New Mike interview in HuffPost

[guitarfool2002]

Hey guys,

Do you mind if I jump in here?  I just want to clear things up about the lawsuit.  I'm seeing some information that is correct and not correct and I'd like to clear it up for the record if I may.

When Brian was suing to get the rights back to his songs, he asked if Mike would testify on his behalf.  Mike did so under the promise that he would get his songwriting credit for "California Girls".  That's all he wanted.  He would continue to forgo the credits he didn't have just for that one song.  When Brian's case was over and Mike asked about "California Girls", Brian and his people went back on their word and said no to the credit. 

Mike, who was also told at this time that the statue of limitations had passed and there was no way he could ever get his credits for anything he wrote, was very discouraged.  Finally, through his family and friends, his resolve to right this wrong became very strong.  He found a lawyer who told him that it wasn't too late.

There was about 80 songs but Mike only named 35 in the suit.  When the verdict came down, it came in the form of a 25 page document stating multiple counts of fraud by Brian Wilson.  The jury's awarded Mike $55 million dollars. 

But why didn't Mike take the $55 million from Brian?  Because that would have bankrupt him and Brian would be forced to work for the rest of his life.  And Mike just didn't want to do that to him.  Brian in his prior case received $10 million - Mike asked for $5 million. 

And, yes, Mike and Brian were, in fact, hugging each other when it was all over.

Some things don't add up.

On July 31, 1992 Mike filed the lawsuit for 50 million dollars and future royalties and credit. This was reported widely on the AP wire services and other news sources, I'll copy and paste the article(s) as proof. This was within a month of Brian winning 10 million dollars in his suit.

So I ask question #1: No matter what the jury awarded him, and if there is a date for when that award was decided I'd love to see it, the fact remains *Mike's lawsuit was filed for 50 million knowing Brian had settled for 10 million*. How does that add up to Mike being the benefactor here by only accepting 5 million from Brian?

The 5 million was a settlement, original reports ALSO say that Mike and the legal team were looking for 30% of Brian's settlement of 10 million, which would be 3 million, based on the verbal agreement they said was made for Mike's testimony.

Read the news account I pasted on the previous page of this thread: The AP reports, again the "official" news account of what happened as reported at the time, states that *48 songs* were in question as the case went to the courts, then got narrowed down to 35.

Question(s) #2: 80 songs: Does anyone have a list of them? How about the 48 songs that eventually did go into the court papers? Then what were the 13 songs that got thrown out of court? How does an initial claim of 80 songs suggest an attempt to only get what was due when even before the judgement there were about 30 songs removed and during the trial another 13 were thrown out of the suit?

Doesn't add up.

Either 80 songs was shooting for the moon in terms of trying to now over-claim credit, or else there was simply not enough in the way of proof that a judge and jury would believe enough to award the moneys and credits.

And if it's just an attempt to get things "correct", this loaded statement pretty much dismisses that intent in one fell swoop:

But why didn't Mike take the $55 million from Brian?  Because that would have bankrupt him and Brian would be forced to work for the rest of his life.  And Mike just didn't want to do that to him.

That's not even plausible as a biased statement, which is what it is masking as a "correction".

Should we thank Mike for making it possible that Brian isn't "forced" to work the rest of his life?

Talk about one-sided.

In light of that, I'll continue to stand by the period news reports of these figures, and consider these attempts to "correct" the supposed misinformation as another attempt to sway the opinions of what happened. Facts are facts.

I'm sure Brian as he's on tour with Jeff Beck, Al, and David, and reading rave reviews everywhere from Rolling Stone to the LA Times and beyond about his shows, is thanking Mike's benevolence *each and every day* that he's not forced to work the rest of his life. And as he's collecting his residuals and producer's points from BMI and elsewhere, not to mention his Grammy award and other accolades, I'll bet he's thinking "Man, I'm so glad I don't need to work thanks to Mike taking a hit on that settlement when he could have bankrupted me."

I'll leave it up to the readership to pick out what is sarcasm in my post or what is the real thing.

Until then...corrections? Still waiting.  

[filledeplage]

Hey guys,
Do you mind if I jump in here?  I just want to clear things up about the lawsuit.  I'm seeing some information that is correct and not correct and I'd like to clear it up for the record if I may.

When Brian was suing to get the rights back to his songs, he asked if Mike would testify on his behalf.  Mike did so under the promise that he would get his songwriting credit for "California Girls".  That's all he wanted.  He would continue to forgo the credits he didn't have just for that one song.  When Brian's case was over and Mike asked about "California Girls", Brian and his people went back on their word and said no to the credit. 

Mike, who was also told at this time that the statue of limitations had passed and there was no way he could ever get his credits for anything he wrote, was very discouraged.  Finally, through his family and friends, his resolve to right this wrong became very strong.  He found a lawyer who told him that it wasn't too late.

There was about 80 songs but Mike only named 35 in the suit.  When the verdict came down, it came in the form of a 25 page document stating multiple counts of fraud by Brian Wilson.  The jury's awarded Mike $55 million dollars. 

But why didn't Mike take the $55 million from Brian?  Because that would have bankrupt him and Brian would be forced to work for the rest of his life.  And Mike just didn't want to do that to him.  Brian in his prior case received $10 million - Mike asked for $5 million. 

And, yes, Mike and Brian were, in fact, hugging each other when it was all over.

Some things don't add up.

On July 31, 1992 Mike filed the lawsuit for 50 million dollars and future royalties and credit. This was reported widely on the AP wire services and other news sources, I'll copy and paste the article(s) as proof. This was within a month of Brian winning 10 million dollars in his suit.

So I ask question #1: No matter what the jury awarded him, and if there is a date for when that award was decided I'd love to see it, the fact remains *Mike's lawsuit was filed for 50 million knowing Brian had settled for 10 million*. How does that add up to Mike being the benefactor here by only accepting 5 million from Brian?

The 5 million was a settlement, original reports ALSO say that Mike and the legal team were looking for 30% of Brian's settlement of 10 million, which would be 3 million, based on the verbal agreement they said was made for Mike's testimony.

Read the news account I pasted on the previous page of this thread: The AP reports, again the "official" news account of what happened as reported at the time, states that *48 songs* were in question as the case went to the courts, then got narrowed down to 35.

Question(s) #2: 80 songs: Does anyone have a list of them? How about the 48 songs that eventually did go into the court papers? Then what were the 13 songs that got thrown out of court? How does an initial claim of 80 songs suggest an attempt to only get what was due when even before the judgement there were about 30 songs removed and during the trial another 13 were thrown out of the suit?

Doesn't add up.

Either 80 songs was shooting for the moon in terms of trying to now over-claim credit, or else there was simply not enough in the way of proof that a judge and jury would believe enough to award the moneys and credits.

And if it's just an attempt to get things "correct", this loaded statement pretty much dismisses that intent in one fell swoop:

But why didn't Mike take the $55 million from Brian?  Because that would have bankrupt him and Brian would be forced to work for the rest of his life.  And Mike just didn't want to do that to him.

That's not even plausible as a biased statement, which is what it is masking as a "correction".

Should we thank Mike for making it possible that Brian isn't "forced" to work the rest of his life?

Talk about one-sided.

In light of that, I'll continue to stand by the period news reports of these figures, and consider these attempts to "correct" the supposed misinformation as another attempt to sway the opinions of what happened. Facts are facts.

I'm sure Brian as he's on tour with Jeff Beck, Al, and David, and reading rave reviews everywhere from Rolling Stone to the LA Times and beyond about his shows, is thanking Mike's benevolence *each and every day* that he's not forced to work the rest of his life. And as he's collecting his residuals and producer's points from BMI and elsewhere, not to mention his Grammy award and other accolades, I'll bet he's thinking "Man, I'm so glad I don't need to work thanks to Mike taking a hit on that settlement when he could have bankrupted me."

I'll leave it up to the readership to pick out what is sarcasm in my post or what is the real thing.

Until then...corrections? Still waiting.  

Guitarfool2002- thanks for posting those photos.   Some I can't stretch on the ipad.  But, I was under the impression that post BRI incorporation, that Murry was out of the picture.  Did I get that wrong?  I looked at Do It Again and that was post Smiley-BRI which would have made the Boys more or less independent of Murry. 

Thanks. 

[Nicko1234]

Some things don't add up.

On July 31, 1992 Mike filed the lawsuit for 50 million dollars and future royalties and credit. This was reported widely on the AP wire services and other news sources, I'll copy and paste the article(s) as proof. This was within a month of Brian winning 10 million dollars in his suit.

So I ask question #1: No matter what the jury awarded him, and if there is a date for when that award was decided I'd love to see it, the fact remains *Mike's lawsuit was filed for 50 million knowing Brian had settled for 10 million*. How does that add up to Mike being the benefactor here by only accepting 5 million from Brian?

The 5 million was a settlement, original reports ALSO say that Mike and the legal team were looking for 30% of Brian's settlement of 10 million, which would be 3 million, based on the verbal agreement they said was made for Mike's testimony.

Read the news account I pasted on the previous page of this thread: The AP reports, again the "official" news account of what happened as reported at the time, states that *48 songs* were in question as the case went to the courts, then got narrowed down to 35.

Question(s) #2: 80 songs: Does anyone have a list of them? How about the 48 songs that eventually did go into the court papers? Then what were the 13 songs that got thrown out of court? How does an initial claim of 80 songs suggest an attempt to only get what was due when even before the judgement there were about 30 songs removed and during the trial another 13 were thrown out of the suit?

Doesn't add up.

Either 80 songs was shooting for the moon in terms of trying to now over-claim credit, or else there was simply not enough in the way of proof that a judge and jury would believe enough to award the moneys and credits.

And if it's just an attempt to get things "correct", this loaded statement pretty much dismisses that intent in one fell swoop:

But why didn't Mike take the $55 million from Brian?  Because that would have bankrupt him and Brian would be forced to work for the rest of his life.  And Mike just didn't want to do that to him.

That's not even plausible as a biased statement, which is what it is masking as a "correction".

Should we thank Mike for making it possible that Brian isn't "forced" to work the rest of his life?

Talk about one-sided.

In light of that, I'll continue to stand by the period news reports of these figures, and consider these attempts to "correct" the supposed misinformation as another attempt to sway the opinions of what happened. Facts are facts.

I'm sure Brian as he's on tour with Jeff Beck, Al, and David, and reading rave reviews everywhere from Rolling Stone to the LA Times and beyond about his shows, is thanking Mike's benevolence *each and every day* that he's not forced to work the rest of his life. And as he's collecting his residuals and producer's points from BMI and elsewhere, not to mention his Grammy award and other accolades, I'll bet he's thinking "Man, I'm so glad I don't need to work thanks to Mike taking a hit on that settlement when he could have bankrupted me."

I'll leave it up to the readership to pick out what is sarcasm in my post or what is the real thing.

Until then...corrections? Still waiting.  

Facts are facts when we choose to believe them yes.

[guitarfool2002]

Some things don't add up.

On July 31, 1992 Mike filed the lawsuit for 50 million dollars and future royalties and credit. This was reported widely on the AP wire services and other news sources, I'll copy and paste the article(s) as proof. This was within a month of Brian winning 10 million dollars in his suit.

So I ask question #1: No matter what the jury awarded him, and if there is a date for when that award was decided I'd love to see it, the fact remains *Mike's lawsuit was filed for 50 million knowing Brian had settled for 10 million*. How does that add up to Mike being the benefactor here by only accepting 5 million from Brian?

The 5 million was a settlement, original reports ALSO say that Mike and the legal team were looking for 30% of Brian's settlement of 10 million, which would be 3 million, based on the verbal agreement they said was made for Mike's testimony.

Read the news account I pasted on the previous page of this thread: The AP reports, again the "official" news account of what happened as reported at the time, states that *48 songs* were in question as the case went to the courts, then got narrowed down to 35.

Question(s) #2: 80 songs: Does anyone have a list of them? How about the 48 songs that eventually did go into the court papers? Then what were the 13 songs that got thrown out of court? How does an initial claim of 80 songs suggest an attempt to only get what was due when even before the judgement there were about 30 songs removed and during the trial another 13 were thrown out of the suit?

Doesn't add up.

Either 80 songs was shooting for the moon in terms of trying to now over-claim credit, or else there was simply not enough in the way of proof that a judge and jury would believe enough to award the moneys and credits.

And if it's just an attempt to get things "correct", this loaded statement pretty much dismisses that intent in one fell swoop:

But why didn't Mike take the $55 million from Brian?  Because that would have bankrupt him and Brian would be forced to work for the rest of his life.  And Mike just didn't want to do that to him.

That's not even plausible as a biased statement, which is what it is masking as a "correction".

Should we thank Mike for making it possible that Brian isn't "forced" to work the rest of his life?

Talk about one-sided.

In light of that, I'll continue to stand by the period news reports of these figures, and consider these attempts to "correct" the supposed misinformation as another attempt to sway the opinions of what happened. Facts are facts.

I'm sure Brian as he's on tour with Jeff Beck, Al, and David, and reading rave reviews everywhere from Rolling Stone to the LA Times and beyond about his shows, is thanking Mike's benevolence *each and every day* that he's not forced to work the rest of his life. And as he's collecting his residuals and producer's points from BMI and elsewhere, not to mention his Grammy award and other accolades, I'll bet he's thinking "Man, I'm so glad I don't need to work thanks to Mike taking a hit on that settlement when he could have bankrupted me."

I'll leave it up to the readership to pick out what is sarcasm in my post or what is the real thing.

Until then...corrections? Still waiting.  

Facts are facts when we choose to believe them yes.

So the news reports from 1992 and 1994 are wrong? Well I'll be damned, who would have thought to believe Mike's fan club president's opinions over the press and wire reports from that time until today. 

Believe whatever you want. Just don't call those opinions facts.

[guitarfool2002]

Guitarfool2002- thanks for posting those photos.   Some I can't stretch on the ipad.  But, I was under the impression that post BRI incorporation, that Murry was out of the picture.  Did I get that wrong?  I looked at Do It Again and that was post Smiley-BRI which would have made the Boys more or less independent of Murry. 

Thanks. 

You're welcome! I could have also posted the documents from "Anna Lee The Healer", definitely BRI, and once again Murry's signature is there and he's listed as "publisher".

So the notion that Murry was out of the picture and out of day-to-day operations after a certain point in the 60's is pure crap. He was still signing contracts, filing forms, writing and cashing checks for the band. That's *fact*

Oops, sorry...don't believe that if you don't want to, Nicko and others. It's just a fact, after all. 

And I'd also recommend reading some recollections from Stephen Desper, who has told several stories of Murry showing up for sessions at the home studio - again, very much so post-Smily BRI - and having him "produce" the session as if he thought it was 1962, even barking commands at Desper as he was working. Then when Murry would leave, the band would usually feel as if it was a few lost hours thanks to Murry's crap, now let's start working.

Again, more "facts" about Murry and the band in 1968-69.

I could go all night. 

[Cam Mott]

Well I think there is more going on lawsuit-wise then we thought we knew. Brian apparently sued Irving both in CA Superior Court and US District Court. It's looking to me like Mike sued Irving with Brian as an et al [or at least filed a suit] and then possibly sued Brian out-right when Brian and his camp filched on a deal. I guess. I wish someone could sort out who sued what according to court records.

The details still don't change that Mike is the victim.

[guitarfool2002]

And if anyone has a few minutes to spare, three to be exact, watch this video. A 1994 Newsmagazine piece on the end of the lawsuit with the interview where Mike breaks into tears and sobs singing "Brian's Back", and cites "Good Vibrations" as one where he wrote the hook even though that song's credit was always given to Wilson-Love. Just watch it for the history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxnWvfJ1Q6E

[Nicko1234]

So the news reports from 1992 and 1994 are wrong? Well I'll be damned, who would have thought to believe Mike's fan club president's opinions over the press and wire reports from that time until today. 

Believe whatever you want. Just don't call those opinions facts.

Now now, play nicely.

The wink symbol in my post did indicate that it wasn't to be taken seriously as is the custom.

As I've mentioned before, astonishing to me again that Brian's lawyers screwing him over is considered fine but essays are written about 'Big Bad Mike Love'.

[guitarfool2002]

Well I think there is more going on lawsuit-wise then we thought we knew. Brian apparently sued Irving both in CA Superior Court and US District Court. It's looking to me like Mike sued Irving with Brian as an et al [or at least filed a suit] and then possibly sued Brian out-right when Brian and his camp filched on a deal. I guess. I wish someone could sort out who sued what according to court records.

The details still don't change that Mike is the victim.

THANK YOU! THANK YOU!  (the first part, not the second...) Seriously, that's what I said several pages ago, that we cannot simplify this saga into a few opinions and impressions and even worse *assumptions* about what happened. Like, for example, did Murry perhaps carry more of them blame or responsibility? Just maybe, Cam?  

Going back again a few pages, I'll bold this: Are the reports of Mike suing Brian for 30% of his 10 million settlement from A&M wrong? Because I didn't pull those out of thin air, either, it was reported that way.

I'll repeat, it is a multifaceted history that can't be carved down into a soundbite like "Brian f***ed over Mike" or "Mike acted like an ass by suing Brian" or whatever might be the sentiment-of-the-day around this.

And to see opinions and assumptions being stated not only as facts but as "corrections" now, implying that the hard numbers and figures (plus dates) are wrong when they can easily be found and reprinted here, is just making it more difficult to find that middle ground where we can understand exactly what happened...

...and not assume either Brian or Mike should shoulder the blame as the "villain" in the saga. Because that's not the case.

Good thing Brian doesn't have to work thanks to Mike, though, let's keep suggesting stuff like that to keep us further away from finding that middle ground I think most reasonable folks would like more than anything.

[Nicko1234]

THANK YOU! THANK YOU!  (the first part, not the second...) Seriously, that's what I said several pages ago, that we cannot simplify this saga into a few opinions and impressions and even worse *assumptions* about what happened. Like, for example, did Murry perhaps carry more of them blame or responsibility? Just maybe, Cam?  

Going back again a few pages, I'll bold this: Are the reports of Mike suing Brian for 30% of his 10 million settlement from A&M wrong? Because I didn't pull those out of thin air, either, it was reported that way.

I'll repeat, it is a multifaceted history that can't be carved down into a soundbite like "Brian f***ed over Mike" or "Mike acted like an ass by suing Brian" or whatever might be the sentiment-of-the-day around this.

And to see opinions and assumptions being stated not only as facts but as "corrections" now, implying that the hard numbers and figures (plus dates) are wrong when they can easily be found and reprinted here, is just making it more difficult to find that middle ground where we can understand exactly what happened...

...and not assume either Brian or Mike should shoulder the blame as the "villain" in the saga. Because that's not the case.

Good thing Brian doesn't have to work thanks to Mike, though, let's keep suggesting stuff like that to keep us further away from finding that middle ground I think most reasonable folks would like more than anything.

I think you need a rest...

[SurfRiderHawaii]

And if anyone has a few minutes to spare, three to be exact, watch this video. A 1994 Newsmagazine piece on the end of the lawsuit with the interview where Mike breaks into tears and sobs singing "Brian's Back", and cites "Good Vibrations" as one where he wrote the hook even though that song's credit was always given to Wilson-Love. Just watch it for the history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxnWvfJ1Q6E

Mike always claims he wrote ALL the lyrics to GV. But the fact is Asher wrote the original lyrics and the key lyrics, the words "Good Vibrations", Mike had nothing to do with (Brian wrote those). Jeez, seems like Tony Asher had a case for suing Mike.

[ontor pertawst]

Oh look, Nicko's pulling that "I think you need a rest" thing again. Was it all those pesky facts that were hard to refute?

Of course, the defenders of Endless Summer must NEVER rest -- not even for a moment. Quick, someone is sneering at his dress sense in aisle seven! To the Lovemobile!

[guitarfool2002]

Here's another fact, the article from the LA Times December 13, 1994 describing the conclusion of the lawsuit:

Company Town : Beach Boys' Mike Love Wins His Case, Stands to Collect Millions : Music: A federal jury sides with lead singer in a dispute over an award related to the sale of the group's song catalogue.
December 13, 1994|From Times Staff and Wire Reports

Beach Boys lead singer Mike Love on Monday won songwriting credits and past and future royalties for 35 of the group's songs, a decision that could net him at least $2 million.

A federal jury unanimously found that band co-founder Brian Wilson and his lawyers failed to make good on a promise to give Love a 30% share of a $10-million settlement Wilson won in connection with the 1969 sale of the band's songs.

The upcoming damages phase of the trial will determine exactly how much money Love will receive, as well as punitive damages.

Jurors found that Wilson was not liable for punitive damages but that attorneys who represented him in the song-sale case are liable. Love sat quietly as the judge read the 25-page verdict form, which took 28 minutes to complete. Wilson was not in the courtroom.

Jurors reached their verdict after deliberating over an eight-day period after an eight-week trial. Love had argued that he deserved money and additional writing credits for his alleged contributions to 79 songs, from "California Girls" to "Good Vibrations."

Wilson's lawyers argued that Love is about 30 years too late in bringing up the matter, further alleging that he was seeking credit for songs he didn't write or hardly contributed to.

Love asked for a third of a $10-million out-of-court settlement Wilson received in 1992 after he alleged that the Beach Boys' "Sea of Tunes" song catalogue was fraudulently sold by his domineering father, the late Murry Wilson, for $700,000 to Irving Music.

The $700,000 paid for the catalogue is considered a huge bargain today. Some estimate it could be worth $40 million or more.

During the trial, both Love and Wilson took the stand to testify, along with other members of the group, including Bruce Johnston and Al Jardine.



I could use a rest, I get tired of busting myths and correcting them with facts, Nicko. 

Attorneys suing attorneys. Jury found Wilson was not liable but the attorneys representing him were. Keep that in mind.

[filledeplage]

Guitarfool2002- thanks for posting those photos.   Some I can't stretch on the ipad.  But, I was under the impression that post BRI incorporation, that Murry was out of the picture.  Did I get that wrong?  I looked at Do It Again and that was post Smiley-BRI which would have made the Boys more or less independent of Murry. 
Thanks. 

You're welcome! I could have also posted the documents from "Anna Lee The Healer", definitely BRI, and once again Murry's signature is there and he's listed as "publisher".

So the notion that Murry was out of the picture and out of day-to-day operations after a certain point in the 60's is pure crap. He was still signing contracts, filing forms, writing and cashing checks for the band. That's *fact*

Oops, sorry...don't believe that if you don't want to, Nicko and others. It's just a fact, after all. 

And I'd also recommend reading some recollections from Stephen Desper, who has told several stories of Murry showing up for sessions at the home studio - again, very much so post-Smily BRI - and having him "produce" the session as if he thought it was 1962, even barking commands at Desper as he was working. Then when Murry would leave, the band would usually feel as if it was a few lost hours thanks to Murry's crap, now let's start working.

Again, more "facts" about Murry and the band in 1968-69.

I could go all night. 

(quote)

Thanks! I had seen the clip before, and I always thought that Mike was responsible for the work.  You can almost tell by the way he emcees a show that he does have that verbal facility.  It is a surprise that Murry was around even if they "worked around him."  At least they weren't unkind even if he was a pain and likely needy in his own right. It looks vicarious.  

And Brian might have felt disloyal on some level to Murry, as Brian was in "his shoes" as the "entity" and not the person.  People seem to struggle with that concept that it is an "entity" as if you were bitten by a neighbor's dog.  You sue the insurance company.  And don't hate the friend.  Mike sued the entity and Brian was the obvious representative and eyewitness to the work product in dispute.  Very complicated.

It would be interesting to read the transcripts.  But, after all this time, they probably aren't online.  

[SurfRiderHawaii]

Brian committed fraud? Silly. I highly doubt Brian was paying attention at the time as to who got credit for what. I guess Mike wasn't either. If I had written the lyrics for CGs, I woulda made sure I got credit.

Obviously Murry was a crook. Mike got jipped on Chug a Lug and CG + some more. Brian had idiot lawyers. Mike got his cash. Overpaid yup but such is the world of lawsuits.

[Nicko1234]

Oh look, Nicko's pulling that "I think you need a rest" thing again. Was it all those pesky facts that were hard to refute?

Of course, the defenders of Endless Summer must NEVER rest -- not even for a moment. Quick, someone is sneering at his dress sense in aisle seven! To the Lovemobile!

Maybe you missed the fact that guitarfool2002 was advocating that neither Brian nor Mike should be seen as the villain. Don't let that get in the way of things though.

'I think you need a rest' is a quote from some band's CD...oh yeah, The Beach Boys...

[guitarfool2002]

Interview excerpts from Mike Love in Goldmine, September 1992, the full interview is online:

Why weren't you credited for "California Girls"?

You see, Brian Wilson, they just signed the day before yesterday a settlement of his claims against the publisher. [Wilson was awarded 10 million dollars.] It's my assumption, and it's only an assumption, that his legal advisors are interested in taking the money and running. Brian is a pathetic figure and one of the more pathetic things is that he did not give me credit for many, many songs which I wrote. I have a huge list of them. It's unbelievable.

Back to the lawsuit. What are some of the songs you co-wrote but didn't receive credit for?

Okay, "Little Saint Nick." Brian Wilson is credited with writing 100 percent of that. Well, guess who wrote the words? Mike Love, that's who wrote the words. "Don't Back Down." It's very well known that Brian Wilson did not surf. I wrote "Catch A Wave" and "Don't Back Down." He's credited 100 percent. He didn't give me any credit.

How did that happen?

Because he didn't put my name down. Murry Wilson was the publisher of Sea of Tunes and and put in for this stuff. The same thing with "The Man With All The Toys," "Santa's Beard," "Merry Christmas Baby." There's "Good To My Baby." Brian Wilson is listed as writing it completely, guess who wrote the words? Doctor Love, that's who. "When I Grow Up (To Be A Man)." I participated in that and didn't get a stitch of recognition. "Help Me Rhonda," I wrote, "Since you put me down I've been out doing in my head." That's my fucking line, thank you very much. Things like "Dance Dance Dance," I asked Carl if he wrote any lyrics for the song and he said no. He just came up with the guitar line.

It's a good guitar line.

It is a cool line. Brian Wilson and Carl Wilson split 50-50 on that. I was the one who wrote the Chuck Berry-styled alliteration lyrics. That's my scene.

Was this more Murry Wilson or Brian?

Either that or Brian didn't tell him because of his ego. It's a bloodbath. It's millions and millions of dollars' worth of damage. Other songs, he arbitrarily assigned me a percentage which was fairly nominal. Basically, when I wrote 100 percent of the words he'd give me like 30 percent of the tune, as opposed to a split.


Fair enough, some would say. Others would say Mike is pointing more at Brian than Murry, who he says filed these things ('put in for this stuff'). Consider what I cited on page 11. Tony Asher when he went to see Murry to sign over his payments and credits for his Pet Sounds lyrics got a 25% cut plus a $7,500 payment. Mike in the last quote says he got "like 30 percent of the tune" for his lyrics.

That would make the songs where that happened a case of under-crediting, yet Tony Asher seems to have received around the same deal when he saw Murry and signed his agreements.

Has Tony Asher ever sought to reclaim a larger percentage of the credit and profits from the songs, since his 25% plus cash payment seems very much the same as what Mike mentions in the Goldmine interview with his "like 30 percent" comment. It would seem he'd have a precedent coming after Mike's win to collect a lot more, if he hasn't already in the wake of the box set and all the reissues since 1994.

Maybe the issue of the 30% cut rather than a full 50-50 split on these contracts would get us closer to why no action was taken to correct these issues until 1992.

Was this just the standard split given to lyrical co-writers signing Sea Of Tunes documents through Murry?

[Andrew G. Doe]

As my ol' drinking buddy Oscar used to say when he'd had an absinthe or two too many, "the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about". Been away fro a pleasant weekend and come back to find ORR still has a woody about me being "blackballed" by BriMel. So, although I really don't see why a by and large sensible thread about Mike & Brian's legal interactions should be sidetracked by such nonsense, one more time...

Oh, I remember the days when the Doester would brag about talking to Mr. Wilson backstage during his British gigs. I remember when the Doester stated, during a debate about the Fire House footage and the GV promo video, he would ask Brian himself about it (which never came to pass).

Didn't brag, just related a fact. Met Brian backstage, we exchanged some words. Just as you're bragging about meeting Mike backstage when he failed to come up to your expectations (or maybe he did). Also, as stated here many times, if you really thought I could just ask Brian about that - or anything - then you've got an even worse SOH that I suspect. It was a joke, just as my opening comment was.

My sources tell me you are not well liked in Brian's circles anymore AG "Butch" Doe. And no wonder as you opening insult Mrs. Wilson on this board. And, as you like to say, "they are watching".

I know "they" are watching. I told you so, years ago. As for your first comment... were that so, it would have been impossible for me to even try to arrange for Sharon Marie to meet up with Brian. Didn't quite happen, came close, and not Probyn's fault, he did everything possible but the stars didn't quite align. Next time, hopefully. The inference is that I have in some way been associated with BriMel: not so, ergo I really don't see how I can be shunned. I know some folk in said organization don't care for my researches too much, but that's been true of pretty much every serious BB/BW researcher at one time or another: as David Leaf once aptly put it, when you go rummaging in a cupboard, even if it's only for a broom, someone's going to panic about skeletons being found.

So, to badly misquote Chief Joseph, from where the sun now stands I will refer to this nonsense no more forever.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

As my ol' drinking buddy Oscar used to say when he'd had an absinthe or two too many, "the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about". Been away fro a pleasant weekend and come back to find ORR still has a woody about me being "blackballed" by BriMel. So, although I really don't see why a by and large sensible thread about Mike & Brian's legal interactions should be sidetracked by such nonsense, one more time...

Oh, I remember the days when the Doester would brag about talking to Mr. Wilson backstage during his British gigs. I remember when the Doester stated, during a debate about the Fire House footage and the GV promo video, he would ask Brian himself about it (which never came to pass).

Didn't brag, just related a fact. Met Brian backstage, we exchanged some words. Just as you're bragging about meeting Mike backstage when he failed to come up to your expectations (or maybe he did). Also, as stated here many times, if you really thought I could just ask Brian about that - or anything - then you've got an even worse SOH that I suspect. It was a joke, just as my opening comment was.

My sources tell me you are not well liked in Brian's circles anymore AG "Butch" Doe. And no wonder as you opening insult Mrs. Wilson on this board. And, as you like to say, "they are watching".

I know "they" are watching. I told you so, years ago. As for your first comment... were that so, it would have been impossible for me to even try to arrange for Sharon Marie to meet up with Brian. Didn't quite happen, came close, and not Probyn's fault, he did everything possible but the stars didn't quite align. Next time, hopefully. The inference is that I have in some way been associated with BriMel: not so, ergo I really don't see how I can be shunned. I know some folk in said organization don't care for my researches too much, but that's been true of pretty much every serious BB/BW researcher at one time or another: as David Leaf once aptly put it, when you go rummaging in a cupboard, even if it's only for a broom, someone's going to panic about skeletons being found.

So, to badly misquote Chief Joseph, from where the sun now stands I will refer to this nonsense no more forever.

Excellent reverse spin, passive aggressive post as always AGD.

Dang, you do have either a short memory or just refuse to review what you post.  You were the one who quoted me first, argued with me first on this thread. Now you want to spin it like I am pinging on you. I will always respond. As usual, you love to dish it out but hate it when people stand up for themselves.

If you think relating a personal experience is bragging, you, um, have a distorted understanding of communication.

I know you have met Brian backstage. Multiple times I'm sure. What I was saying is that you know longer do and you won't admit it.

As I had the unique experience of meeting Al, David, Mike and Bruce backstage on the C50, as well as some other people in the band's inner circle, I have stories to tell. Al was cool and we talked about the MIC box and WIBNTLA.  Talked to David about his guitar sound. Talked to Bruce about England, where I was stationed (HMS Raleigh) for 2 1/2 years. Mike was a jerk. Talked to Stan Love about our old basketball days and met his family. Talked to someone in Brian's inner, inner circle and I couldn't help asking about you. Told me you are "Persona Non Grata" now and gave me 'a look'.

Really, you can't have it both ways. You openly insult Melinda and Brian's management on the board then insinuate you have connections into Brian's camp. Whatever Butch. As you say, they are watching.  So stop making like you are in with Brian's circle when you openly insult them. You must think we are all idiots on this board.

Why don't you just stick to what you know, which is the band's history. Update your book and get it back in print.I'll buy it.  Something???
I am just a nobody on the board.  Just a fan who grew with the Beach Boys as my soundtrack.

And why I am at it, no more bashing people for their grammar and spelling please.  See you started your post by writing "Been away fro a pleasant weekend ....".

Lastly, as to "I will refer to this nonsense no more forever.", you never do.  I dare ya, right now.  I bet you can't!  Cheers Butch, I mean Chuck. 

[BB Universe]

Two observations to some of the recent posts:

1. The highlighted text in the paper's summary said BW was found not liable for "punitive" damages. That is not the same as direct damages so one cannot conclude that BW was found not liable.
2. "Facts are facts". That is entirely correct and magazine and paper articles, summaries etc. are not always entirely correct in their reporting. I don't think we have (may never have) all the facts (for this issue, the C50 issues, so many other controversies) so the ongoing arguments that go one about these are likely not correct - from either perspective.

[leggo of my ego]

A lot of interesting  eye-popping information -- and contrary to placing blame on Brian...continues to paint the Lovester as Solider-of-Fortune, though a not very brave one -- he never took any action on his own until Cousin Brian ventured out into the morass of legal waters and won some money.

Then the next month SWOOOP like a vulture to the prey.

[KittyKat]

As my ol' drinking buddy Oscar used to say when he'd had an absinthe or two too many, "the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about". Been away fro a pleasant weekend and come back to find ORR still has a woody about me being "blackballed" by BriMel. So, although I really don't see why a by and large sensible thread about Mike & Brian's legal interactions should be sidetracked by such nonsense, one more time...

Oh, I remember the days when the Doester would brag about talking to Mr. Wilson backstage during his British gigs. I remember when the Doester stated, during a debate about the Fire House footage and the GV promo video, he would ask Brian himself about it (which never came to pass).

Didn't brag, just related a fact. Met Brian backstage, we exchanged some words. Just as you're bragging about meeting Mike backstage when he failed to come up to your expectations (or maybe he did). Also, as stated here many times, if you really thought I could just ask Brian about that - or anything - then you've got an even worse SOH that I suspect. It was a joke, just as my opening comment was.

My sources tell me you are not well liked in Brian's circles anymore AG "Butch" Doe. And no wonder as you opening insult Mrs. Wilson on this board. And, as you like to say, "they are watching".

I know "they" are watching. I told you so, years ago. As for your first comment... were that so, it would have been impossible for me to even try to arrange for Sharon Marie to meet up with Brian. Didn't quite happen, came close, and not Probyn's fault, he did everything possible but the stars didn't quite align. Next time, hopefully. The inference is that I have in some way been associated with BriMel: not so, ergo I really don't see how I can be shunned. I know some folk in said organization don't care for my researches too much, but that's been true of pretty much every serious BB/BW researcher at one time or another: as David Leaf once aptly put it, when you go rummaging in a cupboard, even if it's only for a broom, someone's going to panic about skeletons being found.

So, to badly misquote Chief Joseph, from where the sun now stands I will refer to this nonsense no more forever.

Excellent reverse spin, passive aggressive post as always AGD.

Dang, you do have either a short memory or just refuse to review what you post.  You were the one who quoted me first, argued with me first on this thread. Now you want to spin it like I am pinging on you. I will always respond. As usual, you love to dish it out but hate it when people stand up for themselves.

If you think relating a personal experience is bragging, you, um, have a distorted understanding of communication.

I know you have met Brian backstage. Multiple times I'm sure. What I was saying is that you know longer do and you won't admit it.

As I had the unique experience of meeting Al, David, Mike and Bruce backstage on the C50, as well as some other people in the band's inner circle, I have stories to tell. Al was cool and we talked about the MIC box and WIBNTLA.  Talked to David about his guitar sound. Talked to Bruce about England, where I was stationed (HMS Raleigh) for 2 1/2 years. Mike was a jerk. Talked to Stan Love about our old basketball days and met his family. Talked to someone in Brian's inner, inner circle and I couldn't help asking about you. Told me you are "Persona Non Grata" now and gave me 'a look'.

Really, you can't have it both ways. You openly insult Melinda and Brian's management on the board then insinuate you have connections into Brian's camp. Whatever Butch. As you say, they are watching.  So stop making like you are in with Brian's circle when you openly insult them. You must think we are all idiots on this board.

Why don't you just stick to what you know, which is the band's history. Update your book and get it back in print.I'll buy it.  Something???
I am just a nobody on the board.  Just a fan who grew with the Beach Boys as my soundtrack.

And why I am at it, no more bashing people for their grammar and spelling please.  See you started your post by writing "Been away fro a pleasant weekend ....".

Lastly, as to "I will refer to this nonsense no more forever.", you never do.  I dare ya, right now.  I bet you can't!  Cheers Butch, I mean Chuck. 

Can't the guy talk to Probyn Gregory without clearing it with Brian first? Or is BW's entire band under the leadership of his managers or Melinda Wilson? I think not, therefore it's not unbelievable AGD could have told Probyn about Sharon and tried to arrange the meeting. For all anyone knows, Sharon Marie was going to get on that stage and belt out a song until Brian's management found out that Andrew was the source, then they said, "Sca-reww Sharon Marie, we can't have AGD taking credit for a touching reunion!"

I've been under the impression it wasn't that hard, in the past, to get backstage at Brian's shows. A lot of people did, including total screwballs such as Bluebird. Brian's band is very friendly, for one thing. I'm not sure it was ever entirely down to Brian or his management that people were getting backstage. From what I've read for this most recent tour, I don't read of many people getting to go backstage. Perhaps over time it's been discouraged for the band to  invite people to the after show bit (I also suspect Brian now flees the building as soon as the show is over). As for AGD, who knows. I wouldn't even care to ask about him if I had the chance to go backstage at a show.

[guitarfool2002]

Two observations to some of the recent posts:

1. The highlighted text in the paper's summary said BW was found not liable for "punitive" damages. That is not the same as direct damages so one cannot conclude that BW was found not liable.
2. "Facts are facts". That is entirely correct and magazine and paper articles, summaries etc. are not always entirely correct in their reporting. I don't think we have (may never have) all the facts (for this issue, the C50 issues, so many other controversies) so the ongoing arguments that go one about these are likely not correct - from either perspective.

How do you define punitive damages? They're given mostly as a deterrent and to discourage those parties paying the damages from doing the same thing again, which also by definition suggests there was some type of malice or misconduct which led to the suit in the first place.

Can you understand how Brian wasn't held liable for the punitive damages yet his legal team was?

Can we all take off our pro-Mike or pro-Brian goggles for a second and realize that is exactly the point I've now made several times and am getting sick and tired of repeating? It was the maldito lawyers on both sides. Period.

Admit you've read more "facts" here in this thread about the lawsuit than perhaps anywhere else. Or if not, so be it. But there is a HUGE difference between someone coming on here with a bunch of false numbers, backgrounds, and biased opinions disguised as "corrections" suggesting "this is how it *really* was, Mike saved Brian from going broke and having to work".

Horseshit. The amount sued for versus amount won is clearly reported. So are the dates, and the details, and everything else.

But hey, since my take on "facts is facts" must not pass muster with some here, tell me how many lawsuits Brian's legal team filed? Who were the defendants and why? How much? Superior Court or Circuit Court? Who were the lead attorneys, in fact who were the attorneys Brian's legal team sued?

I'm sorry to get snippy, but for the sake of common sense take off the Mike or Brian rose-colored glasses and look for what really happened.

And again not to get snippy, but Brian's original lawsuit and subsequent ones are more complex and detailed than saying "he sued A&M for the Sea Of Tunes money". There were ate least three primary lawsuits filed around that case, including one for copyright infringement (Cam - that was the one in District Court, you had asked before), which eventually got joined and than another filed a year later on top of that accusing a law firm of wrongdoing.

But again, "facts is facts" and don't bother quoting the ones from the *actual reports*, rather see what the Mike Love Fan Club or the Brian Wilson dot com board have to say on this.

Ready to fucking give up. (everybody now: 'Yeaaaa! Finally!')  

 

[Wirestone]

Perhaps over time it's been discouraged for the band to  invite people to the after show bit (I also suspect Brian now flees the building as soon as the show is over).

This is definitely not the case. At least the band members being discouraged bit. I know that firsthand.

As far as I know, Brian is basically never backstage after the shows anyway. At least not with the band members, which is why they're able to invite whomever they like back there.

[Wirestone]

Guitarfool, please don't stop. These are genuinely interesting and informational posts. I've certainly learned things.