The Smiley Smile Message Board

How much is known about Mike's part in the creation of this tune? How much was written by the time he got involved ?

This is the original John Phillips demo.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=NAuqngA9CuM

Mike and Terry Melcher added the chorus, "Aruba, Jamaica, ooh I want to take you..." and changed "that's where we used to go" to "that's where we wanna go."

While it doesn't have Carl singing, I prefer John's version to myKe luHv's cheese infested trip.  :-D

That's actually quite lovely.

I have to admit that I prefer the finished version as the JF rendition was incomplete... ... ...at least by comparison.  Carl saves the song from being the cheese platter you suggest it is OSD.  But w/o him it just doesn't work anywhere near as well.  Check out the live disc from the 50th anniversary tour.  Sorry.  THAT version is nowhere near as good.  [And that was with the surviving Beach Boys.]

It's why the Good Vibrations performance from last weekend was so shockingly good/different.  Jeff Foskett NEVER sounded THAT good...ever.  Not even once.

NOBODY can 'do' the  Carl 'sound'...not even Brian.

Nice find!

Listen to Terry's 'LA to Mexico' and you'll hear some of what Terry brought to the party.
The Aruba, Jamaica stuff is classic Mike.

Yes, I think as a song writer Mike's geographical knowledge is unparalleled.

I like Kokomo, and I certainly respect and like Mike's contributions to it…  not to mention I think it's one of his best – sounding vocals.  But for all the reminding he continually does to tell the world of his contributions to the song, he should really be also reminding the world of Carl's contribution to that specific song.  Once again, it's an instance where both Wilson and Love contributions help make it a great song, but for many people including myself, the emotional hook of the song without a doubt is related to Carl's vocal contributions.

Mike has never seemed eager to talk about that aspect.  When I hear him ramble on about that song, it feels like it's just all about him, his own contributions to that song,  implying everyone that likes it must like it because of his own contributions…  and this gets mighty frustrating.  Has Mike ever spoken about the contributions of Terry/and or John either?

And indeed, like me, Mike must have a very weathered World Atlas next to his desk.  I never thought of making $$$millions from it.  But I didn't have that cousin either.

Silly me, I bought a rhyming dictionary instead of a globe!  ;D 

I bet neither of you have 4 songs that went to #1 either.  ;D  I could be wrong.

Two of which were won in court. Under, now, questionable pretences.

Which two was that?

I Get Around and Help Me Rhonda were originally solely credited to Brian Wilson prior to the lawsuit.

Thanks for making my point, again.  I didn't have that cousin.  Unless you think it was the Atlas.  In that case, shame on me.   ::)

That is true. Carl had a one-of-a-kind voice. In the later years, he really was the lead singer of the group. Look at the albums, even where he didn't write much - Holland, for example. His voice is all over those songs. Or the 1985 album.

You mean the allegations of an admitted perjurer?

Yes, they were a great team, one of the all time best, and lucky to have each other on three of those #1s.

I will agree that at times they were lucky to have each other. Does not mean they are creative equals, or that Brian needed Mike in any way shape or form approximating as much as Mike needed Brian.

You can talk about chart success that Brian and Mike had together all you want, but the indisputable fact is that the list of songs that Brian wrote (without Mike) that are emotionally impactful and moving to the listener, compared to the list of songs that Mike wrote (without Brian) that are emotionally impactful and moving to the listener, is very, very, very lopsided favoring Brian.

Brian's music, even sans Mike's contributions, connects with listeners in a VERY special emotional way. Not all of it, there are some clunkers, but in a general sense this is true. The same, by and large, with some exceptions but not many, cannot be said for Mike's music without Brian. Not meant as an insult, it's just a fact that needs to be said if one is to look at the two guys' talents (which they both have in vastly unequal measure).

Brian follows the Muse
Mike follows the Money
Great team. Brian brought Michael into some of the best, most creative music ever. Mike helped put some dollars in Brian's wallet, with accessible lyrics, good hooks and relentless touring.

I think that's a great way of putting it.  Like Mr. Desper said, anyone can write lyrics, but not everyone can write good lyrics.  More often than not Mike wrote some very good lyrics.

Wait, go back - who is the admitted perjurer?

Ha! That's right! Short memory. lol

Nobody can though I feel Christopher Cross comes the closest to that sound.
Here's Christopher filling in Carl's part
https://youtu.be/SsmGtwtwh9E

Now wait a minute....while Brian and Landy were putting out a big turkey of an album in 1988, Mike  had a worldwide #1 record. If anyone knows how to make a hit record with Brian, it's Mike (paraphrasing the man himself).





 :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Of course, "Help Me Rhonda" features Al on lead, and it's highly arguable that Brian's falsetto part in the chorus of "I Get Around" is what clinched its #1 status.

But, really, why do you folks simply insist on beating the Mike/Brian thing to death? You just need to accept the fact that within a year of their first wave of success there was a rift between the two of them that has persisted ever since, and that Brian constantly sought others to collaborate with as a result. Mike resents this on many levels, and once Brian passed into/through his "psychedelicate" stage he's been looking for leverage with as much relentlessness as his work ethic.

Carl's versatility as a lead vocalist is unsurpassed, and, except for a slump in the 15 Big Ones-Love You period, was the hidden anchor of the band from 1967 onwards. And it is absolutely true again that "Kokomo" would not have gotten close to #1 without his stellar performance. Mike should give credit to his late cousin every time he celebrates the success of this song.

Hmmm...  well first, as this thread shows, much of the song wasn't written by the band members of all.  Also, that 'big turkey' of an album got pretty stellar reviews and charted not much lower than the BB's album that contained the single you're talking about.  It also charted much better than the next BB's album... and now both BB's albums are out of print...  while the 'big turkey' has been re-released in deluxe format.

Re. Kokomo
Mike:   Here's what happened with "Kokomo." The verses and the verse lyric was written by John Phillips of the Mamas and the Papas. He wrote "Off the Florida keys, there's a place called Kokomo, that's where we used to go to get away from it all." I said, "Hold on. We used to go sounds like an old guy lamenting his misspent youth." So I just changed the tense there. "That's where you want to go to get away from it all." So that was the verse. And it was very lovely. But it didn't have such a groove, I didn't feel.

So I came up with the chorus part: "Aruba, Jamaica, ooo, I want to take you to Bermuda, Bahama, come on, pretty mama. Key Largo, Montego..." That's me, the chorus and the words to the chorus was Mike Love. The verse was John Phillips. The bridge, where it goes, "Ooo, I want to take you down to Kokomo, we'll get there fast and we can take it slow. That's where you want to go, down to Kokomo," that's Terry Melcher. Terry Melcher produced the Byrds and Paul Revere & the Raiders, very successful producer. But he actually produced that song and he wrote that bridge part, which Carl Wilson sang beautifully. And I sang the rest of it. I sang the chorus and the verses on that particular song.

I don't know what Scott MacKenzie's involvement was, I honestly don't, because all I know is John Phillips, Terry Melcher, and myself put that song together, all those different elements.

Songfacts:   But was it at one sitting, or was it in different places and different times?

Mike:   Terry was in the studio doing a track with a demo, because we were asked to do the song for the soundtrack of the movie Cocktail, featuring Tom Cruise. So we were asked by the director to come up with a song for this part of the movie where Tom Cruise goes from a bartender in New York to Jamaica. So that's where I came up with the "Aruba, Jamaica" idea, that part.

So Terry was in the studio doing the track and they didn't have the chorus yet. They just had a certain amount of bars, but there was nothing going on there. I said, "Well, here's what I want to do." And I remember I had told them about the part before. But he said, "Uh huh. How does it go again?" So I literally, over the phone - he was in the studio and I was on the phone - sang [deadpan slow recitation]: "Aruba, Jamaica, ooo, I want to take you." So he's writing that down, and I'm singing it in the scene, the notes, and the timing of it in tempo to the track.

So in other words, no, we didn't sit down at one time together. It came together in sections. But Terry did a great job of putting it together. It went to #1. That song was #1 for like 8 or 10 weeks in Australia.


Re. HMR

Songfacts:   Are there other examples of songs where you came up with the lyrics first before music was put to them?

Mike:   "Fun, Fun, Fun," "Do It Again," sometimes I would write a lyric because Brian didn't have anything there. Maybe he had a chorus idea. And that was the case in "Help Me, Rhonda." I would come up with the lyrics to help finish off and complete the song.


Re. IGA

Songfacts:   Well, Mike, it's been a treat to talk to you and hear about songwriting from your perspective. I don't think you get nearly enough respect as a songwriter, so I'm glad that we could just take this time and chat about songs.

Mike:   Well, I appreciate it. The problem is, my uncle Murry administrated the publishing, and he didn't give me credit for songs that I wrote and sang every word to. Like, for instance, I wrote every word of "California Girls." But I had to go to court to establish my authorship and prove that, in fact, I did write those songs. And that wasn't the only one. "I Get Around" - I came up with "Round, round, get around, I get around," that hook. And wrote the preponderance of the lyrics. But I wasn't credited. So it gave people a disproportionate view of who was responsible for what. So that was the major reason for not getting, as you say, credit for what I actually contributed to.

http://www.songfacts.com/blog/interviews/mike_love_of_the_beach_boys/


Cam: I think a big problem is a long history of some claiming Mike takes more credit than he ever actually does/has and then they defame him (imo) by criticizing him for taking their trumped version of credit taking when he doesn't.

(cue WIBN claims)

So why did he wait almost 30 years, Cam? Why didn't he go to Murry when Murry was alive?

He went to his co-writer who was his Producer who was also a Publisher who assured him it would be fixed.  He waited for 30 years for the same reason Brian did I suppose, Rob.

I think I actually read somewhere that Christopher Cross was Brian's first choice for the role Jeff played on his first solo tour.

He could have also gone to Murry, you know. Mike wasn't afraid to punch Murry out.

So could Brian.  I'm guessing after 1969 they both assumed there was nothing to be done.

The BB's "album" in question wasn't even a full album, it was a collection of previous releases and soundtrack material that Capitol put together to sell Kokomo on an album under their own label rather than the label that was selling massive quantities of the Cocktail soundtrack which had both Kokomo and Don't Worry Be Happy as lead singles. The actual Beach Boys in the process of actually trying to make an album yet again dropped the ball and couldn't cobble together enough original material to fill up an album-length release, hence little to no "original" new, fresh songs.

The actual album of note that would count as the next honest "original" album was Summer In Paradise when they brought Melcher back in to hopefully carry with him the same magic that produced Kokomo. It didn't translate into success.

Actually, until 1964, when the problem had already occurred, Brian didn't have the legal status to do anything.
And, as his cousin, I should think Mike would have known and understood that it was difficult for Brian to challenge Murry and Mike should have tried to avoid putting Brian in that position.

You know I'm wondering if Mike waited so long regarding the song writing credits was because he didn't want to ruin his relationship with Brian regarding the possibility of still writing together. Once Kokomo hit, Mike may have figured he didn't need Brian anymore, hence the lawsuit.

  You hit the nail on the head Juice. I think what Mike did for "Kokomo" was similar to he did with Brian.

Maybe.

I don't think so.

 Timing.  It was all about the timing...and who was available at that time to answer the claims, the allegations and such.  That's why the whole legal thing has always smelled of something other than truth and honesty.  Timing.

It's now been removed from YouTube! Tin foil hats at the ready....

Good point...  by that standard, Brian's contemporary album was massively more successful by every standard.

I'm not one of these Mike vs. Brian guys, but I do feel that comparing Kokomo to Brian Wilson (the album) is like comparing apples to oranges. 

If I remember the LA Times articles about Brian's suit against Irving Music et al right, Brian thought he was a partner in the SOT publishing back then (though it turned out later it wasn't legal) which may be one reason Mike went to Brian. I'm assuming Brian asked Mike to write to be published by SOT and Brian was also their producer.

I suggest that the Brian Mike actually knew back then was much different than the image we project on Brian from now which would explain why Mike had confidence in taking it to Brian and why Brian was able to get so many people to do so much. And I suspect the Mike that Brian actually knew was much different then the image we project back on him from now. Who knows, anyway Mike took it to Brian.

Anyway I thought the timing issue was settled by newspaper accounts. 30 years after the fact, some lawyers brought the plan of suing Irving to Brian, those lawyers recruited Mike to help them in the suit by promising Mike restitution of a third or 30% of Brian's potential settlement which was projected at $200 mil but landed at $10 mil. Brian's team won but didn't pay Mike as promised and Mike sued.  Mike has said in some interview that he didn't know or think there was any way of getting restitution for those 30 years until Brian's lawyers came to him with this plan to sue Irving.  Something like that.

 

I count 161 words in The Beach Boys' version of "Kokomo" (not counting repeats of the chorus hook line and "bridge" part sung by Carl).
Comparing the lyrics of the two versions, I count 51 words that appear in both (aside from isolated instances of common words like "a" - I only count such words when they appear in phrases such as "a steel drum band" that appear in both versions). Therefore, we can say that 51 of the 161 words were penned by John Phillips and/or Scott McKenzie. Mike has credited Terry Melcher with the "bridge" (sung by Carl), which is 27 words. That means Mike penned 83 words, or 52% of the lyrics if you round up. Melcher wrote 17% of the lyrics if you round up. Musically, it's a bit harder to define, but we could at least say that Melcher composed the 17% that accompany his lyrics, and Mike composed the notes that accompany the 13% of the lyrics from the chorus hook line, plus a few lines here and there that he changed melodically from Phillip's original.

   

That whole Brian/Mike/Murry credit dynamic is still a mystery, to be explained (I've been assured by one in the know) in Mike's book. It has never made sense to me why, for instance, Mike would trust that he would receive credit for writing the lyrics to Calfornia Girls after being denied credit for I Get Around ( and many other songs).

I don't particularly enjoy Kokomo and am not a Mike apologist, but I honestly don't think that Kokomo is as big a hit as it became without Mike's contribution, no matter how small it may have been.  The John Phillips original is a nice little tune with nothing there to hang your hat on and I don't feel like there is any hit potential in his demo version.  Cheesy as it may be, Mike's parts are the hook and along with the Carl sung Melcher written part, make the song as catchy as it is.  Again, I don't love the song, but I can't deny that it's catchy and can see why it was a hit at that particular time.  I'm just saying, we can rag on Mike for Kokomo's existence and claim that he didn't even contribute that much to the song that he uses to validate his artistic merit, but in the end, it's my opinion that the song isn't the hit that it was without Mike's involvement. 

For the record, like most level headed fans, I can see Mike as both the good and bad in Mike in the grand scheme of things, but as I said earlier, I'm no Mike apologist.  I'm just calling it like I see it in this particular case.

I always love it when Mike refers to himself in the third person. That's the sort of stuff where I always wonder if Mike knows how that sounds to *others*.

As for "Kokomo", a lot of fan debates have always come up regarding the degree to which Mike touts the song. My opinion is that I think he really does think it's as brilliant as anything the Beach Boys ever released. Nobody would begrudge someone being grateful and proud of a #1 hit. But I think Mike thinks the song is effing *brilliant*, but he thinks so because it was successful, not because of the composition itself so much.

But, and this is not a perfect analogy, does anybody think Paul McCartney would ever try to suggest that "Coming Up" or "Pipes of Peace" are as significant musically or career-wise as "Hey Jude" or "Penny Lane", etc.?

Some 60s artists continued to regularly (or occasionally) get the odd hit single into the 80s. Much like most of the BBs will tell you that "Endless Summer" was a great help to their career, I'm sure they will tend to also say that "Kokomo" was a great shot in the arm.

Mike is a numbers guy, a stats/charts guy (unless he needs to minimize the success of the TWGMTR album, for some reason), and he talks about "Kokomo" all the time because it was a #1 hit, not because he thinks it's compositionally their best song or a good *record*. You don't see Mike instigating conversations about "Chasin' the Sky" or "Lahaina Aloha" or even "Aren't You Glad" or "This Whole World." Look at Mike's reaction in the 1989 "Endless Summer" show where Brian mentions "Looking Back with Love" and Mike acts like Brian just gave away a nuclear secret or something. If that same album had hit #1, Mike would have been talking about it all the time during the 80s and to this day.

I guess the crowd reaction to Kokomo has largely been so positive, for decades on end it would seem, that Mike just sees it as being of some elevated level of awesomeness, worthy of bragging about beyond what one would consider to be a rational amount. And I say that as a genuine fan of the song, and as a genuine fan and appreciator of Mike's contributions to the song (which undoubtedly improved the song from its demo origins and turned it into a hit).

I wonder if Mike would have bragged (and would continue to brag) nearly as much if the song only went to #4 or #3? I know that #1 spot really means something to him. Also, I wonder if the bragging would be nearly the level that it is if Brian had sung on the English language version, and/or if Brian had contributed songwriting-wise to the song? Something tells me possibly not.

It would be funny if Kokomo and Little Deuce Coupe were ever played back-to-back... and if Mike ever did some in-between-song Kokomo bragging, directly followed by a performance of Little Deuce Coupe (with the opening line denying he's the bragging type)  ;D

I always hated that song because it wasn't what I wanted the aging Beach Boys to be doing - you know, this kind of lounge rock. But... it's a catchy tune, it got them exposure and Carl's vocals are particularly good - and it led to a semi-rewrite with Still Cruisin' (though that may not be a good thing). hate the sax bit almost as much as I hate the sax bit in California Dreamin'. Certainly not the worst thing they ever did. It's a pity that whatever creative touch Melcher and Usher had in the 60s had deserted them by the time they crossed paths with Mike and Brian respectively in this later period.

I'm not sure who already mentioned this, but when Kokomo was still hot as a single and Capitol was looking for follow-ups both singles and a new album, there was an LA Times article (reprinted here often enough that it's easy to search and find for reference) that was written as the band was rehearsing for a new batch of stage shows, I think it mentioned the dancers too. In that article if not others from around the Kokomo era there were quotes and comments that were suggesting there was indeed an attitude of 'we did this without Brian', so we don't need him to make hits with the Beach Boys.

So whoever mentioned it in this thread, that was actually a sentiment which was coming from press reports and interviews surrounding the Beach Boys.

As I mentioned, they couldn't carry the load. Capitol had to make the follow-up album to push with the Kokomo single a catch-all compilation of TV and soundtrack tunes with very little original or new material, and the next truly original offering was Summer In Paradise, where the Melcher-led production team was in place i guess to try catching the Kokomo lightning in a bottle yet again using the synth-driven formula, and Capitol wouldn't touch it. The further results showed even more that the band without Brian Wilson just didn't deliver, and even more difficult to understand, they had a relative lack of original songs leading up to Summer In Paradise despite still having four songwriters as original members in the band, and at least three members who had already produced or co-produced previous Beach Boys efforts. Could they really deliver full, quality albums without Brian even if his involvement was limited?

This specific era suggests no, apart from one single. They had no material despite Capitol asking for new songs to release to follow up the success of Kokomo.

It would seem that the new article hell-bent on "destroying" the legend of Brian Wilson might come from this same sentiment -a sentiment which I don't necessarily think has exited the minds of all of the living band members. I happen to dearly love a lot of the material the band did without Brian, and some of it is my favorite stuff in the entire catalog... but the fact of the matter is that past the era when Denny was an active contributor to the band, and Carl was motivated to be pushing boundaries and to be progressive, the quality of Brian Wilson-less BB was just simply not there (with some isolated exceptions here and there). It took Wilsons (at least one, minimum) to make the band awesome on an emotional level.

I agree, especially on the last line about emotions. There are some x-factor type elements in music that sometimes can't be defined, but you know it when it's not there. I feel the same about many, many classic bands whose members went solo or who went forward after losing key members. It's just missing that 'something' too often for me at least to connect on that deeper level.

In this case, the facts and the numbers don't lie. When the band was in a position to follow up with new material a #1 single that was all over the pop culture in 1988-89, they had four songwriters and three producers in the core band and they couldn't deliver a full album. Capitol was all but begging them for something to release, and they failed to deliver despite the talent still in the core band, minus Brian Wilson. What they did deliver was both a day late and a dollar short, and despite promoting the heck out of it and offering a remixed version for the UK market, the album sank like a stone as did all related promo tie-ins and the like. It just did not deliver.

Boo. I wanted to hear it.

As simplistic as I'm So Lonely is, that melody and that lyric sung in Brian's voice packs one helluva emotional wallop, which is rarely found in their music from the period.

Brian knows what good
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&t=2m20s&v=aL5GnkWqO1k

Your last paragraph might be the answer.
With the first two, Mike Love has talked about how brutal Murry was and how harmful he was to Brian. As his cousin, I'd expect he wouldn't pressure Brian to confront Murry over something that he could just talk to Murry about himself.

I would tend to surmise that part of that lack of follow-up to Kokomo would be attributed to several factors: the relentless, non-stop touring (I would tend to think that was mostly being pushed by Mike, though I'd not doubt that some other members thought that they should cash in while the tour money was good)... and also that Mike seemed to assume a far greater level of control in the era following Kokomo, which may have left little for any other members to contribute material (even if they had some good stuff stockpiled).

Not that Al, Bruce or Carl were the most prolific guys around (especially in that era), but I think that if Mike c*ck-blocked Al from having songs included on TWGMTR, I would be shocked if that weren't also the case around the SIP era, especially since Al was nearly forced out of the band at that time, perhaps for failing to fall in line/complying with an agenda pushed by newly-empowered Kokomo co-scribe Mike. Carl obviously had more creativity left in him, but he directed that toward the Beckley-Lamm-Wilson project. Was Carl's new material not necessarily fully welcome in BB-land? Or did he just not want to emotionally deal with the politics that submitting new material to The BBs might have entailed?

Just to clear up: Kokomo was on a John Phillips album, it was not the demo posted to YouTube. He even played it on the air for Howard Stern when it was still his "new" song.

Why it got pulled from YouTube this week after it had been there in various posts for a long time, yeah that's an odd one.

To further muddy the waters, the LA Times article quotes Bruce as the member who seemed most enthusiastic about writing and releasing new, original material. His quote is along the lines of him not wanting to become a touring oldies act, versus releasing new songs.

I know there were a lot of tensions at the time, but again with 4 writers and 3 producers, they failed to strike when the iron was hot...red hot, actually, as MTV was playing Kokomo in heavy rotation. When that kind of door opens, you can't wait several years for a follow up.

The only time the iron was as hot on a general public demand level was C50, and look what happened there.

To further muddy the waters on top of that... the fact that SIP had as many covers as it did is also a head-scratcher. It's so obvious that they are filler. It would seem that SIP was probably largely made completely independently by Mike/Terry, and that even if any other member had any potential material to offer, the relationships may have been so strained that Mike would rather have chosen adding multiple poor covers as opposed to dealing with even working in the studio with with the other members who might want to have a hint of creative contributions.

It's weird, because I had never drawn a parallel to 15 Big Ones and SIP until now, but both albums are padded out with too many cover versions. Obviously, the genesis of 15 Big Ones is different, and it started out as an attempt at a full covers album paired with an album of new Brian originals. But in both cases, I think the covers were an easy way out of not dealing with the emotional complexity of the times. Brian perhaps didn't want to deal having new songs being rejected for the umpteenth time, and Mike perhaps didn't want to deal with ceding some creative control of the band that he'd gained from Kokomo, even if the end result was half-assed.

Even more parallels, look at the solo albums that have been released by Beach Boys band members since the 70's, not including Brian. Mike's album is all covers or songs others wrote except "Paradise Found". The solo releases from Al, Carl, Dennis, and Bruce feature either a majority or all original songs written by those members.

I will say that perhaps it's been overdone considering the fact that 28 years later, Mike still brings up Kokomo and how Brian wasn't involved as a sort of badge of approval and artistic merit, but I can give him a pass on it for the most part.  Consider the situation in 1988 and the ensuing decade(s).  Every interview you do brings up the brilliant songs that your cousin wrote and the success it's brought you.  Every record deal you've had since the 70's has come with the demand that a certain percentage of songs must be written by Brian.  Brian, Brian, Brian, etc.  Now then, I think that all of the Beach Boys know that Brian was the brilliant songwriter and that without him, none of this career they all enjoy happens.  I really think they are all appreciative of Brian's talent to a degree.  That being said, it must be hard to be the guy or guys that picked up the slack in songwriting and performing when Brian checked out more or less.  The guys that did some really great stuff in the years where Brian was less involved, but never really got the respect they deserved for it.  The guys that did everything they could, for better or sometimes for worse, to keep the legacy afloat.  That would be a very hard thing to do.  I think it's very natural for Mike, when his name is attached to something as huge as a #1 single, to be prideful and even a bit boastful that he and the boys had this success without the involvement of the guy that everyone has told him that he MUST have with him to achieve success for years and years.  I'm not saying that attitude is the right way to be, but I am saying I can understand how that attitude comes to be.  It's all a bit much all of these years later, but I think Mike had good reason for pumping up the fact that he cowrote a #1 single performed with the Boys without Brian. 

Regardless of what myself or anyone thinks of the quality of the song (I don't hate it with the gusto that many do, but I don't really like it either),  a #1 song is something that a lot of huge names in the music biz have never achieved, so I can give Mike a pass for being really proud of it and having pride in it.  Just a little perspective.

I think one of the issues with "Kokomo" is that Mike talks about it (and the same other few achievements) with the same one-note effusive tone that other artists do who really are something closer to "one hit wonders." In a typical Mike interview (where a lot of blame does have to go to interviewers who ask the same questions), one could be forgiven for thinking the Beach Boys didn't do anything of note between 1966 or 67 and "Kokomo", and not much since other than Mike touring, and other than whatever brand new project is at hand.

The Beach Boys aren't one of those bands that put one or a few albums out, or who had one hit and little else. They had numerous #1 hits, quite a few Top 10/Top 40 hits, and also have an arsenal of very *recognizable* songs that are well-known even if they weren't actual hits released as singles. They also have a huge catalog of material that is less known but highly rated and celebrated by more discerning fans and critics.

Even McCartney, notorious for bringing out the same war horse stories for decades, will sometimes entertain talking about the quirky electronic "McCartney II" album. He will name "You Know My Name (Look up the Number)" as his favorite Beatles song, etc. He often talks about the famous songs, but I don't think he is known to regularly bring up that such-and-such album hit #1. I don't think he or any of the Beatles ever cared a great deal about chart placement once they became popular. Obviously, when a band always hits #1, it's easier to say stuff like Ringo saying in "Anthology" that they were *relieved* when they finally had a single hit #2 instead of #1.

Is this the same one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8JqzFg1OGs

True but wouldnt the actual Beach Boys at this point include Brian? His contribution of 'In My Car' didnt do a lot to boost the overall content of the Album. I suppose Landy was calling the shots here, but a Still Cruisin, filled out with some solid BW tracks might have been an interesting turn.
So if the gist of the statement, is that the Beach Boys were incapable of delivering a full album at the time, should we include Brian in that, or keep him seperate?

Don't know if it's the same but it works for me. Thank you.
I'm surprised how similar it is. I didn't expect the melody of the chorus to already be in there, though not part of the chorus in the original. It's quite nice. The wistful mood appeals to me a bit more, but clearly isn't hit material.
Basically, I like the verses on the original better, but the chorus and bridge added on the Beach Boys version add a lot of life and beauty.

Anyone know if "Kokomo" was an analog or digital recording? Was Melcher using digital in 1988?

I've always felt this song might sound better sonically with a remix, with less reverb and processing. A "dry" remix might sound really interesting.

Are the multitracks (whether analog or digital) in BRI's vault?

I'm going to modify what I wrote above about the authorship of the music - It's not completely accurate to say Terry Melcher only composed 17% of the music, and Mike 13%, based on the percentage of lyrics that their musical contributions accompanied...because (and I'm surprised no one else has pointed this out!), the same music repeats for all the verses, so it's probably somewhat closer to accurate to say John Phillips (maybe with Scott McKenzie), Mike, and Terry each came up with about a third of the music in The Beach Boys' version. Phillips wrote the verse music, Mike wrote the chorus music, and Terry wrote the "bridge" music (which I would actually call the second half of the chorus, with Mike's "Aruba, Jamaica" hook being the first half). If you charted it all out bar-by-bar, it would probably be about equal for each section one time. As for Scott McKenzie, I wonder if maybe he just wrote the bridge in the original version, which of course wasn't used in the BB's version, but legally he had to be included in the credit and royalty split with the others. Just a theory.

Anyways, the material that survives from the JP original seems to be about 31.5% of the words and about 33% of the music. What Mike came up with accounts for about 51.5% of the words and 33% of the music. And what Terry added amounts to about 17% of the words and the final 33% of the music.

It sounds to me like the chorus music is already in there. It's a theme throughout the original, starting with the intro.

Absolutely. Carl was the unsung hero of the band - as a singer, and as a person. Kept those guys together much longer than they might have otherwise. Maybe instead of complaining in every interview about how much dope Brian and Dennis took, he could talk about how Carl kept a cool head and was quality control for the touring band.

Hmmm...I'm not hearin' it. The beat may be the same (albeit slower), but that melodic hookline sung to the words of "Aruba, Jamaica, etc." isn't.

I just have a question or two that stuck out to me as I read this, keeping in mind I posted earlier what Andrew Doe reported about Mike's writing credit on Kokomo, which at that time was "Mike wrote very little of the lyric":

Phillips and Melcher passed away over a decade ago, and McKenzie in 2012.

Where is the information coming from when it involves researching and calculating specific percentages of credit, is this info coming from Mike directly, is this part of a project, etc?

And the follow up question is - Why is there a call for such detailed breakdowns of Kokomo's writing process in the first place? It was a John Phillips song that got doctored up and rearranged, with Mike adding the "Aruba Jamaica..." part, unless he's saying he wrote the chord changes and melody too.

Different ears I guess. I hear the same 8 bars with the same structure and progression. Put the intros against each other. Then listen to the original intro against that section of the chorus. The cover is more elaborate, for sure; more filled out.

This is ripped from the original album version, not a video of some guy filming audio from his car radio - better quality and the album cover graphic too, which has Scott McKenzie's name and portrait: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAuqngA9CuM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAuqngA9CuM)

For those like myself who can't access it for some reason, this one is still around:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8JqzFg1OGs

Thanks John K.  I thought I was doomed to never find out what it sounded like.

OK, chord progression, maybe, but not melody.

Umm...it came from me...I typed out the lyrics to both versions, highlighted in blue the lyrics from the BBs version that appeared in the JP original version, counted up the words, and calculated the percentages myself. Because I was curious. No other reason. FYI, I did the same thing with "Sail On Sailor" awhile back - comparing the KGB version, which does not bear Jack Rieley's name in the credits, with the BBs version, to try and determine how much of the lyrics in the latter were contributed by Jack. I like to keep busy. :)

And we're grateful that you do, C-man! Is there a thread here that contains that SOS lyrical analysis? Would love to read it!

I don't believe I ever posted those results, but using the same methodology to compare the KGB version to the BBs - and assuming that Ray Kennedy wrote all of the lyrics to the KGB version aside from the hook line "Sail on, sail on sailor", which VDP claims for himself - it would seem that a total of only 8 of Ray's words were used in the BB's version, out of 135 total. So, just under 6%.

The specific words were: "Often frightened, unenlightened", "stumble", "hearbreak", "wail", and "the thunder". It would seem that the rest (aside from the aforementioned hook line) are from the pen of Jack Rieley. It breaks down like this: Jack Rieley: 91%, Ray Kennedy: about 6%, Van Dyke Parks: about 3%.

It must be unavailable outside the US or something, copyright issues or whatever the case.

I can understand that for sure, but when there are more than two writers involved, in this case I'm mostly zeroing in on Love/Melcher and what they did after the original Phillips track, it stuck out that the percentages were so specific down to the 1% variances. How is there any way to define to that degree what Love wrote versus what Melcher wrote on the track when 3 of the 4 writers are no longer alive? Unless there are interviews where they were specific about who wrote what.

Another aspect would be regarding words versus music, on anything "new" that was added post-Phillips. Wouldn't the odds be that Melcher was more of the "music" that was added to Phillips' song, or wouldn't it be more logical that a guy who writes and produces music would have done more with the chords and melody, etc, versus Mike whose stock and trade is more in writing lyrics?

Not that the topic at hand has anything specifically to do with the actual royalty split on the song, but it's worth noting that it's totally possible that the actual royalty split on the song is not 25/25/25/25. Even assuming all four names are credited as contributing to both words and music, the copyright/publishing agreement may have outlined more or less royalties for some of the writers.

That is an interesting point. It would had to have been negotiated and agreed by all parties I'd think, and in this case there was a pre-existing song and concept that had two sections, more or less, added after the fact without input from the original writers. I wonder how that was decided. Howard Stern brought it up to John Phillips on his WOR TV show, about crediting since it was technically Phillips' song, but this issue of splitting up the percentages legally is an interesting one.

I recall, for instance, that someone mentioned that even on the songs Mike won the lawsuit on in the 90s, he didn't necessarily have 50% of the royalties assigned to him. The theory being, I think, that even though the songs read "Words and Music by Wilson and Love", that Brian typically wrote most or all of the music, while Brian wrote *some* of the words on some of those songs, and thus Brian might get most or all of the 50% music share, and then they would maybe split the lyric share.

I don't know if there's any firm info, but I recall someone digging up info suggesting Mike collects less than 50% of the royalties on some of the "Wilson/Love" songs. Don't know how accurate that might be, of course.

With a song like Kokomo, it would be an even more interesting question because the new parts were added after the fact, or after the original song and idea was already registered and published. Unless he signed off on the whole deal for a cash-out payment or something, consider Scott McKenzie may have agreed to a 50/50 split with Phillips for the original version, or even something less, and now his split on the revised version would obviously decrease after two additional writers come in and revise the song.

If all parties agreed after the fact, and let's say the split was 25% across the board for each writer both original and on the revised version, then it's a done deal, it's an equal split. And obviously McKenzie would make a boatload more money even if his percentage was far less because the revision was a smash hit. But if McKenzie wanted to, he could have raised an issue about his percentage when his credit was reduced to allow the other two writers to come into the share, two writers who were not involved in writing the original but whose revision went to #1 on the charts while the original basically sank into obscurity.

Its pretty standard practice here in Nashville to equally split the publishing as a result of ANY contribution. We have a saying "add a word split a third"  It kind of keeps things sane. Thats why second engineers like myself NEVER blurt out even the most obvious suggestions unless asked, which we never are. I've been in many a session where i've thought of the lyric in my head before the band or lyricist. If i were to mention it, I would probably never work again with that artist. Sometimes i think i've even come up with better solutions. In any event, i think that Mike deserves to be credited equally with the other writers. If John Lennon came up with the guitar lick to Day Tripper and Paul wrote the entire balance of the song,  who could argue that Lennon didn't deserve 50%. Thats  why those two split EVERYTHING 50 50. In the case of Kokomo, who is to say that the Aruba, Jamaica line isn't the hook that made the song a hit?

Agreed. With every collaboration I have done, so far, the split was equal whether 50/50, 1/3 each, etc. Like Lennon/McCartney that is simply the best policy, however when the money starts raining in and one of the collaborators might get a bulldog of a lawyer who sees a quick payout on the horizon, watch the friendly split come into question and someone may go line by line or note by note to get a bigger piece along with back royalties.

Related to Lennon/McCartney, I know I've brought it up before, but how many of Ringo Starr's malaprops and bizarre phrases he'd say on a daily basis made their way into Lennon/McCartney songs? I'm thinking 100% "A Hard Days Night", and how if he wanted to Ringo could make a strong case decades after the fact that both a film and a smash hit single (and album) came as a direct result of a phrase he and he alone used and which Lennon built a song around and which the filmmakers built a film around.

Without the title "A Hard Days Night", it could be argued the results may not have been quite as catchy and maybe not as successful.

I think a lot of people might disagree that adding a riff or one lyric line deserves 50% credit. If a song can stand on its own and be identifiable as *that* song *without* that riff, should the writer of the riff deserve 50%?

Ringo, George Harrison, and George Martin all should get their names on a good little hunk of Beatles songs in this scenario.

I'd also argue that Lennon and McCartney didn't split everything 50/50 because they might add riffs to each other's songs. It was a very specific business arrangement. If they felt anybody contributing a riff deserved credit, then the other two Beatles and George Martin would have had their names on some "Lennon/McCartney" songs.

The "A Whiter Shade of Pale" case was an interesting one, where they were able to demonstrate that the song could stand on its own (and had been written) without Matthew Fisher's organ motif, but his contribution was ruled as significant enough to get his name added (no back royalties, though, for waiting so long). That's a weird case, because if I record a cover version of the song without Fisher's *only* contribution to the song, Fisher's name remains and he gets royalties.

Also worth nothing is that, even in that case, I don't believe Fisher got a 50/50 cut, or even a 33/33/33 split (since there were two writers beyond himself). I think he got a 50/50 cut of just the music, or some other sort of "sub-percentage."

There was a poster here (perhaps adamsghost?) who described a scenario where another band member is tired of losing out on songwriting credits, and proposes co-writing a song. But this band member doesn't want to sit down and write a song from scratch. It's more of a "write a song and bring it in, and I'll change a few things and then I'll take some credit" scenario, and I can see how some writers wouldn't find that appealing or fair.

Some bands are so freaking rich (or made their deal before they were famous) that they are able to be very magnanimous and split credits among everybody equally, or if someone makes a small but key contribution, give that person credit. In the case of the Beatles, I don't think they cared in many cases. Even Ringo announces "It Don't Come Easy" as a song written with Harrison, but Harrison never asked to have his name on it. Similarly, Ringo supposedly added a line to Clapton/Cream's "Badge" and never cared for credit.

This may seem like a silly question, but did the "pretty mama" lyric perhaps resonate with some female fans who were mothers? Could that have helped the song's appeal? While it's not super common as far as I know, I guess the word "mama" is sometimes used just as a nickname for a female (regardless if she's a mother or not); I'm assuming Mike's intention was just to rhyme a word for a woman with the word "Bahama", and that he wasn't necessarily intending for the "mother" reference to be taken that way, even if it possibly still might have been by some fans.

I come back to the issue of songwriting in general, and how it truly is a case-by-case situation where there may be some accepted templates, there may be some accepted ways to determine credits, but ultimately there is no one-size-fits-all that applies across the board. It's up to however the writers, managers, publishers, labels, lawyers, etc manage to emerge and agree or disagree after coming out of the process. I don't think people who have not been involved in either writing or registering songs with collaborators have an idea of just how random the process can be.

I do think that both the financial fortunes of both the song and the songwriters play a large role in the cases when these things go to court. In some cases it is about ego too, and in others it's a sense of not getting credit, like all of the R&B and blues artists who suddenly saw the name Morris Levy credited on their songs when Levy had nothing to do with writing the song. But like Harrison, Starr, etc in some cases they had things they agreed to and that's that, or else they're in a position where if they contributed to a song, it all went into the same pot and they were successful as a collective no matter who gets on the label or who gets a cut of the checks.

"A Whiter Shade Of Pale" is even MORE interesting than most, because that organ line was an amalgam of Bach phrases and progressions, there are actually parts of several Bach pieces that could lay claim to that organ part. So the actual "writing" of that part went back to Bach, it could be argued, only he can't take the case to court obviously! And it gets into how much of a key hook in a song that sounds like it came from another piece can be borrowed and reworked into something new versus what needs to be credited to the original composer.

Some say both the recent Sam Smith and Robin Thicke/Pharrell court decisions have set precedents in the courts that could open the floodgates for copyright and credit claims for decades to come, where the burden of proof might be far less than it had been.

It was documentation Brad Elliott turned, for instance Mike only got 25% credit for Good Vibrations.

That was what Murry's terms were as the one who administered and oversaw the song catalog in the 60's, and other co-writers like Tony Asher signed and agreed to it as a condition of doing their work for hire. Tony specifically was told essentially "take it or leave it" by Murry when he went in to sign the papers. If the argument is whether that was fair or unfair at the time, you'd need to factor in how much of both the song and concept existed prior to each co-writer's contributions, and how the numbers were weighed against the work created. One of Mike's claims that was rejected in the courts around the 2005 case was that Mike was saying a legal partnership had been established between he and Brian like Lennon/McCartney, and the court found no such partnership had existed and no proof could be shown that it was any more than Tony Asher or Gary Usher were actually equal partners legally versus workers for hire who got paid for their work based on that status who agreed to the terms presented to them by Murry as a condition of working on the songs.

But this was 1961 through 1966 and the point is Mike didn't even get the credit he deserved when he did get credit, just like Tony.

Murry was the mouthpiece in that one case for sure, I suppose we don't know who reported/set the terms, possibly a case of Murry not being able to stand up to Brian.  ;)  Then according to VDP "Brian" gave him 50% but I guess it must have been Murry because Brian couldn't stand up to Murry and report/set/reset terms? (<<<---- I'm being ironic)

An interesting case is 'Every Breath You Take' by the Police. Though Sting wrote the melody and the lyrics, it was Andy Summers who came up with the guitar riff. And it is that guitar riff which made the record a huge hit.

Now, when Puff Daddy sampled EBYT for his song 'Missing You', he didn't use Sting's lyrics or melody -- only Andy's riff. And yet Sting, not Andy, received the royalties for 'Missing You'.

I should imagine they latched onto the chorus that Faith sings, which is all Sting's work, and the guitar riff belonged with it, so to speak. No idea how that works in terms of copyright...

I'm pretty sure there's interviews out there from back in the day (the late '80s or early '90s) where Melcher and Love both talk about what they specifically added. Mike says he added the "Aruba, Jamaica" part (words and music), as well as rewriting the lyrics in the verses, and Terry says he added the part Carl sings (words and music). Or Mike says what each of them did, as does Terry. Pretty sure I remember reading this stuff back when all the writers were alive. It's not hard to imagine Mike coming up with the melody to the "Aruba, Jamaica" part, along with the words.

I agree with all of this. I do think that Mike has a right to be proud of Kokomo, regardless of the interesting question as to how much he and Terry contributed, but other than this one single, it seems clear that the band was utterly unable to follow up. Perhaps things wouldn't have been much better even if Brian were contributing, but things certainly didn't go very well without him. 

Belated thanks, c-man, for sharing the "Sail On Sailor" analysis. I find myself compelled to say that its creation is a much more interesting story than "Kokomo," despite the fact that it wasn't a #1 hit.

My sense is that the BBs were due one more shot at chart success in the 80s, and all the stars aligned properly to put "Kokomo" in the right place at the right time. The line in the song that works the best--and which is aligned with Carl's fabulous singing--is "we'll get there fast, and then we'll take it slow," which is the perfect Lovester amalgam of lechery and romance (much more elegantly cheesy than, say, "tropical contact high"...), followed by a wonderfully sung little tag--"That's where we want to go..."--that is probably the biggest reason the song went #1.

The other question worth considering is how much of this discussion would be going on had "Kokomo" stalled at #2 or #3 on the charts. Obviously it would still be a big deal, since the band hadn't been in the Top 10 for more than a decade and in the top 5 for another, but would we hear about it as much?

Yep, quite possibly the worst missed opportunity in the BB's career in not having a follow up for Kokomo - However it probably took everyone by shock just how big it become (hence the forced/farce that the 'Still Cruisin' LP was)

PS I really do like the song , BUT  the Spanish version is possibly the worst production I have heard on ANY BB's recording 

There had to be a lot of politics going on around that time in terms of trying to get "product" out there in the aftermath of "Kokomo." The had *dozens* of songs in the archive they could have pulled. Yes, I'm sure nobody was looking for "Life is for the Living" as a follow-up to "Kokomo", but they should have had Capitol or someone assign them a producer to crack the whip and finish some stuff off from the archives. Or, just buy in some songs from outside writers to flesh out stuff they already had.

Anybody know what "Mikes contribution to Santa's Going to Kokomo " was? :ahh

Regardless of what they had in the can post-Kokomo, they decided they had to try and duplicate the specific Kokomo sound in one way or another.  Again and again. A real hare-brained move (though understandable in BB land, I suppose), considering how Kokomo was a big departure and more of a one-off sounding song for the band to begin with.

I think this proves the theory that if, for example, Here Comes the Night (disco) had been a hit, we'd have gotten a whole album of songs trying to duplicate that formula.

Maybe, but IIRC it wasn't too much longer afterwards that disco crashed and burned, which might have spared us from that. :thud

But, yes, there would have at least been a follow-up or two, that's fo' sho'!!