[bold]

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

Mojo magazine, 2004, Mike Love interview:

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

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

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


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

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

EoL

To forestall the seemingly inevitable, what if Brian were totally deaf, blind and incapable of speech ?

He'd be a pinball champion, of course, but that's beside the point, which is - what if people stopped  posting such stupid topics ?

This isn't humor. It's pointless. If Brian were deaf in his other ear, he's still have 50% hearing, and nothing would have changed. Bit like asking, what if the sky were blue.

Can't speak for anyone else but in my cosmos, jokes are supposed to be funny.

Yeah, totally. <--- that's a link

LOL.  Too funny.

EoL

He said it was his "theory".

His "theory" isn't that it's Mike Love propaganda. He doesn't state that as a theory. The only thing he points to theorizing about is specifically what part in the film he believes disturbed Brian and Melinda the most.

"My theory is that Brian and Melinda were most disturbed, apart from all the Mike Love propaganda at Brian's expense, by a scene that depicted Dennis Wilson screaming, 'You never supported me as an artist,' at his older brother. From everything I've read and everyone I've ever talked to, Dennis was the one guy -- perhaps the only guy -- who always stood by Brian."

They are both parts of his "theory".

Cam, you are wrong on this one.  Grammatically, Darian is not theorizing as to whether or not Brian and Melinda believed the film contained Mike Love propaganda any more than he was theorizing that Brian and Melinda believed there was a scene in the film with Dennis Wilson screaming, 'You never supported me as an artist'.

Your only avenue is to deny that Darian knows what he is talking about, accuse him of lying, or accuse the author of misquoting him.  The grammar of the statement as printed irrefutably supports CD on this one.  

EoL

[only]

I have no problem with reasoned argument and debate. Sadly, seems others here do. This forum isn't simply the best place for BB intercourse and learned research... it's pretty well the only place for the last few years, and as such it should be preserved from the internal forces that periodically threaten to scupper it. Not as bad as FIFA (yet), but I think a radical overhaul might not be such a bad idea while one can still have a positive outcome.

While this is a bit off topic and should probably be another thread, I guess I'm not understanding what this radical overhaul of the board might be.  I'd have to assume rules changes, or probably a clarification of the rules, would take care of the problems.  Ironically, a minor problem in this thread is the usual tendency we all have to go off-topic (example here), but our fellow posters normally handle that.  I'm as guilty of this as anyone, obviously.  I think the glaring problem in this thread was the tendency for a few posters to argue a single point that no one else was discussing, without ever acknowledging or responding to other posters' comments or challenges.  I suppose a rule might be defined regarding this.  What else did you have in mind?

Waiting for an answer Andrew...??

Is it a banable offense to publicly ask posters on this board whether or not they have personal and/or financial ties to the band and/or to particular members?

EoL

This.  The suggestion of being on the payroll.  

I am sorry, I am not seeing an accusation anywhere in my post.  In fact, my lone sentence is clearly in the interrogative and not in the declarative (as you accuse me, somewhat ironically), which would be necessary in order to form an accusation.  

Also, I don't recall mentioning you.  I asked a simple question, whether or not it is a banable offense to ask whether or not a poster has financial or personal ties to the band or a particular member.  I am kind of surprised you personally took offense to the question and in particular that you assumed I was asking about payroll.  One can benefit financially wihtout being on payroll, as an investor, receiving various gifts, working on a fee basis, 1099, etc.  I didn't say anything about payroll.

Please stop attackng and accusing me or I will notify the mods.

EoL

Hey Jude - if you were reading many cases, you look for the necessary elements in the complaint.  

The court first has to assess if you have a right or standing to be there.  If not, they send you packing.

Maybe you should go to law school?  

Again, all things that nobody asked and that nobody was discussing.

One need not have a law degree to have a subjective, opinion-based discussion.

Further, your ad hominem non-sequiturs are truly disappointing and discouraging.

I'm with HeyJude on this.

Mods: How are many, many repeated non-sequiturs, answering questions that nobody asked, blatant deflections of the highest order, etc... somehow completely different to trolling?  I'll admit, it's of the high-end, "booksmart" trolling variety.  Imagine if this board solely consisted of people who did that, then just put in a wink and a "agree to disagree!" to make everything OK? It's at the very least borderline threadcrapping.

If someone wanted to intentionally find a way to disrupt a discussion, annoy people immensely by constant distractions and non-answers…  completely different from simple actual disagreements in an actual discussion… I don't think anyone could've found a better way.

Complete agreement, well put.  It is trolling, "high end", as you say, but trolling is trolling.

EoL

And, EoL you are accusing me of being on a payroll?  What basis do you have for that?

I don't recall making an accusation.

EoL

Hey Jude - if you were reading many cases, you look for the necessary elements in the complaint.  

The court first has to assess if you have a right or standing to be there.  If not, they send you packing.

Maybe you should go to law school?  

Again, all things that nobody asked and that nobody was discussing.

One need not have a law degree to have a subjective, opinion-based discussion.

Further, your ad hominem non-sequiturs are truly disappointing and discouraging.

I'm with HeyJude on this.

Mods: How are many, many repeated non-sequiturs, answering questions that nobody asked, blatant deflections of the highest order, etc... somehow completely different to trolling?  I'll admit, it's of the high-end, "booksmart" trolling variety.  Imagine if this board solely consisted of people who did that, then just put in a wink and a "agree to disagree!" to make everything OK? It's at the very least borderline threadcrapping.

If someone wanted to intentionally find a way to disrupt a discussion, annoy people immensely by constant distractions and non-answers…  completely different from simple actual disagreements in an actual discussion… I don't think anyone could've found a better way.

Complete agreement, well put.  It is trolling, "high end", as you say, but trolling is trolling.

EoL

Is it a banable offense to publicly ask posters on this board whether or not they have personal and/or financial ties to the band and/or to particular members?

EoL

It doesn't seem right to enter a conversation, assert a very controversial and contrary opinion to the topic, refuse to support your controversial statement or reply to questions about it, ignore all the evidence, then suggest those expressing frustration are doing something a mod should sanction.

I agree.  I hate to say it but doing something like this strikes me as really fishy.

EoL

GF - Thank you for that article. It shows you look at both sides.  I do believe that Stamos is sincere in this clip of the article you attached.  It reminds me that the goal was a survey of sorts of the whole BB career.  And it was not, perhaps as nuanced as it could have been.  Partly, it is a function of Stamos' relative age, in my opinion, despite all the time he has put in with this band, and his guesting them on his various TV shows.  

And after trying to sort out this morass of inconsistency from 1966-1967, someone who was 3 or 4 years old at the time, could not possibly have filtered that era as well as possible.  It was easier to show the stereotypical surf scenes, with appropriate clothing, or cars that were built in the exact year.  A costuming department is only going to get so much right, unless they have someone supervising who lived in this era.   And if they got some of the characterization wrong it could have been the idea of cramming 1961 to  the 1990's into a made for TV movie.  It doesn't forgive the alleged inaccuracies but might better explain them.

Pohlad didn't try to do a survey movie on Brian and hyper-focused on time-sections with greater attention to detail, even very cleverly using two characters for Brian.  There was certainly friction with regard the relationship as among the band and Parks.  It came through in both films.  Parks is a very smart guy.  I read in  Carlin's book where there was a continuing problem with proper attribution of his work.  Someone should have fixed that proactively.  A sit-down with him during production might have been helpful.  Likely it was a regret after-the-fact.  

The goal was too large for a TV miniseries.  It is difficult to do everything right, and likely something that Pohlad wanted to avoid by targeting very narrow time windows.  

Thanks again, GF - for the news clip.

        

It's not about costumes, it's about rewriting the band's history, well beyond the years 66-67.

GF - With all the resources I have looked at (I don't have every single publication but have a lot) the stories are all over the place.  I don't think anyone has the whole story, because everyone's version varies.

That Pet Sounds/Smile/BRI incorporation window appears to me to be a complete mess.   So everyone is writing their own version of BB history.  Even Landy got a version.

Do you think the versions of 1966-67 told in the 2000 film and described in the 2005 lawsuit are accurate?

GF  - I have already said that I did not think the pleadings in the suit were related to the film. It is a stretch.   It was a beneficial owner matter, as the standing would have required.  And, in the same way there might have been a sit-down with Parks during the filming, there should have been a sit-down with the Band to keep them in the loop.  Saves aggravation.      

And, no one but those who were eyewitnesses to those events, know.  Not you or I (unless you were there.)  I was not.  

I was waiting for the question duck, and there it is. That attitude of possibly accepting an inane portrayal is probably just what Mike wanted from a portion of the audience, and by golly it seems he got his wish.

We weren't there but we accept Murry and Landy acted like abusive d*cks. How does that work?

Century Deprived -  I was asked my opinion by a mod whom I respect.  I read the material and responded.  You do not agree.  Reasonable minds can differ.

This is offensive harassment on your end and I don't appreciate it.  I am asking that your haranguing and continuous insulting posts be looked at by the mods.  The "duck" narrative and harangue.  You have an intractable position.  I do not insult you for it.  

Please use the ignore function.  Thank you.

When reason fails the man/woman without an argument, he/she will either ignore or mock the opposition.  When these options fail to produce the desired result the last resort is to outlaw the opposition.

EoL

I've sent an email to Jeff Bleckner through his agency. I don't anticipate a reply and if I get one I don't anticipate if will be very explanatory because why would it be? What motive has Jeff Bleckner or anyone else to explain the politics of a 16 year old move to me? None. It's a waste of time, but conversation is being shut down because of it. So can we move on from "why hasn't someone asked?"
It's done

Alas, it won't be. My personal experience of doing this is that when you report back with the answer, someone will take the questioning down another layer... and another... and another. Just sayin'.

The king of minutia hath spoken!

EoL

Cam, we've been trying to reach Mike, but he doesn't return our calls.  

What a clown show.

Try Facebook.  

We agree, what a clown show.

Do you for one moment think that when posed with a direct question, in a public social media forum, he's going to fess up to having been in any way responsible, or to have influenced a depiction that is widely viewed as despicable and reprehensible?  Especially when he has kept mum about his contributions to the film for a decade and a half?  In particular, at a very moment in time when he is trying to drum up lots of public sympathy for his plight?   What motivation would he have to be honest about it? So that he can become the next trending topic on Twitter?

In the words of Mike Myers, "yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt".  That's a useless rabbit hole, and you know it. Melinda and Darian obviously think it was Mike propaganda; you must feel pretty confident that they are completely misguided, or that they make an assumption like that for some completely unknown reason.

In fact, Mike's non-invite to Brian's film makes more sense, when one thinks about it being a way of returning a favor for Mike's contributions to the 2000 film.  I don't condone backstabbing, but the pieces do you line up. Mike doesn't seem to address or even remotely speculate why he wasn't invited to Brian's film. As though it's some great mystery.

You won't know until you try; not that you're prejudging it or anything....

But it isn't prejudging, it is postjudging.  Instances of Mike not accepting blame can be multiplied for all to see (and for Cam and FP to deny).  Mike does not accept blame even when he is guilty.  It is a classic case of inductive reasoning.  In fact, it's called wisdom.  Maya Angelou said it best, "When people show you who they are, believe them."

EoL

It is prejudging because CD hasn't done it yet. You are postjudging with your opinion.

Nope, it is postjudging.  Judging by Mike's past actions one is justified in drawing probable conclusions about his future actions.  It's called inductive reasoning and yields probability, not certainty.  People use it all day, everyday in all kinds of decision making, and it is a sound form of reasoning.  A wise person will review all known facts and make judgments based on the probabilities indicated by those facts.  CD is justified in his conclusion based on Mike's past, just as I was justified in my conclusion that you would post a defense to my post based on your past, and here we are!

EoL

Nope. He hasn't asked so he is prejudging Mike's potential answer. His prejudice is his postjudging of previous supposed actions of Mike. He can't postjudge an action Mike hasn't taken yet.

Ah more Cam Mott sophistry.  Fortunately your incessant sophistry has not yet outstripped my willingness to point it out, though one day I am likely to tire of it.  In the meantime...

You are committing the fallacy of equivocation:

Equivocation: The using (a word) in more than one sense; ambiguity or uncertainty of meaning in words; also [cf. Sp. equivocacion], misapprehension arising from the ambiguity of terms.*

Your original use of the word prejudge was critical, and so you were using it in its primary sense (as opposed to using it in a simple, chronological sense):

Prejudge:  To pass judgement, or pronounce sentence on, before trial, or without proper inquiry; hence, to judge, to express or come to a judgement or decision upon (a person, cause, opinion, action, etc.), prematurely and without due consideration.*

CD has not passed judgment on Mike's character before trial, and certainly not without proper inquiry.  Mike has publicly testified over and over again, and CD has taken note.  He has not expressed or come to judgement or decision prematurely and without due consideration.  To the contrary, CD has based his decision on multiple evidences provided publicly by Mike himself.  By Mike's own testimony we know that he will not accept blame for his actions.  Mike has been tried, proper inquiry has occurred, and due consideration has been given to Mike's personal testimony.  CD has judged accordingly.

However, once it was pointed out that Mike's personal testimony via interview after interview justifies CD's conclusion, you have shifted your use of the word to a secondary sense, one that is purely chronological.  I agree with your chronological use of the word but I deny your initial value judgment.

As the great GK Chesteron wrote, "Prejudice is not so much the great intellectual sin as a thing which, we may call, to coin a word, ‘postjudice’, not the bias before the fair trial, but the bias that remains after."

*All definitions cited are from the OED, primary definition.

EoL

Cam, we've been trying to reach Mike, but he doesn't return our calls.  

What a clown show.

Try Facebook.  

We agree, what a clown show.

Do you for one moment think that when posed with a direct question, in a public social media forum, he's going to fess up to having been in any way responsible, or to have influenced a depiction that is widely viewed as despicable and reprehensible?  Especially when he has kept mum about his contributions to the film for a decade and a half?  In particular, at a very moment in time when he is trying to drum up lots of public sympathy for his plight?   What motivation would he have to be honest about it? So that he can become the next trending topic on Twitter?

In the words of Mike Myers, "yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt".  That's a useless rabbit hole, and you know it. Melinda and Darian obviously think it was Mike propaganda; you must feel pretty confident that they are completely misguided, or that they make an assumption like that for some completely unknown reason.

In fact, Mike's non-invite to Brian's film makes more sense, when one thinks about it being a way of returning a favor for Mike's contributions to the 2000 film.  I don't condone backstabbing, but the pieces do you line up. Mike doesn't seem to address or even remotely speculate why he wasn't invited to Brian's film. As though it's some great mystery.

You won't know until you try; not that you're prejudging it or anything....

But it isn't prejudging, it is postjudging.  Instances of Mike not accepting blame can be multiplied for all to see (and for Cam and FP to deny).  Mike does not accept blame even when he is guilty.  It is a classic case of inductive reasoning.  In fact, it's called wisdom.  Maya Angelou said it best, "When people show you who they are, believe them."

EoL

It is prejudging because CD hasn't done it yet. You are postjudging with your opinion.

Nope, it is postjudging.  Judging by Mike's past actions one is justified in drawing probable conclusions about his future actions.  It's called inductive reasoning and yields probability, not certainty.  People use it all day, everyday in all kinds of decision making, and it is a sound form of reasoning.  A wise person will review all known facts and make judgments based on the probabilities indicated by those facts.  CD is justified in his conclusion based on Mike's past, just as I was justified in my conclusion that you would post a defense to my post based on your past, and here we are!

EoL

Cam, we've been trying to reach Mike, but he doesn't return our calls.  

What a clown show.

Try Facebook.  

We agree, what a clown show.

Do you for one moment think that when posed with a direct question, in a public social media forum, he's going to fess up to having been in any way responsible, or to have influenced a depiction that is widely viewed as despicable and reprehensible?  Especially when he has kept mum about his contributions to the film for a decade and a half?  In particular, at a very moment in time when he is trying to drum up lots of public sympathy for his plight?   What motivation would he have to be honest about it? So that he can become the next trending topic on Twitter?

In the words of Mike Myers, "yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt".  That's a useless rabbit hole, and you know it. Melinda and Darian obviously think it was Mike propaganda; you must feel pretty confident that they are completely misguided, or that they make an assumption like that for some completely unknown reason.

In fact, Mike's non-invite to Brian's film makes more sense, when one thinks about it being a way of returning a favor for Mike's contributions to the 2000 film.  I don't condone backstabbing, but the pieces do you line up. Mike doesn't seem to address or even remotely speculate why he wasn't invited to Brian's film. As though it's some great mystery.

You won't know until you try; not that you're prejudging it or anything....

But it isn't prejudging, it is postjudging.  Instances of Mike not accepting blame can be multiplied for all to see (and for Cam and FP to deny).  Mike does not accept blame even when he is guilty.  It is a classic case of inductive reasoning.  In fact, it's called wisdom.  Maya Angelou said it best, "When people show you who they are, believe them."

EoL

Now that we are back on the topic of the lawsuit (thank you Debbie)...

It is hard for me to believe that Mike was unaware of the content of the 2005 lawsuit.  He may not have written the words, but it seems hard to deny that either the ideas communicated originated with him or, at the least, he was aware of them and chose to let them stand throughout the appeals process.  That a man of Mike's intelligence would allow a lawsuit to proceed, in particular through the appeals process, without awareness of it's contents is just too much for me to believe.  This becomes even harder to deny when one is familiar with statements he has made in interviews over the last several years, statements that sound like they are coming from the same outlook, which seems to indicate the same person.

Which brings me back my prior question: If Mike even permitted these gross misrepresentations of fact in the 2005 lawsuit, does this introduce doubt into the earlier song writing credit lawsuit? Perhaps a swing for the fences and hope for a double approach?  Consider the following:

1. If it occurred in 2005, why not in the prior lawsuit?
2. There was more at stake in the song writing credit lawsuit, and therefore greater incentive
3. It would have been well known that Brian was in no shape to defend himself making it easy to introduce embellished claims with the hope they would not be discovered

I don't know Mike and I don't know the reputation of his attorneys from either lawsuit.  I am not claiming that facts were misrepresented in the song writing credit lawsuit.  I am simply extrapolating from what we see in the 2005 lawsuit and asking the question that naturally follows:  Given what we know, are the claims regarding the song writing credits also questionable?

EoL

Doesn't it say "He argues that he should not be punished for his lawyers' litigation strategy"?

How does that counter or explain away Emily's point that he retained the same attorneys when he filed the appeal?  Are you arguing that a man of Mike's intelligence initiated a lawsuit, and subsequent appeal, and that the lawsuit used his standard talking points, and that he never read through the lawsuit?  If so, you are asking too much.  It is about as believable as Mike's statements in the lawsuit regarding Brian's output from 1967-2002.

EoL

This horse is barely breathing, but Mike Love paid his lawyers and lost close to a million dollars in fees and costs in the first round. He retained the same lawyers on appeal. Had the lawyers been 'rogue' and pulling all those shenanigans without his knowledge, and he was out 1.5 million or so dollars because of it, I hardly think he'd use the same lawyers to proceed further.

Great point Emily, that had not occurred to me.  Another compelling piece of evidence supporting the conclusion that Mike either believed what was said in the lawsuit or was willing to "embellish" as needed.

EoL

What does Murry Wilson and songwriting credits have to do with Mike trying to shake BW down for money in 2005? That lawsuit was a money grab plain and simple along with slandering BW/AJ.

Yes it was. Both lawsuits, though, were brought up in the original article, so we've been discussing both. The songwriting credits one is, to me at least, much more interesting. The 2005 one was just a straight case of Mike absolutely, and indefensibly, being in the wrong.

Actually, I find the 2005 case far more interesting for at least two important reasons.  It raises the following questions:

1. Does Mike really believe these things?  If so, maybe he does struggle with mental illness as other posters have suggested.  This is an option I had not previously considered until it was brought up yesterday.  It is intriguing because if it is proven to be true it would illicit more compassion towards him (though his blaming and abrasive nature would still be more difficult to stomach than Brian's more passive temperament).

2. Is Mike willing to pervert the truth to this degree for money and/or satisfying his ego?  This is a real consideration.  If he denies Brian's vast contributions during this period (notice the suit was amended, but never to correct the dates), might he also exaggerate his song writing contributions against a largely passive and helpless Brian when even more money and ego were on the line in the original song writing credit lawsuit?  If the answer is yes in the 2005 suit, and clearly it is, what does that say about the prior suit?

To make the point, here is an updated list of Brian's song writing/recording/producing during the period in question:

When I Get Mad I Just Play My Drums
Crack The Whip
Little Red Book
Tones
I Love To Say Dada
Little Pad
Good Time Mama
Fall Breaks And Back To Winter
With Me Tonight
She’s Goin Bald
Whistle In
Gettin Hungry
Wild Honey
Aren’t You Glad
Time To Get Alone
The Letter
Game Of Love
Italia
Cool, Cool, Water
Here Comes The Night
A Thing Or Two
Darlin
Can’t Wait To Long
Lonely Days
Let The Wind Blow
Mama Says
I’d Love Just Once To See You
Country Air
When A Man Needs A Woman
You’re As Cool As Can Be
Be Here In The Morning
Friends
Our Happy Home
Passing By
Busy Doin Nothin
Wake The World
Meant For You
Anna Lee The Healer
Transcendental Meditation
Diamond Head
Walk On By
Old Folks At Home/Old Man River
Do It Again
We’re Together Again
I Went To Sleep
Sail Plane Song
Loop De Loop
Santa’s Got An Airplane
Walkin
I’ll Keep On Loving You
As Tears Go By
Cotton fields
Tonight You Belong To Me
Tonight My Love
When Girls Get Together
All I Wanna Do
Deidre
Break Away
A World Of Peace Must Come (album)
Games Two Can Play
Our Sweet Love
Til I Die
Soulful Old Man Sunshine
Raspberries and Strawberries
At My Window
This Whole World
Add Some Music To Your Day
Where Is She?
Take A Load Of Your Feet
I Just Got My Pay
Good Time
Cows In The Pasture (album)
H.E.L.P. Is On The Way
My Solution
Lady Love
A Day In The Life Of A Tree
Silly Walls
Awake
Now That Everything’s Been Said
Beatrice From Baltimore
You Need A Mess Of Help
He Come Down
Marcella
Spark In The Dark
Funky Pretty
Mount Vernon And Fairway
Is Jack Reilly Really Superman
Burlesque
Sweet Mountain
Tennesse Waltz
Slip On Through
Mama Said
Superstar
Everybody
Starlight, Star Bright
Forever
Down Home
Baby I Need Your Lovin/Gimme Some Lovin (medley)
Sail on Sailor
Mike Come Back To LA
Some of Your Love
Snowflakes
Shyin Away
Fallin in Love
Had To Phone Ya
Shortenin Bread
Patty cake
Just An Imitation
Clangin
Ding Dang
Battle Hymn of the Republic
California Feelin
Child of Winter/Here Comes Santa Claus
Good TImin
It’s OK
You’re Riding High On The Music
Lucy Jones
Honeycomb
Come Go With Me
Winter Symphony
Running Bear
He So Fine
Let’s Dance
Secret Love
Peggy Sue
Blueberry Hill
Palisades Park
Honkin Down The Highway
Chapel Of Love
Talk To Me/Tallahassee Lassie
On Broadway
In The Still Of The Night
Mony Mony
Rock and Roll Music
Just Once In My Life
A Casual Look
TM Song
Everyone’s In Love With You
That Same Song
Michael Row The Boat Ashore
Shake Rattle And Roll
I’m Begging You Please
Let’s Put Our Hearts Together
Airplane
I’ll Be He’s Nice
Love Is A Woman
Mona
Still I Dream Of It
It’s Over Now
They’re Marching Along
Little Children
Marylin Rovell
That Special Feeling
Let Us Go On This Way
Johnny Carson
The Night Was So Young
I Wanna Pick You Up
Hey Little Tomboy
Lazy Lizzy
Sea Cruise
Solar System
Roller Skating Child
Hey There Mama
I Saw Santa Rockin
We Gotta Groove
You’ve Lost That Lovin Feelin
My Diane
The Boogie’s Back In Town
Cruise To Harlem
Life Is For The Living
Deep Purple
Lines
Everybody Wants To Live
It’s Trying To Say
Wontcha Come Out Tonight
She’s Got Rhythm
Sweet Sunday Kinda Love
Belles Of Paris
Pitter Patter
Matchpoint Of Our Love
Our Team
Don’t Be Cruel
Christmas Day
How About A Little Bit Of Your Lovin
How’s About A Little Bit
It’s Like Heaven
Almost Summer
Do Ya?
She’s Just Out To Get Ya
Basketball Rock
Bowling
Santa Ana Winds
Boys and Girls
Sunshine
Oh Darlin
Goin On
Goin To The Beach
Night Bloomin Jasmine
There’s So Many
Be My Baby
River Deep, Mountain High
Greenback Dollar
Why Don’t They Let Us Fall In Love?
Bucks
Children Of The Night
I’m A Man
Stevie
Sweetie
Love Ya
I Feel So Fine
Oh Lord
Yeah!
You’ve Been Good To Me
City Blues
Black Widow
Let’s Do It Again
In The Nighttime
The First Time
Crack At Your Love
California Calling
I’m So Lonely
It’s Just A Matter Of Time
Male Ego
The Lost Song
I’ve Been Through This One Before
Walking On Water
What’s Wrong With Starting Now?
Wondering What You’re Up To Now
You
A Bad Time Soon Forgotten
Water Builds Up
I’m Broke
Don’t Let Her Know She’s An Angel
Walkin The Line
Miller Time
After The Storm
A Little Love
All Over Me
California
Christmastime
Heavenly Bodies
I’m Tired
It’s Getting Rough
Labor Of Love
Magic
Magnetic Attraction
Pair Of Troops
Turning Point (a.k.a. So Long)
Just Say No
Brian/Thank You
The Spirit Of Rock And Roll
The Tiger’s Eye
Christine
Living Doll (a.k.a. Barbie)
Let’s Go To Heaven In My Car
Carl And Gina
Melt Away
Love and Mercy
Nighttime
Heavenly Lovers
Hotter
Magic Lanterns
Too Much Sugar
Rio Grande
Saturday Evening In The City
Baby Let Your Hair Grow Long
One For The Boys
Let It Shine
Meet Me In My Dreams Tonight
He Couldn’t Poor Old Body To Move
Doin Time On Planet Earth
Being With The One You Love
Goodnight Irene
In My Car
Country Feelins
Daddy’s Little Girl
Metal Beach
I Sleep Alone
Concert Tonight
I Do (a.k.a. Do You Have Any Regrets)
Let’s Stick (Get) Together
The Waltz
Smart Girls
Someone To Love
Rings
Make A Wish
Rainbow Eyes
Is There A Chance
Save The Day
Fantasy Is Reality/Bells of Madness
Sweets For My Sweet
This Could Be The Night
In My Moondreams
This Song Wants To Sleep With You
Gettin In Over My Head
Desert Drive
Soul Searchin
Chain Reaction Of Love
Dancin The Night Away
Elbow ’63
Everything’s Alright With The World
Frankie Avalon
God Did It
Goin Home
In The Wink Of An Eye
It’s Not Easy Being Me
Mary Anne
Marketplace
Must Be A Miracle
Slightly American Music
Some Sweet Day
Turn On Your Love Lights
What Rock And Roll Can Do
You’re Still A Mystery
Proud Mary
I Can Hear Music
Melinda, Honey
Our Babies Have Grown Up On Us
Right Before Your Eyes
Rock And Roll Express
Everything I Need
Miracle
This Isn’t Love
Your Imagination
South American
Where Has Love Been
Dream Angel
Cry
Lay Down Burden
Sunshine
Happy Days
Joy To The World
We’re Still Dancing
On Christmas Day
Silent Night

I would put that output up against almost all song writers of the pop/rock era with few exceptions - and this doesn't include songs written for TWGMTR and NPP.

If Mike can stretch this far, might he also have embellished his contributions to the early songs?  I think we all know he got less credit than he deserved in some instances.  But perhaps there is reason to question some of the credits he won.

I am sorry to ramble.  This is one of my favorite BB topics.  I don't care to own all of the demos, it doesn't matter to me who whispered what on a given demo and I've never made a Smile comp (my favorite era is Summer Days through Pet Sounds).  But I really would like to know who wrote what, including the recent Brian output that many question.  It all fascinates me for some unknown reason.  Thanks for bearing with me.

EoL

So we are thinking Mike doesn't know the band's history or even how to spell his uncle's name and therefore Mike must be responsible for the background section of the filing?  What's the evidence for Mike being involved in the text whatsoever?

The claims that were rightly thrown out of court are down there at the bottom aren't they? Not up there is the background, right?

I'm sure he didn't actually type it out himself, so the Murry misspelling can be chalked up to that. Other than that - come on, I think we can assume Mike talks to his attorneys about his cases. This was a major part of the text of the complaint and was kind of an extra rant - it didn't really even have any legal relevance. It wasn't lawyerly to put it in at all.

Imo neither is the lawyer or the suit lawyerly, the law cited was irrelevant, the lawyer lied in collusion with his friend, he tried to unsuccessfully disguise Mike's residency.  It seems very likely this attorney is responsible for the content and language of his own document to me. Is there something besides assumptions?

I will address your question directly.  There is far more than assumption at play here:

1. Mike is a sharp guy, and by all accounts very intelligent.  It would be very difficult to persuade me that he did not read, and therefore approve of, the wording in the suit.

2. The statements in question are typical Mike Love talking points that we have all read and heard over and over again.

3. Mike has never disavowed the suit, at least not publicly.

4. Mike has never filed a lawsuit against the attorneys who represented him.  Given he is no stranger to legal strong arming and lawsuits, this strongly implicates him.

So, yes, we have a lot more than assumptions.  We have an intelligent man, we have motive, we have past experience with similar statements coming directly from Mike and we have a failure to disavow or sue.  All evidence points to Mike.  In fact , we have everything except the smoking gun.  It's a very strong case.

EoL

Not until he owns up to it and stops blaming others for his problems. He has a serious  addiction to lawyers to harass other people.

Oh, I thought you had diagnosed him formally.

Do you honestly think Mike would be way, way far off from an NPD diagnosis? That this is a completely absurd assumption to think he's even a little bit on that scale? None of us are doctors, but that doesn't negate an NPD assumption from seeming pretty likely, even if you want to be outraged by it. I certainly wouldn't say it's entirely his fault either.

Maybe you can convince him to seek help, since you already have him diagnosed. Good luck with that.

Firstly, you didn't answer my question, though I figure you'll just deflect by saying neither of us has any right for the question to even enter our minds. Secondly, why does that type of potential diagnosis sarcastically have to be equated to "horse thievery"? If he is indeed suffering from it on some level, that would be a real sad and unfortunate thing, but it doesn't mean he is the devil and/or incapable of any goodness. I seek better understanding and empathy (as I think you would too), not sure how simply dismissing a theory that may not be far off is such a great thing. I mainly feel sorry for the guy because he can't be happy. Thirdly, too many yes men is why getting better ain't gonna happen.

FP will be disappointed if you leave out the yes women. 

Are there any contemporary interviews with Brian or Mike in which they discuss the writing of the songs? Do we see Brian actively lying about or actively acknowledging Mike's authorship in the years before the lawsuit? Or Mike bringing the issue up? Do we know the process of registering authorship? Was it generally Murry or someone else who did it? Did Brian actively engage with Sea of Tunes or was he passive and it was actively handled exclusively by Murry?
It is really egregious and also odd. How did it happen that it sat there uncontested for so many years?

Here's a typical example, from the latter part of 1964, starting at about 2:50 in the interview. While Brian doesn't claim to be the sole author of all the songs he mentions, one can easily come away with that impression. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z4N4BSs4Ic

Capitol PR also generally focused on "Brian Wilson songs," without mentioning his lyrical collaborators.

Thanks, Custom Machine, for this.  At about 6:00 Al talks about how, first, Dennis conceived the original idea from surfing, second, Brian wrote the music, and third, Mike wrote the lyrics.  (I surely hope this was included for the court in the lyric lawsuit as evidence coming from within the band.)  

And, despite the magic synergistic quality from within the origins, and the live performance, poison is flowing from Murry's pen, undermining the band members.

The Capitol PR is generally focused on Brian Wilson songs because Murry is in bed with them.    

Two things I can't pass up in this post:

1. It is unclear from Al's statements whether he is talking about the very first song or so that they wrote, or every song they had written up to that point, or if he is just steam-of-conscious/semi-nervously answering the question.  At one point he does say Brian wrote the songs and Mike the lyrics, but then the context seems to be the very first song.  And since Mike had not written all of the lyrics up to this point there is clearly some limitation to the statement anyway.  I can't see any court giving too much weight to his statements in this context.

2. "Capitol PR is generally focused on Brian Wilson songs because Murry is in bed with them."

This is historical revisionism of the worst sort.  If you believe Capitol PR focused on Brian's songs because of Murry, you have lost all credibility, at least in my eyes.  

This is an absurd claim.  Capitol focused on Brian's songs because (a) no one else could do what Brian was doing and (b) relatively speaking, lyricists of Mike's caliber (on the early songs) were a dime a dozen.  Those lyrics, as much as I personally like many of them, really aren't very special.  Brian's music makes them come alive.  Further, it's been said by several that Brian wasn't bringing a blank page to Mike, in many cases.  He had song titles, ideas, and sometimes lyrics that Mike tweaked.  Do we even know how many of the hits he wrote from scratch?  Maybe his real claim to fame isn't even being a good lyricist, maybe it is being a pretty darn good lyrics tweaker.  Do we really even know.  Regardless, Capitol PR focused on Brian's songs because nobody really wanted songs written by the other guys - because they couldn't compare in the slightest.

Let's keep it real, don't re-write history, it is repulsive.

EoL

To be clear, I don't bring up this old (but not as old as some would say) lawsuit just to drag Mike through the mud (he doesn't need my help to do that).  I bring it up for two reasons:

1. To show a pattern of behavior that continues to this day, mostly through the media; and
2. To show Mike isn't the innocent victim.  He was wronged many moons ago and those wrongs have been as righted as possible.  Yet he continued to seek revenge through the courts and the media.

I would ostracize my cousin too if he treated me this way, especially if he did so in public every chance he got.  He makes it hard for us to see him as the victim - as he claims in the RS interview (“I’ve been ostracized,” he says quietly. “Vilified. In other words, f***ed with.”).  Talk about old...

EoL

The issue here for me is this: Mike is great. Awesome singer and frontman and great songwriting partner to Brian. I am 39 years old, I've lived long enough to have suffered betrayal, cheating, went to through the difficulties of life just like anybody. Now, grudges are part of life. Mike is entitled to his. Why shouldn't he hold grudges? Who on this board has co-written a smash hit song and not been credited for it. How about 4 or 5 massive hit songs? We assume these guys are just pawns in our pre-conceived or learned view of this group. But they are suffering individuals. Heck, Dennis held a grudge through the late 1970s since he learned that Brian had to be convinced by their mother to include him in the group.

Knock yourself out.  Enjoy Mike.  Grab your beach ball and go to the show.  No one is trying to stop you.  The endless talking point about a lawsuit that was settle years ago is getting old though.  Re-read the RS article about some of the huge "co-writing" contributions.  Then re-read that 2005 lawsuit.  Do I have to copy and post it again?

The 2005 lawsuit was also settled years ago. Talking about that is also "getting old". Mike was largely in the right in the lawsuit over songwriting credits, and he was completely in the wrong in the lawsuit about Smile.

And you fans who "love them all equally" have no objection, much less outrage over this?

A lot of us thought it hugely outrageous *at the time*. Remaining outraged a decade later seems a little much, though.
(Though I don't know if I'm one of those fans who "love them all equally" -- 90% or more of what I love about the Beach Boys comes from Brian. I just don't think Mike is a completely worthless human being with literally no talent, and in the overly-polarised world of Beach Boys fandom that makes me seem to be taking Mike's side a lot of the time.)

Usually AGD would jump in and correct the above inaccuracy regarding this lawsuit but for some reason he is absent this time.  Yes, the Smile lawsuit is a little more recent than you might think - Mike kept it going (and going and going and going) until a little over five years ago:

https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Central_District_Court/2--05-cv-07798/Mike_Love_v._Mail_on_Sunday_et_al/

Warning: you might get dizzy scrolling through all of the filings and other minutia.

So it is a bit old, but not quite as old as you might think and certainly not as old as it got to be for Brian and his legal team to keep addressing the suit which was frivolous to begin with.  But I give Mike credit, he is as persistent in his legal maneuvering as he is in his touring.  

EoL

Does anyone find this quote from the lawsuit perplexing:

"Between 1967 and 2002, Brian was essentially too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, including revenues from BRI and his 25% share of Mike Love’s license royalties."

Everyone does. It's laughably wrong.

Ha, yeah, I would hope so.  When I read a claim like this, and consider many subsequent claims and the constant tearing down of Brian in regards to the past (drugs and debilitating mental illness) and the present (controlled by his wife and managers), it comes across as an eerie combination of jealousy, defamation (toward Melinda), and historical revisionism.

EoL

Does anyone find this quote from the lawsuit perplexing:

"Between 1967 and 2002, Brian was essentially too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, including revenues from BRI and his 25% share of Mike Love’s license royalties."

A quick survey of the BB catalog from this time period indicates Brian had a hand in either writing or recording the following:

Heroes and Villains
Wind Chimes
Surf’s Up
Vege-tables
Tones
I Love To Say Dada
Good News
Little Pad
Good Time Mama
Fall Breaks And Back To Winter
With Me Tonight
She’s Goin’ Bald
Whistle In
Gettin Hungry
Wild Honey
Aren’t You Glad
Time To Get Alone
The Letter
Game of Love
Cool Cool Water
Here Comes The Night
A Thing Or Two
Darlin
Can’t Wait Too Long
Lonely Days
Let The Wind Blow
Mama Says
I’d Love Just Once To See You
Country Air
When A Man Needs  A Woman
You’re As Cool As Can Be
Be Here in the morning
Friends
Our Happy Home
Passing By
Busy Doin’ Nothin
Wake The World
Meant For You
Anna Lee The Healer
Trancendental Meditation
Diamond Head
Walk On By
Old Folks At Home/Old Man River
Do It Again
We’re Together Again
I Went To Sleep
Sail Plane Song
Walkin
I’ll Keep On Loving You
As Tears Go By
Cotton Fields
When Girls Get Together
All I Wanna Do
Deidre
Break Away
Games Two Can Play
Our Sweet Love
Til I Die
Soulful Old Man Sunshine
At My Window
This Whole World
Add Some Music To Your Day
Where Is She
Take A Load Off Your Feet
I Just Got My Pay
Good Time
H.E.L.P. Is On The Way
My Solution
A Day In The Life Of A Tree
You Need A Mess Of Help
He Come Down
Marcella
Funky Pretty
Mount Vernon & Fairway
Sail On Sailer
Falling In Love
Had To Phone Ya
Shortenin Bread
Patty cake
Ding Dang
California Feelin
Child Of Winter
Good Timin
It’s OK
Come Go With Me
Winter Symphony
Running Bear
He’s So Fine
Let’s Dance
Secret Love
Peggy Sue
Blueberry Hill
Palisades Park
Honkin Down The Highway
Chapel Of Love
Talk To Me
On Broadway
In The Still Of The Night
Mony Mony
Rock and Roll Music
Just Once In My Life
A Casual Look
TM Song
Everyone’s In Love With You
That Same Song
Michael Row The Boat Ashore
Shake Rattle And Roll
Airplane
I’ll Be He’s Nice
Love Is A Woman
Mona
Still I Dream Of It
It’s Over Now
Let Us Go on This Way
Johnny Carson
The Night Was So Young
I Wanna Pick You Up
Hey Little Tomboy
Solar System
Roller Skating Child
We Gotta Groove
My Diane
Life Is For The Living
Deep Purple
Lines
Wontcha Come Out Tonight
She’s Got Rhythm
Sweet Sunday Kind Of Love
Belles Of Paris
Pitter Patter
Matchpoint Of Our Love
Our Team
Santa Ana Wins
Goin On
Goin To The Beach
Crack At Your Love
California Calling
I’m So Lonely
It’s Just A Matter Of Time
Male Ego
Soul Searchin

Brian was too ill to do anything from 1967-2002 beside collect royalties on the back of Mike Love's hard work?  That does seem even remotely close to a true statement.  I don't know about all of you but some of my absolute favorite Beach Boys songs can be found in this list.  This makes me ask why Mike would misrepresent the facts in regards to Brian's contributions during this time period, to this great of a degree, in a lawsuit?  Something isn't right here.

EoL