New Mike interview in HuffPost

[SurfRiderHawaii]

My assumption based on stories I've read over the years is that Mike was aware that he didn't get the credit when the record came out, and confronted Brian about it. Brian said something like, 'Yeh, sorry, my dad messed up, we'll fix it'. And over the years, it wasn't fixed, Mike moved on to other things,

Yeah, that's the difference I'm getting at -- it's not just a matter of spotting it, it's a matter of pursuing it.  Being reminded to keep chasing it up while all the other mishegoss of life is going on.

Like I said -- God knows I did initially know about some of the financial things I screwed up in my mid-20s.  But they fell off my radar.

Cheers,
Jon Blum

So I can expect to never see you on a Smile thread hypothesizing about what happened cause now we have the Smile Sessions Box? 

[guitarfool2002]

My assumption based on stories I've read over the years is that Mike was aware that he didn't get the credit when the record came out, and confronted Brian about it. Brian said something like, 'Yeh, sorry, my dad messed up, we'll fix it'. And over the years, it wasn't fixed, Mike moved on to other things,

Yeah, that's the difference I'm getting at -- it's not just a matter of spotting it, it's a matter of pursuing it.  Being reminded to keep chasing it up while all the other mishegoss of life is going on.

Like I said -- God knows I did initially know about some of the financial things I screwed up in my mid-20s.  But they fell off my radar.

Cheers,
Jon Blum

I'm calling a time out here - Since the discussion has turned this way, the point should be made that Mike's issues with undercrediting go all the way back to "409" which in Goldmine (Summer 1992, pre-lawsuit) he claims he got screwed out of a credit for writing lyrical hooks, yet Usher got a credit. Then most of the Christmas album originals, I Get Around, Catch A Wave...and more of the 63-64 songs, cited by Mike in Goldmine, were not properly credited.

So we're focused on California Girls in 1965, 1 bloomin' record, and Mike's charges go back to 1962.

Just like he saw all the chart positions and success, and the gold records, and Brian getting various BMI awards and gold records from Capitol throughout 1965, he SURELY noticed this.

Was the story about Mike confronting Brian about California Girls and Brian saying "my dad will fix it" a regular pattern of behavior for these two every time a record became a hit? Because there were according to Mike many records where this happened.

And don't be fooled, every band, performer, songwriter, etc watches the Billboard charts like a hawk to see what their latest single or album is doing. It's a case of ego and competition that all musicians have but some just choose to lie about when they say "it don't matter". That's a fact.  

And the other fact is if it were one record, California Girls, the story would be more acceptable. As Mike cites issues going back to 409, what did or didn't Mike do every time the band got an award or had a top-100 charting song and he didn't see his name on that song?

[SurfRiderHawaii]

My bad!  First I heard the story about Mike confronting Brian about California Girls and Brian saying "my dad will fix it" . Pretty much answers my question, or is plausible.

[guitarfool2002]

Who really cares when or why Mike noticed? The thing is, as a cowriter he deserved credit regardless of how one feels about him.

No one denies he deserved the credits he received.

But as a musician yourself, doesn't it seem even the slightest bit strange that a man who knows he wrote and sang certain hooks on certain hit records and even semi-hits or album cuts dating back to 1962 seems to have done nothing substantial to have tried to change that problem until 1992, after apparently family and legal counsel told him he could stand to win something from it? Then he unloads all sort of piss and vinegar in a Goldmine interview prior to filing a lawsuit.

Put it this way: You, I , or anyone who has written a song...we write what seems to be a crucial element of a song, like "giddy up, giddy up, giddy up 409", you can't wait for the record to come out, you get said record in your hands or see a pre-release Billboard review or whatever, and your name isn't there.

Then it happens again, again, again...on both #1 records and throwaway Christmas tunes sung by Al Jardine or whoever...

At what point does the piss-and-vinegar seen in the pages of Billboard come out as it's actually happening in real time, never mind 30 years later? Or as I asked about 5 pages ago, what stopped Mike from taking action at that time?

It's just a mystery no one seems to want to answer, or simply can't.

[guitarfool2002]

My bad!  First I heard the story about Mike confronting Brian about California Girls and Brian saying "my dad will fix it" . Pretty much answers my question, or is plausible.

No bad at all, no worries! I just wanted to remind everyone discussing it that it extends all the way back to 1962, but if it were just California Girls and done, then it would put a different twist on the whole thing and make the confrontation story more plausible.

But I Get Around was a number 1 smash hit...Mike failed to notice or act on the fact his name wasn't on the record either? Surreal if true. Or we're not getting the full details.

[KittyKat]

Didn't Carl give a deposition on Mike's behalf in the lawsuit? All the Beach Boys were very angry at Brian in the early '90s due to Brian's autobiography being published. They all sued Brian for that book, including Carl and his mother Audree. I'm sure they put a lot of blame on Eugene, but they had to think Brian had some responsibility for that book getting published. Eugene Landy was also the instigator of the Sea of Tunes lawsuit in the first place. Brian never sued prior to that, you might well ask why didn't Brian sue much earlier over his dad selling Sea of Tunes. Landy made the Sea of Tunes lawsuit happen, and I'm sure resentment of Landy and the book fueled Mike's lawsuit as much as whatever his lawyers told him was possible.

[DonnyL]

My bad!  First I heard the story about Mike confronting Brian about California Girls and Brian saying "my dad will fix it" . Pretty much answers my question, or is plausible.

No bad at all, no worries! I just wanted to remind everyone discussing it that it extends all the way back to 1962, but if it were just California Girls and done, then it would put a different twist on the whole thing and make the confrontation story more plausible.

But I Get Around was a number 1 smash hit...Mike failed to notice or act on the fact his name wasn't on the record either? Surreal if true. Or we're not getting the full details.

It is curious why Mike wouldn't take notice earlier, but my guess based on what I've read over the years, is that 'Calif. Girls' is really key, in that it was a super big hit, and Mike had a crucial role in the songwriting. 'Calif. Girls' was something mentioned over the years, before the trial (I think there's an '80s interview with Brian in which he says something like, 'Mike has a problem with me because my dad didn't give him credit on California Girls').

I'm sure you've all seen this: http://www.surfermoon.com/essays/lovevwilson1.html -- but I think it's worth re-reading for the purposes of this discussion.

... from the article:

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

Which I'm generally in agreement with.

This kind of thinking may have been standard around the group, and maybe Mike had it in his head, 'hey I wrote some of this song, I came up with the hook, I changed this lyric', etc. without really pursuing it.

Also potentially relevant!:

He [Venet] mentioned that it was funny that Mike was so interested in the business aspect because he was always more interested in the girls in the office.

He obviously felt that he was being specifically excluded (Carl gets credit for the guitar riff in 'Dance Dance Dance' but Mike doesn't get lyrical credit).

I think in the case of 'Calif. Girls', it was the first time that it was so blatantly obvious that he brought it up. And Brian had always acknowledged that Mike was co-writer. The earlier stuff may have included more minimal contributions from Mike. Or, if you will ... it was the straw that broke the camel's back, and he was credited properly from then on for the most part.

Or, perhaps the other songs were tunes that Brian conceptualized, and Mike just added a few hooks or some lyrics on ... while 'Calif. Girls' was a track where the genesis was with Mike. I mean, why were random things like 'Please Let Me Wonder' credited to Mike while others were not?

Once again, as usual with the group, we are left with more questions than answers !

[Nicko1234]

Then again, you have little things like 'round round get-around' ... I mean, that's the hook. The thing Terry Melcher said about a Mike Love element being present in all of the group's biggest hits rings true in my opinion.

Mike actually claims that he wrote most of the words to I Get Around.

[Nicko1234]

No one denies he deserved the credits he received.

But as a musician yourself, doesn't it seem even the slightest bit strange that a man who knows he wrote and sang certain hooks on certain hit records and even semi-hits or album cuts dating back to 1962 seems to have done nothing substantial to have tried to change that problem until 1992, after apparently family and legal counsel told him he could stand to win something from it? Then he unloads all sort of piss and vinegar in a Goldmine interview prior to filing a lawsuit.

How long did it take Matthew Fisher to get a credit for Whiter Shade of Pale?

[Mike's Beard]

I think two reasons why Mike took action in 1992 that he didn't take before were (a) the obvious, after years of having his finances in disarray Brian had a solid lump of cash and (b) by 1992 Brian really couldn't be called a member of the Beach Boys anymore. Mike must have realised that by going after a fellow bandmate legally he would end up risking blowing the group apart. 

[guitarfool2002]

No one denies he deserved the credits he received.

But as a musician yourself, doesn't it seem even the slightest bit strange that a man who knows he wrote and sang certain hooks on certain hit records and even semi-hits or album cuts dating back to 1962 seems to have done nothing substantial to have tried to change that problem until 1992, after apparently family and legal counsel told him he could stand to win something from it? Then he unloads all sort of piss and vinegar in a Goldmine interview prior to filing a lawsuit.

How long did it take Matthew Fisher to get a credit for Whiter Shade of Pale?

Was Matthew Fisher's uncle the one running the publishing company that owned the songs and pocketed the money?

Good ol' Uncle Murry. Forget about song credits, the Love household could always count on him showing up for a Christmas singalong with a fucking Tupperware container full of red and green Jello and bottle of Chivas, though.  

[Jonathan Blum]

But as a musician yourself, doesn't it seem even the slightest bit strange that a man who knows he wrote and sang certain hooks on certain hit records and even semi-hits or album cuts dating back to 1962 seems to have done nothing substantial to have tried to change that problem until 1992, after apparently family and legal counsel told him he could stand to win something from it?

Again, during the period in question, remember we're talking about a 22-25-year-old ex-gas-station-attendant whose level of displayed financial savvy doesn't seem to extend beyond "I'm a real cool head / I'm making real good bread".

I can easily see him asking to get his name put on the credits as a matter of pride, but not really getting his teeth into the idea that there were major amounts of money at stake.  Cuz, y'know, he's got major amounts of money right then, for the first time in his life -- kinda takes the edge off the need for it.

I also can't picture tremendous amounts of financial wizardry from the apple-juice-fasting Mike of five years later, even with his genuwine Indian guru who's teachin' him a better way.

Basically, I don't expect either him or Brian to have been particularly on the ball for quite a long time.  They're young, they're clueless, they're Beach Boys.

Cheers,
Jon Blum

[Jonathan Blum]

So I can expect to never see you on a Smile thread hypothesizing about what happened cause now we have the Smile Sessions Box? 

Oh, you may well see me there.  But hopefully you won't see me blaming and accusing anyone, cause I can accept that they all stuffed up.

And I'm way more bothered by people being twats here and now than by whether other people were twats forty-odd years ago.


Brian finished Smile, BTW.  It may not have been the Smile he was struggling towards in '67, but it's probably closer to the one he originally set out to make in the first place.  :-)

Cheers,
Jon Blum

[adamghost]

Gotta say, Nik Venet's comments are pretty spot-on, and go to some of the criticisms of Mike's lawsuit.  Tony Asher claims that Mike Love's co-credit comes from "good night/sleep tight my baby."  If I had written the lyrics to that and had to share credit on that basis, I would be furious.

The difference between Carl's riff and something like the above is Carl's riff is the genesis of the song -- the whole thing is built around it.  

I've told this story before.  I used to have a bass player in my band who always complained that he didn't get songwriting credits.  So I said, "great, let's sit down and write something together."  But he didn't want to do that.  He said "bring in some ideas to rehearsal, and let me mess around with them."  Which really meant, write 95% of the song, and then let me change something so that I can claim a songwriting credit.  

Now, there's no question that Mike got cheated out of "California Girls" and perhaps other things...but...Al's 1999 GOLDMINE interview suggests that while the other guys were fine with going along with what Brian got in, Mike was always looking for ways to change and add input.  Now.  We can argue about how important or not important Mike's input was.  There's no way to know whether it was the all-important change that makes the song commercial or just some hokey ba ba ba that didn't need to be there.  But you can imagine Brian's perspective of coming in with a completed song, having Mike want to change this or that, Brian adopting the change just to placate Mike and keep the session going, but not being particularly in a hurry to assign Mike a cowriting credit.

By the way, this is an age-old dispute on which musicians and songwriters in bands often find themselves on opposite sides.  Musicians will often contribute key parts to a recording -- perhaps the hook that sells the song -- but that does not make them songwriters.  If you're in the studio, and you're on the record...that's part of your job.  What's the most compelling part of "Baker Street" by Gerry Rafferty?  The sax solo, of course.  But Rafael Ravenscroft doesn't get a songwriting credit.  He got his union fee and probably a lot more gigs out of it.  But coming up with a great sax line -- that was his job.

[Cam Mott]

Unfrickin' believable. Mike sued when he did because he got screwed over helping Brian sue when he did. Did Brian not deserve his award from Irving because he knew everyday since 1969 that he got screwed but did nothing about it? As far as we know Mike would have stayed silent about it the rest of his life if Brian hadn't asked him to help in his suit against Irving. Why did Brian not make it right in the first place is the real question.

[Cam Mott]

No one denies he deserved the credits he received.

But as a musician yourself, doesn't it seem even the slightest bit strange that a man who knows he wrote and sang certain hooks on certain hit records and even semi-hits or album cuts dating back to 1962 seems to have done nothing substantial to have tried to change that problem until 1992, after apparently family and legal counsel told him he could stand to win something from it? Then he unloads all sort of piss and vinegar in a Goldmine interview prior to filing a lawsuit.

How long did it take Matthew Fisher to get a credit for Whiter Shade of Pale?

Was Matthew Fisher's uncle the one running the publishing company that owned the songs and pocketed the money?

Good ol' Uncle Murry. Forget about song credits, the Love household could always count on him showing up for a Christmas singalong with a fucking Tupperware container full of red and green Jello and bottle of Chivas, though.  

In the BBs case cousin Brian was pocketing the money/royalties that should have gone to Mike because the SOT money was the same regardless of how many coauthors. Right?

[Nicko1234]

Was Matthew Fisher's uncle the one running the publishing company that owned the songs and pocketed the money?

Good ol' Uncle Murry. Forget about song credits, the Love household could always count on him showing up for a Christmas singalong with a fucking Tupperware container full of red and green Jello and bottle of Chivas, though.  

What relevance does that have?

[SurfRiderHawaii]

So I can expect to never see you on a Smile thread hypothesizing about what happened cause now we have the Smile Sessions Box?  

Oh, you may well see me there.  But hopefully you won't see me blaming and accusing anyone, cause I can accept that they all stuffed up.

And I'm way more bothered by people being twats here and now than by whether other people were twats forty-odd years ago.


Brian finished Smile, BTW.  It may not have been the Smile he was struggling towards in '67, but it's probably closer to the one he originally set out to make in the first place.  :-)

Cheers,
Jon Blum

Very bad form old boy, name calling and all that.  You are criticizing people for wondering what the story was back in 1962-65 and how Mike didn't get his credits. But it's ok for you to do so about Smile, or whatever? I'm not going to get into the Smile debate but my analogy went right over your head. Smile came out (in two ways), Mike got his money.  In your judgment, it's ok to look back at one but not the other. I think they call that hypocrisy.



 

[Jonathan Blum]

Very bad form old boy, name calling and all that.  You are criticizing people for wondering what the story was back in 1962-65 and how Mike didn't get his credits.

*Huh*?  Where did I criticize people for that?

The only thing I'm having a go at is folks sledging other people -- and I'm *not* calling anyone out by name for that, because I'm talking about the behavior, not about them.  Certainly nothing about "wondering".

What the,
Jon Blum

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Very bad form old boy, name calling and all that.  You are criticizing people for wondering what the story was back in 1962-65 and how Mike didn't get his credits.

*Huh*?  Where did I criticize people for that?

The only thing I'm having a go at is folks sledging other people -- and I'm *not* calling anyone out by name for that, because I'm talking about the behavior, not about them.  Certainly nothing about "wondering".

What the,
Jon Blum

Then obviously my bad, my mistake in misunderstanding what you were saying on the previous page. Sorry Jon. 

[HeyJude]

Well, I think the issue of trying to place personal, moral, non-legal blame as far as the songwriting credits is kind of silly. It’s just funny how some fans have used nothing but pure legal technicalities to “defend” Mike when it comes to things like band name/trademark lawsuits, while we now have all of this personal, very subjective moral judgment when it comes to the songwriting credits. In any event, I apologize if this was already mentioned in the thread earlier (I honestly can’t read it all), but in a 2004 Mojo interview, Mike himself seemed to place FAR more blame on Murry than Brian when it came to the songwriting credits issue:

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.”

[leggo of my ego]

Broke in the early 1990??? Well, I cant believe Michael was that improvident - You'd have thought HIS NUMBER ONE SUPERHIT KOKOMO would have provided jet fuel to retire comfortably on.

Ah, such is the life of a Rock Star.

[leggo of my ego]

Good Article "Hey Jude". Explains the basics of the litigation quite well in a few paragraphs.

I liked GF's posts too but fell asleep a few times digesting all the information. 

As we can clearly SEE Brian is exonerated (rightfully) from blame and thats placed at the feet of Unc Murry where it belongs.

Why didnt Mike ever sic his brothers on Murry? He just need to be roughed up a little to co-operate.

Ah, the lost opportunies of a Rock Star.

[guitarfool2002]

Was Matthew Fisher's uncle the one running the publishing company that owned the songs and pocketed the money?

Good ol' Uncle Murry. Forget about song credits, the Love household could always count on him showing up for a Christmas singalong with a fucking Tupperware container full of red and green Jello and bottle of Chivas, though.  

What relevance does that have?

What relevance? Serious question? IT WAS THE MAN'S OWN UNCLE. Do you think, even once as all of the records were coming out missing Mike's name on the credits, that it wouldn't have been mentioned in the family dynamic *outside* the business sense? Mike's parents you don't think would have raised it at some point with Murry?

I was being sarcastic in a way, but think about not just a father taking money from his sons, but also from his nephew.

I think we're overstating yet again the seriousness of Mike's non-credits at the time it was a current event in the 60's.

I honestly don't think it was that big of a deal as *everyone* in the band was enjoying wealth and perks of being rock stars that they never imagined, especially in 1965-66, so whatever agreements or tacit agreements were made with songwriting, it was easy to roll with the punches instead of rocking the boat, perhaps.

[guitarfool2002]

And with the interview excerpt from HeyJude's post, that's my cue to back out of this.

So much of all of the legal crap I waded through and tried to post in a comprehensive way was backed up if not validated in HeyJude's interview clipping. The conclusions I was banking on as being close to the heart of the situation and not just the case also came out in the interview.

Everything that I was challenged on, like those comments about the conservatorship "it's irrelevant!" "why bring THAT up?". to Murry's role and behavior, to Brian's intent versus Murry...to Brian's mental state "it's irrelevant!"

It's irrelevant, that's irrelevant, let's not bring that into the talk, he's irrelevant, let's change the parameters, why bring this up, this isn't the topic, 18 pages of this...etc. The attempts to correct things with even more faulty information perhaps took the cake. Glad I don't buy company lines that easily in 2013.  

Cam, Sheriff, Nicko...those still putting most blame on Brian, how does that line up with MIKE HIMSELF saying this:

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.”



This was fun. Thank you for a rollicking discussion. I went back and learned more about the ins and outs of the lawsuit than I had ever known or read anywhere else. I found there were so many more layers to it beyond "Brian screwed over Mike" or "Mike's a jerk for suing Brian".

Keep believing that garbage if it's convenient. But it's simply not at the heart of what went on.

I wish I were able to sum up what Mike said in those few paragraphs in a better, more concise way, but I tend to overstate things, wanting to get all the information spot-on so the "fact-checkers" can't impugn what's been said by pointing out I didn't use a semi-colon, therefore my statements are void.  


Seriously, read Mike's own words and thoughts on the matter, and let's see it for what it is instead of with a personal bias or vendetta to prove who was a hero and who was a villain. It came down to going right to the source for his own words and thoughts. The fact that it lines up pretty damned close with what I've been trying to say for several pages feels good in a personal way, like a validation of something I just couldn't express to make a final point as neatly as the actual parties involved can do.

Thank you again, I'm back to regular programming for awhile if not a mini-hiatus.    Off the legal kick, but damn that was fun and educational. Which is the whole point of boards like this.