I can't answer because I don't know anyway that Mike hurt Brian's feelings. Refresh my memory please. I don't think he should apologize for someone's assumptions. Should he apologize because someone didn't think they liked him?

Al and Bruce have said they were humiliated being required to lay on the floor and sing and make animal noises. Should they apologize for being humiliated?

I'm trying to understand: are you of the opinion that Brian and VDP did not feel deeply hurt by Mike's words and the ways those words were expressed?  I'd say it's pretty much on record at this point.

And I'm NOT speaking of your opinions on whether or not those hurt feelings were "justified", or whether or not Mike had the "right" to say the things he said, in the manner/tone of his choosing. Those opinions are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Al and Bruce clearly have much thicker skin compared to Brian. In the hypothetical scenario that either of them had deeply hurt feelings due to BW's actions or words, then I'd say that BW apologizing, saying that he didn't' mean to hurt their feelings, would absolutely be the right thing to do.  

Yes, he had an equal right to express his opinion on band matters. He asked about the meaning of a lyric that he sang. Which of those requires an apology? Is there something else you can point to that requires an apology.

What specifically did Mike say that hurt Brian's feelings?

Again - you and I were not there, and we can't specifically say what those things are. The point is, when a person has deeply hurt another person, even if that hurt was not intentional... once it becomes obvious how deeply those words cut, an apology is basically the right thing to do - even if it's not apologizing for the intended sentiment that the words expressed - the apology/expression of regret would be to let the hurt person know that the hurt was not intended, and that the words didn't come from a hurtful/vengeful/mean-spirited place in the person's heart (Mike).

But I would really like to know your opinion on this question, which I posed to you earlier in this thread:

Beach Boys aside, do you think it is impossible for a person to potentially have a negative (and at times detrimentally negative) emotional effect on another person with their words, tone of voice, and overall attitude? Your reaction seems to imply that you find this to be an impossible or unacceptable occurrence, even though it does happen between people on Earth every day due to conflicting personalities.

It's clear as day to me that this is basically what happened here between these guys.

What is it you think Mike did to apologize for?

He’d ideally apologize for saying things at the time that unintentionally, inadvertently, deeply hurt somebody’s feelings. I’d hope for a DeLorean to go back in time about 47 years and have those words spoken then, but late is also better than never. Neither you nor I can know exactly, specifically what was said between Mike/Brian/VDP, nor the exact manner in which the words were said. But I don’t think it’s reaching to assume that the words, in all likelihood, were perceived by Brian/VDP as being a tactless, negative, and that they caused deeply hurt feelings, to say the least.

Did Mike have the “right” to say them, to speak his mind in the way he saw fit? Well, of course he did. It’s the USA, and you can pretty much say whatever you want (barring yelling “Mrs. O’Leary’s Cow”…err… “Fire” in a crowded movie theater)… but it is a truly big person who can find it in themselves to apologize - or express regret - for hurting another person’s feelings – even if hurt feelings weren't intended in the first place.

There would also hopefully be at least a tiny amount of acknowledgement/awareness of the fact that, no matter how small the words/sentiment were, that they potentially could have been taken the wrong way by Brian/VDP, and that although they were just words, they nonetheless may have been a contributing factor (however small) in stirring up a cloud of negativity/self-doubt in a very sensitive person.

[Van Dyke Parks,]

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 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'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"? 

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?

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.

I think this all seems quite likely.

Well my answer would be no. Your premise sets it up as Mike has something to apologize for. There is no answer to your question unless one agrees with your premise. I don't.

At what point can it be said that a person, with an often sarcastic personality, who isn’t exactly known for tactfulness, can or cannot be “guilty” of hurting someone else’s feelings in a deep way?

Let’s take music and the actual people involved in this out of the equation for a moment.

What “evidence” does a person on this board need to arrive at the conclusion that, when reviewing a series of events where circumstance has brought two people with very different personalities together (not necessarily Brian and Mike – this could be two plumbers, a father and son, mother and daughter, etc etc)…that one of those people can possibly, potentially have an negative (and at times detrimentally negative) emotional effect on the other person with their words, tone of voice, and overall attitude?

Can it just be agreed (without applying this to the SMiLE saga), that this is something is possible that can happen between two people?

I ask because I myself have witnessed this type of interpersonal relationship thing happen between two people. In situations that have nothing to do with bands.

It does happen.

People can, unknowingly and unfortunately, effect other people in certain negative ways (sometimes VERY negative ways) *even when they don’t mean to*. Does that mean the person who affected the other person is ultimately “responsible” for all sorts of fallout and subsequent situations that the hurt person finds themselves in? It’s very hard to ascribe blame in a direct sense… but one thing is ab-so-friggin-lutely clear: the person who hurt the other person should acknowledge they might have possibly hurt someone by what they said and/or in the manner that it was said in, once it becomes clearly obvious that there were hurt feelings.

And by the way: Brian is guilty (in a different sense, since the situations are apples/oranges) of not properly apologizing to Mike for the credits screwjob.  Or maybe he said he was “sorry” at the time, but didn’t correct it - so he didn’t really apologize in a true sense.  Either way, Mike being hurt by the songwriting credit omissions is an established fact. Nobody is going to argue that. Despite that we can argue about specifics regarding why the crediting omissions happened, we cannot argue that Mike surely had hurt feelings as a result. Those feelings were real to Mike.

Well… the flipside of this coin is that Brian was hurt too by Mike’s words/actions during SMiLE. It’s an established fact, or to put it another way: Brian’s hurt feelings were real to Brian and are not something that we can argue/refute. We can nitpick and discuss all sorts of other factors like drugs, technology, etc etc… one can also make the argument that Mike “had every right” to say what he said by virtue of being a bandmate. But… once it can be agreed that hurt feelings were in some way, shape, or form permeating the atmosphere, it seems impossible to me that one can think that a very sensitive person’s interpretations/reactions to those feelings are of negligible concern.


What I want to know is, do the people who continue to 100% absolve Mike of any responsibility whatsoever, and say he has absolutely nothing at all, ever to feel sorry about in the slightest… do those people think that this same absolving of responsibility would apply to every non-Beach Boys-related situation/person on the planet? Do they think that no person can ever deeply hurt another person with words, and/or that the hurt person simply just has to “man up” and not take things so hard?

Or do they think that, “Well, Mike may have hurt Brian’s feelings, but so what? All he (maybe) did was hurt Brian’s feelings, and that has nothing to do with anything else.”

For the life of me, I cannot understand the psychology of thinking that way. I honestly, legitimately want to try and understand the way of thinking that leads people to the conclusion that Mike has nothing to apologize for or regret in his actions. I want to be enlightened if I’m wrong - maybe I’m just missing an essential component of human understanding, but it makes no sense to me.

Mike should 100% absolutely NOT be crucified like he has been for years. But - even his most ardent defenders should realize that his actions/tact/personality played *a* measureable factor (even a small one, if that’s your cup of tea) in why SMiLE didn’t pan out. Or… if you are of the belief that the project would have fallen apart due to other factors (thereby making the hurt feelings a non-issue when discussing the album’s demise), it STILL doesn’t mean that an iota of an apology or acknowledgement of responsibility shouldn’t still have publicly happened by the Lovester himself. He would ultimately have only *helped* himself in a big way if he would have done so, and he continues to hurt himself by having not done so.

Starting with David Leaf there has been codified a Brianista view that if only everyone had been encouraging and supportive, Smile would have been released, Brian would have remained healthy and creative and continued to do groundbreaking work with Smile and post Smile projects.  While I might have found some truth in this view in the past, in fact this is extremely unlikely and there is no evidence whatsoever to support it.  

Very well said. I also used to buy into the "it's the band's fault for not supporting him enough!" story, but it really doesn't hold up when looking at the big picture.

Here's the thing.

Lots and lots and lots of music fans (who aren't hardcores like us) just flat-out associate Mike Love with SMiLE's demise, and think that he is the main or only cause. Closely examining history reveals that this is a gross overstatement of the facts. The fact that the man is utterly, wholeheartedly and irrationally loathed by so many people is very unfair. It's basically extremism.

But... Mike Love uber defenders still baffles me, and will continue to baffle me, when they try to say that Mike's attitude wasn't a contributing factor of some sort. Hey - minimize the contributing nature if you must, say it was only a small little factor if that makes you feel better - but don't negate Mike from being *a* factor whatsoever. That is totally absurd.

That, IMO, is also a totally unfair, and extremist conclusion. Convincing one's self that this rewriting of history is somehow the truth does not magically "counter" the extremist anti-Mike Love vibrations that permeate the universe. Two wrong opinions don't make a right.

Lets get one thing straight. I am *NOT* a Mike defender. I strongly disagree with much of his behavior over the years and his vision of the BBs as a beach themed nostalgia act and nothing more. The popular narrative that he killed SMiLE is just wrong though, and he does deserve to be defended against such unfair accusations.

I think if you read the rest of my post you'll see I'm trying to present a more nuanced view of how it sent down. I believe Mike liked Brian's music. I believe he could sense that Brian was done with him as a collaborator. I think petty jealousy clouded his judgement and caused him to speak out against a project he probably knew deep down (or nowadays with hindsight) was genius.

He didn't kill SMiLE, but yes, his lack of support was undeniably a factor in its nonrelease. Hell never admit it, but I think deep down he knows that, and he knows how much more respect the band would've commanded had it been finished and beaten Sgt Pepper to the punch. He doesn't owe us an apology or anything, but he does owe it to himself to deal with his feelings on the matter.

I pretty much agree with everything you said above, with the exception of the part where you said he doesn't owe anybody an apology. Of course, rock stars/celebs don't "owe" anyone anything. They can do whatever they wanna do.

But for him to be an ostrich about the issue for decades, whine and complain about being misunderstood (and have his children/wife endure so much pain that they feel compelled to gush online about their own feelings), when all it would take/would have taken to have made the situation so much better would have been a small acknowledgement of "maybe I shouldn't have been quite as harsh as I might have been, or if Brian/VDP might have interpreted my tone as being harsh in a way that caused hurt feelings and helped make a bad situation worse,  I honestly regret if there were hurt feelings as a result"... well, it just is dumbfounding to me that he hasn't said something like this over the years, when it's so plainly obvious to me that a large swath of the extremist hatred against the man is directly related to his 110% absolute lack of self awareness to be able to acknowledge something like this in the slightest. He is his own worst enemy.

It’s. All. About. Stupid. Pride.

Why is M. Night Shyamalan hated with such a degree of extremism as he is? Besides his movies' quality decline, it seems to be because he steadfastly publicly clings to the idea that he is amazing, and doesn't seem to have any self awareness of acknowledging when he has f*cked up.  I could give a bunch of other similar examples too. While it's not an identical situation with Mike, still basically what I'm saying is that the public will really, REALLY grow to irrationally hate an artist on an extreme level, when they irrationally cling to pride and ignore (or refuse to acknowledge) some of the "tougher" issues at hand, as some sort of absurd ego defense mechanism.

I wonder if any of Mike's ex wives have ever suggested that he should say something like this, in some interview, at some point. Honestly. I'd like to think that there's a single person in his life who isn't a "yes man" or "yes woman" who would have tried to talk a small bit of sense into him.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 

Starting with David Leaf there has been codified a Brianista view that if only everyone had been encouraging and supportive, Smile would have been released, Brian would have remained healthy and creative and continued to do groundbreaking work with Smile and post Smile projects.  While I might have found some truth in this view in the past, in fact this is extremely unlikely and there is no evidence whatsoever to support it.  

Very well said. I also used to buy into the "it's the band's fault for not supporting him enough!" story, but it really doesn't hold up when looking at the big picture.

Here's the thing.

Lots and lots and lots of music fans (who aren't hardcores like us) just flat-out associate Mike Love with SMiLE's demise, and think that he is the main or only cause. Closely examining history reveals that this is a gross overstatement of the facts. The fact that the man is utterly, wholeheartedly and irrationally loathed by so many people is very unfair. It's basically extremism.

But... Mike Love uber defenders still baffles me, and will continue to baffle me, when they try to say that Mike's attitude wasn't a contributing factor of some sort. Hey - minimize the contributing nature if you must, say it was only a small little factor if that makes you feel better - but don't negate Mike from being *a* factor whatsoever. That is totally absurd.

That, IMO, is also a totally unfair, and extremist conclusion. Convincing one's self that this rewriting of history is somehow the truth does not magically "counter" the extremist anti-Mike Love vibrations that permeate the universe. Two wrong opinions don't make a right.

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?
 

Someone mentioned above the possibility of a Deluxe version of "Holland" that makes sense to me that would explain why both "Big Sur" and "We got Love" are missing from MIC and also the fact that they didn't reissue it a couple years ago when they reissued the remasters..this also makes me wonder if they are planning on releasing deluxe versions of "CATP", "Love You", and "15 BO's" since they, too, would have some unreleased tracks on them as well as demo...

Wow, that's my wet dream. Is that only speculation, or is there some kind of rumour about it? They should add Carry Me Home and Hard Times too. Sorry if this is offtopic.

This is just a rumor I started

Pure speculation on my part. But it would seem to make some sort of sense that the band was "hoarding" Holland-era outtake tracks for some reason. I mean, what individual BB album (except perhaps Sunflower) could have a better chance at a Deluxe edition, complete with hoards of current-day hipster cred, other than Holland?

IMO, I think it's a no-brainer that it's a question of when, not if.

I wonder if any video ever surfaced of Mike and the Corvette gifting ceremony. I hope Still Cruisin' was played through the speakers of one of those 'Vettes at least once.

[Landlocked]

Big Sur is generally regarded as Mike's finest hour by BB fans...

Not this fan* - the decision to pare it back to campfire basics to fit with the rest of the "California Saga" suite was 100% correct. The so-called Landlocked version is way too lush.

[* - since you asked... "Let The Wind Blow"... "All I Wanna Do"... "Viggie" (the ocarina mix)... "Kiss Me, Baby"]

I'd actually completely agree with you on most of those. But I've only ever heard just one mix of Viggie, and I can't say I loved it (not sure which mix it was).

I guess when I meant Mike's finest hour, I meant in terms of BB tunes that were credited just to Mike (of which there are only a small handful methinks).

But yeah - someone needs to ask Mike why the original Big Sur wasn't on MIC.
Maybe he doesn't know that it's as highly regarded a song as it actually is by fans?

They're both very good.  When the 4/4 was first booted with other early 70's tracks back in the 80's, I played it a lot. It's been on my "released want list" for many, many years. It's been on a LOT of fans' wish lists through the years. To me, the omission of this version of 'Big Sur' is probably my biggest gripe about the Made In California box (and there aren't too many). I think Mike Love is responsible for holding it up all these years. I can't see Al rejecting it. I can't figure out why they don't put it out there - it's a great Mike vocal, the music is great, and the recording itself is of excellent quality.

Makes zero sense, right?

Big Sur is generally regarded as Mike's finest hour by BB fans, and the Landlocked version has long been regarded as a gem by those who've heard it. Or at least a gem in quality terms of unreleased BB tunes.

It's omission is indeed probably the most baffling thing about MIC's track list.

Could Mike somehow not like it, and feel some sort of odd misplaced embarrassment, in the way that Brian didn't like the (widely regarded as awesome) Let Him Run Wild? If that's in any way the case, I can't see why though. We want answers!

The only thing that makes sense to me, is if the band held it back for some sort of future Deluxe Holland release... since if any non Pet Sounds albums could get a Deluxe treatment at some point, Holland and Sunflower would probably be the most likely.

It's like much of their live material which was revamped in a grittier style (especially Help Me Rhonda) and the two versions are very distinct and both would work well on different albums. The Landlocked version fo Big Sur wouldn't fit on Holland however that does not mean it is inferior to the released version.

Landlocked version is way awesome, but loses a point or two for being just a bit too repetitive for my tastes.

Would be fascinating to learn more about details of the arrangement/musicians for this version.

I still slightly prefer it though, but not to knock the Holland version (which rules too).

While this article is a few years old, I just happened upon it, and I'm posting here since it's kinda sorta interesting and BB-related... apologies if this was posted before (the search function didn't turn up anything).

http://jalopnik.com/5472253/peter-maxs-36-vintage-corvettes-the-full-story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.
 

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.  

Nice order but I'd would keep Cuddle Up on there.

I wonder if the BBs ever considered releasing a double studio album of new material, at any point in their career. SMiLE's potential running length notwithstanding, of course. I think Carl and the Passions and Holland would have been pretty rad.

I should have posted in the sadbox 

Coincidentally, Landy was buried in a sandbox. Mullet first, of course.

I'd really like to think that Landy kept that mullet all the way through the end of the 90s, continuing to his ultimate end. Has anyone seen any post Brian era pics of Landy to prove or disprove the buried-with-the-mullet theory? 

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.  

 
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.

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.

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".

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  

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)...