New Mike interview in HuffPost

[guitarfool2002]

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 explanation and using it here as a basis of fact for our discussion would be thrown out of any court testimony as "heresay", actually it's a classic definition of that legal term. So we're basing this point on the fact that Mike had been asking Brian about it all along and Brian put him off with broken promises to fix it? None of that holds up in court, it's Mike "explaining" that Brian told him something but never delivered on his words. You can't base a case or even a point on what someone says they were told (heresay) when contracts are involved.

I think you're connecting too many dots that aren't there. Let me understand the point, though, to be sure: Brian told Mike he'd fix it but never did. That point is heresay. Mike apparently put his faith in Brian to fix it because Brian told him he'd do it. That's heresay. Mike testified for Brian in Brian's case against A&M/Irving, was he subpoenaed as a witness for the party filing the claim or did he join forces to file the suit? Was Mike's case against Brian's collecting royalties Mike felt he was owed, or was it against A&M who owned the songs in question for not paying royalties he felt he was owed?

And how does Mike testifying in Brian's original case lead to the conclusion that from his involvement as a witness in Brian's case, Mike realizes that he too has a claim of his own to file? Against A&M/Irving for not paying, or against Brian for owing Mike based on faulty songwriting credits being filed decades ago? Is this a "chicken or the egg" scenario, where "first this, then that" needs to happen to move forward? Or did Mike decide to file his own challenge based on Brian's victory and collection of a 10 million settlement?

Or are we suggesting Mike and Brian were jointly filing the same case against A&M? Confused.

I share the same head-scratching question at this point: Which lawsuit is it?    Was Mike's formal legal complaint against Brian for his failure to ensure the songs were properly credited, was the legal complaint against Irving/A&M for not paying his money owed from those songs, or was it a lawsuit putting all of those elements into one catch-all legal case?

If Mike's claim hinged on Brian's perceived failure to get Mike properly credited, and the claim sought to collect that back money owed Mike, the claim gets filed against Brian and his interests based on the 10 million awarded Brian for not getting *his* money owed by A&M/Almo. Right?

If Mike felt he was not properly credited as far back as 1965 for hits like "California Girls", and he was seeking what he hasn't been paid because of that improper credit all those years, whose financial burden does that fall on to pay him the back payments? The entity failing to pay out the royalties who was actually writing the checks, or the entity who in Mike's words failed to live up to a verbal agreement to make things right who was getting those checks for what Mike claimed he was entitled to a portion of?

So did Mike collect from Brian's 10 million award? Or did he collect from A&M?

[KittyKat]

Cases of asking for songwriting credits have been interpreted as pretty open ended. Look at the guy who got partial credit for "Whiter Shade of Pale" decades after the fact.  Mike actually cost himself millions of dollars by waiting for so long for songwriting credits, because royalties are not paid retroactively, only going forward from the time the suit is settled. That's part of why the jury gave him such high damages. It's still a lot less then he would have received in royalties for those songs had his name been on them all along. There are people who have retired on the revenue of just one song placed in a movie with a best-selling soundtrack. The Beach Boys sold millions and millions of records.

[Paul J B]

Ok, let me look at it from a different angle.

>>> Brian never really grew up. He doesn't take reaponsability for his actions, dumps new best friends and collaborator like used underwear, was a crappy father to say the least.

>>> Dennis never grew up, was a womanizer, often had an asshole side when not sober.

Those are facts. I don't think anyone will dispute them. How would it feel to have dozens of active threads about Dennis and Brian making those same damn ponts everyday since... internet was invented? I mean, instead of 'Mike said don't f*** with the formula"... change it for "Brian gave cocaine to his daughters" and "Dennis threw away his solo career because he was a screwup". Every thread. Every day. For decades.

Boring, isn't it? I thought so.

This is exactly what I'm talking about! Excellent point, and no response from those that want to gripe about Mike Love.

Must.....not......respond........Must.....let .....this......condsending......whiney.........post.........speak......for.....itself.

Nice response Newcombe. How about another try and actually respond?

What about you Smile Brian?

Wirestone....any comments or is Dancing Bears point too below you?

[guitarfool2002]

I'll fess up...I knew the details before asking all those questions. It was asking them for discussion purposes, to consider just how much was involved in this and how trying to boil it down too much can miss the bigger point.

Someone asked for a timeline? Here's one to start. These facts come from original reports of the case, if anyone disagrees I'll repost the original sources dating back 24 years and we'll harangue them about it.

1989 - Brian sues Irving Almo and A&M to overturn the sale of the song catalog and recoup the money he wasn't paid from the profits on those songs.

June 1992 - Brian wins that suit and in an out-of-court settlement collects 10 million dollars from Irving/A&M.

July 1992 - Mike files a 50 million dollar lawsuit against Brian and Irving/A&M, filing a complaint that there were 48 songs which he co-wrote and was entitled to receive payments from those songs, yet never received proper credit when those songs were officially filed. Part of the case also concerns Brian's failure to give 30 percent of his settlement to Mike based on the word he'd do so if Mike vouched for him in the case against Irving.

December 1994 - a jury decides Mike was entitled to a portion of the money from those songs, and was improperly credited for his work on them. The original claim in July 1992 of 48 songs in question was reduced to 35 songs. The victory is based on those 35 songs the jury decided Mike was entitled to collect profits from but was improperly left off the credits.

December 1994 - Brian agrees to a 5 million dollar settlement along with future credits on and profits from the songs in question.

Reminder: "Brian" and "Mike" is shorthand here which obviously includes their legal teams and representation.


So, there it is. Now tell me how Mike settled for less or took a "lowball amount" when Brian paid half of his payment  along with all future profits from the songs, when the original July 1992 suit was looking for 30 percent of 10 million, which would be a 3 million payment?

[KittyKat]

It took Brian years to pay Mike his settlement, if he ever did pay the full amount. If Brian was in the right, why not appeal Mike's settlement? It was possible for Brian to pursue an appeal. Just asking that, too.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

It always devolves into this and name calling.

I think all of us and Mike need to go on Dr. Phil!

[SMiLE Brian]

Pinder, can we have it be Mike and OSD?

[Sheriff John Stone]

It always devolves into this and name calling.

What it devolves into is that Mike was right, Brian knew Mike was right, Brian didn't do anything to resolve the situation, actually Brian fought it, Mike sues, Mike is the bad guy for suing, and oh whoa is Brian.

All these legal details do is detract from the issue which is Brian's character, or lack of, in handling the matter.

[guitarfool2002]

It took Brian years to pay Mike his settlement, if he ever did pay the full amount. If Brian was in the right, why not appeal Mike's settlement? It was possible for Brian to pursue an appeal. Just asking that, too.

That's the legal system. I hope there isn't a perception that when the papers are signed a lump-sum check is just handed over and deposited that same day. From medical claims to home insurance claims to any other payouts through the legal system it can take years to see any of the money, even without appeals coming into the process.

Slant it any way, the numbers are listed above.

As far as Brian appealing, the news report from December 1994 was that Brian and Mike hugged and laughed after the jury came back with the verdict and the case was eventually settled. So I don't think there was any desire to keep it going, and it's a sentiment also revealed in the various reports of Don Was working with Brian and Mike when they got back together to write songs. Brian told Don while they were making Don's documentary to reach out to the Beach Boys, that he wanted to work with them, and they were receptive too - but the lawsuit which settled in Dec 1994 prevented that from happening. After it was settled, Brian and Mike started writing together within the next year.

[Wirestone]

Ok, let me look at it from a different angle.

>>> Brian never really grew up. He doesn't take reaponsability for his actions, dumps new best friends and collaborator like used underwear, was a crappy father to say the least.

>>> Dennis never grew up, was a womanizer, often had an asshole side when not sober.

Those are facts. I don't think anyone will dispute them. How would it feel to have dozens of active threads about Dennis and Brian making those same damn ponts everyday since... internet was invented? I mean, instead of 'Mike said don't f*** with the formula"... change it for "Brian gave cocaine to his daughters" and "Dennis threw away his solo career because he was a screwup". Every thread. Every day. For decades.

Boring, isn't it? I thought so.

This is exactly what I'm talking about! Excellent point, and no response from those that want to gripe about Mike Love.

Must.....not......respond........Must.....let .....this......condsending......whiney.........post.........speak......for.....itself.

Nice response Newcombe. How about another try and actually respond?

What about you Smile Brian?

Wirestone....any comments or is Dancing Bears point too below you?

http://waxbanks.typepad.com/blog/2005/11/generalized_def.html

[guitarfool2002]

It always devolves into this and name calling.

What it devolves into is that Mike was right, Brian knew Mike was right, Brian didn't do anything to resolve the situation, actually Brian fought it, Mike sues, Mike is the bad guy for suing, and oh whoa is Brian.

All these legal details do is detract from the issue which is Brian's character, or lack of, in handling the matter.

You're leaving out one crucial element. Brian in a legal ruling from December 1991 had his finances placed under the control of a conservator, it was instigated as part of the Landy debacles, and is a confusing chain of events and court battles which followed, from the Loves to his mother and his daughters to eventually Carl Wilson. But a judge did rule that Brian's affairs be placed in conservatorship.

And that essentially means Brian was not able under that ruling to make decisions on his financial or legal affairs without the conservator actually doing the decision-making.

And recall that something important happened in summer 1995, reported here:

More bad vibrations for Beach Boys founder Brian Wilson, 53. The singer-songwriter filed suit against lawyer Jerome Billet, his former court-appointed conservator, claiming negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, Sept. 19 in Los Angeles. Billet was assigned to represent Wilson's interests in all legally binding contracts from 1992 to 1995 because a court had deemed the singer ''mentally incompetent.'' Wilson, who contends Billet misrepresented him in a variety of business dealings resulting in the loss of millions, is asking Los Angeles Superior Court to award him unspecified damages of at least $10 million. David C. Nelson, a lawyer for Billet, says, ''We're confident that Mr. Billet acted in the utmost good faith. He intends to defend [himself] against these claims vigorously.''


So unfortunately for Mike and Brian and which events shaped our opinions of their actions, all of the above lawsuits came and went at the time Brian was deemed by a court ruling to be "mentally incompetent" and therefore all of the decisions relating to his financial and legal affairs went to the conservator. Whether Brian said "let's screw over Mike" or "let's settle this thing now", it simply wasn't his call under a court ruling to do so.

Now, would we still suggest Brian was malicious or showed a lack of character in his handling of these specific affairs when a court ordered that he could not legally make any decisions on his own in these affairs without his court-appointed legal counsel?

[KittyKat]

Van Dyke Parks had to sue Brian to get his name restored to the credits of "Sail On, Sailor." Van Dyke also claims he wrote most of that song, both music and lyrics, even though it's claimed as a Brian Wilson classic that showed Brian was still in top form in the early '70s. I'm just throwing that out there to show that other people have had difficulties dealing with Brian and/or his various representatives over the years, not just Mike, and have had to sue him over it. Brian's people are now preventing Van Dyke from re-releasing "Orange Crate Art," even though it's all Van Dyke's work, apart from Brian's vocals. I don't think it's all down to Brian or his reps being "evil," either, it's just the nature of the music business.

[SMiLE Brian]

(sarcasm)-Big bad Brian Wilson has made Mike Love's life so hard being a genius songwriter and everything.

[Cyncie]

It's also easy to say that Brian should have "grown a pair" and stood up to Murry at the start. Well, certainly, in a healthy situation, he should have. But, insisting that this is a character failure doesn't take into account the fact that he was in a very dysfunctional relationship with an abusive father who was also their manager. Children of abusive parents tend to become either overly aggressive and violent or become shy and avoidant. Which one would you figure Brian for? Given that, and the fact that he was just barely an adult in the first place, I think it's not at all strange that he didn't confront Murry and demand Mike get his due. Besides, what was preventing Mike from doing the confronting for himself?

And, before anyone claims I'm a Brianista,  I feel that Mike was definitely due the money he was awarded. That particular legal settlement was justified.

[guitarfool2002]

Van Dyke Parks had to sue Brian to get his name restored to the credits of "Sail On, Sailor." Van Dyke also claims he wrote most of that song, both music and lyrics, even though it's claimed as a Brian Wilson classic that showed Brian was still in top form in the early '70s. I'm just throwing that out there to show that other people have had difficulties dealing with Brian and/or his various representatives over the years, not just Mike, and have had to sue him over it. Brian's people are now preventing Van Dyke from re-releasing "Orange Crate Art," even though it's all Van Dyke's work, apart from Brian's vocals. I don't think it's all down to Brian or his reps being "evil," either, it's just the nature of the music business.

Interesting point with Orange Crate Art. Keep in mind that was released in 1995, and being worked on I believe in 1994, which means any contracts or agreements that were signed or any royalty or payment/credit structures created were done at a time when Brian's legal and financial affairs were under the control of a conservator.

It may be a case of certain legalities and contract issues that were negotiated around that album under the control of the conservator are still wrapped up in the affairs of the conservator.

If the implication that "Brian's people" are holding it up for any reason, I'd suggest looking deeper into what was agreed in 1994-95 and who agreed to it, since by court order Brian was not allowed to make those decisions at that time under law. At least before opening the case up to a suggestion that there is an intent beyond what was originally signed.

And that gets to the point I hinted at earlier: How can Brian's decision-making or choices related to the lawsuits mentioned above be challenged when Brian himself was not allowed under court orders to make those decisions?

And is the Orange Crate Art issue one of Brian's people as a notion in the present day, or the legal terms of who was responsible for these contracts and decisions in 1994-5 when they were originally signed regarding the album? I'm seriously asking, I don't know the answer. The whole reissue thing may be caught up in legal papers from 18 years ago.

[Wirestone]

Van Dyke Parks had to sue Brian to get his name restored to the credits of "Sail On, Sailor." Van Dyke also claims he wrote most of that song, both music and lyrics, even though it's claimed as a Brian Wilson classic that showed Brian was still in top form in the early '70s. I'm just throwing that out there to show that other people have had difficulties dealing with Brian and/or his various representatives over the years, not just Mike, and have had to sue him over it. Brian's people are now preventing Van Dyke from re-releasing "Orange Crate Art," even though it's all Van Dyke's work, apart from Brian's vocals. I don't think it's all down to Brian or his reps being "evil," either, it's just the nature of the music business.

I believe this is incorrect. Until this message, I have never read nor heard of Van Dyke suing Brian over Sail on Sailor. I don't think his name has ever been off the song's credits, either.

What did happen was the VDP's name did disappear from the credits for Wonderful at a certain point, as well as some Smile tracks. He talked with Melinda about it before the BWPS project began in earnest, and she restored his name (and presumably, his percentage) to those songs.

As for OCA, it's not quite all Van Dyke's work. Brian arranged the vocals (uncredited), which is a considerable part of the album's charm.

[SMiLE Brian]

Van Dyke Parks had to sue Brian to get his name restored to the credits of "Sail On, Sailor." Van Dyke also claims he wrote most of that song, both music and lyrics, even though it's claimed as a Brian Wilson classic that showed Brian was still in top form in the early '70s. I'm just throwing that out there to show that other people have had difficulties dealing with Brian and/or his various representatives over the years, not just Mike, and have had to sue him over it. Brian's people are now preventing Van Dyke from re-releasing "Orange Crate Art," even though it's all Van Dyke's work, apart from Brian's vocals. I don't think it's all down to Brian or his reps being "evil," either, it's just the nature of the music business.

I believe this is incorrect. Until this message, I have never read nor heard of Van Dyke suing Brian over Sail on Sailor. I don't think his name has ever been off the song's credits, either.

What did happen was the VDP's name did disappear from the credits for Wonderful at a certain point, as well as some Smile tracks. He talked with Melinda about it before the BWPS project began in earnest, and she restored his name (and presumably, his percentage) to those songs.

As for OCA, it's not quite all Van Dyke's work. Brian arranged the vocals (uncredited), which is a considerable part of the album's charm.

Plus this great scene from the Don Was documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiykTknz51U

[Andrew G. Doe]

Mike's legal team *then* files suit against Brian's payment of 10 million...

Not quite so - the initial offer Mike's people made to Brian's management was for a $750k payment and future royalties & credits... which was dismissed out of hand as someone thought they would do better in court. That moment of excruciatingly poor judgement cost Brian something like $5 million, and with the legal costs means he essentially came out of the original case with pretty much nothing. Love Brian to death as a composer, performer, producer, you name it... but to have him as your #1 witness in a case like this in 1994 is essentially saying "you win, Mike".

[guitarfool2002]

And, before anyone claims I'm a Brianista,  I feel that Mike was definitely due the money he was awarded. That particular legal settlement was justified.

Me too. If Mike got shortchanged on credits he deserved, then of course he was due what was owed him. That's a pretty clear-cut issue. The jury agreed.

What sticks in my mind, though, is that the original July 1992 suit filed by Mike in this case named 48 songs where Mike claimed he wasn't credited. In the course of the trial, that number got reduced to 35, which was what the decision specifically counted. And the original filing was for 50 million, after Brian several weeks before had settled for 10 million from A&M. Where does the 40 million come in? And the eventual payment for Mike was settled at 5 million, plus future royalties and full credits, but what about the 45 million difference that changed from filing to settlement?

So what were the 13 songs that were eliminated during the proceedings, and why were they eliminated? Was it a case of Mike's lawyers filing claims on more songs and more income than what he was actually due, or was it a case where they couldn't prove he was owed credit and payment on all 48 songs but had enough proof to decide on 35 of them instead?

The 13 songs...the original 50 million filing...that's the question.

[guitarfool2002]

Mike's legal team *then* files suit against Brian's payment of 10 million...

Not quite so - the initial offer Mike's people made to Brian's management was for a $750k payment and future royalties & credits... which was dismissed out of hand as someone thought they would do better in court. That moment of excruciatingly poor judgement cost Brian something like $5 million, and with the legal costs means he essentially came out of the original case with pretty much nothing. Love Brian to death as a composer, performer, producer, you name it... but to have him as your #1 witness in a case like this in 1994 is essentially saying "you win, Mike".

Right, but as I just wrote as you posted this (I agree, BTW), how does an original offer of $750,000 and future royalties/credits change to a lawsuit seeking 50 million along with the royalties and credits? And involving what the jury or judge (or court in general) determined were 13 less songs than Mike originally claimed in the lawsuit he was entitled to?

[KittyKat]

Van Dyke Parks had to sue Brian to get his name restored to the credits of "Sail On, Sailor." Van Dyke also claims he wrote most of that song, both music and lyrics, even though it's claimed as a Brian Wilson classic that showed Brian was still in top form in the early '70s. I'm just throwing that out there to show that other people have had difficulties dealing with Brian and/or his various representatives over the years, not just Mike, and have had to sue him over it. Brian's people are now preventing Van Dyke from re-releasing "Orange Crate Art," even though it's all Van Dyke's work, apart from Brian's vocals. I don't think it's all down to Brian or his reps being "evil," either, it's just the nature of the music business.

I believe this is incorrect. Until this message, I have never read nor heard of Van Dyke suing Brian over Sail on Sailor. I don't think his name has ever been off the song's credits, either.

What did happen was the VDP's name did disappear from the credits for Wonderful at a certain point, as well as some Smile tracks. He talked with Melinda about it before the BWPS project began in earnest, and she restored his name (and presumably, his percentage) to those songs.

As for OCA, it's not quite all Van Dyke's work. Brian arranged the vocals (uncredited), which is a considerable part of the album's charm.

I've read in more than one place that Van Dyke's name disappeared from the song at some point over the years, then was restored. I also read that he had sued, but perhaps that wasn't quite accurate, since whoever wrote about that for Wikipedia wrote the same thing, and there isn't a citation for it. Van Dyke at least threatened to sue, perhaps it was settled before it got to that point. Van Dyke has brought it up more than once. He pretty much claims to have written most of the song, music and words. Ray Kennedy also claimed to have been "alone in a room" with Brian and written most of it, but Ray also says that Brian told him that the only people allowed to sing the song would be either Danny Hutton or Van Dyke Parks. Strange stuff.  There's more about it here in a discussion on the Steve Hoffman board:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/ray-kennedys-account-of-writing-sail-on-sailor-w-brian-wilson.129497/

[Cam Mott]

Mike's legal team *then* files suit against Brian's payment of 10 million...

Not quite so - the initial offer Mike's people made to Brian's management was for a $750k payment and future royalties & credits... which was dismissed out of hand as someone thought they would do better in court. That moment of excruciatingly poor judgement cost Brian something like $5 million, and with the legal costs means he essentially came out of the original case with pretty much nothing. Love Brian to death as a composer, performer, producer, you name it... but to have him as your #1 witness in a case like this in 1994 is essentially saying "you win, Mike".

Right, but as I just wrote as you posted this (I agree, BTW), how does an original offer of $750,000 and future royalties/credits change to a lawsuit seeking 50 million along with the royalties and credits? And involving what the jury or judge (or court in general) determined were 13 less songs than Mike originally claimed in the lawsuit he was entitled to?

I believe it went the other way, big suit, offer of tiny settlement, smaller jury award. To those blaming Mike for the percentage credit, didn't involve Mike. He didn't ask for a level of credit, that was all set by the jury/judge.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Ok, let me look at it from a different angle.

>>> Brian never really grew up. He doesn't take reaponsability for his actions, dumps new best friends and collaborator like used underwear, was a crappy father to say the least.

>>> Dennis never grew up, was a womanizer, often had an asshole side when not sober.

Those are facts. I don't think anyone will dispute them. How would it feel to have dozens of active threads about Dennis and Brian making those same damn ponts everyday since... internet was invented? I mean, instead of 'Mike said don't f*** with the formula"... change it for "Brian gave cocaine to his daughters" and "Dennis threw away his solo career because he was a screwup". Every thread. Every day. For decades.

Boring, isn't it? I thought so.

This is exactly what I'm talking about! Excellent point, and no response from those that want to gripe about Mike Love.

Must.....not......respond........Must.....let .....this......condsending......whiney.........post.........speak......for.....itself.

Nice response Newcombe. How about another try and actually respond?

I did

Reply #208

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,16619.200.html



Oh, and does calling me by my surname make you feel tough?

Are you the new internet tough guy?

Are you going to teach me a lesson?

 

[Cam Mott]

What took Brian so long to sue Irving? What's the difference? He got the job done. Now we are suspicious of Mike for helping Brian in his suit against Irving. Man. Mike also tried to help Brian against Mike's own interest in Mike's suit against Brian/Irving. What a jerk.

[guitarfool2002]

Mike's legal team *then* files suit against Brian's payment of 10 million...

Not quite so - the initial offer Mike's people made to Brian's management was for a $750k payment and future royalties & credits... which was dismissed out of hand as someone thought they would do better in court. That moment of excruciatingly poor judgement cost Brian something like $5 million, and with the legal costs means he essentially came out of the original case with pretty much nothing. Love Brian to death as a composer, performer, producer, you name it... but to have him as your #1 witness in a case like this in 1994 is essentially saying "you win, Mike".

Right, but as I just wrote as you posted this (I agree, BTW), how does an original offer of $750,000 and future royalties/credits change to a lawsuit seeking 50 million along with the royalties and credits? And involving what the jury or judge (or court in general) determined were 13 less songs than Mike originally claimed in the lawsuit he was entitled to?

I believe it went the other way, big suit, offer of tiny settlement, smaller jury award. To those blaming Mike for the percentage credit, didn't involve Mike. He didn't ask for a level of credit, that was all set by the jury/judge.

What about the 13 songs in question which Mike claimed he deserved credit for in the lawsuit and were eliminated from the final decision? Was Mike claiming credit for songs he didn't write, or could he just not prove in court that he was entitled to credit for those 13 songs?

Plus, at least one news report specifically mentioned Mike seeking 30% of the 10 million judgement Brian had just received from A&M the month before (June), which still doesn't come close to the 50 million which was the figure Mike's lawsuit was asking (July). Was the lawsuit then asking for 40 million more for Mike's lyrics than even the amount Brian's lawsuit agreed to value for his lost payments?

It doesn't add up. On the surface one could argue there is a difference between asking to reclaim what was rightfully yours and asking for something beyond what you'd be entitled to receive.