting that Mike and the rest of the band owed Brian anything.

The other thing to remember is, that in bands, power structure and writing processes sometimes change. For different reasons. The creative process of people can change, and the "way we do things" for a particular album does not have to mean that will always be the "way we do things" for a subsequent album. Lots and lots and lots of bands will "reboot" their way of thinking and way of doing things from album to album. Freshened circumstances can (and did in this case) lead to some amazing new heights.

I could empathize more for Mike unarguably having felt butt-hurt by his "demotion" more if he hadn't been someone who was questioning Brian's artistic motives (and not in a particularly "nice" way) as much as everything I've read about the band's '65/'66 power structure/dynamic has told me that he was.

Having the guys on the road was a definite deterrent in the Wilson/Love collaboration. But the difference is, Brian needed to be home to do what he did -- Mike didn't. Acetates would've been handed/mailed to Mike to write on the road with great ease.

I think it all comes down to Brian's ambitions/hangups in wanting to be more than he was (in his mind, Beatles/Dylan) and not wanting to be part of a club that would have him as a member. He wanted to be taken seriously and discussed the way Lennon & McCartney and Dylan were. That was what the underlying trip was -- being considered "legit."

Brian didn't WANT to work with his family, he wanted to "leave home." And that turns into the whole "your family is your business" viscous cycle that still pertains as of this writing.

In an ideal world, I'd love if Brian and Mike would've been able to continually truly f*** with the formula, score repeated smashes, and do it TOGETHER. That would've been nice if that could have been achievable.  But IMO it was a deep, fundamental personality clash (and power struggle) between those two guys that would have made that impossible. Ultimately, it seems to me that Brian was too fragile, and Mike was too pushy (and IMO has shown some bully traits - sorry for those who will take offense to this, but it's how I see it).

If anyone has ever been in a band with a relentlessly "pushy" bandmember, you'll know how tough it is to create art with your own creative juices turned up to 11. It's pretty damn close to impossible.

'Good Vibrations' with more generic and uninspired moon and june lyrics would still be a huge hit. 'Wild Honey' (the single) could have had  lyrics by Asher, Parks, Lennon or Dylan and it would still bomb.

I also want to add, that I highly doubt that Mike would have had a problem with ANY of Brian's music had he been his collaborator on it. He heard "Good Vibrations" and knew what it needed to put it over the top -- and those lyrics are as cool, au courant, and brilliant as anything else out there.

I'm just saying that Mike coulda, shoulda, woulda, nailed Pet Sounds -- and had he been given the shot at Smile, (as crazy as that feels to think and type) he would've come back with some dynamite sh it as well -- a whole other direction than VDP -- but one equally valid.

It's a chicken and the egg scenario -- which came first?

"Don't f*** with the formula."

or

"You're not worthy of me."

Isn't it a matter of record, more or less, that Brian's motives for the Mike-cowritten Side B of Today were being repeatedly questioned?  

I also have a different opinion of this, specifically the how's and why's of Brian working or not working with Mike as a collaborator.

First, I think it's essential to factor in the history of the band's songwriting going back to the early days. Brian worked with co-writers Gary Usher and Roger Christian, and had major hits with them, hits which are still iconic in the band's history and heard at every concert.

Is there a similar question of why Brian chose to write with Usher and Christian when Mike Love could have easily written lyrics about hot-rod culture or any of the work Brian did with Usher of a more personal nature?

I don't hear many questions being asked why Mike wasn't asked to carry more lyrical weight on those songs than he did or didn't in favor of the "outsiders".

Second, I want to bring up a sports comparison to consider, and since it's Mike Love I'll use basketball.

Say we have a team with a player named "Smith". He's a solid player, does his job well, and goes all-out on the court during the game. A key member, in other words.

There is an important game, and Smith for various reasons only plays 10 out of the full 48 minutes, and is on the bench for most of the game.

If the team wins that big game, are people asking "Why was Smith only playing for 10 minutes?". If Smith himself in an interview says "I'm upset coach didn't play me for more than 10 minutes", he'd be tagged an egocentric type of athlete rather than a team player by some fans of the team, in light of a big win.

But if the team loses, the fact that Smith only played for 10 minutes of the big game often gets flipped around into a critique of the coach, because ultimately the team lost. And it often becomes a "what if???" question where fans speculate the team may have had a better chance of winning if the coach had gone with Smith over the players the coach chose to play over Smith in that big game.

So the team wins, it really doesn't matter why Smith didn't play because the team won. If the team loses, the fact that Smith didn't play becomes a major debate among fans.

In retrospect, was 1966 in Beach Boys history a win or a loss?  :)

I won't dispute that Mike could have been utilized to make certain songs of this era better, catchier, or with some sort of vocal hook here and there... even *perhaps* in small doses on some SMiLE tracks - if and only if he'd graciously have been ok with Brian filtering in (or not filtering in) Mike's input, at Brian's discretion.

It's unlikely in the extreme, IMO to think that Mike would ever allow himself to be utilized in a way (on an entire album, no less) where he would willingly allow himself to just be there to add "assists" to put certain songs "over the top".  And it sucks because Mike shot himself in the foot by not allowing for this type of scenario to be a conceivable possibility that Brian could have considered - I think it could've happened, but that would have required personality adjustments. Which again comes back to the power struggle thing, and the sense of entitlement. Brian and Mike both felt entitled to certain things, which were ultimately grossly incompatible.

Personally, for me/us -- 1966 is a win.

But to look at the larger picture, for The Beach Boys, it's a loss.
They lost their audience (which was already dwindling.)

To be an American band, the TOP American band in January 1964 and survive and thrive throughout the British Invasion -- and break new ground while doing so, and to end '66 with a chart-topping "masterpiece" is unthinkable. To have stayed together and good and popular throughout all that is incredible. Think about all the groups/acts between February 1964 and December 1966 that had come and gone and were forgotten forever. No comeback '70s "Rock And Roll Heaven" or "My Eyes Adored You." DONE.

1966 is ultimately a loss because -- the Pet Sounds singles and "Vibrations" aside -- the artistic decisions derailed the train and killed the momentum. Another way to look at it, is that 1966 is a loss because in 1970, there was nobody around to give a s hit about Sunflower.

I'd suggest in the same way, there would not have been "Sunflower" if there wasn't a "Pet Sounds" to establish that kind of musical identity for the Beach Boys brand name, for artistic reasons among others. Pet Sounds, I think, made an "artistic" type of album like Sunflower a viable option for the Beach Boys brand. There was enough of a groundswell of admiration and praise for Pet Sounds in the doldrums of the late 60's to take the band into that kind of music versus, say, more emphasis on songs like Do It Again or even Student Demonstration Time, which the band could have easily done with much less effort and cost than Sunflower.

There is also something about the notion that the artistic decisions 'derailing' the momentum that could be flipped into a notion that they would have been better not to have taken those kinds of risks, and I think that is much more toxic to many artists than stepping outside their realm. And with Pet Sounds and Smile, heck, the whole 1966 ball of wax, hasn't the appreciation of the Beach Boys as more than a party band been due to that era more than anything?

I agree, Howie, if the band went certain ways they'd be doing the Frankie Valli route with Oh What A Night and the rest, but how many fans of this current generation gained an appreciation for them specifically from the notion that Brian and the band were breaking new ground as pop musicians at a time when so much of it was formulaic? Not that the formula didn't produce terrific and timeless records, but look at how from the 90's onward the image of the music changed and was embraced by a whole new niche of fans and admirers (and a boatload of musicians...) who may never have thought of the Beach Boys beyond the Endless Summer album and the outdoor shows?

It allowed both images and fan bases to exist within the same brand name for 50 years+, and that in itself in retrospect is amazing. It would be akin to Coca Cola coming to be known as both a sugary soda and a healthy daily supplement for everyone's diet simultaneously.  :)

Guitarfool -- I totally agree with you.

The point I'm ultimately trying to make, is that unlike the group's artistic  peers -- Beatles, Stones, Who -- there was a cancer on the BB's career. A moment where something stopped/became unhealthy and ENDED. Then, of course, dandelions started to pop out of the cracks in the pavement (the era I love the most, incidentally).

Everything you say is spot on and accurate. But that fanbase today -- myself included, to a certain extent -- happened because of a derailment.

That brilliant 1966 - 1973 catalogue (mainly Smile, though) became jewels in the fringe discovery hipster crown along with Big Star, Gram Parsons, Nick Drake, Arthur Lee, Nilsson, etc. But, it wasn't supposed to be that way. It was supposed to be much more bigger/important than that.

The Beach Boys were supposed to be right next to The Beatles, Dylan, The Who, and The Stones. Whether Mike Love writing the lyrics to "Vegetables" would've accomplished that is doubtful. But Smile -- which killed the band's momentum -- ultimately became the "coolest" thing about the Beach Boys. And, yes, that inspired a ton of indie bands with music that won't live on past its own time -- but I personally look at that as a sad consolation prize.

Mike has written plenty of lyrics that are not to my taste but I agree with Howie. IWFTD's lyrics are as good or better than Tony's imo. Good Vibrations' are better than Asher's imo, but to be fair Tony wasn't done with the GV lyrics we know.

I think this is right too. However the responsibility all falls on Brian so he probably would have found a way even with Mike more around.

But Brian only wanted to write with Mike if they could do so in a room!

The thought that Brian and Mike's collaboration could have just kept happily chugging along in the face of massive change in the music industry, as well as Brian having wild creative ambitions that were literally bursting out of him, with only the occasional minor roadbump or two between Brian + Mike, seems to ignore the fact that there was some *major* creative tension between these guys that just kept getting more and more strained, and that their personalities at a certain point, IMO, ceased to be compatible with each other. Frankly, at a certain point, those two guys should have ceased being in a band together... and I think if family weren't a factor, that's exactly what would've happened. I believe it became an unhealthy working relationship (not to mention an unhealthy family dynamic) from that point forward once a dejected Brian was was coaxed back into a cowriting situation that he seemingly, simply outgrew.  

Everyone here who thinks that Mike was underutilized and capable of all sorts of lost greatness (and I'm willing to admit that maybe Mike was capable of a lot more than many people give him credit for) seem to turn a blind eye to the idea that perhaps Brian writing with others ("outsiders" of his choosing), and the freedom from emotional baggage/entitlement/etc. (which would have been omnipresent, at least to some degree, if Brian had kept writing exclusively with Mike during Pet Sounds/SMiLE), is what helped Brian feel artistically free enough to let his ideas flourish to the utmost.  In other words, Brian *needed* a change.
 
Even for Mike's biggest defenders: is it impossible to conceive of the idea that Brian, at a certain point, felt that working with Mike was holding him back, and that perhaps some of Brian's best work couldn't have been achieved if Mike was in the lyricist position?

And by holding Brian back, I mean that Brian himself, due to having to deal with frustrations, wouldn't necessarily be able to compose the music portions of the songs he wrote to 100% the same degree? It is possible. And I don't know why admitting this would have to even be a dig or slight against Mike - it just means that for some portions of Brian's creative life, he decided that he could make music and art in a certain manner that, to Brian, absolutely necessitated a different dynamic than had came before. That doesn't have to mean that "Mike sucks" or something.

Hell, Dennis was willing to let Brian replace him in the studio without a boatload of resentment or "questioning" of Brian's decisions, once Brian felt that Dennis' abilities (however great they were) would be better handled for certain songs (even for nearly entire albums, like Pet Sounds + SMiLE) by "outsiders".  That doesn't mean that Dennis "sucked", nor does it mean that it would make much sense to say that "Brian really should have used Dennis as the exclusive drummer on Pet Sounds + SMiLE". Dennis trusted Brian's instincts, and removed his own ego as a part of the equation.  

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but you seem feel Brian was prevented from continuing to pursue the music he tried in 1966/67. I feel the evidence is he did try it and he didn't believe in it. He saw it as a mistake, not because of somebody else but because it wasn't him. Related to what Howie thought, I think Brian was doing things to impress people but he ended up the one not impressed with the things he had done.

Could Mike have written the lyrics for Pet Sounds and Smile without loss of quality? IMO Yes.

Did Brian want to work with other lyricists in 66 - 67? Objectively Yes, since he did.

Do I think he owed Mike the job of writing lyrics since they had worked together so great in 64-65? Hell No.

Whey the hell did Mike write the lyrics for Good Vibrations? I don't know. Maybe Asher was long gone when the track was ready to have vocals added, and Van Dyke Parks just wasn't the right man for the job. Brian is the kind of guy who wants it done NOW while it's hot, so Mike wrote the lyrics on the way to the studio.

Would Brian have been held back if Mike were writing lyrics for Pet Sounds? I don't know. Probably not. Mental issues eventually held Brian back, not working relations with Asher, Parks and Love.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that Brian (in his heart) *actually* believed that Pet Sounds and SMiLE were projects that he didn’t believe in, or that the projects somehow “weren’t him”. I don’t buy that he ever really, truly, deep down believed that, either right in the aftermath of those projects, or at anytime decades later. He became incredibly, super dejected by the fact that SMiLE wasn’t finished (particularly in the manner in which this non-release occurred, which was complicated and multi-faceted), and for years he publicly stated that this was “inappropriate” music in order to not have to deal with talking about it.  

He maybe even convinced himself of this on some superficial level  - and, by more often than not focusing on relatively “safer” material going forward, he avoided a repeat of the confrontation and rejection that he encountered in ‘66/’67 (which, while certainly not the only factor, was a major factor with SMiLE, no matter how much some people want to rewrite history and minimize it to a non-issue).

Let’s face it – probably the most experimental “out there” music that Brian attempted with the BBs post-SMiLE was the Fairy Tale, and that barely got released (in fact, I doubt very highly it would have been released at all, if not for Carl fearing a non-release due to the band not liking it would majorly Brian’s hurt feelings and manifest in something awful).  

Continued rejection (or near-rejection) may not be a textbook definition of an artist being “prevented” from doing anything, but a support system (minus opposing factors that continually chipped away at his confidence) would most certainly not have *hurt* Brian’s ambition + drive. Brian wasn’t exactly “prevented” from doing anything, but IMO a major factor of what he needed to flourish was less questions and more unconditional support.  

And maybe that expectation was "unrealistic" and "not how human beings act"... but Brian was/is a special case of an artist who, in an artistic sense, has given above and well beyond what most artists are humanly capable of giving, which is all tied into his extra sensitivity/extra needing of much more unconditional emotional support than normal (uber highly creative people are often just simply this way) - which is why I think he deserved better and needed more than what he got at the time.  And of course, I don't *just* mean from his bandmates, but I mean the record company, VDP, etc. Of course, hindsight is 20/20. Of the surviving BBs of that era, I get the feeling that Al would probably more or less feel this way too.

I still think that if all the BBs at the time of SMiLE had the Dennis Wilson outlook on it (totally, unquestionably supporting Brian and truly believing he was onto something so incredible, it would make Pet Sounds stink), that it would have most likely been enough to get him to a better place mentally to maybe, just maybe finish SMiLE in some fashion at the time.

What if they all said they'd help him overcome the technical limitations by helping him sort tapes, make edits, etc? If they all banded together promising that they'd do anything to help him out mentally + practically + emotionally to get into a good head space? Maybe even this hypothetical scenario would have still not helped Brian finish SMiLE - but call me crazy, I still think that a support system like that would have lent itself to a different and better outcome (at least to some degree) than what actually happened. 

I just don't think that is the way it was or Brian was. Others didn't influence Brian, Brian influenced others. Others didn't control Brian, Brian controlled others. Fairy Tale etc. are proof that if Brian wanted it, believed in it, it happened. If he didn't it didn't. SMiLE didn't. The Boys and others did support Brian as far as I can tell even when they felt humiliated by what Brian required of them. Anyways, I think it was all Brian and he did and should own it and we should let him.

I just had to step in with a comment on Brian and Pet Sounds: Don't ask for exact references because they're scattered everywhere, but after many interviews and comments Brian has made on Pet Sounds, is there any doubt he made Pet Sounds because he *had* to make Pet Sounds as a personal statement at that time? Was he nervous or anxious about how people would react to it before it was released? Absolutely yes, he was, but at the same time so were and are any number of "legendary" artists around the release of now-legendary projects that might buck the trend, take artistic risks, or radically change the image and appeal of that artist or group because it was/is so forward-thinking beyond what fans expected.

I have been on a Beatles reading kick recently, and have been devouring all kinds of books on them. I just got through the Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane and Pepper sections of a book, more focused on the inner stuff rather than the music.

And that single, in early 1967, a single which is now considered one of the greatest of all time, was considered something of a failure or even a flop when it didn't reach #1 in the UK. It had broken a streak of every Beatle single reaching #1 going back a few years, and those within and around the band were taking some of it to heart. You just don't hear about that kind of self-doubt or nervousness about their direction reported too much. As they were doing Sgt pepper, all this was going on. The end of 1966 saw the Beach Boys top them in the polls, in certain parts of the US the Beatles name was like mud after John's Jesus interview blew up, and they stopped touring and basically disappeared as a group entity for much of the fall 1966 to lead some to suggest they were splitting up and going out as individuals.

And Brian Epstein was a wreck - without touring he really didn't have much of a proactive role at this time - and he held onto the desperate hope that he could book another tour of the UK for them, which was pure fantasy.

Again, all of this self-doubt, all of this "what if?" questioning, all of the rumours of them being "done" as a band, was happening as they were doing what would turn their career into something beyond pop music Beatlemania. And they were, privately, feeling the sting of missing their mark (according to observers) with the SF/PL single and wondering privately if their new sound would hit or miss with the listeners.

At the same time, they were supremely confident in the music they were actually creating and recording, and unlike previous sessions which were kept almost hush-hush confidential to outsiders, they would invite people to drop in and listen. Almost like a self-realization or affirmation that what they were doing was really *that good*, and almost to a man those who heard it were blown away, to borrow the UK term "gobsmacked" by the works-in-progress they were hearing.

And likewise, Brian had these same lingering doubts - again, who doesn't in similar situations? But from all accounts, I always got the impression Brian felt so personally connected to Pet Sounds that he "had to make it" at that time, as he wanted, and he did stand his ground even though among record company negotiations and whatnot he may have shown less than a bold stance on it at the time.

Believing in something that personal, that important, is different than having doubts in a commercial sense or doubting the acceptance of such an offering because it is so close to the heart in nature.

I cannot agree that Brian didn't believe in Pet Sounds, any more than there is a misunderstanding that the Beatles from Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane into Sgt. Pepper were going full speed ahead, all obstacles be damned without harboring the same kinds of questions and doubts as Brian had with Pet Sounds and other projects in '66. In no way does worrying of that sort suggest they didn't believe in the project.

I think there is a distinction between believing in the music and feeling apprehensive about how the listening public is going to accept it. In my opinion, Brian knew that Pet Sounds and SMiLE were good, very good. He also knew that the music was different, and, because of that aspect, it had to make Brian a little uneasy. Brian seemed to be a character who on one hand possessed an abundance of self-confidence, but could then turn around and scrap something because he thought other people wouldn't like it. Although you have to wonder how he could think the public would embrace Smiley Smile, Friends, and even some of Wild Honey. ??? :o :)

As far as Brian's saying "I don't know" why he didn't use Mike Love for Pet Sounds...Of course he knows. Let's put it this way. The Brian Wilson of 1966 could probably give you five reasons right of the top of his head why he went with Tony Asher instead of Mike Love. I don't know the man, but the Brian Wilson of today appears to be someone who doesn't care enough to give the question significant thought, or at least the thought required to answer the question.

Sheriff, I really like where you went with that post. I'll come back to a point I made about that mid-60's period and Brian several times before.

None of these guys really had what a lot of us know as the experience of going away to college, or any other experience when we're ages 18-23 that takes us out of what we knew from "home" and into a new realm of friends, ideas, and outlooks. How many of us either personally or through kids or siblings have seen someone "come home" almost a changed person, full of new ideas and maybe even a totally different way of looking at things?

You might find that people who were your closest friends and things that were vitally important to you at age 17 have shifted into other areas. You're still friends, you're still blood brothers and will always be, but the ability to *relate* to your previous friends has changed in many cases.

If you consider that Tony Asher was a friend of Loren Schwartz's who had grown up with him, and then factor in Brian getting into that particular social circle that included men like Van Dyke Parks and David Anderle, some of the reasons "why" become more clear.

Brian was experiencing what a lot of us civilians got by leaving home for college. His mind was being expanded and his outlook on life was being changed as he sat in on conversations about philosophy, religion, politics, and everyday life that were miles away from what he knew in Hawthorne.

And as such, the ability to relate to someone like Mike on a "Hawthorne" level where certain mindsets and activities were prioritized and which came out in their music was suddenly interrupted by a whole new set of ideas. Someone like Brian would still love the idea of cruising the streets in a hot car and picking up girls, but at the same time he'd be having conversations far removed from that scene with a new circle of friends.

And I think having a lyricist who was a part of that new group of friends, part of the "inner circle" in fact, struck a deeper chord with what he wanted to do and say in his music than the previous circle of girls and fun and Hawthorne *at that specific time*.

Someone like Asher was able to have those conversations at that exact point in Brian's life and mindset where his previous collaborator and cousin Mike perhaps wasn't relating to this new mindset as much.

And just like the kid coming home from a few years away from school, it *is* hard to relate and that process and realization that you may not connect like you did at age 17 with some people you love is difficult. And as age progresses, you often have to go back and look for it because it brings you more joy in its nostalgia and maybe a renewed sense of how you felt as a kid than what you experienced as your new self.

On a basic level, around the time of Pet Sounds, I just think Brian if you consider him as we do a kid going away to college and coming back a changed person, was not as able to relate to loved ones like Mike as well as he could at that specific time with the new circle of friends who introduced him to all the new ways of thinking. So he went with where he was at emotionally and philosophically at the time, with someone he felt he could relate to on that level.

Guitarfool, I get what yiou're saying and agree. Whey do you think Brian started writing with Mike again in late '67?

I think that is exactly what happened to SMiLE, Brian couldn't really relate/connect to the other/outsiders including VDP and did not ultimately relate to the music he/they created.

I think SMiLE might very well have been better off with Mike he was/is a team player and because they did relate to each other and work together and Mike had a better understanding of Brian's ways and sense of humor.

Does it not seem possible to you that Brian felt so dejected by the project not being finished, that by retroactively claiming the music was "inappropriate" or in some way non-relatable/connectable, it helped Brian himself legitimize (to himself, from a psychological standpoint) having shelved it? Plus, Brian could only take hearing questions (and seeing bandmates grudgingly going through the motions) enough times before starting to second guess himself in a big way. I'm not saying that all of Brian's second-guessing of the project was solely caused by his bandmates, but it obviously was a *major* factor.

I mean, it was easier for Brian to do that and superficially convince himself, or at least publicly proclaim, that there was something "wrong" or "not appropriate music for the band", than for him to have done the alternative - which would have meant in some shape or form, going back and addressing a project which had resulted in so much pain for him; emotional pain/rejection/SMiLE were all inextricably bounded together in his mind for decades.  

Brian, in his dejected and fragile emotional state, IMO convinced himself that he had to put down the music in some fashion - the alternative would have meant Brian keeping up some sort of defending of the legitimacy of the project - which in turn would have meant that Brian was on some level keeping up a fight against element(s) in the band who most questioned it in the first place. He had given up the fight, and his diminishing motivation and decline in general is intrinsically connected to that.

To suggest, as you do, that Brian created SMiLE music, then thought about it and actually said to himself on his own: "you know, Bri, the music that VDP and myself made just wasn't something that I or other people can connect with/relate to" doesn't make anything resembling sense to me.

It's plainly obvious to me that Brian developed all sorts of mental blocks/walls (that led him to "put down" the music) as a defense mechanism.  

By late '66 state-of-the-art rock lyrics had become faux-Dylan : oblique, allusive, they-mean-whatever-you-want-them-to-mean. 'A Whiter Shade of Pale'. 'Strawberry Fields Forever'. 'Crystal Ship' by the Doors, 'Broken Arrow' by the Buffalo Springfield, that sort of thing. VDP was absolutely the right choice if Brian wanted lyrics in a style that the new, hip (pretentious?) audience of college kids would appreciate.

Mike's style is the opposite. Direct, say-what-you-mean, clear. Chuck Berry, not badly done Rimbaud. In many ways a more difficult style to do well. I have more respect for the lyrics of 'Fun Fun Fun' and 'California Girls' than I do for those of 'A Whiter Shade of Pale'. But Mike could never write lyrics that would have connected with this new hippie audience.

Don't think subbing Mike for VDP would have saved SMiLE.

IMO, I highly doubt that Brian's decision to restart working with Mike as the primary lyricist for the Wild Honey album was a decision that Brian exactly made "happily".

Firstly, I think most people would think that Brian had some major resentment or pained/super strained feelings about Mike Love in 1967. I'd think even Mike's biggest defenders would realize that this was likely the case in Brian's mind, at least to some degree.  

Going back and working in an artistic environment with someone with whom you have just very recently had majorly hurt feelings (which haven't been addressed/dealt with properly) can't have been a decision that would have been Brian's first instinct, IMO. He found a way to put those feelings aside and not deal with them, while they probably kept quietly festering in the back of his mind.

But given the circumstances (quickly diminishing band popularity/general desperation by most of the band for some sort of quick fix via an easily achievable goal), not to mention whatever repeated requests Mike himself probably made to Brian (in a manner that none of us really know the nature of), it just was the easiest, safest choice to make, especially after a long period of what he came to view as uncertain choices.  

I think Brian felt a sense of obligation too, and I imagine he was reminded of the broken promise to Mike about allowing Mike to become the reclaim the throne of primary lyricist after Pet Sounds...and I think that this is probably a factor of some sort in why the "Gettin' Hungry" single has that bizarre one-off "Brian + Mike" credit. I smell some odd passive-aggressive making-up-for-broken-promises type of stuff in how that credit may have come to fruition - I'd love to know what other people think of why we have that credit (which seemed to be an unintentionally symbolic "undoing" of sorts of the Brian solo "Caroline, No" single credit). For that very unusual credit to exist just months after the SMiLE incident is odd, to say the least.

I'm not at all saying that Brian had to be desperate in order to work with Mike Love again - but I believe that Brian (egged on by the band) started to feel desperate to get results in a quick "proven" manner. Particularly since a pressured and dejected (some could say to an extent bullied) Brian had given up the fight to use outside lyricists (and had convinced himself on some superficial level that the whole SMiLE affair/primary use of outsiders was "inappropriate")... I think Brian just basically allowed a Mike-as-the-primary-lyricist thing to simply happen. It kept peace, and Mike got what he wanted so badly for 2 years.

Per Peter Reum, after Brian promised Mike after Pet Sounds (or Smile), that he'd co-write the next one with him. Hence the abundance of collaborations between those two on WH-- and probably the Gettin' Hungry single. Too bad by then people did not care about the BBs anymore. Too late.

Keep in mind that Mike's biggest (and only?) problem with SMiLE was SOME of Van Dyke Park's lyrics, not Brian's artistic contribution which was the music. I know we have discussed this ad nauseum, but Mike did his job well on SMiLE and I don't think there is any documented evidence that he (Mike) protested during the recording of the weirder Smiley Smile.

Sure anything is possible and that is an old theory that sort hardened into something resembling fact for a long time. My read is exactly opposite, Brian shows no signs of this supposed vulnerability or regret to me. He was not fighting to save SMiLE, he was exactly the opposite fighting to dump SMiLE and he did. In my opinion Brian was just not at all like that theory proposes. After dumping SMiLE he was not pining away for it he went on and had one of his most productive years. To me that proposal is romantic but it doesn't fit the facts as I read them.

I happen to think this is way minimizing the facts, but it makes little difference what we think, since regardless of the degree of Mike's problems with SMiLE were (or weren't), or how we view things in that manner, the fact remains that Brian was deeply hurt by Mike (specifically pertaining to Mike objecting to Brian's vision for BB music in one way or another - most deeply with SMiLE, but also going back to Hang On to Your Ego, questions about Side B of Today, and surely earlier); those feelings were Brian's own and they were real to Brian.

So I'm just saying that going back into a working relationship with a guy who Brian was unarguably hurt by - and (perhaps arguably) had just recently been trying to move away from in order to work more with people who wouldn't question Brian's own motives - couldn't have been a decision that was just simply happily made by Brian, with a ho-hum attitude. It was an easy retreat by a defeated Brian, and a way to get a monkey off his back.

I love the Wild Honey album and I'm glad we have it, but Brian's days of giving-a-major-major-f*ck about the quality of his recordings were over, or at least they were over at the time, which IMO was clearly shown by his production of the album. Yes, it was also a retreat and reaction to minimize the work/effort compared to what he'd done at his peak just months prior. But I don't think Brian's full heart was in it, and I think part of that was because of the unaddressed very recent emotional crap between those two guys that Brian put aside and didn't address when they wrote the WH songs.

Maybe. I guess it depends on what you consider to be the facts.

I know we have that proclamation by Brian in the Beautiful Dreamer documentary saying "Mike didn't like it". But, most of the statements I have read from Brian regarding the demise of SMiLE show Brian himself taking responsibility by mentioning major drug intake, impending mental problems, and finding the music inappropriate, which I guess means it wouldn't be accepted (sell?) by Beach Boys' fans.

Wow, I'm rusty. It's been awhile since we had a SMiLE discussion. :-D

I never said that in the SMiLE aftermath, Brian was in any way, shape or form "pining" for it. He essentially put it out of sight, out of mind to save himself. A gradual vicious cycle of feelings of defeat and self-doubt would do that to a lot of artists. "Not fighting to save SMiLE" was an obvious subsequent byproduct of the man throwing in the towel. And a person self-destructing emotionally and finding other coping mechanisms is a clear-as-day sign of regret to my eyes.

OK, we will continue to disagree on all of it.

It was clearly hard for Brian to say what he said in the Beautiful Dreamer documentary. You can see the pain on his face. It wasn't easy for him to say it point blank like that, because he isn't a confrontational person (not because it's not true).

For Brian to go out of his way to *directly* point his finger at Mike in public statements isn't something that's very much in his character. It seems to me that Brian's a guy who, when he is sad, depressed, angry, resentful at others, will often take things out on himself - abuse his body, deny that anything is wrong, etc. Peoples' feelings are gonna come out and manifest in one way or another - it's just a matter of time and circumstance - not if, but when.

As I've said before, Mike Love shouldn't be fingered in any way, shape or form as being the sole cause of any of SMiLE, its fallout, etc. But it should be accepted that his actions (and Brian's internal interpretations of them) were in some way *a* factor. Brian's feelings on what Mike did/didn't say/imply with non-verbal communication, and how Brian took in that data and processed it in his mind are not to be denied by any of us. That sh*t is/was real to Brian.

Is anyone gonna have guts enough to say that Brian's feelings aren't real to Brian? Or that he doesn't have a right to feel what he felt, or to interpret things how he interpreted them? Or is it gonna come back to the old idea that Brian is a puppet and his feelings are all put into his head by others? At some point, one has to accept that the man has a mind of his own.

I'd love to see how the Mike uber defenders would react if we found a diary that Brian had written between 1961-1967, and if those writings confirmed that Brian felt a certain way about some of Mike's actions all along (and that these thoughts weren't put into Brian's head by others or by drugs - but that these thoughts were there all along, even in Brian's most "with-it" years). But the defenders would find some other way to discredit Brian's feelings, right?

The fact that Brian doesn't have a personality that would go out of his way at every turn in the road to say "Yeah, it's my cousin's fault" does not mean that Brian doesn't feel that Mike has some culpability. Our feelings on Mike's culpability are irrelevant.

It's a textbook case of how in many ways, Brian is pretty much the exact opposite of his cousin, personality-wise.  I guess it's a ying-yang situation, only a sick one. I don't think I've ever heard Mike Love say a regretful thing about a single action of his in BB history (maybe barring his own embarrassment about Brian's ball-busting mention of Looking Back with Love in the campfire segment). When Mike was asked in a recent interview about what actions of his own that he'd change, he found a way to spin the answer into drug use by the Wilsons, and duck the actual question/probe of what actions of *his own* that he'd change. Denial is the glue that gives certain people the ability to hold themselves together.  Much in the parallel way that Brian downplayed SMiLE and tried to ignore it and make it disappear entirely for decades in order to hold himself together.

And that personality trait of Mike's, sadly and unfortunately, is why giant swathes of the public loathe him.  It's led to why he isn't respected in the way he wishes he was, which has led to 10,001 "Back in the USSR" mentions in interviews. I on the other hand simply feel sorry for him (or as much as I can for a multimillionaire) since I think he's the worst enemy to both himself and the group's legacy. It doesn't mean I can't appreciate the man's work or think that he's a horrible person (which I don't).

Cam, would it kill you to admit that maybe he has a point?

Brian chose to work with outsider lyricists for Pet Sounds and Smile. It's a fact.

What do we know for certain? That he'd rather not collaborate with Mike anymore. It's a fact. Simple as that.

In the second half of 1967 Brian started writing again with Mike. It's a fact.

Why is it so hard to believe that he wanted to work with Mike again? Does it have to be a metaphor for his defeat with the shelving of Smile, his giving up on the producer race, a way of having Mike off his back?

Maybe, just maybe, he had written some new material with a strong R'n'B influence and thought Mike would write great lyrics for them.

Maybe Wild Honey was the best music he could write in produce in the latter half of 1967.

One's ability to wholeheartedly believe Brian *actively*, of his own volition, *wanted* + truly *desired* to work on an entire album of tunes co-written with Mike again at this point in time, so soon after SMiLE, I suppose depends on how much (or little) you think that Brian was deeply bummed out/resentful of Mike at the time, and whether or not you think a situation where someone feels really hurt and artistically rejected could possibly lend itself a "desire" to work with who they see as a partial culprit of these things. If you think "Brian wasn't really bummed at Mike at the time because he had no reason to be", then your theory might make more sense to someone who thinks that way.  To me, it seems like an example of Brian stuffing his feelings down deep inside, not dealing with them, and then forging ahead to keep things going in a business sense.

I think that once Brian decided to just get an album done quickly (especially with Smiley Smile being a flop), and once he intended it to be rooted in a more simple pop R&B sense, that at that point the situation lent itself to it making the most sense for Mike (who surely wanted to be back writing lyrics) to be put back into that position. I don't think anyone could imagine a scenario where Mike wasn't suggesting to Brian (multiple times) that he'd like to be back writing lyrics for a "fresh start" without hangers-on.

One thing seems indisputable: In late '67, Brian was not in a good place mentally/emotionally. He was doing his best at forging ahead, but he was pushing down his depression (and not very well). He still had SMiLE floating around in his head in some fashion, as the attempted Surf's Up 1967 version tells us (to some degree at least), not to mention Mama Says. While Brian's head space would most certainly sadly get worse very soon, I would think it safe to say that when an artist (or anyone for that matter) is in a stage of depression which is getting worse by the day by not being properly dealt with, that their decision making process may not be what it would be if they were on top like they used to be.  This includes when the decision was made on matters of collaborators.

I'm not saying that Mike was the wrong person to write the lyrics for WH (and I like Brian + Mike's contributions, underproduction notwithstanding) - that album, like you said, was probably the best you could've gotten out of Brian, Mike, and the Boys at the time. But the fact that this was the best album you could've gotten out of them then reflects the fact that Brian had just experienced a great defeat, had given up the production race, and gave up the task of fighting for "progressive" lyrics with outsiders anymore (and I'm sure that last part made Mike very happy).

Does that mean that Brian made Wild Honey grudgingly? I doubt it, although IMO the underproduction to me suggests maybe sorta kinda. At that point, his survival instinct of "SMiLE was inappropriate" helped get himself into the zone of doing way less work and expounding way less emotional energy into making a record. I do think he tried to make a cool record. Monterrey Pop had come and gone, and feeling he'd failed the opportunity to gain respect with the "cool kids", he went back to something simpler and safer, relative to progressive intricate sunshine pop. Plus - another fact is that he "owed" Mike an album of Mike-written lyrics, so it was a "make good" piece as well.  
 
There were lots of reasons that Brian decided to work on a whole album with Mike in late '67, but it doesn't add up to me that it was as simple as Brian "just wanting to work with Mike again".

No, I'm not advocating that Brian had no reason to be bummed out at Mike. He certainly was, and if we start to debate if it was justified or not we'll kinda return to the old "who's to blame for Smile". On the other hand you're saying that there's no way that Brian world want to write again with Mike so soon. I disagree. Maybe there was more to life in September '67 than the ghost of Smile. Marilyn was pregnant. I sincerely hope that a daughter on the way was more important to the man than a fucking album that wasn't finished. Maybe he felt like writing again with Mike, without any subliminal arm twisting or anything like that. But I think you already made up your mind about that and we'll have to agree to disagree.

If Brian making good on his 2-year old promise to Mike about Mike writing the "next" album way back in '65/'66 was, to some degree, a reason why WH happened, does that constitute subliminal arm twisting? Or does that possibly constitute past subliminal arm twisting that caught up with Brian 2 years later?

Because I have a hunch that Brian agreed to those "terms" at that much earlier date as a simple way to make Mike happy, and as a means to let Brian follow his artistic muse at the moment right then. If you were Brian's 1965/1966 good friend, and were to have asked Brian at the time whether or not he *wanted* to make that promise to Mike, or whether or not he did it to get Mike off his back and to make Mike happy, well I think it would seem obvious that he made the promise to appease his cousin. Do you dispute this notion? What artist (who is experiencing all sorts of newfound inspiration and ideas, with no end in sight) actually *wants* to make a promise to be back to doing things in a certain, predefined way in the future? It's called a compromise, you do this, I'll do that.

I don't think WH in its eventual form exists *solely* because of that "next album" promise, but it seems to me like that is certainly *part* of the picture.

Brian wanted a hit. He was crushed when "Heroes and Villains" received a tepid response.

Who did Brian score hits with? Mike Love.
Makes sense to me.

That's true, and a valid point. I don't dispute that Brian tried to carve out a couple of hits from the WH album the "old fashioned way" with Mike Love. I do think that Brian viewed most of the rest of the album as filler though. And it is good filler. But what you suggest is not the whole picture - that's way, way oversimplified IMO.

It took a relative failure of H&V to reaffirm in his own mind what Mike Love himself had been telling Brian for months and months (that lyrics not written by him were unrelatable and wouldn't generate "hits"). This, coupled with the H&V chart failure, helped Brian to stop believing the SMiLE hype himself.  The SMiLE world/people/hangers on was pulled out from under Brian very quickly (largely of his own volition) - most of that circle went away in a heartbeat (with VDP already gone). In this atmosphere, plus prodding by Mike, and a make-good on his belated promise looming, it's probably not that surprising that Brian decided to just work with Mike again. Who else was he gonna work with at this point?  Especially when they clearly wanted new product very fast.

And did Brian, in his then-mindset, really have much of a choice at this point? Was he gonna say "No, Mike - I'm gonna break the promise for the 2nd album in a row, and I'm gonna search for *yet another* new lyricist again - even after all this excruciating, hugely publicly embarrassing spectacle which showed my failure at following through?" Sure - Brian could have said those things, but he felt defeated and was in no mindset to put up a fight.

Plus - the key word on Brian's mind at that point was "SAFE". Anything other than working with Mike would have resulted in yet additional friction - and I'm sure that if there was any time in Brian's career where he needed more friction/questioning of his decisions/choice of collaborators from his bandmates like he needed a hole in the head - it was in late 1967. Brian wanted much more than just a "hit" at that time - he wanted peace, and he wanted to ACTIVELY avoid any new situation remotely resembling confrontation.

I don't think Brian went "kicking and screaming" into it, but IMO it most certainly wasn't some happy decision where Brian said to himself "well, Mike has a history of writing hits with me, so golly gee, I'd really like to work with him again now". It's always way more complicated than that with these guys.
 

Brian also promised Mike that he'd take care of the songwriting credits situation. As we know, he never did, and universe didn't collapse.

 guess Brian only follows his muse when he wants to work with Asher or Parks, or when he's producing Pet Sounds and Smile. Everything that happened before was a preparation, and everything that happened after was a resignation.

IF anybody was feeling bummed out, ignored, denied, compromised, etc, etc, during the period it seems it was the Boys. Brian said in 1968 that the Boys advocated against the scrapping of SMiLE. And then after losing, appear to have kept giving their all to Brian's scrapping of SMiLE in Smiley. I still believe the "history" of the period sort of has practically everything backwards.

That was my spin on things - Brian tried writing with others and the hits started to falter. Mike was the tried and tested option, even if he was no longer Brian's first choice in a perfect world.

See, I don't think Brian co-wrote with Mike on WH at all reluctantly, or just to make good on an earlier promise. If we look at WH in the context of Smiley Smile and Friends, we can see that Brian 1) stopped relying on session musicians and had the band lay down most of the tracks, 2) shared production credit with the other band members, and 3) not only began writing with Mike again, but -- for the 1st time -- brought Carl, Dennis, and Al into the writing process.

I think Brian grew tired of carrying the creative burden alone.

It was surely a hell of a lot easier for Brian to make good on a promise to write some songs and churn an album out quickly in a previously proven manner (especially when recent history dictated the excruciating difficulty of writing an album in a different fashion) than to take care of the songwriting credits situation, which would have involved lawyers, long/drawn out discussions over months or years, and all sorts of unknown stuff that Brian was eager to avoid responsibility for.  Of course, he should have done that anyway - but the two situations are apples and oranges, and not worthy of comparison IMO.

Would the universe have collapsed if Brian didn't decide to write WH with Mike? No.

But try to present me with a plausible hypothetical situation where, at that time, Brian would have been able to *quickly* write an album with any other choice of lyricist. And present me a situation where this new choice of non-Mike lyricist doesn't cause Brian to have to hear a metric ton of grief for again bringing in yet another outsider, especially in the wake recent history showing that working on songs in a non-proven nontraditional way = catastrophic public failure.

That album was cranked out FAST which I'm sure was what the band wanted to try and reverse its quickly fading fortunes. Just for Brian to have even considered trying to *find* another lyricist with whom he clicked with could've taken more time than they wanted on writing/recording the whole album itself. It wasn't worth it to him, even if the thought would've crossed his mind.

And working with Mike at the time may have been following his then-muse, to an extent, since once he was in a resigned mindset, he had to reboot the entire process - which is why it's back to basics in every sense of the word. While Brian was surely happy about having to do far less heavy lifting (albums like WH, though very good, were albums that Brian could seemingly knock out in his sleep), I really doubt that Brian felt the creative fulfillment when listening to the WH acetate master prior to its release, that he was seeking just months earlier on SMiLE. I think he tried to make a cool little album, and in general he did. But I think it ignores lots of circumstantial evidence to suggest that there wasn't even a tiny blip of resignation in Brian's heart at the time.

I agree with most of what you say above, although I think the make-good thing more than likely played a role (but most certainly wasn't the only factor). Once the urge and motivation to reach for insanely huge heights had evaporated and left him, Brian did everything he could on a subconscious level to diminish the goals he had been striving towards, and threw himself into his work (not dealing with his feelings and the fallout), and at that point, you have a man who is holding himself together, saying things to himself to be able to function, and in general being emotionally unhealthy.

Within the context of that mental framework, his choice of choosing Mike (with whom he surely has some major unaddressed issues with) doesn't have to be seen as exactly "reluctant", but it seems to me more of a situation where Brian had some emotional blinders on, chose to simply not deal with certain things, and went into a new project (which Brian knew would be easy), all the while under the pretense that nothing was really deeply wrong. The human mind is a powerful thing and Brian, obviously since a young age, found ways to cope with emotionally difficult situations. Working with Mike might have made the most sense at the time on many levels, but it was also the easiest and least confrontational way of dealing with the task and sense of responsibility at hand, which in my mind are probably the main factors on why it happened.

As far as I know, Brian did write Wild Honey with Mike. You're the one advocating that that's not what he really wanted to do in 1967, so what you're basically doing is to presume what Brian's motiovations were back then and what went through his head. Probably moved by a point you repeatedly make, that Smile was this huge black hole in Brian's life and every decision he made after March 67 was affected by or a result of the shelving of Smile.

That makes Brian almost two-dimensional, but that's an angle which builds up a myth that may have very comfortably suited him since then.

I don't see what you've just said as anything resembling a direct response to my specific question in the paragraph of mine which you've quoted. I'd honestly like to hear a plausible-sounding scenario of an alternative path he could've chosen (that gets the album done QUICK and avoids more questions/friction).

I truthfully don't think there is one - but please present me with one if I'm mistaken.

Does that in and of itself (the lack of plausible-sounding alternative options given the circumstances) mean that writing an album with Mike in 1967 is "not what he really wanted to do", and that he was somehow forced/coaxed into it? Not necessarily.

It seems obvious to me that it was primarily a matter of it having been an easily achievable thing to do at a time when he MOST needed his goals to have had the ability to be met with easily achievable actions - and he may have convinced himself that he "wanted" to do it on some level. But I think that (at most) only part of him really "wanted" to.

Uh, do I have to present evidence that collaborating with Mike wasn't the only path he could take? Does anyone have to prove that collaborating with Van Dyke for the next album after Pet Sounds was what Brian really wanted to do? Why would I have to do that? He did work with Van Dyke, that's all. Is anyone here questioning the ulterior motives Brian might have had?

If I answer that Brian could have worked with another lyricist, you'll say that a next album had to be ready for Christmas, and it was unpratical to search for an outsider for the job.

Well, it was also unpractical to bring Parks to the fold and he did.

Now, if I must prove that Brian felt like writing with Mike in late'67, sorry. I don't have a straight channel to his mind in 2014 or 1967.

On the other hand, do you? You presume that Brian's conflicts with his cousin during Smile were so deep that he would never want to write with him 6 months after. Is this a fact? So, why you're sitting in Brian's brain circa 67, please photocopy the intended tracklist for Smile. We'll apreciate it.  ;D

You don't "have" to answer anything, of course. I can't say I know all or any of the facts about these guys motivations, and neither can you. We're both making educated guesses given the circumstantial evidence.

But - in a discussion where I'm trying to point out that there weren't really any realistic alternative options that avoid more friction and an expedited turnaround, you haven't exactly refuted that statement of mine either.

Agreeing with my presumption that there were likely no realistic/plausible alternative options (given the circumstances) other than working with Mike does NOT necessarily mean that you also have to feel that Brian didn't "want" to work with Mike.  While this statement isn't what I believe, one can believe that: Despite the fact that admittedly Brian didn't really have any options that wouldn't have caused him more friction and another compromised timeline, that, irrelevant to and independent of that situation, Brian decided he'd just simply like to work with Mike again.

If you proposed that Brian was in fact an alien, I can't refute that statement without a DNA test, either.

So... Brian may be an alien or not. Educated guesses.

Hardy har  ;D

Hey, I'm willing to admit that others who think differently than me can have a point sometimes, even it somehow "undermines" my stance on things. I wish you could return the favor. I'd just honestly like a list of a few (even one) alternative options that you honestly think Brian could have taken that wouldn't have also caused more friction in the band.

(tumbleweed blows by)...

Well, if we use Smiley Smile as a reference (and as people have noted, there's nothing to indicate Mike disliked making the album), we can see an approach that Brian took to this. Firstly, you have a couple outside collaborations, granted, those are left-overs from the Smile album. Secondly, Brian wrote a lot of the lyrics himself, something that was a bit unusual at this point. Thirdly, you have the collaborations with Mike Love, these being the singles (because, as I mentioned, Mike and Brian had a history of scoring high-charting singles).

This wasn't just an album of Brian being forced into working with Mike, it was a mix of different approaches - and it worked out just fine.

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

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

I think those are all valid points, clack.

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

he would never have to sue brian

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) Mike "Balloon Head" Love  :tm

2) A Guilt-free Brian  :huh


3) Instead of   >:D  Murry went to :angel:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 

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

Duress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does that work?

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

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

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

Yes, both true.

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

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

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

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

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

The work that you seem to describe is "work for hire" and that occurs when, for example! you are an "inventor" and work for a scientific company.  Your inventions belong to the company.  That is not the case, here, seemingly.  GF2002 knows the workings of the industry.  And he gave us a chunk of the background. 

There is no blame from me, to either Brian or Mike.  The way I look at it is this way... The business model of that time, had to be dealt with.  And Mike dealt with it, legally. Murry was still speaking "from the grave" in terms of the way writing credits were apportioned.  A neutral third party looked at the evidence, in court.  Mike was not law-suit happy. 

In my view, he did the industry (and other artists who follow) a favor, by exposing the potential for abuse, in the same way that GF2002 explained, so well, above.  It can happen more often in a family-run business, and that is right across the board, where things are "personal."

The business failed to protect their artists, as exploited or allowed exploitation to take place.  Some turned their backs. 

But, that said, I'm glad you often offer a position that sometimes runs counter to many.  Mike was made the scapegoat, often.  But, Mike kept the music going, always, even when they played to very small crowds. (some of my favorite shows!)  In the end, it got them to C50, because there was a "constantly oiled" BB machine at the "ready." Just doing the unglamourous grunt work, every day.  All the travel, jet lag, fatigue, venue logistics, etc...

filledeplage has mentioned a key issue that I think needs to be explored, and it is one which is and has been a part of the songwriting aspect of the music business for many years.

I tried to think of a way to consolidate some of this into a more cohesive thing...but there are entire textbooks and for-credit college courses taught on these issues, not to mention volumes of legal publications outlining how these things work. But I'll try to keep it on-point and summarize it, based on a question:

Was someone like Mike Love compensated directly at the time (early mid-1960's) for his contributions?

In the current day, in the music business, there are many professional and semi-pro songwriters working "for hire". It's the same concept filledeplage introduced and compared to scientific, tech, and engineering companies who retain the services of designers and inventors but who retain the rights to their creations as a form of property, and for which they pay those inventors and engineers a salary and perhaps residuals depending on the terms of their employment and contracts.

Songs are the same for thousands of pro songwriters. Often they sign a contract with a firm or a publishing house, let's say Sony/BMG or any of the Nashville groups for the discussion. These writers are either retained as staff writers and paid in salary, or they work as independent contractors and are paid per song, depending on what the larger interest decides they want to purchase from that writer to pitch to an artist or project.

Often, the publishing rights to those song creations - existing often as fully-produced demo recordings - remain with the larger interest "hiring" the writers as part of a standard contract. The writer can be paid a flat fee for their work, they can be given a one-time payment for the song, or it can be considered "property" much like the industrial/tech engineers create in the employ of their employer, again the notion filledeplage mentions in a non-musical sense.

So the writer does get paid, or is on salary and gets a regular paycheck to write songs, or may even negotiate something more, but ultimately a lot of these arrangements do not include publishing unless that writer has an established reputation and has clout (and legal representation) to hold out for a bigger piece of the pie.

Important point: ***Many musicians are ignorant of the business aspects of making music***  This is less true now than it was in the 60's or whenever, but it is still true. They simply do not know and do not consider the ramifications of signing or not signing certain agreements, or how the inner workings can help and hurt them in the future.

This is fact...and was surely fact when guys in their teens with - important point - NO BUSINESS SENSE OR TRAINING were suddenly faced with decisions involving potentially large sums of money, as well as future financial planning.

As such, the potential and opportunity for artists ignorant of the nuts-and-bolts of things like publishing and residuals getting ripped off in terms of future income was always there, and is still there today.

Let's take examples from the 50's. Often, an artist would be presented with a lavish gift like a new flash Caddy or an expensive Rolex watch or even a one-time payment of money they had not seen before.

There *could be* a choice like this: "I'll pay you $1,500 cash for that song you just wrote, but you have to sign this agreement for future publishing rights and income."

And someone playing music many thought was a fad or short-lived would say: "Wow, it's just a song I wrote last week about racing cars, and here is a guy flashing a wad of cash in my face for that song...hmmm, I could use that money..."

Or whatever the case would be...an immediate cash payment or gift might be the more attractive option, rather than getting nothing as substantial in your hand but rather signing a paper to ensure that 10 years later if the song takes off you'll be getting a check in the mail every quarter-year for the profits from that song.

And many artists who were in their teens or barely out of their teens took the flash car, the Rolex, the wads of cash, the dope money, the girls, the "bling"...instead of looking 10 or 20 years into the future.

And for working songwriters, if you sign on "for hire" and take that payment on a song-by-song basis, your name is getting out there as well as your music - important to artists and egos just the same. You'll take on a salaried staff writer gig because it's "steady work" and you can count on a paycheck. Plus, you have access to a BMG - Sony type of structure who has teams of legal professionals to deal with everything that comes up. And your words and music might become the nation's most popular song one week...could you do that as an independent writer plugging your own songs without a legal or distribution network? It might cost more to defend yourself and your work than it would to take a salary or a one-off payment and let the real pros in those areas handle that stuff.

But you might not get as much of the pie as you would if you ran a totally self-contained independent company under your own name.

Now, back to Mike in the early and mid 60's. He had wealth, he had cars, he had all the trappings of being part of the "new rich" who had found the golden ticket out of blue-collar work, yet was at the core a blue-collar guy who had musical talent which gave him wealth.

Someone approaches someone like that hypothetically with a check, a check which working a year or more in a hometown "regular" job wouldn't come close to matching, and says "sign this and this, and you'll get this check for your work".

Food for thought?

Also, fodder for the question - As hindsight is 20/20, did Mike at the time he was cranking out all the surf sun and hot rod songs get paid on a "for hire" basis, or even get paid as a songwriter would get paid per song working as a staff writer or writer for hire?

Again, hindsight being 20/20, the notion of perhaps making a mistake when certain deals were made and certain papers signed hit him square in the face years after the fact after seeing the value in signing paper for future payments and value of the work rather than accepting payment or bling like a new car or luxury watch at the time for that work.

Real question is: would the SmileySmile board exist  if Mike had gotten proper songwriting credits?  >:D

Had Mike received proper credit there would have created a different band dynamic.

When Brian retreated, Mike and Carl would have likely taken the reins together.

Once again, guitarfool, great post! 

Wasn't internal band dynamics the determining cause in Carl taking leadership? And wouldn't the other band members know that Mike was co-lyricist (or sole lyricist in some cases) on many songs for which he was uncredited? Can't see how Mike having his name on 'I Get Around' or 'California Girls' would have led to him taking over production/arranging duties post-Friends.

I'm sure people accepted cash/trade in lieu of rights but it doesn't seem to be the case with Mike.

Even though Murry seems to have had nothing to gain monetarily [unless Brian was paying kick backs which I'm don't think so], and he is critical at the very time of what he sees as Brian's unethical business practices, I guess it could be Murry's fault.

And even though Brian is pushing Murry around at the very time, and Capitol, and doing his own outside projects, and seems to be dictating and controlling and calling all of the shots on every aspect of the their business lives, and he is the only one directly profiting from it, I guess it's possible Brian couldn't manage to do his duty as a co-author producer publisher and make sure one of his co-authors got on some of the songwriting contracts that he signed and it's not his fault.

Details, please.  Just how do you know that an arrangement of the type that guitarfool has described wasn't in place between Murry and Mike?

This is your best point, everybody always sees Brian as this weak person, at the time we're talking about he was running everything... and pretty competantly.  Everybody else got paid, why didn't Mike?    Very weird situation, maybe Brian thought Mike didn't care if he got credit... Roger Miller, for instance used to help people write songs all the time and was never listed as a cowriter because he didn't really want the credit. 

That is a complex question.  Copyright started with the Statute of Ann in 1710. The USA had Copyright protection in 1790. The US Constitution empowered Congress, in 1787 to "promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts by Securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their Respective Writings and Discoveries."

"Work for Hire" was first recognized in 1903, with a case involving advertisements made in the "course of employment."  It opened the door to the concept.  You have to know if the person is an "employee" or an "independent contractor." There are many complex lawsuits that deal with this.  Part of the concept involves the "right to control" the "means and manner" of creation and, of its' creation.  And, as GF2002 mentions, it is by the agreement of the parties or contract terms.

We don't know.  And, I don't speculate. That said, there is a lot of info online that can be an intro to what it means. Best is a lawyer who specializes in that, if you're an artist.  And work created before 1977 was under different rules.  And Mike must have provided the necessary evidence to meet the "burden of proof."

Interesting that one of the 1976 laws is called the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. It revised a 1976 law, in 1998. It was heavily lobbied by Disney, and Sonny's widow, who took his seat in Congress, and the Gershwin estate.  One argument advanced was that "life expectancy" increased since 1790, with the first law.  Lots of interesting cases.  Not everyone shares the same opinion about intellectual property.  

Mike is a reasonably intelligent guy. He HAD to know that he was losing millions when he wasn't credited for California Girls alone. It just doesn't make sense.

On the other hand, let's say that Mike desperately needed quick cash in '64 and borrowed it from Uncle Murry, who in turn stopped giving Mike songwriting credits all along 1965. Wouldn't this little fact have been against Mike used in court in 1994? I don't expect Brian's lawyers at the time to restrain rhemselves so that they wouldn't expose Mike's private life to the world.

So.... This whole thing just doesn't make sense.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense from both sides.  Either Brian, or Murray, screwed him over, but there's no clear reason why (Brian doesn't seem to be that kind of person, he's very open with acknowledging co-conspirators on his songs)... Murray wouldn't have profited from it, although maybe he would think he'd rather his son have the money than his nephew.  Doesn't seem to be other cases of Murray screwing people out of money, though...

And then why would Mike be cool with it?  Like mentioned above, when he straight-out writes the lyrics to California Girls, and then doesn't get any royalty checks from it (when he was already getting checks from other songs) surely he knew and for whatever reason didn't want to or wasn't able to get the situation resolved. 

I guess at the time Mike was "going along to get along"... which maybe explains his complete refusal to do anything even remotely similar to 'getting along' now.  I still believe though that we'd still be in the same place if he was properly paid, because he would have had major problems with all the other issues later (mainly the drug use). 

Brian may well have cajoled Murry into doing his bidding, but Mike (if you believe some accounts) knocked Murry on his ass on a tour. Murry was known to be spiteful. Perhaps that burst of physical aggression from his nephew made Murry think twice about ensuring that Mike received his due.

That's just the way it seems to me, Mike got credit before, during, and after this period. No one involved has ever mentioned it. Not in Mike's self interest and knew better by his own prior experience.

I'm guessing the first time Mike got his copy of a single/album without his credit is the first time he went to guy who he wrote the song with and was possibly involved with the publishing and asked him about it. Mike says he brought it up to Brian and Brian said he'd take care of it. So apparently back then Mike saw Brian as the guy who could get it done.

Or would it make him think twice about not ensuring Mike received his due?

Why would he ensure Mike got his due sometimes and not sometimes just for a brief period? Why would Murry steal money from Mike so it would go to Brian at the very time he is complaining to Brian about Brian's shoddy business practice and how money is ruining Brian. I think that was in the 8 page letter, right?

This is my theoretical explanation, during this period Brian is head writer co-authoring with Mike and others and he has either interest in the publishing company or is the mouthpiece for the writers because he is connected and calls the shots on everything. If he doesn't give Murry a name it isn't on the contract because Brian is the only one who knows who are all the co-authors. For some reason, Brian does not get Mike's name in for every song. Sloppy practice, maybe Brian doesn't submit any names in a timely fashion for those particular songs and so Murry defaults to just Brian's name, greed of Brian, feelings of entitlement, one of many possible reasons. Brian even signs the forms  which do not show Mike as a co-author but they aren't corrected.

In my opinion, it was Murry's job to get it right but I don't see reason to think he wasn't doing the right thing according to his knowledge. In my opinion the fault seems most likely to fall on Brian who had the knowledge and the ability and the means and it was Brian's responsibility to get it right or make it right.

I'm sure if there were even the tiniest possibility that Mike had some type of arrangement with Murry in lieu of credits and years of royalties, Brian's lawyers would have been all over it in the lawsuit, as someone already mentioned. Brian also brought up the "California Girls" issue at least once in an interview during the Landy era, saying he had promised Mike to make it right, eventually, and give him credit for that song. I assume that issue became even bigger when Van Halen made the song a big hit in the '80s.

Photo/magazine clipping from 1963:
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/brianmikesharonmarie_zps0824e424.jpg)

I don't want this to sound the wrong way, but some of the replies are over-simplifying the music business practices of songs and ownership and payment from those songs. To get into it would literally take a book-length commentary, and those books already exist.

Basically, a copyright means nothing in terms of money, it simply is a legal way of protecting something you created against someone else taking credit or claiming it. Filing a copyright has nothing to do with money or payments, it's a legal protection with no monetary value.

Firms like ASCAP and BMI (which Brian and Mike belonged to) administer both songwriting and publishing interests. They pay songwriters based on surveys, usage, airplay, all of it, and the payments come from a pool of income they collect from venues and media interests based on using songs they administer. This is how a writer may not own publishing but still gets regular checks from BMI for his/her song being used or performed.

Harry Fox Agency is a similar setup, more for licensing. If you want to record "Song X", you can connect with Harry Fox and determine how much of a fee you'll need to pay to get the "right" to perform or release that song for potential profit or payment.

ASCAP and BMI also represent publishing firms, like the former Sea Of Tunes. It's basically the same services they give writers, and you can file as a writer/publisher (which I've done myself, for future interests), but publishing interests are separate in ways from writing interests.

Murry and Brian formed Sea Of Tunes, it's reported in Billboard dating back to 1963, with an eye toward keeping their own interests as well as representing other artists. Yet the deal was, Capitol would get the first  dibs on anything as to avoid competition or anything of the sort, so Capitol wasn't fighting one of their main artists for someone signed with Sea Of Tunes. It was a mutual agreement.

Now, can we see where inner-workings of the business like Capitol getting "first pass" or whatever it was called has *nothing* to do with songwriting? Publishing is more business than anything, and understand that most - I'd say an overwhelming majority of artists - leave publishing business concerns to those they pay to handle such things. It's far more business than music.

And in that way, Mike *was* getting paid and managing to live a pretty rich lifestyle by 1964, wasn't he?

Sea Of Tunes was part of a larger business interest, generating revenue just as the "Beach Boys" brand name in 1964 was making money by touring, record sales, merchandising, personal appearances, and yes - revenue coming in from the songs through BMI and the like, and through Sea Of Tunes.

Again, the Sea Of Tunes publishing was *one aspect* of what had been (very wisely) a family corporation set up by Murry with at that time the son who was legally considered an "adult" and able to sign and agree to contracts and business agreements. As such:

When money from the tours came in, how did Mike get his share?

When money from the record sales came in (separate from publishing and usage), how did Mike get his share?

When money from God-knows-what piece of merchandise or licensed material came in, how did Mike get his share?

When money from songs he *was* credited for, as in the Sharon Marie photo of one of Brian's "outside", so-called, projects came in, how did Mike get his share?

When contracts were negotiated, signed, and any payments handed out, how did Mike get his share?

That's only touching on the big issues at hand.

Do we know what kind of financial agreements were in place between the corporation centered around the Beach Boys and which included Sea Of Tunes as *JUST ONE* of a handful of revenue-generating interests surrounding the name "Beach Boys"? Do we have contracts, verbal agreements, signatures on a cocktail napkin...anything of the sort to establish who and what was agreed to in 1963-64-65?

Do we?

Yet we quickly dismiss possibilities like - perhaps - the structure of how various "employees" of the Beach Boys name and their entity Sea Of Tunes got paid, because obviously a guy like Mike was getting paid well for being part of this organization.

And even as Sea Of Tunes branched out into doing what it said it would do - scout and sign other artists and give Capitol "first pass" on them - with one notable example shown in the photo above, this example of Brian's so-called "solo" trips included and credited Mike as co-writer, and featured Mike in the PR for their new Sea Of Tunes/Capitol act.

Most if not all of these cases were, are, and always will be on a *case-by-case basis*, meaning there is not stock, one-size-fits-all contract agreement for every artist with every song with every project. These terms change, and are changed regularly depending on the case itself.

This is why lawyers, entertainment lawyers and contract lawyers and other legal specialties are involved in this...it is confusing, it is big business with big money, and it can get ugly.

So more power to Murry and his son (the one who was legally able to enter into contracts independently at the time) who managed to navigate this minefield at a time when "independents" like them would regularly get eaten alive by the business sharks.

And let's take some of this into consideration before assuming, dismissing, or otherwise turning a blind eye toward *possibilities* in how all of this went down in 63-64-65.

Aside: The 90's court case had what it needed to conclude as it did. If Mike or Al got a gold watch in 1964, it didn't amount to much in the details of the actual case being heard, and if it were introduced without documentation or even a receipt that said Mike got a Rolex in 1964 in exchange for something, it would be thrown out of court, probably as hearsay. And it wasn't totally pertinent to what the case was being heard to decide.

So, Mike didn't deserve the money or the pride aspect of credit (which seems to be a big motivator for him), just because he was already a member of the Beach Boys and making money off his work of singing in the studio and touring? Then why bother giving Carl Wilson a songwriting credit on "Dance, Dance, Dance"? After all, he was already getting paid as a Beach Boy. That all sounds like a very Murry Wilson way of thinking. I guess Mike should have been grateful that he did get some songwriting credits before the lawsuit. Which also begs the question as to why he ever did get a single credit, if there was some kind of de facto arrangement behind the scenes or it was "just how it was done back then." Not even getting into why Roger Christian, Tony Asher, and Gary Usher got consistent credits and royalties, but of course they were not Beach Boys and had no other way to be compensated. Then there was the case of Van Dyke Parks, who got a larger percentage split than any other Wilson collaborator (a full 50% rather than the lesser percentages of other outside collaborators).

So the copyright does establish who is to share the songwriting royalties, right? The publisher gets its own royalty?

I've seen the whole songwriting issue being dismissed out of hand because of 'Wouldn't it be Nice', but now we're reaching a whole new level.  ;D

OK, that is what I thought. So everything I said still stands I guess. I'm losing focus.

Hard fact: Music is business, period. As distasteful or as objectionable as that may seem, that's the reality of anyone who works in or even on the very fringes of the music business on any scale that involves things like airplay, sales, performances, and the like. One great lesson I learned through the years was that a lot of artists got ripped off because they weren't aware of the inner workings enough to know when they were getting ripped off, or didn't know how and why to take steps to protect themselves.

Understand too there are really bad people working in a really slimy business who rip people off regardless of precautions taken or knowledge used to prevent such things, but sometimes the simple act of having a lawyer review a contract for the simplest thing could have saved that artist a lot of problems.

So that is now a "Murry" type of thinking? No, that's the was it is, end of story. It's business, with all the trappings. Expecting some kind of system where art and creativity flourish independent of all the "Murry" business elements is pure utopian fantasy.

That explains why Mike eventually had to go after justice for himself I guess.

It depends, and again it's so complex in some cases it's not that clear-cut.

Any one of us can now download a copyright form from the US gov, there are several types too. You have a song, a set of lyrics, a collection of lyrics, whatever...you D/L the form, fill it out, send in a copy of those lyrics along with a payment for administrative costs, and in a few months or so they send a confirmation that it has been registered. So you own that set of lyrics, if anyone tries to use those same lyrics on another song and it becomes a hit, *that copyright* which you officially "own" is used to prove that you, and not the later artist, actually created and "owns" those words.

If someone approaches you with a business deal to use those lyrics on one of their new song ideas, and that "someone" is either a famous artist, performer, musician, whatever...you'll need to negotiate the terms of that deal and sign paperwork establishing what kind of deal will be put into place regarding payment and credit.

You'll then find yourself in a much larger corporate situation with that artist's record label, management, legal representation, publisher, and perhaps the larger corporate interest similar to a Columbia or Sony/BMG that will be dealing with *additional* contracts involving broadcast, residuals from reruns and syndication, use in film, use in advertising, use under a larger corporate sponsorship agreement, etc.

Sound complex so far? That's stripping all of it down to basic, blanket statements. It is literally a minefield, or can be.

See the potential for abuse-misuse-lies-broken promises, all of that?

So, you have the lyrics copyrighted to you, now "Big Artist #1" puts them to music.

A new "work" is now created. You now have to negotiate with "Big Artist #1" on splitting the credits.

But first, the new music set to your lyrics has now created a "Sound Recording" to use an old copyright office term. Perhaps the original lyrics are still used, but under a different title. So a new copyright form is filed under the new title, and a recording of the music and lyrics is now sent in and copyrighted as the new work.

You still have not made a penny off of that work...UNLESS you signed a separate co-writer or collaborator contract with "Big Artist #1" and his/her legal team, label, and management...and publisher.

So "Big Publisher" often says..."Son, you're getting the chance of a lifetime to have "Big Artist" record your lyrics. Your name will be seen by millions...perhaps a Grammy in the works...but we're taking publishing on your song."

Col. Tom Parker knew quite a bit about this scenario as his henchmen regularly pulled this on songwriters whose songs Elvis was considering cutting in the studio.

Then, there is songwriting rights and royalties.

What will "Big Artist #1" 's record label offer? What kind of deal is already in place for cowriters outside of their contractual universe?

They'll possibly say...OK, are you ASCAP or BMI? And you might answer..."umm...neither." Then they'll have to get that sewn up a bit, if they want.

So you join, say, ASCAP as a writer. On ASCAP's forms, you split up credit for who collaborated on what. You are ASCAP member 1222222 and Big Artist #1 is member 1222220. So Artist #1 claims "I wrote the music, I wrote the title, I changed the words to create the hook, I'm taking 80%". And Big Artist's smarmy manager says "Hey, I suggested the phrase "ooby dooby jooba jooby", I want a piece!". So that clown gets 15%.

And you get 5%...unknown writer, no intention for your lyrics to be heard on every country station in America, now you're asked to take a hit for the "exposure" and for the thrill of hearing your lyrics sung by "Big Artist" on the next CMA Awards telecast...or whatever.

Yet you lose 95% of the royalties from song usage...

BUT: What did *you* sign or agree to with "Big Artist #1" 's record label? Are you getting a percentage of sales revenue for every download or sale? Are you getting a residual from each time that song gets played on a Ford Truck or Wrangler Jeans ad? Are you getting any "points" at all in the deal because Big Artist wanted to give you a bigger piece of the pie because he/she likes you, or remembers that time you and he/her got smashed at the local bar and talked for hours?

That's one avenue.

What if somewhere in that supply chain, a deal had been offered for you to sign a one-off contract? And they would pay you a certain sum of money at that time for your lyrics, sign it and end-of-story kind of thing.

What if you got 25,000 lump sum with them hedging their bets that the song was going to be a big one, and make tons of money and success for "Big Artist #1" as their follow-up to a top-ten hit.

Oh, and "Big Artist #1" has been booked to appear on "Nashville", "Glee", "The Today Show", and Jimmy Fallon in the next three months.

Big publicity blitz...they know sales will reflect that no matter what they put out...it just happens to be your lyrics considered for the single they'll be plugging nationwide.

Think about it.

AND...if anything, all of my rambling and long-winded posting here has a bottom line under all the wording and hypothetical stuff.

***It's too complex to narrow down ANY "answers" or solutions to a simple statement or two or three to summarize what happened, or what may have happened.***

Also, keep in mind many of these factors and contracts and agreements and all of it - the *sheer volume* of this stuff - could be why these cases like the Love v. Wilson case take weeks if not months to be fully heard and deliberated.

It's massive volumes of documents, forms, and agreements...and you though my posts were long-winded?  :lol


The songwriters get money from several sources, as do the publishers, labels, managers, lawyers, and artists themselves. And there is no "one size fits all" for how the pie is divided up at the table.

Maybe I'm too dense but with no evidence to the contrary the story as we know it seems pretty straightforward in this case. Mike co-authored songs, he was not credited by his co-author/publisher and/or publisher, he received no songwriter royalties from those songs, he took it up with his co-author/publisher who admitted it was wrong and promised to fix it but didn't, and Mike had to eventually go to court.

Cam, consider too that "Brother Records" as a corporate entity was formed as a result of dishonest business practices being exposed back in '66/'67. David Anderle as part of his pitch for management had a big trump card ready to throw on the table when he had a team of lawyers and accountants, one lawyer who I believe was named Abe Sommars, who had gone over the Beach Boys and Capitol's "books" and discovered a then-common but still wrong practice where they'd take hundreds of thousands of dollars due the various artists in a practice surrounding "breakage" costs and back royalties due on records which had been sold but returned. It goes deeper than that...

...but Capitol was guilty of it, and the Beach Boys got Brother Records as a result of filing a suit against Capitol to reclaim their money which they never got.

It was a tactic also used by Allen Klein - he of Abkco/Rolling Stones/Beatles management infamy - where he'd hire teams of accountants and lawyers to pore over the artists' and labels' books in order to find similar loopholes and pitch his services to the artists by offering large sums of money he and his legal/financial teams could get for that artist which they had not even been aware of due to the shady business practices they had gotten into with their labels and other interests.

It's not a nice business in many ways, that's obvious.

And ultimately, for Mike, he found a legal team who pitched their similar services in a similar way at the right time in his life. Just as Brian had done in winning a lawsuit for back payments just before Mike filed his, just as Klein had done with the Beatles/Stones and others, and just as Anderle's team had done back in '67 with the Capitol lawsuit that set up Brother Records.

That's the music business.  :)

Then, what good are you???   :) So many others here are "pretty sure" they know exactly what Brian, or Mike, or Carl, or somebody else was thinking or "feeling" at any given moment forty or so years ago, right on up to today.

If you look at the outcome of Mike's lawsuit, the outcome of Mike getting credit and payments due is a matter of public record, so that part of it is straightforward. No one is debating that he won the case.

But if anything I tried to give theoretical examples within the music business to suggest it is not that clear-cut or able to be simplified into blanket statements and conclusions, especially when assigning blame to any one thing.

Remember, too, that Mike's suit was piggybacked onto Brian's own suit on this song catalog for which *his* legal team at that time (late 80's) claimed (and also won) that Brian had not gotten what was due to *him* regarding those songs stemming from the sale of Sea Of Tunes in 1969. And part of Brian's team's case before Mike even filed a claim centered around poor legal representation several decades ago.

So there is a case - beyond the simplicity of the outcome of Mike's case victory in the 90's - that stretches back to the 1960's that involved basically all parties getting ripped off in some ways and seeking "justice" in the form of collecting what was due.

And going into the specifics of the late 80's/early 90's is retreading ground we already covered on another thread a few months ago.

Getting this into a Mike Versus Brian situation, I think, is trying to oversimplify what is a complex and multifaceted set of issues that doesn't tell the whole story. And if it's being done in order to create a scapegoat or point a finger of blame, it's just not telling the full story.

And the full story is out there, if we have a few weeks of free time to pore through the details... ;D

That would be interesting but for this case it seems irrelevant to me, including the sale of Sea of Tunes since what we are talking about preceded the sale. That's just me.

My only question is who was responsible and to my mind it seems to probably be tangentially, or possibly unknowingly, Murry but mostly Brian.

Guitarfool, you're contextualizing a young man entering the music business  in the early 60s and dealing with the mousetrap that are songwriting credits.

But this wasn't Mike Love, a young lyricist coming from Bumfuck Tenessee and being sweet talked and screwed by a jerk from the music industry. There was a family business going on with the Beach Boys that looked after the interests of Brian, Carl and Dennis Wilson, who had songwriting credits in Beach Boys albums before 1967. "That's the way things were back then" isn't gonna cut it.

You missed the point. Not just the point at hand, but the whole point of everything I wrote about these situations within the music business. ***That's the way things ARE - as in today - is more like it.*** If you're going to make a statement like "that's not gonna cut it", at least be able to back it up.  :)

If you don't believe me, fine, just ask some other people in or around the music business, or investigate it more before making statements like this. But as I'm writing this and as you're reading this, the same kinds of dishonest deals are making people in the music business from Nashville to LA to New York to points in between a whole shitload of money and wealth on the work of others who aren't getting proper credit or payment in return, and it's damn near the same scenario as existed well before Mike Love started writing songs.

Fact.

How did Mike get paid in the years 1963 through 1966? What kind of business and payment structure got him all the wealth he acquired? Who wrote the checks to him in those years, or which/whose account were the checks drawn from? What kind of deal did he have in place through the entity known as "The Beach Boys" to get paid for being a part of it?

Answer that stuff and we'll be getting somewhere beyond finger-pointing, at least onto a greater understanding of the bigger picture beyond saying repeatedly how Mike got screwed over by Brian Wilson.

None of us knows for sure but apparently he collected the various royalties due him except for the songwriting royalties for some of the songs for a few years. Brian admits it happened and that Mike deserved it so to me none of that is the mystery. As I remember it the best explanation came from Brian which was his Dad messed up the paperwork or something like that. Not that his Dad screwed anybody over or that Mike had been already compensated in kind. Am I not remembering that right? I never know for sure anymore. 

If I got that right it seems it is an incorrect paperwork issue not necessarily an intentional compensation issue. So I have my ideas who is most responsible for that but I suppose it is possible it could be an intermittent and relatively short-lived [but expensive for Mike and lucrative for Brian] series of clerical errors. But beyond the paperwork issue is the responsibility to correct it.

Dancing Bear: If that came off as harsh I apologize. Besides a bad tendency to be hot-headed sometimes I played a gig last night and didn't get much sleep, so I'm a little cranky I guess... :-D

In all fairness, though, on these forums we don't always know who has done what, what people's experiences have been, what they know versus what they've heard in passing, all of that jazz. So sometimes I think assumptions are made without enough info.

On the topic of songwriters and publishing, let me mention one factual bit of info that I ran into about 4 years ago regarding a song and potential publishing.

So there was this "American Idol" songwriting contest, open to songwriters with the award being one of the American Idol finalists performing it live on the show, in one of their finale episodes for that season.

It was mentioned to me, "Hey Craig, you should check this out..." as I had a batch of original songs recorded.

There was one in particular that had what i thought was an uplifting lyric, a "singer's chorus" with a sustained high note (think along the lines of U2's song 'Pride') that could showcase a singer's range and all that, and it was an uptempo kind of thing that made me think seriously about entering it in the contest...what the hell, right?

But I had already registered the song under both my songwriter's catalog and publisher's credits, which basically amounted to nothing other than future protection. And even though I wrote probably 95% or more of it, music-lyrics-arrangement, I gave credit to my other two studio bandmates and partners-in-crime because the recording wouldn't have happened without their work.

I suppose unlike Murry and Brian, I'm a nice guy that way, or something.  :lol

Anyway, I'm ready to enter this Idol thing, and I start reading the fine print of the contest rules. It turns out even though the song had not been "released" commercially, it was listed with an agency and a "publisher", even though that publisher was basically me. So it might not be eligible.

But the biggest red flag was that the winning songwriter would have to - wait for it - *sign over all the publishing rights of their song* to the American Idol franchise, along with other concessions and contractual things related to payments, ownership, usage, royalties, and all those pesky details I mentioned in earlier posts.

So in no way are the shenanigans described in this thread from "back then", or practices from a "bygone era" or anything, they're still standard practice in some aspects of songwriters in the music business today.

You'll have to take my word for that. So the whole Idol contest I never entered because of that crap shows that publishing can be given and taken away rather easily in exchange for certain other things in return.

And there is a cottage industry that exists for songwriters of all types today, in the form of songwriting contests and competitions.

Everyone from music retailers to foundations to other corporate interests sponsor these things. Look up "The John Lennon Songwriting Contest", "The Great American Songwriting Competition", Guitar Center had a "Singer Songwriter Competition", whatever other names they go by.

Search 'em online, just for kicks, and read the fine print in detail. Take note of the ways publishing is handled with those, and while there may be some that allow the writer to hold onto that, I've seen more of them where signing over the publishing rights to your song if you're the winner is a requirement, and papers need to be signed to establish what amounts to the corporate interests getting a bigger piece of the pie from your song than you, especially on the million-to-one chance that a song from one of these contests takes off and becomes a "hit".

And check into how much an artist gets every time a song is purchased or streamed on iTunes or any of the other services. I know having dealt with it. But the actual amount may shock some folks who think a big iTunes download hit is a guarantee of great wealth. Some guy putting a viral video of a cat running into a sliding door on YouTube could in theory make more money on YouTube's "ad clicks" revenue stream than an artist who gets a lot of song downloads and purchases on iTunes.

This is 2014, not 1967, remember.  ;D

And again, my apologies for a too-harsh reply. Lack of sleep... :)

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??

The waters are getting pretty clouded, and I'm sure it's a very complex issue with tons of different ways to divide up money, but what it comes down to is:

Mike didn't get sh*t because his name wasn't even on it. 

That's pretty cut and dry.  His name should have been on it, but somebody left it off.  The person who's name consistantly was on it, was Brian Wilson. 

Kinda sounds like Brian Wilson got the money Mike should have got.   If I was going to go try to find my money, I'd go to Brian's bank account. 

Don't forget the pitchfork!

Isn't there something known as performance royalties? The Beach Boys all got money through their record deal and record sales, but from a different pool of money than the songwriters. So, Carl, Dennis, and Al were making good money when the Beach Boys were hot, not just Mike, from record sales as well as performance fees. I doubt Mike got more than the rest other than the songwriting royalties he was getting from the songs he did manage to get credit on. If he did that much better money-wise than, say, Carl, it could have been entirely chalked up to getting money from those Mike Love-credited songs. The hits he co-wrote with his name on the record label sold millions.

 
I think, no matter how many ways that anyone can look at the situation of Mike's songwriting credits, it at a certain point comes down to a very dysfunctional relationship between Brian and Mike.

For whatever degree their relationship dynamic was at the time (and there most certainly are differing views of that on this board), it would seem that there had to be something amiss communication-wise festering and brewing between those two for this situation to occur. I cannot imagine that it *just plain happened*. Ultimately, Mike did unfairly get screwed - absolutely.

An important question I've asked myself: could anyone see the same situation happening (credit omissions on a large number of songs, including major hits) to either Carl or Dennis?

I can't.

If Carl or Dennis had written the lyrics to all those songs, IMO there's no way this would have happened, or certainly not to the degree that it happened to with Mike. But the reason I think this is the case is because Brian's relationship with his brothers was very different than the relationship he had with his cousin. (Obviously, Murry and how he saw his sons vs. his nephew is a factor too). If Carl or Dennis had written the lyrics, the reason I believe they wouldn't have been denied credits is NOT because it would somehow be "harder" for greedy Brian to "screw" his brothers out of credits... but because Brian wouldn't have had the motivation to allow a situation occur as it somehow did.

I think whatever motives Brian had for somehow turning a blind eye, or allowing it to not be fixed for decades (due to inaction to correct the error) were due, at least in some part, to some sort of "weird stuff" between Brian and Mike. What that weird stuff was exactly is not something that we'll ever truly know. But I feel safe in assuming that theirs was never quite a healthy relationship, either personally or professionally.  

When one takes into account the fact that Brian at the time seemingly went out of his way to give a fair share of credits to others like VDP (and as far as I know, I cannot think of any other incidents of other Brian co-writers of the era who had any major crediting omissions), it's hard to think that there wasn't some degree of ill will driving this issue (or driving Brian's not giving enough of a f*ck to correct it for decades), even on some subliminal level.

IMO, I'd hope this theory would have some merit on some level, regardless if you are a giant Mike lover/defender, or a giant Brian lover/defender, or somewhere in between. While I have my thoughts, as an outsider, regarding aspects of their relationship, I think it's possible for one to believe there was "weird stuff" relationship-wise between these guys, regardless of who one places "blame"/responsibility, etc with.

Ultimately, in a nutshell, to me it seems out of character, compared to Brian's general actions with other cowriters at the time. If I'm off base by saying this, I'm honestly all ears to learn more history that has eluded me.

Murry.

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

You might look on amazon or ebay for a used copy of an Entertainment and Publication Law book, slog through five pounds of pages of cases and get back to us with a one sentence response, when you've figured out all the standards of review, all the laws since 1790, and decisions that judges made, creating "new law."  The "work for hire" carve-out, came from a judge, it appears.

Anyone can read a law book. Or buy a copy of "100 Questions About Copyright Law." There is a series called the "Nutshell Series." Intellectual Property covers patents, trademarks and copyright.  One of the authors is Arthur Miller. Yes "that" Arthur Miller from TV. The first book is very simply written. Gives one an overview before meeting a lawyer, so you can ask intelligent questions. The second book covers three areas, usually taught in law school in two separate courses.  

Intellectual Property usually covers patents.  You need an engineering or science degree and a law degree to practice that area and sit for a separate bar exam to practice that kind of law. Copyright covers constitutional, property, contract, evidence law and statutes that intersect.

There is no simple answer.

That said, I'd love to read the entire line of cases, because decisions sometimes rest on a certain fact, such as fraud, and non-disclosure.  

GF2002 is doing his best to boil down very complex information. This kind of law is not like tort law, where the lawyer gets a third of a judgment, and the client gets the rest of the gross or the net award. The percentage formulas for royalties are complex.

And so, the more you know, the more questions you have...and why I don't speculate until I read the line of cases. We don't know much until that is done.  It is why when lawyers are asked a question, the first thing they say is,"It depends."

Depends on the law, the circumstances, and many unknowns. And a judge can throw a curve at trial, and carve out a new "exception." Then you have a new "precedent."

Sorry for the snark...(not!)  :lol

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

So many unanswered questions.

1) Why was Mike credited for some songs and not for others? Was there some pre-existing arrangement, like Mike would get half royalties and thus his name would be on only half his co-writes?

2) Why did Mike not take action at the time? I don't mean suing, I mean like "sure Brian, I'll write the lyrics to California Girls for you but I'll want to see (B. Wilson-M. Love) on the record sleeve. Deal?"

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

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

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

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

You don't need to apologize.

I agree with everything you say. But I've got just one question.

In this shark business, how many songs did Brian wrte in the sixties in which he didn't get credited?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are alternate realities but as possible as any.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm. Sounds familiar.

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

I'll stop there, judge for yourself:

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/catchawaveexcerpt_zps00ac347b.jpg)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or ever

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

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

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

WOW!  Two Ostrich posts in a row...

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

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

Damn... you might have hit on something.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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. 

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.

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).
 

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.

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?

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."

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".

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 !

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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) ?

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.

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.

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.

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.  ;D

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.

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.

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.

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:

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:

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.

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.

Tough sh*t? How does it work when you tell someone who wrote every line of that song, every word and phrase, "tough sh*t" when the guy who ad-libbed "good night baby, sleep tight baby" has a legal team asking for equal if not greater credit for the song's lyrics? That is seriously f***ed up logic by anyone's standards, UNLESS an agreement was in place establishing such credits. And the crux of establishing the burden of proof for Mike's percentage rested on the bathroom-break telephone conspiracy, which is batshit crazy.

How does that work in all logic and rules of percentages when a 98% contribution is somehow considered equal to 2% in terms of compensation?

Asher agreed to at the time and got 25% cut, as KittyKat said that's what he signed and got, end of story in that regard. But at the same time he received that 25% cut for what amounted to 98% of the song! How are Mike's 6 words now equal to what Tony wrote?

And I'd imagine Tony Asher if asked that question would get pretty angry, maybe as angry as Mike in that Goldmine interview where he starts reeling off song titles where he didn't get credit when he knows what he did and didn't write and which ones he knew he deserved credit for.

Yet the same guy's legal team tried to equate "Good night baby, sleep tight baby" with the whole of the song's lyrics that were written when Mike was touring Japan? No.

Calm down, man! Please! .... I'm just saying Mike's contribution as being an "ad-lib" and not part of the "writing" is really just our opinion here on this board. He contributed words and vocal melody. Words and melody which he also sang wonderfully on the amazing record. Give him credit.

I'm perfectly calm! It just defies all logic to basically suggest Tony Asher should accept "tough sh*t" as a response to being challenged on what was written, who wrote it, and how much credit should be doled out.

I'm just saying, put yourself into his shoes for a minute: You wrote what Tony wrote lyric-wise on WIBN, and a guy tries to claim equal credit for the last six words of the song...as equal to and as deserving of equal credit or financial compensation for those last ten seconds of music and six words as you get for everything lyrical from the opening verse to the ad-lib.

On lyrical and poetic merits alone, I'd say the guy who wrote a rhythmic phrase that flows as well as "maybe if, we think and wish and hope and pray, it might come true..." and matches it accent by accent with the follow up: "baby then, there wouldn't be a single thing we couldn't do..." is deserving of more credit than "good night baby".  ;D

Many English teachers might agree with that... :lol

Or better yet, Mike Love may have also gotten the answer "tough sh*t" as early as the 60's when he complained about song credits for things he knew he wrote...and we know how well that held up in court.  :)

Tony Asher has been widely regarded as the genius who wrote Pet Sounds with Brian Wilson. His hame is on every song but one. Aside from that one track, he shares the credit on two others for lyrics.... Mike is a guy who was admittedly screwed out of credits and $$$ on many many songs. He also sang the words he contributed for Wouldn't It Be Nice, as well as came up with the vocal melody. That's a bit more than just coming up with words. Asher's lyrics on WIBN are sublime, but Mike's part is pretty cool too..... I just don't get all this kicking the odd man out here while he's down.

I don't know what the credit/percentage breakdown is for "It's About Time" but I know Bob Burchman grumbles about Al's name being on the credits for whatever lyrical contribution. But The Beach Boys are a band, Al's in the band and once a lyricist like Burchman or Asher's work is done, the band still needs to go make the record. And during this process things happen.

Things happen, sure...like Van Dyke not getting credit for "Sail On Sailor".  :)

But I have to ask: Do you think Mike's "Good Night Baby" should be considered equal to what Tony Asher wrote for the song? In percentages, it defies logic to me to suggest 6 words are equal to the rest of the song in terms of compensation and percentages, which is close to what Mike's team tried to claim in the court case. And again, the insult was to suggest a conspiracy theory about transcontinental phone calls made during bathroom breaks as the "proof" Mike did more than "good night baby".

VDP did get credit on Sail On Sailor

Aye, but was it the correct credit considering he and Brian wrote the tune in '71 and he was carrying around a cassette of it which featured him and Brian at the piano writing it, but featured none of the names who would eventually get credit? Or maybe I'm asking, considering the names that got credit by the time it actually showed up on a record, did he get the right credits for what he did versus some of those other names listed on the credits?

Again, opening up another can of worms here that I really don't feel like opening here.  :)

But, see what Van Dyke has said about that issue, if he ever talked about it in more detail. Maybe I'm thinking of something else, who knows. But most of that song's creation could have been a Wilson-Parks credit.

I read an interview where VDP said he had to fight for a writing credit after the other co-writers pushed their way in. He seemed pretty bitter about it.

That's the one.  ;)  I knew I wasn't dreaming it up.

you guys are right, but, alas, his name is there in the center label of Holland from 1973

If the other folks listed in the credits did indeed contribute, then they deserve to be there as well.... It's a lot easier just to accept such things. All parties who contributed got credit. Happy ending! Is VDP bitter that the credit doesn't simply read VDP/Brian Wilson? I can understand that, but he did his work and others finished the song and made the record. Such is life.

The paralell to "Mike Love killed the Smile project" would be "Brian stole money from Mike". No one's saying that.

While it's ridiculous to say that "Mike killed Smile", it's a fact that Brian and Mike had issues during Smile. That's what we're saying. Mike wasn't credited for songs he wrote period. For whatever reason Brian could have intervened and didn't period.

Maybe I just don't get it, you're right.

VDP's bitterness aside, SOS seems to be a pretty straightforward story: he and Brian wrote the song (or VDP mainly did) back in 71 and then by the time is was recorded by The Beach Boys for Holland someone had completely re-written the lyrics (this is exactly what Brian's said) .... Most likely Jack Rielly but with enough of the original lyrics remaining by whoever else contributed back when Brian shouted out "Who's got some words?" at the piano! If VDP wanted the song all for himself, he should have recorded and released it by himself. Record making is not painting a picture on a canvas and is a collaborative situation in such circumstances. VDP got credit and the song is roundly praised as being a great Wilson/Parks track.... Sometimes people need to learn to be happy with what good fortune they manage to get in life..... This is really nothing to compare with Mike getting robbed of the credit and $$$ for many a song.

 :lol

Evidence.

I've got to catch up but I guess the Asher story shows Murry was a tough negotiator but he got you on the publishing even if you were a stranger and pushing back and even gave advances. Asher didn't get 50% but it has been claimed by a BBs scholar [who will BE nameless] paperwork showed that neither did Mike until like 1967 or something when he did get credit at all. AGD may have to help me out with those stats if he BE privy to them. So that would be something else Mike put up with over publishing and even in the trial Mike didn't claim any amount of credit, just that he deserved credit if that soothes any hard feelings over WIBN.

So to my eye it is still a mystery and Brian is still the pivot point and still had the responsibility.

Yeah the 8 page is better evidence to my mind then our feelings about what somebody might have felt or stories about unrelated practices and people.

Mike's "Good Night Baby" sort of borrows from earlier parts of the song and isn't much of a lyrical contribution at all in terms of words alone, but (and apologies if this has been covered already) .......... isn't the point that it changes the "story" told in the song and gives a resolution that didn't previously exist in the lyric? So that rather than being solely a story of a couple longing for an as yet unknown future together, it resolves at the end with that future realised in some way. That yearning for a future together has become a reality and they can now "say goodnight and stay together". We know that because Mike sings it at the end. For that reason alone, I think Mike deserves more credit than (say) the proportion of the words that he wrote.

Mike's lyrics in isolation don't mean much and would arguable not deserve any sort of significant credit, but in the context of Tony Asher's lyrics they then add significant meaning (for better or worse) and become quite significant in my opinion. They aren't an equal contribution to the rest of the lyrics but they are significant in some way.

For edification, this is what Craig is referring to when he talks about Tony Asher, Mike,  and WIBN. This is from the interview that Mike Wheeler and the members of the first cabinessence.com message board conducted with Mr. Asher back in April of 1996.

Mike recently sued Brian for writing credit to around 30 songs among which was "Wouldn't It Be Nice". What role did Mike have in writing that song?
None, whatsoever. As most people know, the Beach Boys were on tour during the writing of that song. During the trial, Mike's attorney asked me how I could be so sure Mike hadn't influenced the writing of that song. "After all, " he speculated, "wasn't Mr. Wilson out of your sight from time to time? Didn't he go to the bathroom, or leave the room periodically for one reason or another? And couldn't he have been taking a phone call from Mr. Love during one of those absences?" These guys get paid big bucks for this kind of absurdity. At any rate, I answered that, while it was true Mr. Love could have called Mr. Wilson on one of those occasions, it was doubtful it had any influence, since "Wouldn't It Be Nice" was one of the few songs I wrote the entire lyric to by myself at home. "Mr. Love did not then," I explained, "and I pray does not now, have my home phone number."
So where does Mike's claim come from? Is he just making this stuff up out of some kind of jealousy or rage toward Brian or does he really believe he wrote some of the lyrics to that song?

I think he would say that it is based upon things that were added at sessions that could be characterized, I suppose, in the loosest sense of the word, as lyrics. I'm talking about background vocals like the typical "doo-wha's" and "dum-diddies" that occur in many songs, not only from the Beach Boys. Lyrics of that type have always been considered part of the "arrangement" of songs and those supplying them, such as vocal arrangers, have never been given part of the songwriting royalties for such contributions, although I suppose an argument could be made that they should. Actually, I believe that a far stronger argument can be made for giving arrangers royalties so at least part of their compensation would be based upon the success of a record since their arrangement, like the producer's production, is -- in my opinion -- often a real factor in the commercial-ness of the record. But I wouldn't favor giving everyone who ever wrote a "ram-a-lam-a-ding-dong" part of the songwriting credits.

I'm calm, so please bear with me as I reply to some of these points individually before putting up a new idea/notion which may tie it together more clearly, or at least it was something that hit me after re-reading these posts and thinking about another aspect which hasn't been covered.

Again, I'm calm, I just had my 4 cups of coffee... :)

It's not about getting it, necessarily, but I just don't think folks are seeing eye-to-eye on some of the details and inner workings that *may* have played a part in this, and are choosing instead to generalize, assume, and conclude based on details and inner workings that are either unknown, or not understood enough to form those kinds of conclusions.

I think people may be suggesting Brian stole money from Mike through inaction, what's the legal term for that? because there is one, it's like being an accessory after the fact or something by not reporting a crime or not stepping in or helping to conceal it. So I *do* think some are posting here with the notion that Brian helped steal money from Mike by not doing more on his behalf.

One thing we could straighten out: For those who expected Brian to do more...please tell me *at what time* are you referring to when Brian promised Mike to "fix" these issues, and where does that information come from? Mike's lawsuit stems from something Brian's lawyers told Mike's lawyers during Brian's case in the early 90's, is there another "promise" we're referring to that Brian was to have acted on and fixed before that?

I want to understand where you're coming from, and get on the same page.

Murry didn't own the publishing at the time, conveniently dying previously to avoid blame probably. I wonder who was responsible for proper attribution at the time? Maybe Irving was trying to make a point to the coauthors.

General comment and analogy to consider here:

Let's say several of us read a book review, and the review interests us enough to buy that book.

Let's say three of us buy the book, and reading the review we have a general synopsis of the plot.

We all read the introduction, and the first two chapters.

The book starts to drag, so we each start skipping ahead.

One of us skips to chapter 6, then skims chapter 8, and then goes immediately to the final two chapters to see what happens at the end.

Another skips to chapter 4, then 11, then the last chapter.

Still another reads chapters 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, skips 10 and 11, but reads the last two.


Consider:

- We all know how it starts and ends.
- We all know who the main characters are.
- We all have some idea of the story arc or plot that leads from the beginning to the final chapter.

BUT...Have any of us read the entire book? Can we hold a discussion and be on the same page if someone's opinion of how the ending came about hasn't seen the same chapters as the rest? Would any of us be able to dismiss outright the importance of certain details that came out in those chapters we skipped but which others had read?

It's reaching the same outcome, again we each know how it ended. But since no one has read the whole book, we're weighting the chapters we're most familiar with more heavily in how they affected the outcome, versus someone else who may weigh the chapters *they read* more heavily in the same way.

Point is - None of us has read the entire book.

Consider not dismissing possibilities or other theories in light of that, because we each have a lot of chapters to fill in, and unfortunately with an issue like this, it's spread out over 50 years+ of history and 99% of what happened is off the record or simply unknown, lost to history if it was never raised in an interview or unearthed in a lost document somewhere.

What I'm referring to is Mike has said he brought it up to Brian at some point(s) before the trial. According to an eyewitness Brian said in court that Mike was owed credit. Maybe somebody could look up the various statements about it.

El Mole hit it on the head! Mike's comtributions are pivotal to the song regardless of exactly how many word he brought or didn't bring. Therefore credit is due and was given. Next!

I'm only on 2 cups of coffee so far and am way too calm!! ;o

Thanks for that, Cam, I just wanted to narrow this down: From what i remember, and may have even posted in another thread, the case of Mike versus Brian in the 90's hinged on something Brian's lawyers told Mike's lawyers which was a "this-for-that" in exchange for Mike testifying on Brian's behalf in Brian's suit for *his own* back payments due from the Sea Of Tunes sale, and again Brian won that settlement based on the terms of that original sale of SOT by Murry Wilson and the subsequent money Brian didn't collect due to a deal the court found had indeed cost Brian tens of millions of dollars.

So Mike was promised - by the lawyers who called him to testify for Brian - that his credits would be dealt with, and they were not. And as we all know, Mike had a case there, and he won his share.

But consider this: At this time in history, Brian due to the issues of conservatorship and the mess he was in with Dr. Landy and involving Carl, and the Wilson family, and even Stan Love...

...under a legal decision made at this same time, Brian was not legally able to write a check for anything, and all of his finances went through that conservator agreement, which basically strips the individual of the ability to make financial decisions on his/her own without going through that court appointed conservator, on the decision from the court that the person is not mentally or physically able to make those kind of decisions on his own.

That's another angle of this to consider, if the "promises" were in fact limited to the time of Brian's lawsuit against Irving/Almo.

He could have told his lawyers to cut Mike a check for 25 million and deliver it to him the next morning, and under the conservator decision he was legally unable to do that on his own. And that's even if he thought Mike deserved that payment, which as you say he himself expressed during the trial, and after.

Just consider that as another chapter we need to re-read.

Under this logic, Hal Blaine could sue for and receive songwriting credit for "Be My Baby", since his drumbeat anchors the entire song and is one of the main hooks.

Under this logic, Paul Tanner could have sued for songwriting credit on "Good Vibrations" since his Theremin/Tannerin part is one of the main hooks of the entire song, as familiar and as talked-about as almost any other aspect of that record.

And the list goes on...

Don't ignore what Tony Asher said in the 1996 interview that Andy posted above just to make it agree with your own conclusions, because what Tony said about arrangers adding key parts and parts added in the studio off-the-cuff is a great point outside of the topic we're discussing, as well as being relevant to the issue.

Next? Hardly.

If those people chose to pursue those examples in a court of law: who knows?

Claiming writing credit for a drum beat is one thing but Mike's contribution for WIBN contains words and a vocal melody. It's 30 seconds of a 2:30 song. Hardly insignifigant. Disliking Mike or some lawyers shtick does not somehow remove Mike's contribution from the vinyl, cassette, CD, MP3 etc etc...

Brian likely contributed much less to Dierdre than Mike for WIBN but got credit. It's not the end of the world.

Do you know the story of Leon Russell and "Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)"? You don't see it often, I first heard it from an interview with Cher who witnessed it as she would often be there at Spector's sessions with Sonny Bono.

The song is credited to Barry-Greenwich-Spector, and as on most of Spector's 60's Wall Of Sound sessions, Jack Nitschke was the arranger who put all the instruments together.

So the song is rolling along, and for the ending fade as we all know Darlene Love is ad-libbing phrases on "baby please come home!", Hal Blaine is going crazy on drum fills, the whole thing is erupting in that wall of sound...

And in the middle of all that chaos, Leon Russell starts ad-libbing a piano part, classically-tinged yet sounding like he's banging the hell out of that piano and playing beautiful melodies, again, off-the-cuff.

According to Cher, Phil Spector was so moved by what he heard Leon play, when that take was done he pulled out his checkbook and wrote Leon a check for $100 on the spot. That piano part which wasn't in the score became a perfect close to a monumental record, as mentioned it brought the whole thing together at the end, and was a crucial part.

It's exactly the concept Tony Asher mentions with arrangers and musicians perhaps getting some type of royalty for this kind of contribution, since it is an original composition within a song that becomes an essential element of the performance on record.

And that song, as it's in dozens of movies and gets played constantly every Christmas season and has been a perennial Christmas favorite for decades, is a real money-maker in terms of royalties and publishing.

Beyond Spector paying Leon 100 dollars out of his own pocket, according to the logic around WIBN, then Leon Russell could file and win a claim for songwriting credit on that song, since without his mini-concerto on the piano the record would not have been the same.

Unfortunately in the record biz, that's not how it works. Leon got paid his union scale for playing the session, Spector out of character gave him a 100 dollar bonus, and that's where it ends.

I assume Mike's claim was lyrical. Mike may have been happy with 1% for all we know, the eyewitness claimed Mike did not claim any percentages.

Unfortunately we're not discussing that case. We are discussing WIBN.

And that's part of the case that needs to be investigated further, I agree - I don't think we know exactly what the numbers or details were short of reading the actual case transcripts and the decision awarding Mike whatever he ended up receiving. At the same time it seems Mike's legal team was pursuing the credit on ridiculous claims, and just like Mike with the songs he knew he wrote lyrics for but wasn't listed on the credits, Tony Asher objected to the way it was being presented knowing he wrote the WIBN lyrics and remembering even where he wrote them and when, and knowing too that the theories offered in court were absurd.

Oh, please.  ;D

We weren't discussing Dierdre either, were we?  ;)

On the other hand we are just assuming Asher was right in claim. I don't have any reason to believe he (edit:) isn't but...

It's a relevant comparison whether you like it or not.

Many session guitarists and keyboardists and other soloists improvise their solos on the spot. They're not on any music score. That's why they're hired. It's more akin to Mike's occasional sax playing on the records, which don't sound much as though Brian wrote out a part for him. Mike had a borderline case for maybe a tiny percentage of credits due to him writing a few words of lyrics as well as a melody. It's not as important to the structure of the song as his "Round, round, get around, I get around," or "I'm pickin' up good vibrations" (examples of minor lyrical contributions with melodic improv in other Mike co-written songs). It was up to the jury to decide if he deserved anything for that minor contribution to the outro, and they decided in his favor. It was the jury that also awarded him such a large percentage of the split.

And Mike contributed to WIBN and received credit/compensation regardless if you or Guitarfool like it or not.

Yes, it's a good example but WIBN was taken to a court of law and Mike got his due.....

Many folks in music history should do the same.

I'll go along with guitarfool to an extent, in that royalties are one thing and not my concern, but I'd like the writing credits on songs to reflect actual contributions -- and for the same reason I'm interested in sessionagraphy.

To my mind, WIBN is a Wilson/Asher composition. If Mike  ad-libbed "good night baby, sleep tight baby" on the outro of 'Summertime Blues, say, the credit should still read (Corchran/Capehart).

Again, I'm not talking legalities here -- the jury ruled that Mike was entitled to claim credit and royalties. But for me, (B. Wilson/T. Asher/M. Love) doesn't reflect reality. Legal reality, yes, but not musical reality.

Right! And the point Asher made in that '96 interview was that vocalists do that same thing in the studio, and the issue becomes at what point does it go beyond a one-off improv into getting actual credit, and where is the standard or precedent on which future claims can be judged? Because if the standard gets applied as loose as some are suggesting here, you would literally have hundreds of thousands of musicians through the years seeking credit and back payments for everything from guitar solos to drum fills to as Asher said a "bom, bom, dit dit" vocal phrase.

And it's just not part of the deal, as you said. They're paid for hire to play and contribute, it ends there, if they do get residual payments those most often came from usage fees and broadcast or syndication residuals, and even then not every musician had those negotiated through whatever union or organization they had dealt with when they did the session. It would be chaos if every improvised part that became a key part of a record were suddenly considered a composition of its own due to the importance it played in the song. Chaos.

What I'm really curious about now is this: *Exactly what percentage of WIBN did Mike get as part of the judgement?* Does anyone know?

The overall judgement itself, remember, reflected (I believe it was) half of what Brian's team won in his settlement, and Mike's team went on the split which was what someone promised them in return for Mike testifying for Brian against Irving/Almo.

Can't you guys just enjoy the music?

Credit, when it comes to popular music, is a messy, ugly, and often unfair thing, and with The Beach Boys in particular, obsessing over it is like taking a prize winning poodle and then shaving it and spray painting it bright pink.

There is no exact science for credit when it comes to rock n roll and popular music in general. Mike plead his case in a court of law and won. Deal with it!!!

Or file a lawsuit against him. If he's nice enough maybe he'll sign some autographs for you on the courthouse steps.

Thank you for adding this, I never thought of it that way related to cover songs! Again, where does the line get drawn when someone adds or changes lyrics in a similar, minor way to a song they're covering but didn't write? That is a terrific example you gave, and consider every other successful cover version of a song where a lyric or phrase was added to a cover version similar to WIBN's "good night baby" coda...if everyone improvising or adjusting a lyric or adding a melody to create a "new" version of the song, in their own image went looking for writer's credit for that part, it would be chaos.

And it just simply is not handled that way, for very specific (and legally sound) reasons. Musically speaking, The Beach Boys and The Fat Boys added lyrics to the song "Wipe Out" which had never existed, and had a chart hit with it. The lyrics were crucial to the record becoming a "modern" hit in the 80's versus an instrumental.

Do the Beach Boys and Fat Boys get credited as co-writers of Wipe Out?

It doesn't matter where or how the hell it came up be it an "ad lib" or part of the sacred writing session. Mike's contributions are there on the published sheet music in lyrical and melodic fashion and is therefore part of the song's composition.

What I had heard from someone was Mike's people offered a low ball settlement even after being screwed over again which was declined and they asked no percentage but the jury or judge awarded some sort of split based on the number of coauthors. Anybody know?

Another interesting question is: do we know of any other people who have gone to court seeking songwriting credit/compensation who have lost?

Hold on a minute: I don't think you're considering part of the actual case that was filed and attempted to be argued in court.

This whole sidebar on WIBN started flaring up when you suggested the reply to Tony Asher can be "tough sh*t", and Mike got awarded a share so Tony shouldn't be concerned or even upset with it.

But - consider that there was more in the claims than "good night baby"

Yes, that ending phrase is what the issue of that song centered on, but (and this can be checked) the whole bathroom phone call conspiracy thing came as Mike's team was arguing that besides improvising "good night baby...", that Mike ALSO took part in adding or at least editing other lyrics in that song.

And you have Tony Asher testifying and being questioned under oath in court, listening as he knew he wrote those lyrics without Mike, he knew Mike added the phrase at the end, but Mike's team was also claiming additional contributions were made and should be credited to Mike...and Tony rightfully knew that was bullshit. Then you have a lawyer introducing a conspiracy theory about how Mike contributed to the song over the phone, and Tony objected to that.

As he should. So it's not "tough sh*t" when someone in a court of law tries to suggest something other than the truth that you know because you were the sole writer of the lyrics, yet someone else was trying to claim he had "edited" or "added" things to your work which you know didn't happen. And that was in addition to the "good night" stuff which Tony never argued Mike added while cutting the vocals in the studio.

It's the attempt to overcredit Mike for things he didn't write or do in the song in court that angered Tony. Let's get that straight first. Mike got credit for his "good night", but that wasn't the full extent of what they were originally claiming he did for the song's creation in court. Again, the implication was that Mike added and edited other parts, and wanted credit for that too.

That's about it.

I understand all that but this is really, in the end, about endlessly debating what is on vinyl: Mike's coda.... Ive not spoken to anything else but that. Courtroom shenanigans are one thing, but in the end Mike won credit for his coda..... which is a part of the song's composition, like it or not. I only jump in when someone tries to dissect that coda as not being a part of the song, blah blah. If someone dislikes Mike, fine. But it's still a part of the song.

Rock and roll seems to be a big "tough s*it to many, which is why I used the phrase... But this situation went to court and the jury decided what it did. Deal with it. It's not like Tony Asher's reputation as a lyricist has suffered. Pet Sounds is still a Wilson/Asher creation by and large. There are probably better, unresolved examples of similar situations to discuss.... I wonder what would happen if Dave Davies stepped into a courtroom with a guitar to demonstrate which Kinks songs originated from his riffs, parts, ideas....

In the big picture though I don't think the big problem was Mike getting too much credit. He should only what is due and overall he asked for much less than he was due.

Got proof?

He won in court and offered to settle for less than he was eventually awarded.

And we're back to Exhibit A, Wouldn't It Be Nice!  ;D

You're talking $$. I'm  thinking too many  credits.  Figures

How about as much song credit as he was due but  asked for less money credit than he was due?

Something similar to that ^ happened on the Summer In Paradise album, specifically with "Under The Boardwalk". Mike Love wrote some new words - I guess you could consider it a verse - and the credit reads Artie Resnick/Kenny Young/Mike Love.

OK, back to the debate.... :-D

So Mike get's 33% of the publishing for 49 records sold.  Living the life!

SIP is a little guilty one...hope he gets a third! Love Carl's vocals...one of 49, bgas (one of my favorite posters!) I'm honored to be among the 49!  :lol

Without SIP, we might not have had those vocals from the Great Carl Wilson!  ;)

I'll talk credits too for a minute.

Cam, what about the handful of songs that were filed in the suit but got thrown out of court, for which Mike got nothing despite claiming and filing for credit on them?

And that pesky WIBN issue with Asher, the lawyer had to be going on a point of reference someone gave him...who else but his client would say the genesis of Mike's contributions beyond the coda (whose merits were legally not challenged but musically and in theory, yes) were international phone calls from Asia?

Seriously, Tony Asher knows what he wrote for the song and how it appeared on the record, just as Mike knows what he wrote for California Girls, wouldn't someone trying to claim something you know is your own unedited work seem like an attempt to steal your work?

Short question: Is there some possibility of Mike's case filing for more credit than he was actually due? Or was that a legal tactic to just bundle a few dozen more songs than they had solid cases for into the larger suit, the "cast a wide net" tactic, and take what they got?

Because my understanding is they originally filed claims for considerably more songs than he actually won in the decision. There is a reason for that which is waiting to be found somewhere.

Question: was Tony Asher there in the studio when The Beach Boys were recording the vocals for Wouldn't It Be Nice?

Mike offered to settle for $750,000 out of court. Brian's lawyers turned him down, which is what brought the lawsuit. The out of court settlement was before the suit, not afterwards. From what I read, Brian dragged his feet about paying the settlement. I'm not when and if Mike ever got his money, other than royalties from the new song credits. Royalties have been dramatically lower since the early '00s due to online piracy.

Another one of those threads that goes endlessly round in circles while going nowhere.

Can we create a permanent "I just plain out dislike Mike" thread where such conversations could eventually sink to the bottom of?

You know, I was going to continue asking questions and answering questions and challenges and all of that, then I remembered Mike Love himself - Yes, that Mike Love - actually agreed with most of the points I was making and seeing challenged regarding blame and responsibility and even the issue of Brian's conservatorship preventing him from acting on his own at the time of the lawsuits, so I think to myself...

...Self, why not let Mike answer these questions himself? But I don't have his number, or email, so...

Fellow board member HeyJude, I remembered coming home from work today, had posted Mike's words from an interview in 2004 where he cleared some things up, so here is Mike on the record on these very issues.

And that is really it.




Questions?  ;)

Questions about what?

I put on WIBN in order to do "research" on this topic but it's so good I'm now just letting Pet Sounds roll and cracking open a beer!

Ain't that what it should be about?

Yes. /thread

This is not about liking or disliking Mike and you know it.

No, I don't know it. And the only motivation I can fathom for keeping such a debate going is because that's what it boils down to.

If you think Craig is pointing out all of this stuff simply because of some deep-seated hated of  Mr. love, then I don't know I what to tell you. I personally think he is being incredibly even-handed (and going way out of the way to do so) in this matter, but  I guess anything that is not enough for the Mike crowd.

What Mike crowd?

This is my view because no matter how it is debated it still persists with a distinct and transparent air of "just how DARE Mike think he contributed in any meaningful way to WIBN"? .... If there's not deep seated hatred or even dislike of Mike, sure, but none of it reads that way......

And in the end, all we're doing is shredding apart the last 30 seconds of one of the greatest songs ever composed/performed/released.

Let me post that again, I see it may have been hard to read due to the sizing of the font. This is from 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.”

My understanding is Mike did not receive credit for a few of the songs claimed. Like 3 out of 39? I assume he did not have the proof necessary, which does not necessarily mean he did not deserve credit. I've also heard Mike claim a much higher number of songs (60 or 70?) then I believe was filed. I assume these weren't submitted because they did not have the proof, which again doesn't mean he didn't deserve credit. So he may have very well asked for less credit then he deserved but we will probably never know.

So I'll stick with as much song credit as he was due but he asked for much less money credit than he was due?

You're wrong. This issue for me came from reading assumptions, conclusions, and accusations that folks on this board were making around the issue of Brian's and Mike's songwriting and crediting cases, specifically the notion that a group of people here still blame Brian the most for Mike not getting the proper credits on those songs.

And damn it all, if I had remembered the Mojo interview sooner, it may have ended sooner rather than spinning off in so many directions.

But reading through, some of those conclusions were coming from sources other than the facts, not just the case but about the nature of songwriting and crediting and publishing in general. So if someone has been misled, or led to believe something based on conjecture rather than actual proof, don't be surprised if someone attempts to correct it.

And it could either be played cool, or lead to more crap.

And, yes, some folks on this thread have what seems to be a regular pattern of shaping their perception of the way people think (i.e. 'opinion' )  into the truth about those people, with absolutely no justification and not enough knowledge or awareness to do that.

And there is no anti-Mike sentiment coming from posting what turned out Mike himself had actually said on the record about the same issues. If anything it upholds Mike's position, confirms that Brian's role was less than I think some people here would like to believe, and points most of the finger at Murry, and later at the legal team Brian had in place who broke the promises at a time Brian was under the authority of a conservator and could not make the decision on his own to "make things right", even though Mike himself says Brian wanted to do just that.

Again, let Mike's comments decide these squabbles, unless someone would try to challenge them too.  :)

But hey, remember, someone says I'm anti-Mike, so it must be true, right?  

I am an admitted Kokomaoist, Mike Love-er, Love-Child, so I get sensitive about this stuff. But hey, if there's any band worth getting sensitive about, it's these guys, right?

Dumb question of the evening: are the court transcripts of where WIBN got discussed?

Yep, Mike thinks it was mostly his Uncle. Mike and Brian can stand up to Murry and fire him. Why didn't they stand up to Murry on this? Mike wasn't a publisher I suppose. Mike brought it up several times to Brian, apparently before 1969 when Murry and Brian still had the publishing, and Brian didn't fix it but profited from it. Sounds like Mike was happy with what he thought happened.

I understand this is a sort of grey area which can be sorted out one way or the other.

For me, the "goodnight baby" section sounds like something more than a mere ad-lib. It sounds like a thought-out coda idea. Perhaps if it were the main lead singer of the song singing something, it would sound like an improv. But it does not. And, I think, that musicians who covered the song realize that it is not, for I don't know of any version of the song that omits that part.

Try to imagine your favorite song without its lead singer's ad-libs. Now try to imagine WIBN without the "goodnight baby" coda idea. To me, it sounds empty and its radio single potential would suffer if such idea is taken away.

It is not a full lyric. It is more than mere ad-lib. It must suck being Asher and, overnight, almost 30 years after, having to make room for somebody else in the song credits. But if I were Jury, and someone convinced me they came up with that part, I would give credit to that someone as I think it is an integral part of the song.

Roger Christian, Tony Asher, Van Dyke Parks, and Jack Reiley are lucky men. Apparently Brian's "shakiness", mental illness, and auditory illusions that kept him from correcting songwriting credits were only present when it applied to Mike Love.

My question isn't who was responsible for leaving Mike off the songwriting credits, but why Brian didn't correct them. Brian Wilson from 1965 through 1982 wielded a lot of power, certainly enough to add Mike Love's name to some songwriting credits. Literally, all it would have taken was a phone call from Brian to his attorneys. I believe the Brian Wilson that Mike was describing in the Mojo article was the Brian Wilson at a much later stage in his life. That Brian Wilson was incompetent, nobody's debating that, not to mention Mike wasn't going to burn a bridge with a magazine interview, especially a bridge that leads him back to Brian Wilson.

After all of the debate, much of it informative, I still think it boils down to Brian Wilson (from 1965-1983) not caring enough to do anything about it. In my opinion, from a lot of things I've read, I think Brian had some issues with caring about things, you know, a character thing. But, Brian gave us Pet Sounds and Mike didn't, so, we will continue to have threads like this.

Not really a grey area in that Mike's coda was always on the sheet music for the song, (which can be purchased online for as little as 99 cents :)) which is pretty much THE word in the song publishing universe.... It doesn't stop after the bridge and "wouldn't it be nice" and say "Eh, the rest is just an ad-libbed coda"

Mind sharing a link to that sheet music? Any chance you know of any sheet music for SMiLE online as well?

(I know asking for audio downloads is frowned upon but this is ok, right?)

Just Google "Wouldn't It Be Nice: sheet music" under "images"

Didn't expect it to be that simple. Now I just feel silly.

We're Beach Boys fans! We should fully embrace "silly"  :-D

I like the way you think. Now, lets all sing along to Vega-Tables:)

I dislike it when, for decades, 'I Get Around' was listed as a B. Wilson composition, because that didn't reflect reality.

I dislike it when Elvis Presley is listed as co-writer of an Otis Blackwell song he had nothing to do with, other than being the 1st to sing it on a record. ( This is a practice still going on today -- a popular singer getting his/her name slapped on a song's credit as the price of doing business for a jobbing songwriter).

I even dislike it when a Banks/Rutherford Genesis song is credited to Banks/Collins/Gabriel/Hackett/Rutherford, or a Robbie Krieger Doors song is credited to Densmore/Krieger/Manzarek/Morrison.

I like credits to reflect reality. That's just me, I'm not asking you to share the same preference. I also care who played bass on such-and-such a track. Most people don't. Do I need to just "just enjoy the enjoy the music" for that also? No c-man sessionagraphy, for instance, needed or wanted?

Two points to consider.

Re: studio ad-libs and the like, this is something Donny posted earlier reported from the actual court case:

Back in court and the defense called Nick Venet to the stand. Now Venet is the guy that signed the Beach Boys to Capitol. Venet's (and the defense) whole case was the fact that a songwriter brings a song to the recording session and everyone adds different parts. Everyone from the arranger to the producer to the musicians change it, but the songwriter still gets all of the credit. He said that changing a few words here and there, or adding a riff doesn't make someone a songwriter.

And for the most part, that's the way it is and has been with crediting, as mentioned several times in the thread. We still don't know how much Mike got in terms of percentage of credit for WIBN, but he got something, and that also shows these things are handled case-by-case, and there are exceptions to the unwritten/unspoken "rules" of how the music biz operates.

But Venet is right, songwriters get the credit for writing the song no matter how great a musician's contribution to that song may be, or how important an improv or ad-lib or riff makes the song. See my post on Leon Russell and Spector a few pages back for a very specific example, one of hundreds of thousands if not millions of these cases.


Re: Your comments on Asher.

He may resent having to share credit, who knows, he may even think the whole thing "sucks", but short of Tony Asher himself clarifying it for us in detail, consider that there was more to this issue than the ad-lib at the end, and there was an attempt to seek credit beyond that coda, a part of the song which I don't think Asher ever denied or tried to suggest Mike didn't come up with, though he may have challenged its definition as a composition versus and ad-lib or whatever. Here's a reply I posted earlier to describe the "more" of the case that played out in court, and again I'll say these claims would have upset many of us if we knew what we had written and someone was basically suggesting we were wrong, or worse:

Then we should agree that Mike deserves credit for his contributions which are a part of song, good or bad.

And it should be pointed out that generally (in my experience at least) even when a song credit reads something like "written by Berry, Buck, Mills, Stipe" the monetary/percentage  breakdown is not equal...

And I still don't get what all the hoopla is here. We can go on for 100 more pages about awful examples of people being cheated out of credit but here's a case that someone took to court and won! It's a happy story to counter the bad ones. Oh but since it's Mike Love it's a case of being "overcredited"? ... Oh OK!

Yeah, credit is an ugly beast when it comes to The Beach Boys.

Let's just go ahead and call it and say that Mike got over credited for WIBN. Only Tony knows what he was talking about and Mike's people (not Mike, like it's not ever Brian) were completely off base and the jury was full of numbskulls. Mike only deserved credit on 30+ minus 1 songs and after 30 years he got too much credit for one more song than we think he deserved. *Samantha Stevens nose twinkle*

Nothing can be called here because this is a case of a fact being repurposed into an opinion. It will go on forever and ever....

OK then. Carry on everybody.

And in the meantime Mike will continue doing interviews :)

^Honestly, I'm not a Mike Love fan, I don't think he deserves credit or royalties for WIBN, if I were Asher I'd be furious about it...but looking at the big picture here, this is a fair point.

Finally an honest contribution to this thread!

Had Brian come up with his part at the end of Make It Big, the credits would bear his name, as it's been shown that sometimes Brian got credit for contributing a few words (there's a reason for this as Brian's name can add prestige to a song that is not essentially his). So I think he did not come up with that part, which is to Make It Big what "goodnight baby" is to WIBN.

Point here is that, as guitarfool says, there has to be a case-by-case approach and similar or even identical cases may recieve unequal treatment. Still, "goodnight baby" is more than mere improv, it is essential to the song, just as the Make It Big Brian coda is essential to it. And if proven that Mike came up with it he may well be credited for it.

Hollywood is an industry that thrives in part by ripping off creative people, whether it's for music, screenplays, publishing rights, residuals, etc.  The actor James Garner and his experience with the tv show The Rockford Files is one prominent example of it.

True, yet here we are (some of us) crying foul that someone actually got credit for something they contributed! Huh?

OK, well this was posted publicly by a published BBs scholar in 2000.

Here Comes the Night -- Brian 70%, Mike 30%

50 of Brian's percentage points are for the music, so the lyrical
breakdown only is Brian 40%, Mike 60%

Wild Honey -- Brian 50%, Mike 50%
lyrics: Mike 100%

Aren't You Glad -- Brian 70%, Mike 30%
lyrics: Brian 40%, Mike 60%

Country Air -- Brian 70%, Mike 30%
lyrics: Brian 40%, Mike 60%

A Thing or Two -- Brian 60%, Mike 40%
lyrics: Brian 20%, Mike 80%

Darlin' -- Brian 70%, Mike 30%
lyrics: Brian 40%, Mike 60%

I'd Love Just Once to See You -- Brian 70%, Mike 30%
lyrics: Brian 40%, Mike 60%

Let the Wind Blow -- Brian 60%, Mike 40%
lyrics: Brian 20%, Mike 80%

How She Boogalooed It -- Mike, Alan, Bruce and Carl: 25% each
lyrics: Mike 50%, others 50%

Mama Says -- Brian 60%, Mike 40%
lyrics: Brian 20%, Mike 80%

Meant For You -- Brian 85%, Mike 15%
lyrics: Brian: 70%, Mike 30%

Anna Lee, The Healer -- Brian 50%, Mike 50%
lyrics: Mike 100%

I 'm Waitin For the Day -- Brian 75%, Mike 25%
lyrics: Brian 50%, Mike 50%

Do It Again -- Brian 50%, Mike 50%
lyrics: Mike 100%

Good Vibrations -- Brian 75%, Mike 25%
lyrics: Brian 50%, Mike 50%

Gettin Hungry -- Brian 80%, Mike 20%
lyrics: Brian 60%, Mike: 40%

So it looks like Mike was used to not getting full credit for lyrics. If this list is accurate.

BRI was incorporated In January 1967, was Sea of Tunes still their publisher from 1967 through the sale of Sea of Tunes or were they self publishing starting in 1967?

“The music business is a cruel and shallow money
trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and
pimps run free, and good men die like dogs.
There's also a negative side.”

Hunter S. Thompson

Not to open another can of worms, but now that I think of it, how the hell is Mike credited for "Mama Says"? The lyrics are straight from "Vega-Tables" and therefore should the song credit Brian and Van Dyke Parks? However, I've never noticed Van Dyke or Mike comment on this.

Haven't a clue.

How is Brian credited with 50% of the lyrics of GV?

Perhaps the chorus was his idea? It was the exact same in Tony Asher's version.

Do you mean "Good, Good, Good, Good Vibrations"?

Yes. My memory of Disc 5 of TSS is hazy (it's a repetitive, tedious endeavor to listen to, so I've done it once then never again) but that was a constant part of an otherwise ever-changing song as I recall. Does that justify a 50% lyrics credit? In my opinion, no. But I also don't think Mike deserves a co-authorship credit on WIBN and yet, that happened. All the arguments used to justify Mike's credit for that more than applies to the 'Good, good, good Good Vibrations!' part of GV. The title and subject matter was Brian's idea too. 50% isn't completely unwarranted.

Like somebody said, if it's published and you wrote it, you probably deserve credit.

50% seems a little steep to me too. Maybe somebody knows for sure but I thought I heard that the jury awarded Mike a split for lyrics based on the number of co-authors. If that's true I wonder if Mike got 33% of lyrics, which seems a little steep to me too, for WIBN and if it came out of Brian's 75%?

The least Brian could do is make sure Tony Asher continues to get his due for Pet Sounds. As far as Joe Casual is concerned, it's the band's magnum opus (those of us who are more knowledgeable may agree or disagree with that sentiment) and Asher's lyrics are a huge part of that. It's not like Brian can't afford it, and it's bad enough for Tony that Mike's name got slapped onto his most successful song. Brian owes Tony that much, in my opinion.

IF it all came out of Brian's then Tony shouldn't care. I believe the jury set the amounts and method etc. so maybe some of Mike's percentage was considered punitive to them. don't know.

As far as I know Mike didn't specify any percentages and apparently he just considered getting low balled on the percentages as a cost of doing business with Brian and Murry.

Can OSD be the master of  ceremonies of our silly BBs convention.

I'd argue that the fact that he now has to share credit on WIBN (the most successful and iconic track of PS) is grounds to be upset. That's why I'm saying the least Brian could do is pay the royalties to Mike out of his own share regardless of what the court decided. I feel like Tony is the innocent bystander dragged into this mess who ironically suffered the worst for it. If Brian had just rectified this situation in the 60s, 70s or 80s Mike wouldn't have had to go to court and this WIBN controversy never wouldve happened.

I assume Mike's share did come out of Brian's future share and Tony's and all other innocent parties was left alone. After all Brian was the guilty party.

I should hope so. No reason at all for Tony to suffer for their passive aggressive bickering.

Maybe Brian and Mike wrote the Mama Says part of Vegetables.

Doubtful. Knowing Mike, the issue of being credited for VT would've come up then. Plus why would this part be axed for Smiley's Vegetables? I think Mike's main beef with the SMiLE Era was he felt left out of the creative process. How would this be justified if he was writing lyrics to the second most elaborate SMiLE track and the possible next single? Just doesn't make sense any way you slice it. I think it's more likely that Mike/Brian was credited out of habit, Brian was too apathetic to care, Mike was happy to take another co-author credit and VDP either never noticed, never cared, or both.

Perhaps VDP will sue for proper credit and back accounting for lost $$

I don't know. Couldn't it have been written by Brian and Mike for the April post SMiLE Vegetables. Left off the Smiley Veg. Credited on the Wild Honey Mama Says. Was the April 67 Veg still unreleased at the time of the copyright trial?

There's probably a statute of limitations that would block VDP from brining an action. 

Maybe Audree should have had the lyrical royalties for that one.

Didn't stop Mike with WIBN.

Cam, according to TSS (I just checked) Mama Says began as a part of HV. Very unlikely then that Mike wrote it. Even if it's actually the other way around (H&V cannibalizing yet another SMiLE track) I just don't understand why or how the part Mike wrote could be left out of the reworked song on Smiley. Can't see that going over well with Mike, and knowing him I'm sure he'd have aired his grievances about such a slight by now.

What does Brian owe Asher other than the chance to write the lions share of the lyrics for the greatest album ever made? Oops, he already did that!!!

Big deal that Mike's name got "slapped" onto WIBN! It's not like it replaced Asher's name! To Joe Public: Pet Sounds is a Wilson/Asher/Beach Boys project.

You guys can rage all you want but Mike's contribution to WIBN is on the vinyl and on the published sheet music. Therefore, he deserves credit (the percentage is another issue) .... You might think he deserves nothing, for your own personal reasons, but what he did is there and is tangible (Mike even sings his own contribution) and a jury agreed....... Can't we just accept it or should we book a group consultation with Dr. Landy?

Dude, calm down. Seriously, one thing I really hate about posting here is any time I say something that anyone disagrees with, suddenly I'm 'raging' or 'out of line' or some other nonsense. All I'm trying to do is discuss this intelligently.

No ones disputing that Mike's contribution is there on the vinyl. You're missing the point of what I'm saying. I just happen to agree with the sentiment that an improvised couple words shouldn't grant one co-authorship of a song. Obviously the jury disagreed but I'm still free to express my dissenting opinion, am I not? As for what Brian owes Tony...well...how about making sure the man is properly compensated for his work. The more "mature" lyrics he penned are a big part of Pet Sounds' legacy. Tony's contributions would not have been questioned at all had Brian done the proper thing and credited Mike correctly back in the day. He's partially responsible for Tony losing a share of the royalties and prestige that are rightfully his as sole lyricist of WIBN. The decent thing to do, as a millionaire celebrity who allowed Asher to get dragged into court in the first place because of his apathy in dealing with Mike earlier, would be to cover Mike's settlements for WIBN out of his own pocket.

Tony Asher should never have been brought into it. Period.

Right but the melody starting in H&V doesn't disqualify it from being a post VDP/SMiLE collab with Mike. It makes more sense if anything. They sound a lot more like Mike lyrics than VDP lyrics to me. Maybe someone could ask VDP if he remembers writing them. There no  MS on the cornicopia demo as I remember.

As far as left off SS, to me you are overestimating the control and influence Mike had. Since it was left off it was available for Wild Honey where Mike may have helped with the variations.

Fair enough! I did tell Guitarfool to calm down a while back, so I'll hold off on that 2nd cup of coffee!

I agree regarding the monetary compensation for Tony, but as far as credit is concerned, I hardly think having Mike's name on WIBN somehow tarnishes his legacy.

Also, this idea that Mike's contribution was "tossed off" therefore not worthy of credit, is a bit intellectually dishonest. Tony Asher was not involved with the recording of the song. He turned in his lyrics and then Brian, The Beach Boys, and the wrecking crew had to go and make the record. Much like when a screenwriter turns in his draft which is purchased, re-writes might happen, and things might be improvised on set and the screenwriting credits on the finished film might read like a laundry list.....(example: Robert Towne tried to get Roman Polanski's name on the script for Chinatown due to his large contribution during the shoot, but Roman refused for whatever reason) ...  Simply because Mike's contribution occurred at the recording session and was not written down on paper beforehand does not make it unworthy of credit. It's on the sheet music and it's a part of the song....... Question: how many of you were clamoring for Asher's credit for those words to be revoked as being merely  "tossed off" when we all thought they were his? ........ No one....... Right.

Mike never would have gone bald if it weren't for the fact he did not receive his due credit.

People would have a lot more difficult time hating him if he wasn't bald, because then he might actually have been cool!!!!


The guy's in the unfortunate role of paying for the sins of all our favorite rock n rollers who did many a reprehensible thing!

There's a chance, too, that he may have never worn the turban in the 70s, and that would have been a shame. A damn shame.

It's not just a simple piano demo or something, it's the whole chant, almost exactly as played in VT but as a section of H&V. It's under the alt title of "Do a Lot." As Heroes was the main song here, and one Brian slaved over obsessively, I doubt he'd be further complicating things needlessly by having Mike write lyrics when there were already plenty from VDP.

With all due respect, I don't care if they "sound like VDP lyrics" to you or not. That's baseless speculation of the highest caliber. Frankly, the lyrics to VT in general sound completely different from anything else from the era already...so who's to say Mama Says couldnt be penned by the same man. And do you really think Brian would have VDP write all of a song except the chorus? I can't see VDP being happy to have his work "enhanced" by Mike Love of all people. Surely this would've been a HUGE bone of contention between the three, and almost certainly would've come up in interviews in the 45 years since.

I'm not saying Mike could overrule Brian yet in the studio. But why, now that VDP was gone, SMiLE was dead, and its various odds and ends being reworked into new songs, would Brian junk Mike's chorus of all things, but keep the rest of the song? If anything, you'd think it'd be the opposite.

Sorry, but without some evidence I cannot believe this "Mike wrote the VT chorus" fantasy. Not for one second. Nothing about it seems plausible, and then, why isn't Mike credited for VT proper as it came out in '11? If he weaseled his way into a WIBN credit, surely doing the same for one of the (more or less) finished SMiLE tracks wouldn't be beneath him?

It is all speculation by both of us except the copyrighted evidence is the Mama Says is Brian and Mike collab. Ascribing it to a Brian and VDP is the speculation isn't it?

No offense, but I doubt having hair would somehow magically make Mike cool :lol

Not saying this justifies the Mike hate...but the guy just comes off as abrasive and clueless a lot of the time. Couple that with his nostalgia-centric view of the BB music, and less than stellar musical contributions (SIP, Looking Back With Love, etc) and he's an easy scapegoat. I used to be one of the blind "Mike is evil!!" fans until recently. Now, I still think he's a bit of a jerk (Hall of Fame acceptance speech, etc, etc) but I also feel bad for him in a way. I think a lot of the hate he gets is uncalled for, even though some *is* justified. Brian did him wrong all those years with song credits, I understand why he felt shafted after being the McCartney to Brian's Lennon all those years only to be pushed aside in '66...and, while I think he had a hand in SMiLE's demise, he was hardly the deciding factor. I believe what he wrote for the book in TSS is true and respect him for saying it.

He's not a villain. He's human...and sometimes a jerk.

If Mama Says was a standalone track and I was claiming without evidence that it was really a SMiLE fragment penned by VDP, you'd be right. But it WAS a SMiLE fragment, we have proof (the audio recordings and sessionography) it was intended for H&V or VT (both credited to Brian and Van, as I recall) and the fact is many of SMiLE's various odds and ends were recycled on later albums, so this is not without precedent.

As this whole thread proves, the BBs weren't very good at crediting the proper people for their work.

I feel like the last sentence in your above post really should settle this thread once and for all.....

Was the mama says section with those lyrics ever ascribed to or recorded together during the VDP/SMILE era? I don't think so. Unless I'm forgetting something. 

Umm...yes, actually. The aforementioned Do a Lot take for H&V was recorded in January '67. The height of the SMiLE Era, before VDP quit, but after the Cabin Essence incident. What does the CE fight have to do with it? Because it cemented the wedge between them. To someone like VDP, if Brian had had Mike rewrite his lyrics, *especially* after that, it wouldve been a great insult. I think he would've quit even sooner than he did, had this happened.

Give it up. You sound like Mike's lawyer trying to pretend WIBN was written by Mike over the phone in Japan. Utterly ridiculous.

Why all this feeling so sorry for people like VDP and Tony Asher who were given great opportunities by Brian Wilson and have assured themselves great (credit) and legacies because of Brian's kindness, while hating on another guy who was robbed of rightful credit? ......

And before someone says: "isn't Mike the biggest recipient or Brian's kindness"? ...... Keep in mind, like him or not, Mike helped found the band, wrote lyrics, sang amazingly, put in the fifty billion man-hours on stage bringing the music to the people.... You might not like the guy, but I don't think there's a single example of an audience walking out of a concert hall in disgust because they hate Mike.... No, the guy put in the work and Brian is glad.

With all do respect to you man, lighten up. No one's hating on Mike, I've conceded Brian screwed Mike on the credits. But, so what, you're saying that justifies crediting him for other people's work now? Are you nuts?

I sympathize with Tony because HE wrote WIBN, and to claim Mike did while Brian called him on his way to the bathroom is ludicrous and insulting to Tony. None of these slanderous claims would've resulted had Brian and Mike settled their dispute long ago without dragging the poor guy to court.

I'm not "sympathizing" with VDP, just stating the simple, undeniable fact that he wrote the VT chorus/Do a Lot section of H&V. You are completely wrong to suggest otherwise.

I get that you guys feel Mike doesn't get as much recognition as he deserves, but to try to take other people's work and claim Mike did it regardless of the hard evidence against you isn't doing you or him any favors. Please see reason here.

Another thing...you act like Brian handed out "legacies" to Asher/VDP out of the kindness of his heart. Are you suggesting neither man earned their praise with *their* hard work and brilliant lyrics? Are you for real?

I've made no mention of the "maybe Mike helped Brian write WIBN when Brian snuck phone calls to Japan while pretending to go to the bathroom" other than to call it ridiculous. But in the end Mike got credited for what he DID contribute to WIBN. BTW, Tony Asher did not write WIBN: Tony Asher, Brian Wilson, Mike Love wrote WIBN. Mike's contribution being the smallest (by a large margin), but still a valid contribution..... I take issue with folks belittling this contribution while with every other breath stating how much they dislike Mike and then trying to deny that this base dislike has nothing to do with their opinion.... Yes, Tony Asher and VDP did wonderful lyrical work, but they still encountered great fortune by being taken up by Brian based on little evidence of their abilities. It's hardly an insult to make mention of this.....

If I am contracted to do interior design for a family house, and I paint a wall solid blue, get paid and go about my way, and then after I'm gone someone in the family paints a little design in green at the bottom right corner, how would this be a grave insult to my work when I've been paid for my work and roundly praised in the interior design world for my work on the other 99% of the house? ......


As for Asher and Park's hard work! .... Yes, they worked hard and their work (Asher's especially) is sublime, but Mike's worked a lot harder and longer for The Beach Boys...... And to diss Mike while praising Asher for his "mature" lyrics is a bit silly too, unless you're pretending "Beach Boy's Today" and several other previous songs don't exist.

As for Mama Says: we don't know enough to draw any conclusions. You'd have to ask Brian and be mad at Brian.... Maybe he did it as a gift for screwing Mike out of other credits. Or maybe Mike contributed something vocal arrangement-wise that Brian thought warranted a cut. I dunno. It's all pure speculation and it would be silly to be raging at Mike about it anyhow.

I think my position here is one of reason..... Do I think Mike is just a wonderful guy like Brian and the other Beach Boys? I don't know the man, so I really have no opinion either way.... I've been in many a band where far worse has gone down than anything Mike's allegedly done, so I can't get too worked up about him other than his being a part of the awesomeness that is The Beach Boys: cheese and all.

No. Brian and Tony wrote WIBN. Mike added a line. Brian refused to give Mike credit for a bunch of songs, it went to court, Mike's legal team claimed he was intitled to a credit for that line, and a jury agreed. But Mike wasn't involved in the actual writing process. Whether he deserves that credit or not is debatable, personally I don't think he does.


Are you referring to me? Because if so...what planet are you on? Belittling? I'm calling it what it is. An ad lib. I'm not saying how much I dislike Mike with every breath. I think I've offered a pretty fair view of him in this and other threads. It's *you* who is letting your "base like" of him cloud your opinion. The lengths you'll go to defend him are borderline insane. I'm a big fan of Brian but even I can admit his faults--like screwing Mike out of credits for decades. That's an awful thing to do.

And everything you just said more than applies to Mike Love as well. But your obsessive apologism on his behalf means you cannot or will not admit that. And I'm sure in your twisted view I'm 'raging' on him for bringing up this fact.


The insult would be if whoever painted green in the corner claimed equal credit for the entire house.



Seriously, you need to stop taking every minor criticism of Mike so personally. You need to realize not everyone is a "hater" for not sharing your exact opinions. And you need to realize that just because Mike "worked a lot harder" that doesn't mean I can't praise Asher or VDP, or that I owe Mike a compliment for every time I mention my admiration for SMiLE/Pet Sounds. You're coming off as very immature with this attitude. Mature was for lack of a better term. That's why I put it in quotes. Regardless, PS's lyrics are generally considered "richer/denser/more complex" than the usal BB faire.


Jesus Christ, dude...I am not, nor have I ever "raged" at Mike. You need thicker skin, and perhaps a new idol. Mama Says was 100% written by VDP. It has its roots in H&V and VT, which are credited to Brian/Van. It was recorded in the SMiLE Era before Van quit. It is one of dozens of recycled bits from the SMiLE Era. The only thing we don't know is why VDP wasn't credited for it. Now, if either of the unsubstantiated theories you present here are true, then that explains the credit. But its absolutly ludicrous to insinuate Mike wrote the actual chant. You are willfully ignoring FACTS and offering only heresay in response. It's completely false for you to imply that we don't know. The proof is in the SMiLE Sessions themselves, the sessionography and the fact that Mike uncharacteristically did not seek credit for VT proper in 1994 or 2003 or 2011 if he really did pen such an integral part to it.

If we call the hardcore "Brian is perfect!" fans Brianistas then there ought to be a similar term for you and Cam because I've never seen such blind, unwavering devotion to a person in my life. Like whoever you want, I don't care. But when you make up a crazy lie like Mike writing SMiLE material, and refuse to back off in the face of cold hard evidence, that's crossing a line.

Adding a line to a song that is recorded/released with that line (two lines actually) means you co-wrote the song.... Sorry man.

As for my "we don't know enough" regarding Mama Says mean't we don't know enough regarding why Mike got a percentage for the lyrics.

And I need to get thicker skin???

BTW, I only defend Mike's contribution to WIBN because (aside from being, ummm, on the released record and sheet music) the song would have otherwise gone on for 30 seconds after Brian sings "wouldn't it be nice" with no more vocals, and also: Mike's "goodnight baby! Sleep tight baby" aren't just repeats of other parts of the song only with different lyrics, but have a distinct melody and meter all their own. Like Mike or not, this coda is a part of the song! If you don't want someone getting credit for such a contribution because you do not like them as a person, fair enough, but at least admit it.

In my opinion, 'Runnersdialzero' had it spot on in their first response. It's quite tiring to hear all this negativity about just one member of the band. There's always two sides to a story. I know some will disagree but Mike is doing a lot to keep the Beach Boys' music alive and bring it to new audiences.

My issue with Mike getting a credit on the song is how small his part it is. Fans know that Mike came up with that part, but that was all he added to the song. Give credit where credit is due, but being listed as one of the songs writers for such a minor contribution can be seen as kind of a stretch.

But there really is no middle ground, you're either credited as a writer or you're not so I dunno...I've never really made up my mind on whether or not he deserves the credit for this song or not. Mike did end up with a writers credit in the end though, even if the the 'Brian was on the telephone to me in the bathroom' defense was completely ridiculous.

Pinder loves ALL the BBs since he grew up in Hawthorne, CA.

How could someone not be deserving of credit for something we KNOW they contributed? ... It's the last 30 seconds of the song, it is two lines of lyric repeated twice each with a vocal melody unique from the rest of the song! Not worthy of credit???

Like I've asked before: was anyone shredding that part of the song when we all though it was Asher's contribution? .... A resounding "no"

I'd say such logic would better apply to something like Dierdre where all we know is Brian threw in a few words ("my friend Bob, he has a job") that Bruce didn't even use. We really have no idea if anything "Brian" even made the cut, yet he is listed as co-writer and we can somehow all live with it....

Indeed, we do know how much Mike contributed. The main issue, in my mind, is whether or not Mike deserved a writing credit for his contribution. To have a writing credit on WIBN means he co-wrote the song. Does adding 2 lines to the fade out of a song that's entire 'construction', from the melody to the lyrics to the instrumentation, had been done entirely by two other people, count as co-writing it? I'm not saying he doesn't deserve credit, just that it is a dilemma that really boils down to a matter of opinion.

But in the case of Deirdre, we don't know how much Brian contributed. He could have done all of the backing track, or absolutely nothing. Someone should ask Bruce.

Debatable. Regardless, Mike has his credit so take pride in that. But you have no right to get so defensive when others point out how small his contribution was. Unless you believe every ad lib ever deserves a writing credit, you can't blame us "haters" for being somewhat skeptical whether his authorship credit is truly warranted. Brian and Tony certainly didn't think it was.

Any % Mike got for Mama Says is too much. Those are VDP's lyrics as far as anyone can say. Unless some new hard evidence arises that proves otherwise. You don't get a lyrics credit for saying "We should sing it normal, then slow, then fast!" For you and Cam to go so far as to suggest that Mike actually wrote them is nonsense. It's an insult to Van Dyke, his work, and our intelligence for you to suggest that. This whole thread is about how terrible Brian was at crediting the right people for their stuff. Why is it so hard to accept that Mama Says was a similar mistake? Oh right, because Mike is infallible and almighty in your eyes. I'm sure he wrote all the SMiLE lyrics in secret, right?

Yes. Absolutely you do. Since I started posting in this thread you've accused me of raging, hating and attacking Mike Love for no justified reason. Looking at other threads this seems to be your thing. It's really bizarre and annoying.


Every improv to every song is on the record. Not every one is deserving of equal credit to the proper authors. I'm not saying this because I hate Mike. I can't stress this enough--I *don't* hate Mike. I don't even know him. I just don't making pathetic excuses for everything he does as you do. And I'm not playing favorites--I call Brian on his bullsh!t too. I've said numerous times here that not giving Mike credit for his songs all these years was a really awful, inexcusable thing to do. Admit what? That I'm not as unhealthily devoted to someone as you? Alright, you got me.

His name on the credits means nothing other than that he contributed to the song's released composition and nothing more. It is not a sentence saying "Mike Love sat down and participated in writing this song with Brian Wilson and Tony Asher. It simply means he contributed. Which we know he did.

As for being "unhealthily devoted" to Mike: for me, this isn't even about Mike but about nitpicking someone's contribution to something to death. As a musician, I've seen how ugly this type of thing can be and I've seen many a person denied proper credit due to such nitpicking ( usually to the good fortune of someone else) ... If I am a Mike fan, it's simply because he ....... is one of THE BEACH BOYS!

How would Beach Boys history be different if all of Brian's proper cowriting credits were given to Mike?
Mike Love would be considered the true genius of the band.

If Mike Love was credited properly, while he wouldn't be labeled a genius, he would be held in higher esteem.

So lets add every Beach Boy, every Wrecking Crew member and anybody whose feedback Brian sought out to the authorship list for every song they ever did. Hey, they all contributed, right?

If any of those folks believe they deserve credit, they are free to pursue their case.

Mike's "feedback " is a part of the song's composition and is there in lyrical and melodic form and people have been singing along to the words in question for almost 50 years.... I think we have an overly romantic and sanctified vision of what the songwriting process is.

Have you ever written a song? Either alone or in collaboration?

That is how songwriting credits are given these days, which is why you will see several people sharing writing credits on current hits.

So then we all agree, that Brian f***ed Mike out of credits for 30 songs, then Mike f***ed Brian out of half a credit on 1 song in retaliation?

I'm coo with that.

No: Mike simply got credit for what he contributed.

 Do we really know Mike ALSO created the melody for his two lines?   It seems much  more likely Brian added the music to go with Mike's lyrics

If it really was a tossed-off ad-lib by Mike at the vocal session, as it's been repeatedly called here, then Mike most likely is to thank for the melody.

I said my peace earlier here, probably spent too much time and too many words already in this discussion, but I see this heading somewhere and wanted to offer a "time out" of sorts.

Some of the issues of collaborations and credits and ad-libs are the same ones I took part in earlier, yet they keep coming around to the same points. In that sense, there are some cold, hard facts about the way things work in these cases in the music world versus the business/legal world, and they can exist despite the discrepancies depending on who is involved and especially in some cases the relative success or lack of success of the artists in the various agreements.

It may take more than one post, but here is one cold hard fact about many of these cases:

They are handled, and I'd argue can only be handled, on a case-by-case basis. There is no template in place where the facts and details can be put into a formula and analyzed then determined into a fixed outcome. It needs to be looked at individually, because the creative process itself is unique for each creative interest and very few think or act alike in that process. They may follow patterns, there may be legal and business definitions, but each song is created differently.

So we can't say "this is the way songwriting works" as a definitive statement to award credit if it's being sought in court, therefore each case *must* be looked at individually.

Another perhaps colder, harder fact:

The issue of credit only becomes an issue if one of the parties involved pursues it, and makes it an issue for the legal system rather than keeping it within the band or within that party's "organization".

And that is fact. Consider there could be potentially hundreds of thousands of legal claims made for songs even in the last 20 years based on people pitching in ideas which became elements of the "hit version" of the song which were done *after the fact*, which means after the principal songwriter(s) had the song sketched out.

If a band or artist is hot, and the money and fame are flowing in and things are going well...and if there are other agreements and contracts in place within those organizations...the chances for claims like this being filed are slim-to-none.

Which means, if you look back at a few of these which have been won, how many of them happen when times are good for that band or artist? Do we see the drummer for a successful band filing a claim for something he/she feels they wrote for a song as that band is hot and in demand commercially and artistically?

Or are these cases more often filed years and decades after the fact, and sometimes involving members who were either fired, quit in disgust or over personality clash issues, or involving bands or artists that have broken up?

And note too that in most cases I'm aware of, they're not filing for the satisfaction of getting that credit, they're filing for a work or for a body of work that has made money and for which the potential to claim some of that money is greater. You rarely see a co-writer or musician filing a claim for artistic reasons, where they'd spend a large sum of money to reclaim their rightful place in history as a creative contributor to a specific song. They simply don't spend potentially hundreds of thousands to hire a legal team to win what amounts to bragging rights, or to ensure a legacy.

They file for *money*, plain and simple. And the songs usually brought into court are successful high-earning songs with future earning potential. You don't see these cases being filed unless a song or artist has made money, and then it's off to the races.

I can list cases I know personally, from people I know personally, as happened in the recent years from people who produced and worked with an artist who would soon become a popular "hit" artist, and felt that they got left out of the financial windfall that followed. No specifics, just take my word for it...these cases are very common in modern times, moreso than the songwriting cases. A guy running a studio takes on a new artist, works up some tracks, contributes a shitload of music and songwriting ideas to a project...the project takes off, a "big label" gets involved, a "record deal" is signed, and that producer gets left in the dust with a hard drive full of tracks.

Again, it still happens...but back to songwriting...

How many claims of credit are filed on songs before they're proven to be moneymakers, or before they have actually made money?

Again, they're not claiming these things for history or legacy or even issues of "fairness" necessarily, they're claiming them for money, and that's how the legal teams work. They may suggest the case is about "righting a wrong" to bring in the emotional aspect in front of a judge or jury, which is what lawyers do in all cases, but they're in it to get paid their share of the outcome just the same.

That was longer than I had hoped...but consider claims are not filed when a band is "hot" or when all members are actively performing or getting along, claims are not filed for the reason of getting credit for credit's sake or for historical purposes, and claims are not filed for songs that have not or are not generating considerable profits.

More to come on specifically the 1989 Brian case against Irving and the subsequent Mike case in 1992.

Pride and the pursuit of $$$ go happily hand in hand. Quite arrogant to state that people only seek credit for monetary reasons.... I know many people who have sought such for both reasons. In fact, I've sought such credit myself knowing full well I'd likely not see a single dollar.

The fact, however it might disagree with opinions or however arrogant it might be perceived, is that cases which go into the legal system up to a judge or jury are not being funded on the basis of pride or righting a wrong, they're filed for money and potential to make more money. Interpersonal squabbles and debates within bands or among artists over such credits happen every minute of every day, but the costs involved with filing a legal case are so great that much of that remains interpersonal, and very rarely if ever are these cases filed over songs that have not or will not generate enough income to cover the costs.

Have there been some music-related legal claims that have gone to the courts based solely on righting a wrong without financial interest? Perhaps. But consider how many of these cases which have been heard by and decided in a court of law have come from a band or group that is actively working together or actively enjoying success, or how many are filed when that artist is actively signed into any kind of a contractual agreement that is paying off due to the commercial success or popularity of that venture. Most of the notable cases involving band members or partners come after that partnership has been dissolved, after a member or members have quit or been forced out, or after the songs or works in question have already made money for that partnership or organization.

Sure, but having one's name listed on the credits to famous songs is not an unfathomable desire either.... I'd say that we logically can't rule out any motivation.

Well I don't share your certainty that VDP wrote those lyrics and that Mike can't be the author. Someone should ask Parks, his email address used to be on his website.

In H&V this was January '67 right? Parks says he was out after Fire in November and then I don't believe there is any evidence of him again until the lastest of February. H&V was going through overhaul through December and January and on through February. Mike is established as a guy who can write a lyric in the hallway of the studio. The April Veg is in April after Parks has left all together. It's not farfetched at all. So far there is no evidence that Parks wrote those lyrics but there is the evidence that Mike actually has the credit. Unless there is something I am over looking, which is likely, why are we twisting ourselves in knots when the publishing tells the story? After all the history is Mike didn't get unduly credited, he got unjustly uncredited.

RE. WIBN: if we think it is unfair for Mike to have credit for one line in that song, then I'm sure we all agree we can cancel it out with Brian's even more egregious over-credit for a phrase in Good Vibrations. Done! (dusts hands)

Wasn't Mike's suit for credit without stipulating how much and a very lowball offer of a monetary settlement. Isn't that much more about credit and less about money?  Actually it is kind of low flying for both.

This kind of statement ignores reality versus ideology, or even a "rose colored glasses" view of cases like this. A desire to have one's name on something doesn't equal or come close to equaling the costs involved with filing a credit or copyright claim in the court system. The cost for the person filing the claim to hire and retain a lawyer or law firm and their team, plus the cost of the parties having the claim filed against them to defend it if they're disputing the claim, and all related costs and charges involved in filing such a case wouldn't justify the outcome if all that is being sought is one's name on a credit.

As I specifically said, this stuff plays out in bands and between collaborators every day, but *specifically* (and please consider this before shifting the focus) none of these cases is going to involve the courts, law firms, and all costs associated with taking it before the court if there is not money involved.

And in many cases, the person or persons filing the claim is dissociated with or removed from the entity they're filing the case against, and the claims are being filed against something which has made money and stands to make more money for the person filing the case.

There is a monumental difference between bandmates squabbling amongst themselves over credit for a work that hasn't made sh*t in terms of profit, and someone taking it to the courts, hiring legal representation, and filing those claims in a court of law.

If there is no money involved, no "award" being sought in the case, no financial interests at all in favor of the "right a wrong" concept, how many law firms are going to take up the case on either side? It's simply not worth the time or money to do so.

And note some of the more prominent cases that have been taken to court: Are they coming from bands or groups that are together and actively working successfully, or are they from the stereotypical "disgruntled" former member, or concerning a group or partnership that has been split up yet the fruits of that partnership are currently making a lot of money, or stand to in the future?

You don't take a case of credit for credit's sake or even for pride's sake into court without a financial interest, it's illogical and the cost involved doesn't justify the outcome either way.

Cam, I'm not proscribing this to the Mike and Brian case, I'm just putting it up there as a general thing based on the last two pages' discussions about this kind of case, how the ones that do come before the courts most often make it that far and who files them, and the potential for who can claim credit for contributing to songs.

My main idea, again, is that the issue of credit only becomes an issue if one of the parties involved pursues it, and pursuing it is as much financial as anything else which prevents interpersonal squabbles from making it that far into the legal system. If there is no money involved, the case will not go to court, and the cases usually don't involve anything but projects which make a lot of money.

The Brian and Mike cases are much more involved and the reasons behind them are more nuanced than a lot of similar filings, which means they can't be summarized as easily and shouldn't be.

How can you put forth such opinions as fact and call my more liberal view of personal motivation as ignoring fact???

You mean to tell me humans are ruled by singular motivations and that single motivation only?

BTW, I completely agree with the latter part of your last reply regarding Mike and Brian's case as being especially nuanced.

You're ignoring completely the fact that such cases do not go to court and are not taken up by lawyers unless there is money involved. And you're also ignoring the point I stressed repeatedly that the differences between interpersonal squabbles among bandmates or collaborators or partners and actually going through the process to make a legal case out of it are massive enough to the point where only cases that involve a lot of money ever make it to court.

It doesn't cost anything to have bandmate #1 argue and demand from bandmate #2 that they receive credit for something they feel they deserve. It costs a lot of money to have bandmate #1 take bandmate #2 to court to claim that credit, and it's naive to think such a case is all about righting a wrong considering the costs involved in taking it beyond individual discussion and into the actual legal system. If bandmate #1 wants to hire a lawyer or legal team, they're either going to need to pay out-of-pocket and expect no compensation, the lawyer has to expect no compensation or percentage of the potential settlement beyond their fee and billing to their client, and the interest being taken to court has to expect no financial interests to protect or potentially pay to defend.

Which means...songwriting cases taken to court don't happen that way on the basis of conceptual or ideological notions of righting a wrong without money being involved.

So if one thinks they deserve credit so badly, the only way to solve this is to bring a court case and money must be involved for there to be a case. How exactly does this exclude pride or personal reasons as a major motivation??  It does not! Or are we talking about the lawyer's motivation?

But we've spent 15 pages worth of posts discussing how inaccurate the publishing is. History is Brian going the path of least resistance regarding this stuff. It was easier to keep Mike off the early hits rather than rock the boat. And it was easier to just throw Mike's name on Mama Says than involve Van Dyke in it over a one minute chant tagged onto WH.

I really doubt Mike would just let it be if VT as we now know it used his lyrics for the chorus and he was yet again uncredited for it. In all the interviews about SMiLE and his dislike for the lyrics, why has he never brought up the fact that he wrote this piece? He likes to brag about his accomplishments. Being able to say "I hated the lyrics. I wrote some for VT that I think better suited that song, and had Brian allowed me to, I could've written some great stuff for the other tracks too." It's just not in Mike's character to keep quiet about something like this.

And just because it was recorded in Jan 67 doesn't mean it was written then. It was probably written earlier. To claim now that it was actually penned by Mike in the hallway that day is unlikely. Like, WIBN over the phone from Japan level unlikely.

Cam was merely speculating ...... just as you and Guitarfool are speculating at great great length.

*Missing oldsurferdude comment that would lighten the mood*

Maybe you can ask him to weigh in and report back his comments? ;)

He did write something recently....

"Dennis as a cat? If the Beach Boys were Girls??  W T F has happened over there?"

I share the sentiment :)

Since this thread took a tangent into specifically discussing WIBN, I think an interesting question to ask at this point is:

If Mike had received proper co-writing credits for songs that he really deeply collaborated on, like I Get Around, California Girls, etc... would he have felt the need to pursue legal action for being omitted as a co-writer on WIBN? Would he have felt bummed out and somehow "robbed" or "cheated" by not getting a credit on that one song for his ad lib?
 

I would hazard to guess: NO

The difference between the millions of songwriting cases that never go to court and the very, very few that actually do come to a conclusion and decision in court is the amount of money involved in filing such a legal claim in the first place.

The fact - whether people agree or disagree with the system in place - is that the amount of money involved in hiring legal representation and retaining a legal defense is extremely high and out of the reach of average people, not to mention the time involved in trying such cases. And by the time the investment like that is recovered, the amount of money in a potential award or compensation is very often less than the cost of pursuing the case itself. And that is why these cases involve songs or claims where a lot of money is potentially at stake for all parties, and if you want to file such a claim hiring a lawyer or legal team is essential.

It is also why when claims are made, it's not just the claim itself being asked but also a form of compensation or "damages" and other related estimated amounts are filed as part of the case. Not that this happens in each and every such case - to assume that would be naive - but many times the suit seeks damages as well as back payments and some payment of or guarantee of future earnings in order to in part financially justify the investments of party filing the claim for filing it in the first place.

Most times, if not overwhelmingly most times, if there is no potential to make money by seeking a court case in these songwriting-based claims, they just won't go to court. Unless, the person filing is wealthy enough or has enough money available to hire a lawyer or law firm out-of-pocket and pay whatever legal fees come due in pursuing the case, sums which could reach at least 6-figures depending on the case itself. And even that would be up to the law firm to agree to take a case like that where no financial award or compensation is being sought, but rather the sole issue of putting one's name on a credit with nothing to gain financially and only legal costs to lose.

And there may just be cases like that, on principle alone with money not a factor, but it's not anything close to the reality of how these songwriting and credit cases work.

No one is debating how they work. We're talking about motivations. It's foolish to state as fact that just because money is involved, there must be no other motivation.

The movie studios and the record companies have the money to pay law firms to fight these cases to the bitter end, often with the goal of making it financially impossible for the claimant to continue the battle.  If the claim is worth a lot, there are lawyers who will take it on contingency and take their shot at big money.  They are tough cases to win.  

I'm just making an observation about that case specifically. The eyewitness account of the whole trail showed it was not just or even mostly about money for Mike's people.

That's my case for why I think it very likely could have been written by Mike just as the publishing says and the only thing close to evidence so far is the publishing in favor of Mike. E-mail VDP, maybe he remembers writing it.

We ARE talking about how the publishing can be wrong but, as I pointed out, so far it does not go in Mike's favor and this does which that history makes it stronger as evidence for Mike as the author.

I’d tend to agree with this, to a degree.

Firstly, I think that Mike didn’t want to be seen as kicking Brian when Brian was down (and at that point in Brian’s life, Brian was certainly not in any kind of “empowered” position – in fact, he seemed to be drifting and trying to find footing in his life just after the decade-long Landy horror show). This is probably why he was "going easy" on Brian in terms of offering his own acceptance of a proposed lowball Brian settlement. I think, overall, he was being nice because he legitimately didn't want to go after his cousin "in that way", in a manner that would be really ugly. And I'm glad that he made that decision.

One has to wonder, if the crediting lawsuit would have happened at another point in the lifespan of the band - say, 2004 just after BWPS came out - would Mike have gone after Brian more viciously legally-speaking?

Still, I think Mike absolutely wanted to make money for what he was owed, but that pride of authorship was a big part of it too. Mike has shown time and again that his pride is of huge importance to him. Too much so. I think he does/says many things out of a desperate craving for respect, and to be taken seriously.
 

A related question -- If Brian and Tony knew that Mike would someday claim a co-write credit, would Brian have left in Mike's ad-lib on the outro?

My guess : Brian wouldn't have cared if the song is better for it, which it is (albeit marginally). Asher would have objected, but I'm unclear as to whether his objection would have carried weight with Brian.

Ythe only evidence for your case is the publishing, which we all agree is faulty. Everything else, the audio recordings, session listings, circumstancial evidence (Mike not claiming co-authorship of VT or mentioning this contribution to SMiLE to defend against accusations that he killed it--"I didn't hate SMiLE, I even wrote some lyrics for it!") points to this being just another mistake in the publishing. Occam's Razor. Whether you personally believe your argument or not is irrelevant to me, but you're making a pretty huge claim here and you had better be able to back it up. So far, you have not.

I'm not gonna waste VDP's time asking him to defend his lyrics against such a baseless accusation. I think to even mention this theory to him would be an insult. Plus, I don't have his email. Do it yourself, if you're so inclined.

OK, we will continue to disagree.

It's interesting that the Mojo article posted a few pages back where Mike is going easy on Brian came out in 2004, around the time of the BWPS hype. It appeared to me that Mike was still in the "kiss the ass of Brian Wilson because he is still the key" mode, which also entails being sympathetic to Brian's problems. I think Mike still wanted to work with Brian on any level at that time, and was cutting him some slack. Obviously that changed.

A quick opinion on the WIBN credit, and I'm not making it to excuse Mike Love....I think (speculate?) that when Mike and his lawyers met to develop a strategy for the songwriting credit case, Mike was probably instructed by his attorneys to include any and every song that he (Mike) contributed to, no matter how small the contribution. Then they could throw them all against a wall and see which ones stick - with the judge. It's also a way of being honest because Mike did contribute SOMETHING, but leaving it to a neutral party to determine if credit is due.

My apologies if this has been mentioned and I missed it:
Wasn't VDP omitted from some credits he was due on Smiley Smile?  It was brought up with Brian and Melinda during the BWPS era I believe.

I think this all seems quite likely.

I'd argue this was the case with Mama Says on Wild Honey.


And Cam, this is YOUR wild, baseless theory. It's up to you to prove it. You email VDP. I will not do your grunt work for you, and with your history I bet even if VDP confirmed what everyone but you already knows, you'd still deny it.

I'm not familiar with the interview you alluded to, but the songs on Smiley Smile that Van Dyke Parks is NOT credited on are:

- "Good Vibrations"
- "With Me Tonight"
- "Whistle In"
- "Wind Chimes"
- "Fall Breaks And Back To Winter"
- "Little Pad"
- "Gettin' Hungry"

I don't know, did VDP write any of the lyrics on those songs?

In the event that VDP co-wrote lyrics for "Gettin' Hungry", I'd love to see the awkward 7-inch cover art for the single, which would have probably pasted his face in there, along with the incorrect pic of Carl...

And would the single have been credited as "Brian and Mike and Van Dyke"?  ;D

New topic should be "Should VDP be awarded songwriting credit, percentage for Kokomo"????

So it's ok for Mike to get equal credit for a one line improv but VDP shouldnt get any for the SMiLE fragments he and Brian collaborated on? Why not just drop all pretense of objectivity and admit you're his unofficial cheerleader already? Seriously, the stuff you and Cam are saying in this and other threads is so biased it's laughable. 

Did I say anything to that effect? No I have not!

If VDP wrote the words to Mama Says or whatever else, and Mike wrote no lyrics, then hell-no: Mike doesn't deserve credit! But we don't exactly know the why's or how's yet.

The Kokomo thing is a joke regarding the fact that VDP plays accordion on the track.

Once again: Mike's WIBN contribution being  "insignificant" because it was a "one line improv" (two lines actually) is merely your opinion (and an opinion a jury disagreed with). His words and vocal regarding this contribution made the final cut and is forever on the amazing track. THAT is fact, not opinion. Credit is not unjust. Get over it.

I hardly think my opinion or Cam's have much to do with Mike.... YOUR opinions seem to have everything to do with him though ...... Be it Mike or anyone else: when someone tries to deride their contributions to something, and this derision rings false, I'll stand up for whoever it is.

As opposed to your baseless theory. You're the one who thinks he has to be the author, I'm not gonna do your grunt work. I ready to continue to disagree, if somebody comes up with something more definitive than the publishing (and your baseless theories) we can have another go at it.

VDP isn't credited on Smiley Smile for "Wind Chimes," but he is on both Brian Wilson Presents Smile and The Smile Sessions.  Since the lyrics are identical on all three versions, he was either omitted from the credits on Smiley or incorrectly given credit on BWPS and TSS.

Wasn't it off of Wonderful.