New Mike interview in HuffPost

[Iron Horse-Apples]

But calling people apologists is just fine?

No, which is why I said this.

Then with terms like bashers and apologists being thrown around, we are all cast in the role of extremist.

I first used the term apologist as a (humourous) reaction to 3 pages of basher / hater comments. This last page though I've been trying to find a middle ground. Obviously not cutting it with you guys though. I can only assume, judging by the majority of your posts, that you only come here to argue with people, and you are a genuinely confronational person. Nothing wrong with that, but it makes any concession on my part pointless.

This is getting rediculous!

Yep

Brian took advantage of his family and wrongly hogged all the creative credit of lots of songs and solely profited from that theft from his family.

I take you are joking here, to draw attention to how stupid some of the anti-Mike statements seem to you. I don't think you could seriously make the argument that the Beach Boys would even exist without Brian Wilson, unless you were a moron.

Mike sat on his lip for thirty years without a word of ever taking credit for lots of his creativity in lots of songs while Brian was fucking him over and not only taking all of the credit for but also all of the money.  Who is the credit hog and over self promoter and selfish prick that is callous toward their family?

Again, I applaud your sense of humour here. If you were being serious, which I know your not, then this statement would make you the single biggest cretin I've ever spoken to on here.
 

I think some people are just wrong about how Mike is

That's because you lack the basic empathetic skills to accept that not everyone thinks like you.

Even if I agreed with you you'd find a reason to argue.

I would reiterate we agree to differ, as this is a pointless argument, but it would again fall on deaf ears. I will suggest any intelligent people leave this thread now, and Cam, Nicko, Pinder and co can convince themselves they've won the argument, when in reality, everyone else has got bored and buggered off.

Laters guys 

[leggo of my ego]

Whoa! Stephen is on a roll!!

best laugh Ive had today

[Cam Mott]

Brian took advantage of his family and wrongly hogged all the creative credit of lots of songs and solely profited from that theft from his family.

I take you are joking here, to draw attention to how stupid some of the anti-Mike statements seem to you. I don't think you could seriously make the argument that the Beach Boys would even exist without Brian Wilson, unless you were a moron.

Mike sat on his lip for thirty years without a word of ever taking credit for lots of his creativity in lots of songs while Brian was fucking him over and not only taking all of the credit for but also all of the money.  Who is the credit hog and over self promoter and selfish prick that is callous toward their family?

Again, I applaud your sense of humour here. If you were being serious, which I know your not, then this statement would make you the single biggest cretin I've ever spoken to on here.
 

I think some people are just wrong about how Mike is

That's because you lack the basic empathetic skills to accept that not everyone thinks like you.

Even if I agreed with you you'd find a reason to argue.

I would reiterate we agree to differ, as this is a pointless argument, but it would again fall on deaf ears. I will suggest any intelligent people leave this thread now, and Cam, Nicko, Pinder and co can convince themselves they've won the argument, when in reality, everyone else has got bored and buggered off.

Laters guys 

I don't find it funny that Brian cheated his own cousin for decades. You do?

So this might make me the biggest cretin. Or moron. Cretin or no, Mike did stay silent while he was being cheated of credit and money by Brian for 3 decades. So which is the jerk in that deal?

My grievous lack of basic empathetic skills still allows me to accept that not everyone thinks like me while I also think they are wrong.

Laters intelligents, we unempathetic cretin morons may still be around.

[guitarfool2002]

I also took some of the comments as satire, but for anyone seriously entertaining the notion that Brian "f***ed over" his family and bandmates, consider what he did in the span of 6 years or so to enable them to live the millionaire's lifestyle and get paid to play music for people rather than working a regular job.

And not just that, but the body of work created during that time served many times as a cash cow which kept the money flowing and kept the demand for that music active.

[drbeachboy]

I also took some of the comments as satire, but for anyone seriously entertaining the notion that Brian "f***ed over" his family and bandmates, consider what he did in the span of 6 years or so to enable them to live the millionaire's lifestyle and get paid to play music for people rather than working a regular job.

And not just that, but the body of work created during that time served many times as a cash cow which kept the money flowing and kept the demand for that music active.

That is justifying a wrong with a previous right. So, Brian's original intention was to write songs, make everyone rich, then turn around and screw Mike out of co-writing royalties? Remember too, I doubt that any of those songs would have been hits had they been instrumentals, So, Brian's lyricists did help make these songs big hits. This was more likely a Murry thing than Brian, but it should've been righted out of court when Brian's peeps had the chance to do so.

[Sheriff John Stone]

I also took some of the comments as satire, but for anyone seriously entertaining the notion that Brian "f***ed over" his family and bandmates, consider what he did in the span of 6 years or so to enable them to live the millionaire's lifestyle and get paid to play music for people rather than working a regular job.

And not just that, but the body of work created during that time served many times as a cash cow which kept the money flowing and kept the demand for that music active.

You are bringing a point into the discussion (Brian's work created millions of dollars for the band, therefore, we/they shouldn't question the money trail) that is not being debated and, frankly, isn't related to character, personality, or likeability, which is the crux of this debate.

Cheating someone out of money, not standing up for what is right, not addressing the subject for decades, and not giving credit where due, those are aspects of character. And those are the issues that Cam was addressing. Being grateful or not being grateful to Brian for his work/talent isn't the issue.  

[guitarfool2002]

Was Brian there when Tony Asher had a meeting with Murry and was basically told "take it or leave it" when a contract was signed for the songs he co-wrote on Pet Sounds, and got a flat fee of $7500 and 25% royalty (rather than a more even split between lyrics and music) for the future of those songs? Was Brian involved in Murry's decision to sell Sea Of Tunes and all the songs (including those which Mike had co-written) for a fraction of what they would be worth a few years later?

I'm not taking all blame away, but the notion that Brian should be held more responsible for fucking Mike out of his money from the songs is absurd.

And for as much as Mike's 3 million lawsuit was justified, and recall it was filed after Brian sued for *his own* cut of the publishing money that he didn't receive through the years (which he eventually won to the tune of 10 million), there were also elements of it that were a stretch if not outright bizarre, such as claiming to have had a bigger hand in writing and "editing" certain Wilson-Asher Pet Sounds songs while he was in Asia touring and Brian and Tony were writing the songs in question. And how much, exactly, is an improvised "good night my baby" line on an outro worth, exactly? More than Tony's 25% cut of the future royalties? Hmmm.

And I went satirical too, in response to the satirical suggestion that Brian somehow not only f***ed Mike out of his money but also f***ed his band by not working hard for them. It's answering the absurd with the absurd, the heart of satire itself. So what, exactly, at any given time when either Mike or Carl was running the band, should Brian have done? Write more songs? Stage another Brian's Back campaign? Do things he hadn't done since 1965?

I don't get what was expected of Brian in order to not give the impression he was fucking the band out of their just dues.

With the lawsuit in general, Brian's 10 million win and Mike's subsequent 3 million win, it seems there are some misunderstandings about how all of that came about. Ask this: Why didn't Mike sue the same publishing entity that Brian sued for his back royalties and credits? It was only after Brian won *his* suit for back payments that Mike sued for his, and he sued on Brian's payment of 10 million rather than the larger corporate entity Brian sued and beat. Interesting.

[Cam Mott]

Was Brian there when Tony Asher had a meeting with Murry and was basically told "take it or leave it" when a contract was signed for the songs he co-wrote on Pet Sounds, and got a flat fee of $7500 and 25% royalty (rather than a more even split between lyrics and music) for the future of those songs? Was Brian involved in Murry's decision to sell Sea Of Tunes and all the songs (including those which Mike had co-written) for a fraction of what they would be worth a few years later?

I'm not taking all blame away, but the notion that Brian should be held more responsible for fucking Mike out of his money from the songs is absurd.

And for as much as Mike's 3 million lawsuit was justified, and recall it was filed after Brian sued for *his own* cut of the publishing money that he didn't receive through the years (which he eventually won to the tune of 10 million), there were also elements of it that were a stretch if not outright bizarre, such as claiming to have had a bigger hand in writing and "editing" certain Wilson-Asher Pet Sounds songs while he was in Asia touring and Brian and Tony were writing the songs in question. And how much, exactly, is an improvised "good night my baby" line on an outro worth, exactly? More than Tony's 25% cut of the future royalties? Hmmm.

And I went satirical too, in response to the satirical suggestion that Brian somehow not only f***ed Mike out of his money but also f***ed his band by not working hard for them. It's answering the absurd with the absurd, the heart of satire itself. So what, exactly, at any given time when either Mike or Carl was running the band, should Brian have done? Write more songs? Stage another Brian's Back campaign? Do things he hadn't done since 1965?

I don't get what was expected of Brian in order to not give the impression he was fucking the band out of their just dues.

With the lawsuit in general, Brian's 10 million win and Mike's subsequent 3 million win, it seems there are some misunderstandings about how all of that came about. Ask this: Why didn't Mike sue the same publishing entity that Brian sued for his back royalties and credits? It was only after Brian won *his* suit for back payments that Mike sued for his, and he sued on Brian's payment of 10 million rather than the larger corporate entity Brian sued and beat. Interesting.

Asher and Christian and Usher got credit and money [whether they thought it was enough or not is another issue].  Brian was the producer, the main composer, possibly a co-publisher and Brian personally signed all of those documents that didn't include Mike as a coauthor.  Brian admits it happened and that he knew it and knew it was wrong and he should make it right. As a coauthor Brian is the only one who profited from under reporting of authorship. I don't understand all of the un-necessary benefit of the doubt giving toward Brian and lack of sympathy toward Mike.

[SMiLE Brian]

I though part of the stress for Brian during Pet Sounds and SMiLE was that his whole family depended on him to make money for the family.

[Wirestone]

I strongly suspect that the vast majority of Mike's lyrical claims are bogus. He had one legitimate gripe -- not being credited for California Girls -- and spun that into a full-scale rewriting of history (Guitarfool's post is worth reading here, too: Money was the prime motivator). Most of Mike's additions to Brian's songs, if they're documented, fall into the camp of "arranging" rather than "co-writing," and as such would not traditionally be considered worthy of a credit. Yet another reason I find the man difficult to take.

Any explanation of Mike's present-day behavior starts and ends with one word: jealousy.

[Wirestone]

Finally, most of the posts from the Kokomaoists on this thread are simply too absurd (or outright dada) to respond to in any sensible way.

[Cam Mott]

Finally, most of the posts from the Kokomaoists on this thread are simply too absurd (or outright dada) to respond to in any sensible way.

And we are the denialists? [shrug]

[guitarfool2002]

But remember, the lawsuits go back to the 60's and encapsulate several issues of monies due not being paid to those who were owed the money. Brian was owed as far back as the 60's something like one-and-a-half million dollars in producers credits and royalties which Capitol had not paid. These are the "points" that any producer negotiates for and signs a contract for to receive future profits from sales on a project. For decades many producers have negotiated "points" on an album project rather than accepting a payment, knowing what future sales could bring in versus getting a one-time check. And, Brian was indeed the "producer" of these records which sold into the millions. That was Capitol, who also stiffed the band in general out of money they were owed and which they eventually settled for.

Then Murry sells Sea Of Tunes to A&M in '69. One time payment, to the tune of 700,000, and which, yes, Brian signed the papers. The question is how did Murry gain control of Brian's share of Sea Of Tunes when it was a 50-50 split on ownership and control over the songs?

Fast forward. A&M through Irving-Almo now "owns" the Beach Boys song catalog and publishing rights. It comes out that Brian as the principal songwriter is owed back payments, which he eventually sues to collect. He wins that case, to the tune of 10 million in back payments owed him by A&M.

Mike's legal team *then* files suit against Brian's payment of 10 million, NOT against Irving-Almo and A&M, having NOT gone after A&M for the same back payments to right the wrongs that were done to him when the credits were filed all those years ago with Sea Of Tunes. If it could be established that he had a legitimate claim to those credits and back payments, and the same case on which he sued Brian for 3 million and won could have been made at any time, why didn't he seek to collect in the decades before Brian won his case? Or did he?

Unless I'm missing something, throughout those three decades of Mike getting BMI needledrop checks and whatnot, did he never file anything related to these credits against anyone until Brian won his own suit against the then-owners of the song catalog? If he felt he wasn't properly credited - which the case found he was wronged by the way he was left off writing credits for 80 or so tunes - a lawsuit could have been filed in, say, 1979 against A&M and Irving-Almo who owned the songs to get his proper credits and back pay for the profits from those songs. Right?

[SMiLE Brian]

Finally, most of the posts from the Kokomaoists on this thread are simply too absurd (or outright dada) to respond to in any sensible way.

Wirestone to the rescue!

[Mike's Beard]

Leaving aside the financial aspect, if I had wrote the words for California Girls I'd want the whole world to know that I did. I agree with others that several of Mike's co-credits are a stretch but for the songs he did play a big part in writing he fully deserved both credit and money for doing so. If Murry was leaning on Brian to cut Mike out of his due, then Brian should have grown a pair and told Murry to get f***ed.

[guitarfool2002]

Leaving aside the financial aspect, if I had wrote the words for California Girls I'd want the whole world to know that I did. I agree with others that several of Mike's co-credits are a stretch but for the songs he did play a big part in writing he fully deserved both credit and money for doing so. If Murry was leaning on Brian to cut Mike out of his due, then Brian should have grown a pair and told Murry to get f***ed.

Are there any accounts of Mike trying to right this wrong with "California Girls" credits in the years from 1965 up to Brian winning a 10 million judgement in the early 90's?

[Mike's Beard]

Leaving aside the financial aspect, if I had wrote the words for California Girls I'd want the whole world to know that I did. I agree with others that several of Mike's co-credits are a stretch but for the songs he did play a big part in writing he fully deserved both credit and money for doing so. If Murry was leaning on Brian to cut Mike out of his due, then Brian should have grown a pair and told Murry to get f***ed.

Are there any accounts of Mike trying to right this wrong with "California Girls" credits in the years from 1965 up to Brian winning a 10 million judgement in the early 90's?

I honestly have no idea but would be very interested to find out.

[SMiLE Brian]

I think it was about the ten million dollars for Mike.

Keep in mind he went bankrupt in the early 1980s and didn't sue Brian then for credit.

[Cam Mott]

But remember, the lawsuits go back to the 60's and encapsulate several issues of monies due not being paid to those who were owed the money. Brian was owed as far back as the 60's something like one-and-a-half million dollars in producers credits and royalties which Capitol had not paid. These are the "points" that any producer negotiates for and signs a contract for to receive future profits from sales on a project. For decades many producers have negotiated "points" on an album project rather than accepting a payment, knowing what future sales could bring in versus getting a one-time check. And, Brian was indeed the "producer" of these records which sold into the millions. That was Capitol, who also stiffed the band in general out of money they were owed and which they eventually settled for.

Then Murry sells Sea Of Tunes to A&M in '69. One time payment, to the tune of 700,000, and which, yes, Brian signed the papers. The question is how did Murry gain control of Brian's share of Sea Of Tunes when it was a 50-50 split on ownership and control over the songs?

Fast forward. A&M through Irving-Almo now "owns" the Beach Boys song catalog and publishing rights. It comes out that Brian as the principal songwriter is owed back payments, which he eventually sues to collect. He wins that case, to the tune of 10 million in back payments owed him by A&M.

Mike's legal team *then* files suit against Brian's payment of 10 million, NOT against Irving-Almo and A&M, having NOT gone after A&M for the same back payments to right the wrongs that were done to him when the credits were filed all those years ago with Sea Of Tunes. If it could be established that he had a legitimate claim to those credits and back payments, and the same case on which he sued Brian for 3 million and won could have been made at any time, why didn't he seek to collect in the decades before Brian won his case? Or did he?

Unless I'm missing something, throughout those three decades of Mike getting BMI needledrop checks and whatnot, did he never file anything related to these credits against anyone until Brian won his own suit against the then-owners of the song catalog? If he felt he wasn't properly credited - which the case found he was wronged by the way he was left off writing credits for 80 or so tunes - a lawsuit could have been filed in, say, 1979 against A&M and Irving-Almo who owned the songs to get his proper credits and back pay for the profits from those songs. Right?

I agree, other people and companies were awful. That still leaves Brian's awfulness on Brian's shoulders.

Are you sure the suit was against Brian or only against Brian? Because the only suit documentation I've seen has Irving et al as the defendant and then down the page some subsidiaries of Irving and some persons, including Brian, are listed as et als. Are there two suits?

I don't understand why the fact that Mike didn't go after Brian earlier seems to matter. Mike had to prove his case and Brian has admitted Mike deserved it. Mike explained that he had been asking Brian about it all along and Brian put him off with broken promises to fix it. So Mike put his faith in Brian apparently. Later Mike testified for Brian in Brian's case against Irving. As a result of that Mike found out he still had an actionable claim. So are we supposed to be upset because Mike waited for Brian, helped Brian sue, and offered a low ball settlement?

[Mike's Beard]

I think it was about the ten million dollars for Mike.

Keep in mind he went bankrupt in the early 1980s and didn't sue Brian then for credit.

True but I think Brian was 'cash poor' around the time also.

[Cam Mott]

I think it was about the ten million dollars for Mike.

Keep in mind he went bankrupt in the early 1980s and didn't sue Brian then for credit.

I think it was 10 million to Brian and the jury awarded 3 million to Mike after Mike only asked for $750,000. Anybody know? AGD?

[Mike's Beard]

I agree, other people and companies were awful. That still leaves Brian's awfulness on Brian's shoulders.

Are you sure the suit was against Brian or only against Brian? Because the only suit documentation I've seen has Irving et al as the defendant and then down the page some subsidiaries of Irving and some persons, including Brian, are listed as et als. Are there two suits?

I don't understand why the fact that Mike didn't go after Brian earlier seems to matter. Mike had to prove his case and Brian has admitted Mike deserved it. Mike explained that he had been asking Brian about it all along and Brian put him off with broken promises to fix it. So Mike put his faith in Brian apparently. Later Mike testified for Brian in Brian's case against Irving. As a result of that Mike found out he still had an actionable claim. So are we supposed to be upset because Mike waited for Brian, helped Brian sue, and offered a low ball settlement?

Upset, no but on the surface it's very easy to see Mike's help as self-serving.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Was Brian there when Tony Asher had a meeting with Murry and was basically told "take it or leave it" when a contract was signed for the songs he co-wrote on Pet Sounds, and got a flat fee of $7500 and 25% royalty (rather than a more even split between lyrics and music) for the future of those songs? Was Brian involved in Murry's decision to sell Sea Of Tunes and all the songs (including those which Mike had co-written) for a fraction of what they would be worth a few years later?

I'm not taking all blame away, but the notion that Brian should be held more responsible for fucking Mike out of his money from the songs is absurd.

Again, respectfully, I don't think you are addressing the issue of character and likeability which is the major crux of this debate. Nobody is debating that Murry was the driving force behind these deals, and with Mike being left off credits and receiving compensation. That's not the issue! The issue is what did Brian Wilson do about it when he found out (assuming he found out LATER; I don't quite buy that he wasn't informed from the start). How did Brian act, or NOT act, when the issues came to a head. That is where character comes into play. I find Brian's action, or non-action, indefensible. However, others are quick to absolve him of any wrongdoing, and want to make Mike the villain. There is absolutely no logic to that position.

[BB Universe]

Regarding the litigation, I have a question as to the chronology which might, in part, assist in understanding some items - and I ask this innocently without siding with either BB. Was Brian's action against Irving-Almo after his "treatment" by Landy was over? If Mike had sued, Brian would certainly have been deposed and be a witness and if the case was while Brian was "under the care" of Landy, that situation might have been used to discredit Brian had he testified in favor of Mike (didn't Brian testify somewhat in Mike's favor in their case?). Also, Mike likely had counsel review this whole issue at earlier points (that would be consistent with his oft-cited litigious nature) in which case one might surmise he was probably advised not to proceed at that time for whatever reasons.
It is difficult to speculate as to courses of litigation without knowing all the details, facts, strategies considered.

[KittyKat]

I strongly suspect that the vast majority of Mike's lyrical claims are bogus. He had one legitimate gripe -- not being credited for California Girls -- and spun that into a full-scale rewriting of history (Guitarfool's post is worth reading here, too: Money was the prime motivator). Most of Mike's additions to Brian's songs, if they're documented, fall into the camp of "arranging" rather than "co-writing," and as such would not traditionally be considered worthy of a credit. Yet another reason I find the man difficult to take.

Any explanation of Mike's present-day behavior starts and ends with one word: jealousy.

Yeesh, this thread has devolved into this yet again? Mike wrote more than the lyrics to "California Girls," he wrote parts of  most of the songs he claimed in the suit. Actually, I'd be inclined to think he wrote all of the things he claimed. Where there is a beef is that he was granted complete half or third credits for a few things where he contributed not even a full set of lyrics, for example, the "sleep tight" fade on "Wouldn't It Be Nice."  Also, Mike only asked for around $700,000 to settle out of court. That's not that much money so you can't say he's that greedy. That amount would be a small amount for "California Girls" alone. It was the jury that awarded him several million, after Brian's lawyers declined to settle out of court (and Brian Wilson's testimony was a key to the jury's decision, not just Mike's claims, along with depositions that Mike got from people who didn't even particularly like him as a person).