The Genius of Mike Love

[Nicko1234]

I found a blog post from a long time ago where someone named Andrew Hickey reviewed a show Mike did in England in 2008.  The Beach Boys did Til I Die as part of the set and Mike gave it an introduction saying it was a personal song written by Brian.  Mike's Beach Boys did 50 songs in the set and did part of Pet Sounds too.  Bruce Johnston was quoted that they would never play a show like that in the United States. I wonder what the difference is that Mike allows less known songs in England than he does in America.  The blog:http://olsenbloom.blogspot.com/2008/04/mike-loves-beach-boys-last-night.html

Public opinion. Mike`s attitude is to give them what they want. At the theatre shows in the U.K. the fans seemed perfectly happy to hear the longer setlists. in America they presumably wouldn`t have been quite so thrilled.

[MBE]

Mike deserves a lot of credit for his 1961-75 work and lots of scorn for much (if not quite all) of what came after until the 21st century. He has obviously realized slowly over the last seven to ten years that he should do the oldies justice and put in a healthy dose of lesser hits and good album cuts.

The show on this tour is perfect in putting across all sides of the Beach Boys and I stand firm that this is the best tour since 1975. The new album isn't a classic in the way the majority of the LP's from 1963-73 are, but it's the first Beach Boys album since then that I can play through without at all cringing. It may not be an all time classic but it IS a good new Beach Boys album. Did you ever think we would see that?

Mike's reputation over the last twenty years has improved because we now know that he was a big part of the band's songwriting and creative process. You can argue over this point or that point but "Please Let Me Wonder" alone shows Mike was an excellent lyricist. Never mind the dozen's of other great songs he did through Holland.

Brian Wilson was a one of a kind genius and occasionally still is. Dennis was too in his own way. Carl, Mike, Bruce, Al, David, Ricky, and Blondie all have, or in Carl's case had, talent to spare as well. If you like the Beach Boys at all one must realize Mike was a big reason they were commercially successful. He couldn't have done it alone, but not even Brian would have gotten through to as many people without the harmonies and talents of all the other Beach Boys. The Beach Boys were and shockingly still are a great GROUP.

So Love didn't like a few lines in 1966....get over it! This is a common occurrence in groups of all sorts. The bottom line is he gave in and sang his parts with passion. It was one night at one session and again asking what something means isn't unfair for a singer to ask a songwriter. Even if Mike was an ass about it for the last time he did NOT stop Smile. He didn't have that kind of power in 1966-67 not even close. Not excusing the Baywatch, SIP, or Full House garbage but Brian's made just as bad of music at times himself IE Sweet Insanity or many of his eighties demos. Even Domenic Priore will tell you that!

There are no clear heroes or villians in The Beach Boys, they all could be great and they all could be jerks. Mike's sometimes goofy persona shouldn't get in the way of the hard fact that he wrote some excellent lyrics over the years. Some are among the best I ever heard in rock and roll and I have 4000 albums and 400 singles of all sorts of artists from the first twenty years of rock.

I also want to add that of all the Beach Boys Mike worked the most with Brian. They all wrote with him (bar Ricky and Blondie), they all sang with him, but Mike was the one he had the most rapport when it came to songwriting. Maybe Carl and Al were far nicer personally, maybe Dennis and Dave were cooler, but Brian and Mike have a special bond in that they never creatively were able to write so many good songs, over so many years, with anyone else. Gary Usher, Roger Christan, Tony Asher, Van Dyke, all wrote stuff that is superb, but none of them wrote together as prolifically or as long as Brian Wilson and Mike Love.

One last thing it is true that Brain was mentally healthier than Mike (who was truely ill) in early 1970, but Brian's problems run far deeper, began well before that, and have lasted far longer. That's not a knock on Brian or Mike, it's just the facts, at least as we know them.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I can't fault you, Mike, for your fair minded and rational assessment. With that in mind, though, I think there is one part of your discussion that is somewhat simplistic and, I think, overlooks what certain people are really arguing or really have argued:

So Love didn't like a few lines in 1966....get over it! This is a common occurrence in groups of all sorts. The bottom line is he gave in and sang his parts with passion. It was one night at one session and again asking what something means isn't unfair for a singer to ask a songwriter. Even if Mike was an ass about it for the last time he did NOT stop Smile. He didn't have that kind of power in 1966-67 not even close.

For me, it is getting somewhat frustrating to see things like this because it's built on what is now a bit of a strawman argument. Very few people now say the Mike was directly responsible for Smile stopping and no one denies that Mike sang "over and over the crow cries." But the fact is unfortunately, that this issue goes way beyond Mike's objection to those words. According to Brian, Tony Asher, and Mike Love, there was resistance to content during the Pet Sounds sessions. Plus, there is audio evidence that the boys were giving Brian a hard time about the music beyond the Cabinessence sessions. When Brian was both creating the most interesting and complex music thus far of his career, and taking the biggest risks and therefore, because of both of these things needed all the support he could get, he didn't get it. And furthermore, while Mike's objections to those lyrics seems kind of insignificant to us, it did seem significant to the people who were there (Van Dyke Parks) and to the people who were there writing about it (Jules Siegel). Regardless of what it seems like to us, it had a serious effect on the people who experienced this "incident" first hand and, as such, I don't think it can be mere coincidence that the project as a whole really went into a chaotic tailspin at exactly this time. Is it common that band members object to lyrics? Yes. But that's not what this was. It was an ongoing resistance to an artist who, because he was taking major risks at the time, needed support.

So let's put this in a context we may actually understand. This is not like, say, John Lennon telling Paul McCartney that he doesn't like a few lines in When I'm 64. Rather, it is more like John approaching Paul, two months into the making of Sgt. Pepper and telling him that he doesn't like what they've been doing. Now that in itself might not have stopped the album from coming out (Paul was much more stable than Brian at that time anyway) but it may have seriously changed the nature of the project and could have changed the tone of sessions in general. And the fact is simply that Smile didn't come out - and to this day we still don't know what a Smile version Heroes and Villains would really sound like. We still know The Elements in track name only. We still don't know what the second half of Surf's Up would have sounded like. We still don't know what the melody to the Do You Like Worms verse would have been. We still don't have 1966/67 lyrics or a melody to Child is Father of the Man. This is why people "can't get over" the course of events from Pet Sounds through to the end of Smile and I think that's fair enough.

[AndrewHickey]

I found a blog post from a long time ago where someone named Andrew Hickey reviewed a show Mike did in England in 2008.  The Beach Boys did Til I Die as part of the set and Mike gave it an introduction saying it was a personal song written by Brian.  Mike's Beach Boys did 50 songs in the set and did part of Pet Sounds too.  Bruce Johnston was quoted that they would never play a show like that in the United States. I wonder what the difference is that Mike allows less known songs in England than he does in America.  The blog:http://olsenbloom.blogspot.com/2008/04/mike-loves-beach-boys-last-night.html

That would be me, and I didn't quote Bruce as saying that. In fact they did do a few shows like that in the US around that time, too, IIRC, though not very many. But to the extent that they do more interesting material in the UK, I think there are three principal reasons:
Bruce is a bit of an Anglophile, and believes that UK audiences are more receptive.
The band's commercial peak in the UK was roughly 1966-70, rather than 1963-65 as it was in the US
And most importantly, they don't play here very often, and so when they do it tends to be a bit of a special event, and they play theatre venues. Til I Die works better when played at the Manchester Apollo, with a fully seated audience who haven't had a chance to see the band in four years, than when played at the Albert Lea, Minnesota, county fair to a small audience of middle-aged farmers who only know the hits and only came because they're the only band who'll play in Albert Lea that year. (Not that there's anything wrong with middle-aged Minnesotan farmers, I hasten to add).

[AndrewHickey]

So THAT'S where the info -that "The Beach Boys" played 'Til I Die live- came from !!! and there isn't any mp3/video of it ? jeez
it's about time they start playing it live now again!

There are MP3s floating around of that show (audience recording) and of at least two shows from the 2004 tour where they also played it (soundboard recordings of Newcastle and Glasgow), to my knowledge. There may be more, but those are the ones I've heard.

[Ziggy Stardust]

.

[filledeplage]

I found a blog post from a long time ago where someone named Andrew Hickey reviewed a show Mike did in England in 2008.  The Beach Boys did Til I Die as part of the set and Mike gave it an introduction saying it was a personal song written by Brian.  Mike's Beach Boys did 50 songs in the set and did part of Pet Sounds too.  Bruce Johnston was quoted that they would never play a show like that in the United States. I wonder what the difference is that Mike allows less known songs in England than he does in America.  The blog:http://olsenbloom.blogspot.com/2008/04/mike-loves-beach-boys-last-night.html

Public opinion. Mike`s attitude is to give them what they want. At the theatre shows in the U.K. the fans seemed perfectly happy to hear the longer setlists. in America they presumably wouldn`t have been quite so thrilled.

After 50 years, it should be a "given" that they know their audiences.  They know what American audiences want.  They know what the sales and critical responses have been over time.  I seem to remember Brian doing Til I Die at his shows.  But, he has a different demographic, even in the States, than the Touring Band.  

One might know what the market for air conditioners is in the North Pole, and the equator, and using that information, you create an offering consistent with the market or audience.  Certain albums which did not do well in the States where huge hits in Europe.  Go figure.  The US was in a different mind set from Europe in the late 1960's and 70's.  Sort of like today.  We are at war.  

As this whole "harmonic convergence" strengthens, there might be some subtle changes and tweaks in the setlists.  It has already happened with Marcella.  It would be great to see Southern California with the slide-tape show that they did with Brian's show.  Right now might not be the time.  Now that they are into this "reunion" it is looking more like a "rebirth" of the Band.  Some kind of magic is at work as the core group finds its' way.  

Each of these backing bands has strengths which have synthesized into what will likely  be  and historically regarded as the most amazing group of musicians in rock history. And they are getting the crash course as they add and subtract from the setlist.  I can remember the razor sharpness of Brian's band on Heroes..."You're under Arrest."  Drilled, practiced, performed.  They just hit it out of the park at every performance.  And, yet, when they do one of the California Girls chorus sections, they all clap over their heads "in unison," with Cowsill's toe on the bass pedal, his arms over his head clapping, not missing a beat.  They are working together and the audience is lovin' it.

Maybe at a point, Til I Die will replace some other song.  Maybe Southern California will replace Why Do Fools Fall in Love, although the doo-wop history thing is important, and almost all "covers" with the exception of Barbara Ann (She ain't goin' nowhere) and they will do only their work.  The compromising on the setlist has likely worked in getting to "yes" with this tour.  And  now that there appears to be confidence in "the team" - anything can happen.  But right now, it is video rich with the Dennis and Carl tributes.  Maybe it is a better place at the end, telling the story of the dream...And they must be on overload with the planning, practice and schedule

We'll just have to watch and wait.  They will surely find their way.  One thing I learned from teaching small children for a long time... That "smart or genius" has many "faces." One learns a lot watching children, with both high and low abilities, with building blocks, building cities, imaginary race tracks and swiming pools...learning from one another.  

Sometimes the "planner" is also the genius because they know how to get the job done, while the "design" genius is moving on creatively.  We need both.  One to create and the other one to get it to us. Sometimes it is hard to reconcile the two.   JMHO

[NightHider]

Mike's statements in this interview.  Is it truth?


"I wrote every word to that song." ~ ML on Good Vibrations

"I wrote every word to California Girls"  ~ ML


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrSQ5tZMWhU&feature=related

[Mr. Cohen]

So Love didn't like a few lines in 1966....get over it! This is a common occurrence in groups of all sorts. The bottom line is he gave in and sang his parts with passion. It was one night at one session and again asking what something means isn't unfair for a singer to ask a songwriter. Even if Mike was an ass about it for the last time he did NOT stop Smile. He didn't have that kind of power in 1966-67 not even close. Not excusing the Baywatch, SIP, or Full House garbage but Brian's made just as bad of music at times himself IE Sweet Insanity or many of his eighties demos. Even Domenic Priore will tell you that!

You're right. Mike Love really was the bomb. Dennis Wilson thought MIU should self-destruct. NONSENSE! Mike wrote "Please Let Me Wonder", so we should bask in the genius of his every accomplishment.

Mike made Brian promise that Pet Sounds would be Brian's only experimental album. He sat in on the sessions calling Brian "dog ears", telling him he's writing "ego music". He told Brian the lyrics sucked on Smile, probably over and over. Brian basically has a breakdown, so the group decides to get behind whatever he does - we get Smiley Smile, which I love, but I wish we would've gotten Smile, too.  Then Mike writes the lyrics on Wild Honey and completely cements the BBs as squares. And we know what Mike has done since the mid-70s on!

But he's a hero. We wouldn't have "Fun, Fun, Fun" without him. It is curious though, that if you really read about the early BBs songs, Brian was no slouch when it came to lyrics and concepts. Brian came to Mike with some of the lyrics of "I Get Around" and the concept, for example. It wasn't just genius Mike translating some abstract Brian composition. Mike's done a lot of myth-making over the years and it's quite a coincidence that that he finally decided to bring that songwriting issue in court when Brian was in terrible shape, reeling from the Landy fallout -  you know, when Brian was in no shape to defend himself. But Mike Love is the BBs compassionate savior and Brian's greatest cheerleader!

[Mr. Cohen]

Mike comes up with the title for Endless Summer. Brian smashes his gold record for Endless Summer at a photo shoot. Fancy that.

[SMiLE Brian]

Mike comes up with the title for Endless Summer. Brian smashes his gold record for Endless Summer at a photo shoot. Fancy that.

I wish there was a picture of that, and it was on the gatefold for love you.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

After 50 years, it should be a "given" that they know their audiences.  They know what American audiences want.

They really don't. If they did then Summer in Paradise would have been at the very least a minimal success. What galls me is Mike Love acting as if he has his finger on the pulse of what the average Beach Boys listener wants to hear. Not saying he doesn't have some good idea, but in many ways he's like an executive at a movie studio who believes that all you need for a blockbuster are the usual suspects that make up a winning formula. But here's the thing - some times it does, and some times it doesn't. In fact, it typically runs the same risks as, say, taking some artistic license.

When all is said in done, in terms of consistently drawing in an American audience, the Beach Boys downright rely on Brian Wilson.

And more over, why is it so important to strictly give American audiences what they want? How about putting on the best show they possibly can and if someone in the audience walks away unhappy (which is bound to happen under every circumstance) then that's unfortunate but not  a big loss. It's something that someone like Neil Young has always done and it certainly hasn't impeded his success to any significant degree.

[Mr. Cohen]

That said, if Mike made a cheesy psychedelic video for "10,000 Years" off of Mike Love Not War, I'd forgive everything.

[Danimalist]

How about putting on the best show they possibly can and if someone in the audience walks away unhappy (which is bound to happen under every circumstance) then that's unfortunate but not  a big loss. It's something that someone like Neil Young has always done and it certainly hasn't impeded his success to any significant degree.

R&R, as I was walking away from the Greek Theater show, I overheard a mom ask her kids, "What did you think of the show?" One of her late high school/early college aged sons replied, head down and sulking, "I just wish they'd played 'Getcha Back.'"

I thanked God that Mike didn't know his audience that well.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

How about putting on the best show they possibly can and if someone in the audience walks away unhappy (which is bound to happen under every circumstance) then that's unfortunate but not  a big loss. It's something that someone like Neil Young has always done and it certainly hasn't impeded his success to any significant degree.

R&R, as I was walking away from the Greek Theater show, I overheard a mom ask her kids, "What did you think of the show?" One of her late high school/early college aged sons replied, head down and sulking, "I just wish they'd played 'Getcha Back.'"

I thanked God that Mike didn't know his audience that well.

 

Oh, those kids and their MTV.

[filledeplage]

After 50 years, it should be a "given" that they know their audiences.  They know what American audiences want.

They really don't. If they did then Summer in Paradise would have been at the very least a minimal success. What galls me is Mike Love acting as if he has his finger on the pulse of what the average Beach Boys listener wants to hear. Not saying he doesn't have some good idea, but in many ways he's like an executive at a movie studio who believes that all you need for a blockbuster are the usual suspects that make up a winning formula. But here's the thing - some times it does, and some times it doesn't. In fact, it typically runs the same risks as, say, taking some artistic license.

When all is said in done, in terms of consistently drawing in an American audience, the Beach Boys downright rely on Brian Wilson.

And more over, why is it so important to strictly give American audiences what they want? How about putting on the best show they possibly can and if someone in the audience walks away unhappy (which is bound to happen under every circumstance) then that's unfortunate but not  a big loss. It's something that someone like Neil Young has always done and it certainly hasn't impeded his success to any significant degree.

Speaking of Neil Young - he took a slam on that magazine nowtoronto as did the Boys this week.  

No one, I don't care who they are, {even the Boys} does everything perfectly, or ever has 100% commercial success.  So what! It is part of life. Most of us only learn from mistakes.  I happen to like  Summer in Paradise.  My perogative. Was it a mistake?  I don't know.  It feels like nitpicking.

Would anyone go to a haircutter to have them cut your hair the way the haircutter wants?  No.  It is no different.  They know their audiences' tastes.  Some albums were not commercially successful in the States.  They might have been artistic successes, after the bias calmed down, but, during certain periods, they were combatting an ingrained stereotype, a hostile record company and a war-time climate.

And some challengingly abstract lyrics. There, I've said it.  Awesome vocals.  And words, that the common man did not get. But I was  blessed to be a student, and Wordsworth was on the menu (The Child is the Father of the Man.) Not so, for the rest of the world.  The world that Mike faced night after night.  And, this is the old slippery slope.  And, hopelessly debated and old.  That window is probably closed.  I hope it has run its' course.

It is a delicate balance.  I would often read the European setlists and drool.  "Why not here in the States?" and there were clear and reasonable explanations.  It might not be what I wanted as a casual fan but the reality of my geography.  And, I can only liken it to Chicago.  I know their greatest hits.  (some with the Boys)  But, I don't know their obscure, deep cuts and don't want to hear more than one or two at a show for the first time as a casual fan.  The audience is not comprised of all die-hard, know every word fans.  I guess that is a good reason.

And," commonality of experience and background" is what drives audience response.  The questions are:  1) What do they know? and 2) What do they like? The "commonality of experiences" is different in Europe from the States.  

And they should not have to apologize for that.  Things are different.  My understanding is that many other venues are theatre based and not casino/entertainment center based.  That is the new concert model.  Theater performances are generally night ones.  That limits children and young people.  Casinos limit that as well.  Smaller venues, in the summer are more family or resort based and more songs are done that younger people (and rightfullly so) would be familiar with.  

It is largely situational ethics as in "When in Rome; do as the Romans do."  

JMHO  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

No one, I don't care who they are, {even the Boys} does everything perfectly, or ever has 100% commercial success.  So what!

That was exactly my point. Audiece reactions are unpredictable so it is useless planning around audience expectations.

Would anyone go to a haircutter to have them cut your hair the way the haircutter wants?  No.

What do you mean no? Many, many, many, many, many people do just that. What do you think the term "hair stylist" means? People are trained for this and they know about haircutting way more than you do, which is why many people pay top dollar precisely so that the haircutter cuts hair the way they want.

It is no different.

It is different. Aside from the cases mentioned above, one is a business and one is art. Art and business are not the same. Business models have been forced on art but that doesn't make them the same thing.

 They know their audiences' tastes.  Some albums were not commercially successful in the States.

Some albums were not commercially successful anywhere and I'm talking about the ones that came later in their career, which you suggest should be exactly when they should know their audience best, not crafting their lowest selling album ever.

And some challengingly abstract lyrics. There, I've said it.  Awesome vocals.  And words, that the common man did not get. But I was  blessed to be a student, and Wordsworth was on the menu (The Child is the Father of the Man.) Not so, for the rest of the world.  The world that Mike faced night after night.  And, this is the old slippery slope.  And, hopelessly debated and old.  That window is probably closed.  I hope it has run its' course.

I'm sorry but I don't buy it. Like A Rolling Stone was a #1 song and it had abstract and complex lyrics. One could say the same thing for Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields, and Come Together.

It is a delicate balance.  I would often read the European setlists and drool.  "Why not here in the States?" and there were clear and reasonable explanations.

Seems to me the reason is if the audience is unfamiliar with the songs, they don't get the hear them - which is more of a self-fulfilling prophecy than anything. Didn't these "die-hard, know every word fans" get to be that way precisely because they heard the material? Why not give the audience some credit and believe they can experience something unfamiliar without going ballistic. It works for plenty of artists.

It is largely situational ethics as in "When in Rome; do as the Romans do."  

But they killed Jesus! The expression really should be, "When in Rome, don't do as the Romans do."

[Autotune]

Mike's statements in this interview.  Is it truth?


"I wrote every word to that song." ~ ML on Good Vibrations

"I wrote every word to California Girls"  ~ ML


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrSQ5tZMWhU&feature=related

California girls: Brian had said so for years before the Court settlement.

[Mr. Cohen]

And some challengingly abstract lyrics. There, I've said it.  Awesome vocals.  And words, that the common man did not get. But I was  blessed to be a student, and Wordsworth was on the menu (The Child is the Father of the Man.) Not so, for the rest of the world.  The world that Mike faced night after night.  And, this is the old slippery slope.  And, hopelessly debated and old.  That window is probably closed.  I hope it has run its' course.

I'm sorry but I don't buy it. Like A Rolling Stone was a #1 song and it had abstract and complex lyrics. One could say the same thing for Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields, and Come Together.

Plus, let's not forget that Brian somehow managed to tour Smile in the 2000s. Freakin' Smile, man! And the BBs played this setlist in 1972: http://members.tripod.com/~fun_fun_fun/3-8-72.html Has Mike given you all Love-induced amnesia?

But there was no choice but to have the BBs be "fun, fun, fun in the sun" forever. Remember that.

[Mr. Cohen]

California girls: Brian had said so for years before the Court settlement.

Explain this: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/12/entertainment/ca-socalsong12

Yes, the rest was history. Wilson, then 22, kept working the keyboard and, turning his thoughts to fashion magazines, he came up with one of the most famous opening lines in pop music. "Well, East Coast girls are hip, I really dig those styles they wear. . . "

The next day, Mike Love came by the apartment on Gardner Street and the pair -- one a troubled auteur, the other the commercial-minded driving force behind the Beach Boys -- took turns building a hit that would define the sun-tanned promise of L.A. as the center of American glamour and youth. "Every other line was his or mine," Wilson said.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Plus, let's not forget that Brian somehow managed to tour Smile in the 2000s. Freakin' Smile, man!

Which went to #13 in the US. That's remarkable for a 60s artist in 2004.

[Mr. Cohen]

Wilson is enjoying a well-documented career renaissance. He's feeling more confident too. When asked about the accepted lore that it was Love who had written almost all the lyrics to "California Girls," he said that was a fallacy he had let go unchallenged for too long. "I wrote a lot of those lyrics too; it was line for line, back and forth between us. That's what happened."

[Cam Mott]

Mike's done a lot of myth-making over the years and it's quite a coincidence that that he finally decided to bring that songwriting issue in court when Brian was in terrible shape, reeling from the Landy fallout -  you know, when Brian was in no shape to defend himself. But Mike Love is the BBs compassionate savior and Brian's greatest cheerleader!

As I understand it, in the process of Mike testifying for Brian in Brian's suit against Irving [1991?] it came to Mike's attention that it would still be possible to recover the authorship Murry and [mostly?] Brian had cheated him out of from Irving/Brian. He had thought it wasn't something that could not be righted up until then.

Still would like to know who exactly Mike won the suit against and who was supposed to pay. Any of you lawyer-types able to look it up on that lawyer thingy?

[Autotune]

California girls: Brian had said so for years before the Court settlement.

Explain this: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/12/entertainment/ca-socalsong12

Yes, the rest was history. Wilson, then 22, kept working the keyboard and, turning his thoughts to fashion magazines, he came up with one of the most famous opening lines in pop music. "Well, East Coast girls are hip, I really dig those styles they wear. . . "

The next day, Mike Love came by the apartment on Gardner Street and the pair -- one a troubled auteur, the other the commercial-minded driving force behind the Beach Boys -- took turns building a hit that would define the sun-tanned promise of L.A. as the center of American glamour and youth. "Every other line was his or mine," Wilson said.

I stand corrected: can't find a source in which Brian says Mike wrote all of the lyrics. On The Wilson Project, Brian is quoted as saying Mike "wrote part of the song".

[Mr. Cohen]

As I understand it, in the process of Mike testifying for Brian in Brian's suit against Irving [1991?] it came to Mike's attention that it would still be possible to recover the authorship Murry and [mostly?] Brian had cheated him out of from Irving/Brian. He had thought it wasn't something that could not be righted up until then.

Yep, Mike's squadrons of lawyers never thought of that possibility before.... or was it that Mike saw an almost incoherent Brian at the 1991 trial and realized his chance to rewrite history? I'm not saying that Mike didn't get cheated out of some songwriting credits, but a few of the songs he got credited for in the lawsuit are ridiculous.

Besides, didn't Mike originally ask Brian for less than a million and songwriting credits? It was only after Brian's lawyers took Mike to court that Brian got slapped around. Which, again, makes it seem like Mike was in it more for the perception of being viewed as a creative force than for anything else.