How would BB history be different if Mike had received proper cowriting credits?

[filledeplage]

And, on a more philosophical/psychological level, at what point do we ask why the hell Mike never did anything about this if all of this wronging was being directed his way by "Uncle Murry" and "Cousin Brian" for decades without a correction?

Rekicking a dead horse from another thread, I know, but still...we'll point fingers at Cousin Brian all day long for not doing enough, but the question of why the f*ck would Mike sit back and watch his money - which he was entitled to based on his work - just get ripped out of his hands every time a check came in and not be proactive enough to step in and claim what was his? It's Brian's fault because of his inaction, yet Mike's inaction and reliance on a "promise" to make things right is accepted without challenge?

How does that work?

At some point, part of it falls on the guy who's been getting ripped off for three or four decades and taken no action to correct it, surely nothing in a proactive sense that would help right the wrongs he felt were being done to him. You feel sorry if someone goes to their local auto repair shop and gets cheated somehow. You feel less sorry if they return to that same shop and the same mechanics knowing it's a clip-joint, and gets ripped off again.

You start to ask "dude, what the f*ck???" if that person goes back to that same shop yet again, gets ripped off yet again, and wonders why he keeps losing money and not getting the work done that was promised them in return.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (Albert Einstein)

It all occurred over a period of only a few years in the mid-60s and wasn't on every song. 

Shouldn't the example be more like you are the mechanic working for your uncle and maybe cousin, doing outstanding work but not getting paid for occasional jobs for a few years out of a long career for which your coworker, who is your cousin/boss, gets all the credit and pay but blames the other boss? I suppose he didn't want to lose his job.

I'm not much into blaming victims but I guess we can blame Mike for trusting too much and being too loyal and not standing up hard enough for himself. However when Mike did stand up for himself he kinda gets blamed for doing that too.

The work that you seem to describe is "work for hire" and that occurs when, for example! you are an "inventor" and work for a scientific company.  Your inventions belong to the company.  That is not the case, here, seemingly.  GF2002 knows the workings of the industry.  And he gave us a chunk of the background. 

There is no blame from me, to either Brian or Mike.  The way I look at it is this way... The business model of that time, had to be dealt with.  And Mike dealt with it, legally. Murry was still speaking "from the grave" in terms of the way writing credits were apportioned.  A neutral third party looked at the evidence, in court.  Mike was not law-suit happy. 

In my view, he did the industry (and other artists who follow) a favor, by exposing the potential for abuse, in the same way that GF2002 explained, so well, above.  It can happen more often in a family-run business, and that is right across the board, where things are "personal."

The business failed to protect their artists, as exploited or allowed exploitation to take place.  Some turned their backs. 

But, that said, I'm glad you often offer a position that sometimes runs counter to many.  Mike was made the scapegoat, often.  But, Mike kept the music going, always, even when they played to very small crowds. (some of my favorite shows!)  In the end, it got them to C50, because there was a "constantly oiled" BB machine at the "ready." Just doing the unglamourous grunt work, every day.  All the travel, jet lag, fatigue, venue logistics, etc...

[guitarfool2002]

filledeplage has mentioned a key issue that I think needs to be explored, and it is one which is and has been a part of the songwriting aspect of the music business for many years.

I tried to think of a way to consolidate some of this into a more cohesive thing...but there are entire textbooks and for-credit college courses taught on these issues, not to mention volumes of legal publications outlining how these things work. But I'll try to keep it on-point and summarize it, based on a question:

Was someone like Mike Love compensated directly at the time (early mid-1960's) for his contributions?

In the current day, in the music business, there are many professional and semi-pro songwriters working "for hire". It's the same concept filledeplage introduced and compared to scientific, tech, and engineering companies who retain the services of designers and inventors but who retain the rights to their creations as a form of property, and for which they pay those inventors and engineers a salary and perhaps residuals depending on the terms of their employment and contracts.

Songs are the same for thousands of pro songwriters. Often they sign a contract with a firm or a publishing house, let's say Sony/BMG or any of the Nashville groups for the discussion. These writers are either retained as staff writers and paid in salary, or they work as independent contractors and are paid per song, depending on what the larger interest decides they want to purchase from that writer to pitch to an artist or project.

Often, the publishing rights to those song creations - existing often as fully-produced demo recordings - remain with the larger interest "hiring" the writers as part of a standard contract. The writer can be paid a flat fee for their work, they can be given a one-time payment for the song, or it can be considered "property" much like the industrial/tech engineers create in the employ of their employer, again the notion filledeplage mentions in a non-musical sense.

So the writer does get paid, or is on salary and gets a regular paycheck to write songs, or may even negotiate something more, but ultimately a lot of these arrangements do not include publishing unless that writer has an established reputation and has clout (and legal representation) to hold out for a bigger piece of the pie.

Important point: ***Many musicians are ignorant of the business aspects of making music***  This is less true now than it was in the 60's or whenever, but it is still true. They simply do not know and do not consider the ramifications of signing or not signing certain agreements, or how the inner workings can help and hurt them in the future.

This is fact...and was surely fact when guys in their teens with - important point - NO BUSINESS SENSE OR TRAINING were suddenly faced with decisions involving potentially large sums of money, as well as future financial planning.

As such, the potential and opportunity for artists ignorant of the nuts-and-bolts of things like publishing and residuals getting ripped off in terms of future income was always there, and is still there today.

Let's take examples from the 50's. Often, an artist would be presented with a lavish gift like a new flash Caddy or an expensive Rolex watch or even a one-time payment of money they had not seen before.

There *could be* a choice like this: "I'll pay you $1,500 cash for that song you just wrote, but you have to sign this agreement for future publishing rights and income."

And someone playing music many thought was a fad or short-lived would say: "Wow, it's just a song I wrote last week about racing cars, and here is a guy flashing a wad of cash in my face for that song...hmmm, I could use that money..."

Or whatever the case would be...an immediate cash payment or gift might be the more attractive option, rather than getting nothing as substantial in your hand but rather signing a paper to ensure that 10 years later if the song takes off you'll be getting a check in the mail every quarter-year for the profits from that song.

And many artists who were in their teens or barely out of their teens took the flash car, the Rolex, the wads of cash, the dope money, the girls, the "bling"...instead of looking 10 or 20 years into the future.

And for working songwriters, if you sign on "for hire" and take that payment on a song-by-song basis, your name is getting out there as well as your music - important to artists and egos just the same. You'll take on a salaried staff writer gig because it's "steady work" and you can count on a paycheck. Plus, you have access to a BMG - Sony type of structure who has teams of legal professionals to deal with everything that comes up. And your words and music might become the nation's most popular song one week...could you do that as an independent writer plugging your own songs without a legal or distribution network? It might cost more to defend yourself and your work than it would to take a salary or a one-off payment and let the real pros in those areas handle that stuff.

But you might not get as much of the pie as you would if you ran a totally self-contained independent company under your own name.

Now, back to Mike in the early and mid 60's. He had wealth, he had cars, he had all the trappings of being part of the "new rich" who had found the golden ticket out of blue-collar work, yet was at the core a blue-collar guy who had musical talent which gave him wealth.

Someone approaches someone like that hypothetically with a check, a check which working a year or more in a hometown "regular" job wouldn't come close to matching, and says "sign this and this, and you'll get this check for your work".

Food for thought?

Also, fodder for the question - As hindsight is 20/20, did Mike at the time he was cranking out all the surf sun and hot rod songs get paid on a "for hire" basis, or even get paid as a songwriter would get paid per song working as a staff writer or writer for hire?

Again, hindsight being 20/20, the notion of perhaps making a mistake when certain deals were made and certain papers signed hit him square in the face years after the fact after seeing the value in signing paper for future payments and value of the work rather than accepting payment or bling like a new car or luxury watch at the time for that work.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Real question is: would the SmileySmile board exist  if Mike had gotten proper songwriting credits? 

[ESQ Editor]

Had Mike received proper credit there would have created a different band dynamic.

When Brian retreated, Mike and Carl would have likely taken the reins together.

[LostArt]

Once again, guitarfool, great post! 

[clack]

Had Mike received proper credit there would have created a different band dynamic.

When Brian retreated, Mike and Carl would have likely taken the reins together.

Wasn't internal band dynamics the determining cause in Carl taking leadership? And wouldn't the other band members know that Mike was co-lyricist (or sole lyricist in some cases) on many songs for which he was uncredited? Can't see how Mike having his name on 'I Get Around' or 'California Girls' would have led to him taking over production/arranging duties post-Friends.

[Cam Mott]

I'm sure people accepted cash/trade in lieu of rights but it doesn't seem to be the case with Mike.

Even though Murry seems to have had nothing to gain monetarily [unless Brian was paying kick backs which I'm don't think so], and he is critical at the very time of what he sees as Brian's unethical business practices, I guess it could be Murry's fault.

And even though Brian is pushing Murry around at the very time, and Capitol, and doing his own outside projects, and seems to be dictating and controlling and calling all of the shots on every aspect of the their business lives, and he is the only one directly profiting from it, I guess it's possible Brian couldn't manage to do his duty as a co-author producer publisher and make sure one of his co-authors got on some of the songwriting contracts that he signed and it's not his fault.

[LostArt]

I'm sure people accepted cash/trade in lieu of rights but it doesn't seem to be the case with Mike.

Details, please.  Just how do you know that an arrangement of the type that guitarfool has described wasn't in place between Murry and Mike?

[Ron]

Brian is pushing Murry around at the very time, and Capitol, and doing his own outside projects, and seems to be dictating and controlling and calling all of the shots on every aspect of the their business lives, and he is the only one directly profiting from it,

This is your best point, everybody always sees Brian as this weak person, at the time we're talking about he was running everything... and pretty competantly.  Everybody else got paid, why didn't Mike?    Very weird situation, maybe Brian thought Mike didn't care if he got credit... Roger Miller, for instance used to help people write songs all the time and was never listed as a cowriter because he didn't really want the credit. 

[filledeplage]

I'm sure people accepted cash/trade in lieu of rights but it doesn't seem to be the case with Mike.

Details, please.  Just how do you know that an arrangement of the type that guitarfool has described wasn't in place between Murry and Mike?

That is a complex question.  Copyright started with the Statute of Ann in 1710. The USA had Copyright protection in 1790. The US Constitution empowered Congress, in 1787 to "promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts by Securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their Respective Writings and Discoveries."

"Work for Hire" was first recognized in 1903, with a case involving advertisements made in the "course of employment."  It opened the door to the concept.  You have to know if the person is an "employee" or an "independent contractor." There are many complex lawsuits that deal with this.  Part of the concept involves the "right to control" the "means and manner" of creation and, of its' creation.  And, as GF2002 mentions, it is by the agreement of the parties or contract terms.

We don't know.  And, I don't speculate. That said, there is a lot of info online that can be an intro to what it means. Best is a lawyer who specializes in that, if you're an artist.  And work created before 1977 was under different rules.  And Mike must have provided the necessary evidence to meet the "burden of proof."

Interesting that one of the 1976 laws is called the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. It revised a 1976 law, in 1998. It was heavily lobbied by Disney, and Sonny's widow, who took his seat in Congress, and the Gershwin estate.  One argument advanced was that "life expectancy" increased since 1790, with the first law.  Lots of interesting cases.  Not everyone shares the same opinion about intellectual property.  

[Dancing Bear]

Mike is a reasonably intelligent guy. He HAD to know that he was losing millions when he wasn't credited for California Girls alone. It just doesn't make sense.

On the other hand, let's say that Mike desperately needed quick cash in '64 and borrowed it from Uncle Murry, who in turn stopped giving Mike songwriting credits all along 1965. Wouldn't this little fact have been against Mike used in court in 1994? I don't expect Brian's lawyers at the time to restrain rhemselves so that they wouldn't expose Mike's private life to the world.

So.... This whole thing just doesn't make sense.

[Ron]

Yeah, it doesn't make sense from both sides.  Either Brian, or Murray, screwed him over, but there's no clear reason why (Brian doesn't seem to be that kind of person, he's very open with acknowledging co-conspirators on his songs)... Murray wouldn't have profited from it, although maybe he would think he'd rather his son have the money than his nephew.  Doesn't seem to be other cases of Murray screwing people out of money, though...

And then why would Mike be cool with it?  Like mentioned above, when he straight-out writes the lyrics to California Girls, and then doesn't get any royalty checks from it (when he was already getting checks from other songs) surely he knew and for whatever reason didn't want to or wasn't able to get the situation resolved. 

I guess at the time Mike was "going along to get along"... which maybe explains his complete refusal to do anything even remotely similar to 'getting along' now.  I still believe though that we'd still be in the same place if he was properly paid, because he would have had major problems with all the other issues later (mainly the drug use). 

[Robbie Mac]

Brian may well have cajoled Murry into doing his bidding, but Mike (if you believe some accounts) knocked Murry on his ass on a tour. Murry was known to be spiteful. Perhaps that burst of physical aggression from his nephew made Murry think twice about ensuring that Mike received his due.

[Cam Mott]

I'm sure people accepted cash/trade in lieu of rights but it doesn't seem to be the case with Mike.

Details, please.  Just how do you know that an arrangement of the type that guitarfool has described wasn't in place between Murry and Mike?

That's just the way it seems to me, Mike got credit before, during, and after this period. No one involved has ever mentioned it. Not in Mike's self interest and knew better by his own prior experience.

[Cam Mott]

I'm guessing the first time Mike got his copy of a single/album without his credit is the first time he went to guy who he wrote the song with and was possibly involved with the publishing and asked him about it. Mike says he brought it up to Brian and Brian said he'd take care of it. So apparently back then Mike saw Brian as the guy who could get it done.

[Cam Mott]

Brian may well have cajoled Murry into doing his bidding, but Mike (if you believe some accounts) knocked Murry on his ass on a tour. Murry was known to be spiteful. Perhaps that burst of physical aggression from his nephew made Murry think twice about ensuring that Mike received his due.

Or would it make him think twice about not ensuring Mike received his due?

Why would he ensure Mike got his due sometimes and not sometimes just for a brief period? Why would Murry steal money from Mike so it would go to Brian at the very time he is complaining to Brian about Brian's shoddy business practice and how money is ruining Brian. I think that was in the 8 page letter, right?

[Cam Mott]

This is my theoretical explanation, during this period Brian is head writer co-authoring with Mike and others and he has either interest in the publishing company or is the mouthpiece for the writers because he is connected and calls the shots on everything. If he doesn't give Murry a name it isn't on the contract because Brian is the only one who knows who are all the co-authors. For some reason, Brian does not get Mike's name in for every song. Sloppy practice, maybe Brian doesn't submit any names in a timely fashion for those particular songs and so Murry defaults to just Brian's name, greed of Brian, feelings of entitlement, one of many possible reasons. Brian even signs the forms  which do not show Mike as a co-author but they aren't corrected.

In my opinion, it was Murry's job to get it right but I don't see reason to think he wasn't doing the right thing according to his knowledge. In my opinion the fault seems most likely to fall on Brian who had the knowledge and the ability and the means and it was Brian's responsibility to get it right or make it right.

[KittyKat]

I'm sure if there were even the tiniest possibility that Mike had some type of arrangement with Murry in lieu of credits and years of royalties, Brian's lawyers would have been all over it in the lawsuit, as someone already mentioned. Brian also brought up the "California Girls" issue at least once in an interview during the Landy era, saying he had promised Mike to make it right, eventually, and give him credit for that song. I assume that issue became even bigger when Van Halen made the song a big hit in the '80s.

[guitarfool2002]

Photo/magazine clipping from 1963:


I don't want this to sound the wrong way, but some of the replies are over-simplifying the music business practices of songs and ownership and payment from those songs. To get into it would literally take a book-length commentary, and those books already exist.

Basically, a copyright means nothing in terms of money, it simply is a legal way of protecting something you created against someone else taking credit or claiming it. Filing a copyright has nothing to do with money or payments, it's a legal protection with no monetary value.

Firms like ASCAP and BMI (which Brian and Mike belonged to) administer both songwriting and publishing interests. They pay songwriters based on surveys, usage, airplay, all of it, and the payments come from a pool of income they collect from venues and media interests based on using songs they administer. This is how a writer may not own publishing but still gets regular checks from BMI for his/her song being used or performed.

Harry Fox Agency is a similar setup, more for licensing. If you want to record "Song X", you can connect with Harry Fox and determine how much of a fee you'll need to pay to get the "right" to perform or release that song for potential profit or payment.

ASCAP and BMI also represent publishing firms, like the former Sea Of Tunes. It's basically the same services they give writers, and you can file as a writer/publisher (which I've done myself, for future interests), but publishing interests are separate in ways from writing interests.

Murry and Brian formed Sea Of Tunes, it's reported in Billboard dating back to 1963, with an eye toward keeping their own interests as well as representing other artists. Yet the deal was, Capitol would get the first  dibs on anything as to avoid competition or anything of the sort, so Capitol wasn't fighting one of their main artists for someone signed with Sea Of Tunes. It was a mutual agreement.

Now, can we see where inner-workings of the business like Capitol getting "first pass" or whatever it was called has *nothing* to do with songwriting? Publishing is more business than anything, and understand that most - I'd say an overwhelming majority of artists - leave publishing business concerns to those they pay to handle such things. It's far more business than music.

And in that way, Mike *was* getting paid and managing to live a pretty rich lifestyle by 1964, wasn't he?

Sea Of Tunes was part of a larger business interest, generating revenue just as the "Beach Boys" brand name in 1964 was making money by touring, record sales, merchandising, personal appearances, and yes - revenue coming in from the songs through BMI and the like, and through Sea Of Tunes.

Again, the Sea Of Tunes publishing was *one aspect* of what had been (very wisely) a family corporation set up by Murry with at that time the son who was legally considered an "adult" and able to sign and agree to contracts and business agreements. As such:

When money from the tours came in, how did Mike get his share?

When money from the record sales came in (separate from publishing and usage), how did Mike get his share?

When money from God-knows-what piece of merchandise or licensed material came in, how did Mike get his share?

When money from songs he *was* credited for, as in the Sharon Marie photo of one of Brian's "outside", so-called, projects came in, how did Mike get his share?

When contracts were negotiated, signed, and any payments handed out, how did Mike get his share?

That's only touching on the big issues at hand.

Do we know what kind of financial agreements were in place between the corporation centered around the Beach Boys and which included Sea Of Tunes as *JUST ONE* of a handful of revenue-generating interests surrounding the name "Beach Boys"? Do we have contracts, verbal agreements, signatures on a cocktail napkin...anything of the sort to establish who and what was agreed to in 1963-64-65?

Do we?

Yet we quickly dismiss possibilities like - perhaps - the structure of how various "employees" of the Beach Boys name and their entity Sea Of Tunes got paid, because obviously a guy like Mike was getting paid well for being part of this organization.

And even as Sea Of Tunes branched out into doing what it said it would do - scout and sign other artists and give Capitol "first pass" on them - with one notable example shown in the photo above, this example of Brian's so-called "solo" trips included and credited Mike as co-writer, and featured Mike in the PR for their new Sea Of Tunes/Capitol act.

Most if not all of these cases were, are, and always will be on a *case-by-case basis*, meaning there is not stock, one-size-fits-all contract agreement for every artist with every song with every project. These terms change, and are changed regularly depending on the case itself.

This is why lawyers, entertainment lawyers and contract lawyers and other legal specialties are involved in this...it is confusing, it is big business with big money, and it can get ugly.

So more power to Murry and his son (the one who was legally able to enter into contracts independently at the time) who managed to navigate this minefield at a time when "independents" like them would regularly get eaten alive by the business sharks.

And let's take some of this into consideration before assuming, dismissing, or otherwise turning a blind eye toward *possibilities* in how all of this went down in 63-64-65.

Aside: The 90's court case had what it needed to conclude as it did. If Mike or Al got a gold watch in 1964, it didn't amount to much in the details of the actual case being heard, and if it were introduced without documentation or even a receipt that said Mike got a Rolex in 1964 in exchange for something, it would be thrown out of court, probably as hearsay. And it wasn't totally pertinent to what the case was being heard to decide.

[KittyKat]

So, Mike didn't deserve the money or the pride aspect of credit (which seems to be a big motivator for him), just because he was already a member of the Beach Boys and making money off his work of singing in the studio and touring? Then why bother giving Carl Wilson a songwriting credit on "Dance, Dance, Dance"? After all, he was already getting paid as a Beach Boy. That all sounds like a very Murry Wilson way of thinking. I guess Mike should have been grateful that he did get some songwriting credits before the lawsuit. Which also begs the question as to why he ever did get a single credit, if there was some kind of de facto arrangement behind the scenes or it was "just how it was done back then." Not even getting into why Roger Christian, Tony Asher, and Gary Usher got consistent credits and royalties, but of course they were not Beach Boys and had no other way to be compensated. Then there was the case of Van Dyke Parks, who got a larger percentage split than any other Wilson collaborator (a full 50% rather than the lesser percentages of other outside collaborators).

[Cam Mott]

So the copyright does establish who is to share the songwriting royalties, right? The publisher gets its own royalty?

[Dancing Bear]

I've seen the whole songwriting issue being dismissed out of hand because of 'Wouldn't it be Nice', but now we're reaching a whole new level. 

[LostArt]

So the copyright does establish who is to share the songwriting royalties, right? The publisher gets its own royalty?

Basically, a copyright means nothing in terms of money, it simply is a legal way of protecting something you created against someone else taking credit or claiming it. Filing a copyright has nothing to do with money or payments, it's a legal protection with no monetary value.

[Cam Mott]

OK, that is what I thought. So everything I said still stands I guess. I'm losing focus.

[guitarfool2002]

Hard fact: Music is business, period. As distasteful or as objectionable as that may seem, that's the reality of anyone who works in or even on the very fringes of the music business on any scale that involves things like airplay, sales, performances, and the like. One great lesson I learned through the years was that a lot of artists got ripped off because they weren't aware of the inner workings enough to know when they were getting ripped off, or didn't know how and why to take steps to protect themselves.

Understand too there are really bad people working in a really slimy business who rip people off regardless of precautions taken or knowledge used to prevent such things, but sometimes the simple act of having a lawyer review a contract for the simplest thing could have saved that artist a lot of problems.

So that is now a "Murry" type of thinking? No, that's the was it is, end of story. It's business, with all the trappings. Expecting some kind of system where art and creativity flourish independent of all the "Murry" business elements is pure utopian fantasy.