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

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

The fact, however it might disagree with opinions or however arrogant it might be perceived, is that cases which go into the legal system up to a judge or jury are not being funded on the basis of pride or righting a wrong, they're filed for money and potential to make more money. Interpersonal squabbles and debates within bands or among artists over such credits happen every minute of every day, but the costs involved with filing a legal case are so great that much of that remains interpersonal, and very rarely if ever are these cases filed over songs that have not or will not generate enough income to cover the costs.

Have there been some music-related legal claims that have gone to the courts based solely on righting a wrong without financial interest? Perhaps. But consider how many of these cases which have been heard by and decided in a court of law have come from a band or group that is actively working together or actively enjoying success, or how many are filed when that artist is actively signed into any kind of a contractual agreement that is paying off due to the commercial success or popularity of that venture. Most of the notable cases involving band members or partners come after that partnership has been dissolved, after a member or members have quit or been forced out, or after the songs or works in question have already made money for that partnership or organization.

Sure, but having one's name listed on the credits to famous songs is not an unfathomable desire either.... I'd say that we logically can't rule out any motivation.

[Cam Mott]

Was the mama says section with those lyrics ever ascribed to or recorded together during the VDP/SMILE era? I don't think so. Unless I'm forgetting something. 

Umm...yes, actually. The aforementioned Do a Lot take for H&V was recorded in January '67. The height of the SMiLE Era, before VDP quit, but after the Cabin Essence incident. What does the CE fight have to do with it? Because it cemented the wedge between them. To someone like VDP, if Brian had had Mike rewrite his lyrics, *especially* after that, it wouldve been a great insult. I think he would've quit even sooner than he did, had this happened.

Give it up. You sound like Mike's lawyer trying to pretend WIBN was written by Mike over the phone in Japan. Utterly ridiculous.

Well I don't share your certainty that VDP wrote those lyrics and that Mike can't be the author. Someone should ask Parks, his email address used to be on his website.

In H&V this was January '67 right? Parks says he was out after Fire in November and then I don't believe there is any evidence of him again until the lastest of February. H&V was going through overhaul through December and January and on through February. Mike is established as a guy who can write a lyric in the hallway of the studio. The April Veg is in April after Parks has left all together. It's not farfetched at all. So far there is no evidence that Parks wrote those lyrics but there is the evidence that Mike actually has the credit. Unless there is something I am over looking, which is likely, why are we twisting ourselves in knots when the publishing tells the story? After all the history is Mike didn't get unduly credited, he got unjustly uncredited.

[Cam Mott]

RE. WIBN: if we think it is unfair for Mike to have credit for one line in that song, then I'm sure we all agree we can cancel it out with Brian's even more egregious over-credit for a phrase in Good Vibrations. Done! (dusts hands)

[Cam Mott]

The fact, however it might disagree with opinions or however arrogant it might be perceived, is that cases which go into the legal system up to a judge or jury are not being funded on the basis of pride or righting a wrong, they're filed for money and potential to make more money. Interpersonal squabbles and debates within bands or among artists over such credits happen every minute of every day, but the costs involved with filing a legal case are so great that much of that remains interpersonal, and very rarely if ever are these cases filed over songs that have not or will not generate enough income to cover the costs.

Have there been some music-related legal claims that have gone to the courts based solely on righting a wrong without financial interest? Perhaps. But consider how many of these cases which have been heard by and decided in a court of law have come from a band or group that is actively working together or actively enjoying success, or how many are filed when that artist is actively signed into any kind of a contractual agreement that is paying off due to the commercial success or popularity of that venture. Most of the notable cases involving band members or partners come after that partnership has been dissolved, after a member or members have quit or been forced out, or after the songs or works in question have already made money for that partnership or organization.

Wasn't Mike's suit for credit without stipulating how much and a very lowball offer of a monetary settlement. Isn't that much more about credit and less about money?  Actually it is kind of low flying for both.

[guitarfool2002]

The fact, however it might disagree with opinions or however arrogant it might be perceived, is that cases which go into the legal system up to a judge or jury are not being funded on the basis of pride or righting a wrong, they're filed for money and potential to make more money. Interpersonal squabbles and debates within bands or among artists over such credits happen every minute of every day, but the costs involved with filing a legal case are so great that much of that remains interpersonal, and very rarely if ever are these cases filed over songs that have not or will not generate enough income to cover the costs.

Have there been some music-related legal claims that have gone to the courts based solely on righting a wrong without financial interest? Perhaps. But consider how many of these cases which have been heard by and decided in a court of law have come from a band or group that is actively working together or actively enjoying success, or how many are filed when that artist is actively signed into any kind of a contractual agreement that is paying off due to the commercial success or popularity of that venture. Most of the notable cases involving band members or partners come after that partnership has been dissolved, after a member or members have quit or been forced out, or after the songs or works in question have already made money for that partnership or organization.

Sure, but having one's name listed on the credits to famous songs is not an unfathomable desire either.... I'd say that we logically can't rule out any motivation.

This kind of statement ignores reality versus ideology, or even a "rose colored glasses" view of cases like this. A desire to have one's name on something doesn't equal or come close to equaling the costs involved with filing a credit or copyright claim in the court system. The cost for the person filing the claim to hire and retain a lawyer or law firm and their team, plus the cost of the parties having the claim filed against them to defend it if they're disputing the claim, and all related costs and charges involved in filing such a case wouldn't justify the outcome if all that is being sought is one's name on a credit.

As I specifically said, this stuff plays out in bands and between collaborators every day, but *specifically* (and please consider this before shifting the focus) none of these cases is going to involve the courts, law firms, and all costs associated with taking it before the court if there is not money involved.

And in many cases, the person or persons filing the claim is dissociated with or removed from the entity they're filing the case against, and the claims are being filed against something which has made money and stands to make more money for the person filing the case.

There is a monumental difference between bandmates squabbling amongst themselves over credit for a work that hasn't made sh*t in terms of profit, and someone taking it to the courts, hiring legal representation, and filing those claims in a court of law.

If there is no money involved, no "award" being sought in the case, no financial interests at all in favor of the "right a wrong" concept, how many law firms are going to take up the case on either side? It's simply not worth the time or money to do so.

And note some of the more prominent cases that have been taken to court: Are they coming from bands or groups that are together and actively working successfully, or are they from the stereotypical "disgruntled" former member, or concerning a group or partnership that has been split up yet the fruits of that partnership are currently making a lot of money, or stand to in the future?

You don't take a case of credit for credit's sake or even for pride's sake into court without a financial interest, it's illogical and the cost involved doesn't justify the outcome either way.

[guitarfool2002]

The fact, however it might disagree with opinions or however arrogant it might be perceived, is that cases which go into the legal system up to a judge or jury are not being funded on the basis of pride or righting a wrong, they're filed for money and potential to make more money. Interpersonal squabbles and debates within bands or among artists over such credits happen every minute of every day, but the costs involved with filing a legal case are so great that much of that remains interpersonal, and very rarely if ever are these cases filed over songs that have not or will not generate enough income to cover the costs.

Have there been some music-related legal claims that have gone to the courts based solely on righting a wrong without financial interest? Perhaps. But consider how many of these cases which have been heard by and decided in a court of law have come from a band or group that is actively working together or actively enjoying success, or how many are filed when that artist is actively signed into any kind of a contractual agreement that is paying off due to the commercial success or popularity of that venture. Most of the notable cases involving band members or partners come after that partnership has been dissolved, after a member or members have quit or been forced out, or after the songs or works in question have already made money for that partnership or organization.

Wasn't Mike's suit for credit without stipulating how much and a very lowball offer of a monetary settlement. Isn't that much more about credit and less about money?  Actually it is kind of low flying for both.

Cam, I'm not proscribing this to the Mike and Brian case, I'm just putting it up there as a general thing based on the last two pages' discussions about this kind of case, how the ones that do come before the courts most often make it that far and who files them, and the potential for who can claim credit for contributing to songs.

My main idea, again, is that the issue of credit only becomes an issue if one of the parties involved pursues it, and pursuing it is as much financial as anything else which prevents interpersonal squabbles from making it that far into the legal system. If there is no money involved, the case will not go to court, and the cases usually don't involve anything but projects which make a lot of money.

The Brian and Mike cases are much more involved and the reasons behind them are more nuanced than a lot of similar filings, which means they can't be summarized as easily and shouldn't be.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

The fact, however it might disagree with opinions or however arrogant it might be perceived, is that cases which go into the legal system up to a judge or jury are not being funded on the basis of pride or righting a wrong, they're filed for money and potential to make more money. Interpersonal squabbles and debates within bands or among artists over such credits happen every minute of every day, but the costs involved with filing a legal case are so great that much of that remains interpersonal, and very rarely if ever are these cases filed over songs that have not or will not generate enough income to cover the costs.

Have there been some music-related legal claims that have gone to the courts based solely on righting a wrong without financial interest? Perhaps. But consider how many of these cases which have been heard by and decided in a court of law have come from a band or group that is actively working together or actively enjoying success, or how many are filed when that artist is actively signed into any kind of a contractual agreement that is paying off due to the commercial success or popularity of that venture. Most of the notable cases involving band members or partners come after that partnership has been dissolved, after a member or members have quit or been forced out, or after the songs or works in question have already made money for that partnership or organization.

Sure, but having one's name listed on the credits to famous songs is not an unfathomable desire either.... I'd say that we logically can't rule out any motivation.

This kind of statement ignores reality versus ideology, or even a "rose colored glasses" view of cases like this. A desire to have one's name on something doesn't equal or come close to equaling the costs involved with filing a credit or copyright claim in the court system. The cost for the person filing the claim to hire and retain a lawyer or law firm and their team, plus the cost of the parties having the claim filed against them to defend it if they're disputing the claim, and all related costs and charges involved in filing such a case wouldn't justify the outcome if all that is being sought is one's name on a credit.

As I specifically said, this stuff plays out in bands and between collaborators every day, but *specifically* (and please consider this before shifting the focus) none of these cases is going to involve the courts, law firms, and all costs associated with taking it before the court if there is not money involved.

And in many cases, the person or persons filing the claim is dissociated with or removed from the entity they're filing the case against, and the claims are being filed against something which has made money and stands to make more money for the person filing the case.

There is a monumental difference between bandmates squabbling amongst themselves over credit for a work that hasn't made sh*t in terms of profit, and someone taking it to the courts, hiring legal representation, and filing those claims in a court of law.

If there is no money involved, no "award" being sought in the case, no financial interests at all in favor of the "right a wrong" concept, how many law firms are going to take up the case on either side? It's simply not worth the time or money to do so.

And note some of the more prominent cases that have been taken to court: Are they coming from bands or groups that are together and actively working successfully, or are they from the stereotypical "disgruntled" former member, or concerning a group or partnership that has been split up yet the fruits of that partnership are currently making a lot of money, or stand to in the future?

You don't take a case of credit for credit's sake or even for pride's sake into court without a financial interest, it's illogical and the cost involved doesn't justify the outcome either way.

How can you put forth such opinions as fact and call my more liberal view of personal motivation as ignoring fact???

You mean to tell me humans are ruled by singular motivations and that single motivation only?

BTW, I completely agree with the latter part of your last reply regarding Mike and Brian's case as being especially nuanced.

[guitarfool2002]

You're ignoring completely the fact that such cases do not go to court and are not taken up by lawyers unless there is money involved. And you're also ignoring the point I stressed repeatedly that the differences between interpersonal squabbles among bandmates or collaborators or partners and actually going through the process to make a legal case out of it are massive enough to the point where only cases that involve a lot of money ever make it to court.

It doesn't cost anything to have bandmate #1 argue and demand from bandmate #2 that they receive credit for something they feel they deserve. It costs a lot of money to have bandmate #1 take bandmate #2 to court to claim that credit, and it's naive to think such a case is all about righting a wrong considering the costs involved in taking it beyond individual discussion and into the actual legal system. If bandmate #1 wants to hire a lawyer or legal team, they're either going to need to pay out-of-pocket and expect no compensation, the lawyer has to expect no compensation or percentage of the potential settlement beyond their fee and billing to their client, and the interest being taken to court has to expect no financial interests to protect or potentially pay to defend.

Which means...songwriting cases taken to court don't happen that way on the basis of conceptual or ideological notions of righting a wrong without money being involved.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

You're ignoring completely the fact that such cases do not go to court and are not taken up by lawyers unless there is money involved. And you're also ignoring the point I stressed repeatedly that the differences between interpersonal squabbles among bandmates or collaborators or partners and actually going through the process to make a legal case out of it are massive enough to the point where only cases that involve a lot of money ever make it to court.

It doesn't cost anything to have bandmate #1 argue and demand from bandmate #2 that they receive credit for something they feel they deserve. It costs a lot of money to have bandmate #1 take bandmate #2 to court to claim that credit, and it's naive to think such a case is all about righting a wrong considering the costs involved in taking it beyond individual discussion and into the actual legal system. If bandmate #1 wants to hire a lawyer or legal team, they're either going to need to pay out-of-pocket and expect no compensation, the lawyer has to expect no compensation or percentage of the potential settlement beyond their fee and billing to their client, and the interest being taken to court has to expect no financial interests to protect or potentially pay to defend.

Which means...songwriting cases taken to court don't happen that way on the basis of conceptual or ideological notions of righting a wrong without money being involved.

So if one thinks they deserve credit so badly, the only way to solve this is to bring a court case and money must be involved for there to be a case. How exactly does this exclude pride or personal reasons as a major motivation??  It does not! Or are we talking about the lawyer's motivation?

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Was the mama says section with those lyrics ever ascribed to or recorded together during the VDP/SMILE era? I don't think so. Unless I'm forgetting something. 

Umm...yes, actually. The aforementioned Do a Lot take for H&V was recorded in January '67. The height of the SMiLE Era, before VDP quit, but after the Cabin Essence incident. What does the CE fight have to do with it? Because it cemented the wedge between them. To someone like VDP, if Brian had had Mike rewrite his lyrics, *especially* after that, it wouldve been a great insult. I think he would've quit even sooner than he did, had this happened.

Give it up. You sound like Mike's lawyer trying to pretend WIBN was written by Mike over the phone in Japan. Utterly ridiculous.

Well I don't share your certainty that VDP wrote those lyrics and that Mike can't be the author. Someone should ask Parks, his email address used to be on his website.

In H&V this was January '67 right? Parks says he was out after Fire in November and then I don't believe there is any evidence of him again until the lastest of February. H&V was going through overhaul through December and January and on through February. Mike is established as a guy who can write a lyric in the hallway of the studio. The April Veg is in April after Parks has left all together. It's not farfetched at all. So far there is no evidence that Parks wrote those lyrics but there is the evidence that Mike actually has the credit. Unless there is something I am over looking, which is likely, why are we twisting ourselves in knots when the publishing tells the story? After all the history is Mike didn't get unduly credited, he got unjustly uncredited.

But we've spent 15 pages worth of posts discussing how inaccurate the publishing is. History is Brian going the path of least resistance regarding this stuff. It was easier to keep Mike off the early hits rather than rock the boat. And it was easier to just throw Mike's name on Mama Says than involve Van Dyke in it over a one minute chant tagged onto WH.

I really doubt Mike would just let it be if VT as we now know it used his lyrics for the chorus and he was yet again uncredited for it. In all the interviews about SMiLE and his dislike for the lyrics, why has he never brought up the fact that he wrote this piece? He likes to brag about his accomplishments. Being able to say "I hated the lyrics. I wrote some for VT that I think better suited that song, and had Brian allowed me to, I could've written some great stuff for the other tracks too." It's just not in Mike's character to keep quiet about something like this.

And just because it was recorded in Jan 67 doesn't mean it was written then. It was probably written earlier. To claim now that it was actually penned by Mike in the hallway that day is unlikely. Like, WIBN over the phone from Japan level unlikely.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Was the mama says section with those lyrics ever ascribed to or recorded together during the VDP/SMILE era? I don't think so. Unless I'm forgetting something.  

Umm...yes, actually. The aforementioned Do a Lot take for H&V was recorded in January '67. The height of the SMiLE Era, before VDP quit, but after the Cabin Essence incident. What does the CE fight have to do with it? Because it cemented the wedge between them. To someone like VDP, if Brian had had Mike rewrite his lyrics, *especially* after that, it wouldve been a great insult. I think he would've quit even sooner than he did, had this happened.

Give it up. You sound like Mike's lawyer trying to pretend WIBN was written by Mike over the phone in Japan. Utterly ridiculous.

Well I don't share your certainty that VDP wrote those lyrics and that Mike can't be the author. Someone should ask Parks, his email address used to be on his website.

In H&V this was January '67 right? Parks says he was out after Fire in November and then I don't believe there is any evidence of him again until the lastest of February. H&V was going through overhaul through December and January and on through February. Mike is established as a guy who can write a lyric in the hallway of the studio. The April Veg is in April after Parks has left all together. It's not farfetched at all. So far there is no evidence that Parks wrote those lyrics but there is the evidence that Mike actually has the credit. Unless there is something I am over looking, which is likely, why are we twisting ourselves in knots when the publishing tells the story? After all the history is Mike didn't get unduly credited, he got unjustly uncredited.

But we've spent 15 pages worth of posts discussing how inaccurate the publishing is. History is Brian going the path of least resistance regarding this stuff. It was easier to keep Mike off the early hits rather than rock the boat. And it was easier to just throw Mike's name on Mama Says than involve Van Dyke in it over a one minute chant tagged onto WH.

I really doubt Mike would just let it be if VT as we now know it used his lyrics for the chorus and he was yet again uncredited for it. In all the interviews about SMiLE and his dislike for the lyrics, why has he never brought up the fact that he wrote this piece? He likes to brag about his accomplishments. Being able to say "I hated the lyrics. I wrote some for VT that I think better suited that song, and had Brian allowed me to, I could've written some great stuff for the other tracks too." It's just not in Mike's character to keep quiet about something like this.

And just because it was recorded in Jan 67 doesn't mean it was written then. It was probably written earlier. To claim now that it was actually penned by Mike in the hallway that day is unlikely. Like, WIBN over the phone from Japan level unlikely.

Cam was merely speculating ...... just as you and Guitarfool are speculating at great great length.

[SMiLE Brian]

*Missing oldsurferdude comment that would lighten the mood*

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

*Missing oldsurferdude comment that would lighten the mood*

Maybe you can ask him to weigh in and report back his comments?

[SMiLE Brian]

He did write something recently....

"Dennis as a cat? If the Beach Boys were Girls??  W T F has happened over there?"

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

He did write something recently....

"Dennis as a cat? If the Beach Boys were Girls??  W T F has happened over there?"

I share the sentiment

[CenturyDeprived]

Since this thread took a tangent into specifically discussing WIBN, I think an interesting question to ask at this point is:

If Mike had received proper co-writing credits for songs that he really deeply collaborated on, like I Get Around, California Girls, etc... would he have felt the need to pursue legal action for being omitted as a co-writer on WIBN? Would he have felt bummed out and somehow "robbed" or "cheated" by not getting a credit on that one song for his ad lib?
 

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Since this thread took a tangent into specifically discussing WIBN, I think an interesting question to ask at this point is:

If Mike had received proper co-writing credits for songs that he really deeply collaborated on, like I Get Around, California Girls, etc... would he have felt the need to pursue legal action for being omitted as a co-writer on WIBN? Would he have felt bummed out and somehow "robbed" or "cheated" by not getting a credit on that one song for his ad lib?
 

I would hazard to guess: NO

[guitarfool2002]

You're ignoring completely the fact that such cases do not go to court and are not taken up by lawyers unless there is money involved. And you're also ignoring the point I stressed repeatedly that the differences between interpersonal squabbles among bandmates or collaborators or partners and actually going through the process to make a legal case out of it are massive enough to the point where only cases that involve a lot of money ever make it to court.

It doesn't cost anything to have bandmate #1 argue and demand from bandmate #2 that they receive credit for something they feel they deserve. It costs a lot of money to have bandmate #1 take bandmate #2 to court to claim that credit, and it's naive to think such a case is all about righting a wrong considering the costs involved in taking it beyond individual discussion and into the actual legal system. If bandmate #1 wants to hire a lawyer or legal team, they're either going to need to pay out-of-pocket and expect no compensation, the lawyer has to expect no compensation or percentage of the potential settlement beyond their fee and billing to their client, and the interest being taken to court has to expect no financial interests to protect or potentially pay to defend.

Which means...songwriting cases taken to court don't happen that way on the basis of conceptual or ideological notions of righting a wrong without money being involved.

So if one thinks they deserve credit so badly, the only way to solve this is to bring a court case and money must be involved for there to be a case. How exactly does this exclude pride or personal reasons as a major motivation??  It does not! Or are we talking about the lawyer's motivation?

The difference between the millions of songwriting cases that never go to court and the very, very few that actually do come to a conclusion and decision in court is the amount of money involved in filing such a legal claim in the first place.

The fact - whether people agree or disagree with the system in place - is that the amount of money involved in hiring legal representation and retaining a legal defense is extremely high and out of the reach of average people, not to mention the time involved in trying such cases. And by the time the investment like that is recovered, the amount of money in a potential award or compensation is very often less than the cost of pursuing the case itself. And that is why these cases involve songs or claims where a lot of money is potentially at stake for all parties, and if you want to file such a claim hiring a lawyer or legal team is essential.

It is also why when claims are made, it's not just the claim itself being asked but also a form of compensation or "damages" and other related estimated amounts are filed as part of the case. Not that this happens in each and every such case - to assume that would be naive - but many times the suit seeks damages as well as back payments and some payment of or guarantee of future earnings in order to in part financially justify the investments of party filing the claim for filing it in the first place.

Most times, if not overwhelmingly most times, if there is no potential to make money by seeking a court case in these songwriting-based claims, they just won't go to court. Unless, the person filing is wealthy enough or has enough money available to hire a lawyer or law firm out-of-pocket and pay whatever legal fees come due in pursuing the case, sums which could reach at least 6-figures depending on the case itself. And even that would be up to the law firm to agree to take a case like that where no financial award or compensation is being sought, but rather the sole issue of putting one's name on a credit with nothing to gain financially and only legal costs to lose.

And there may just be cases like that, on principle alone with money not a factor, but it's not anything close to the reality of how these songwriting and credit cases work.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

You're ignoring completely the fact that such cases do not go to court and are not taken up by lawyers unless there is money involved. And you're also ignoring the point I stressed repeatedly that the differences between interpersonal squabbles among bandmates or collaborators or partners and actually going through the process to make a legal case out of it are massive enough to the point where only cases that involve a lot of money ever make it to court.

It doesn't cost anything to have bandmate #1 argue and demand from bandmate #2 that they receive credit for something they feel they deserve. It costs a lot of money to have bandmate #1 take bandmate #2 to court to claim that credit, and it's naive to think such a case is all about righting a wrong considering the costs involved in taking it beyond individual discussion and into the actual legal system. If bandmate #1 wants to hire a lawyer or legal team, they're either going to need to pay out-of-pocket and expect no compensation, the lawyer has to expect no compensation or percentage of the potential settlement beyond their fee and billing to their client, and the interest being taken to court has to expect no financial interests to protect or potentially pay to defend.

Which means...songwriting cases taken to court don't happen that way on the basis of conceptual or ideological notions of righting a wrong without money being involved.

So if one thinks they deserve credit so badly, the only way to solve this is to bring a court case and money must be involved for there to be a case. How exactly does this exclude pride or personal reasons as a major motivation??  It does not! Or are we talking about the lawyer's motivation?

The difference between the millions of songwriting cases that never go to court and the very, very few that actually do come to a conclusion and decision in court is the amount of money involved in filing such a legal claim in the first place.

The fact - whether people agree or disagree with the system in place - is that the amount of money involved in hiring legal representation and retaining a legal defense is extremely high and out of the reach of average people, not to mention the time involved in trying such cases. And by the time the investment like that is recovered, the amount of money in a potential award or compensation is very often less than the cost of pursuing the case itself. And that is why these cases involve songs or claims where a lot of money is potentially at stake for all parties, and if you want to file such a claim hiring a lawyer or legal team is essential.

It is also why when claims are made, it's not just the claim itself being asked but also a form of compensation or "damages" and other related estimated amounts are filed as part of the case. Not that this happens in each and every such case - to assume that would be naive - but many times the suit seeks damages as well as back payments and some payment of or guarantee of future earnings in order to in part financially justify the investments of party filing the claim for filing it in the first place.

Most times, if not overwhelmingly most times, if there is no potential to make money by seeking a court case in these songwriting-based claims, they just won't go to court. Unless, the person filing is wealthy enough or has enough money available to hire a lawyer or law firm out-of-pocket and pay whatever legal fees come due in pursuing the case, sums which could reach at least 6-figures depending on the case itself. And even that would be up to the law firm to agree to take a case like that where no financial award or compensation is being sought, but rather the sole issue of putting one's name on a credit with nothing to gain financially and only legal costs to lose.

And there may just be cases like that, on principle alone with money not a factor, but it's not anything close to the reality of how these songwriting and credit cases work.

No one is debating how they work. We're talking about motivations. It's foolish to state as fact that just because money is involved, there must be no other motivation.

[urbanite]

The movie studios and the record companies have the money to pay law firms to fight these cases to the bitter end, often with the goal of making it financially impossible for the claimant to continue the battle.  If the claim is worth a lot, there are lawyers who will take it on contingency and take their shot at big money.  They are tough cases to win.  

[Cam Mott]

The fact, however it might disagree with opinions or however arrogant it might be perceived, is that cases which go into the legal system up to a judge or jury are not being funded on the basis of pride or righting a wrong, they're filed for money and potential to make more money. Interpersonal squabbles and debates within bands or among artists over such credits happen every minute of every day, but the costs involved with filing a legal case are so great that much of that remains interpersonal, and very rarely if ever are these cases filed over songs that have not or will not generate enough income to cover the costs.

Have there been some music-related legal claims that have gone to the courts based solely on righting a wrong without financial interest? Perhaps. But consider how many of these cases which have been heard by and decided in a court of law have come from a band or group that is actively working together or actively enjoying success, or how many are filed when that artist is actively signed into any kind of a contractual agreement that is paying off due to the commercial success or popularity of that venture. Most of the notable cases involving band members or partners come after that partnership has been dissolved, after a member or members have quit or been forced out, or after the songs or works in question have already made money for that partnership or organization.

Wasn't Mike's suit for credit without stipulating how much and a very lowball offer of a monetary settlement. Isn't that much more about credit and less about money?  Actually it is kind of low flying for both.

Cam, I'm not proscribing this to the Mike and Brian case, I'm just putting it up there as a general thing based on the last two pages' discussions about this kind of case, how the ones that do come before the courts most often make it that far and who files them, and the potential for who can claim credit for contributing to songs.

My main idea, again, is that the issue of credit only becomes an issue if one of the parties involved pursues it, and pursuing it is as much financial as anything else which prevents interpersonal squabbles from making it that far into the legal system. If there is no money involved, the case will not go to court, and the cases usually don't involve anything but projects which make a lot of money.

The Brian and Mike cases are much more involved and the reasons behind them are more nuanced than a lot of similar filings, which means they can't be summarized as easily and shouldn't be.

I'm just making an observation about that case specifically. The eyewitness account of the whole trail showed it was not just or even mostly about money for Mike's people.

[Cam Mott]

Was the mama says section with those lyrics ever ascribed to or recorded together during the VDP/SMILE era? I don't think so. Unless I'm forgetting something. 

Umm...yes, actually. The aforementioned Do a Lot take for H&V was recorded in January '67. The height of the SMiLE Era, before VDP quit, but after the Cabin Essence incident. What does the CE fight have to do with it? Because it cemented the wedge between them. To someone like VDP, if Brian had had Mike rewrite his lyrics, *especially* after that, it wouldve been a great insult. I think he would've quit even sooner than he did, had this happened.

Give it up. You sound like Mike's lawyer trying to pretend WIBN was written by Mike over the phone in Japan. Utterly ridiculous.

Well I don't share your certainty that VDP wrote those lyrics and that Mike can't be the author. Someone should ask Parks, his email address used to be on his website.

In H&V this was January '67 right? Parks says he was out after Fire in November and then I don't believe there is any evidence of him again until the lastest of February. H&V was going through overhaul through December and January and on through February. Mike is established as a guy who can write a lyric in the hallway of the studio. The April Veg is in April after Parks has left all together. It's not farfetched at all. So far there is no evidence that Parks wrote those lyrics but there is the evidence that Mike actually has the credit. Unless there is something I am over looking, which is likely, why are we twisting ourselves in knots when the publishing tells the story? After all the history is Mike didn't get unduly credited, he got unjustly uncredited.

But we've spent 15 pages worth of posts discussing how inaccurate the publishing is. History is Brian going the path of least resistance regarding this stuff. It was easier to keep Mike off the early hits rather than rock the boat. And it was easier to just throw Mike's name on Mama Says than involve Van Dyke in it over a one minute chant tagged onto WH.

I really doubt Mike would just let it be if VT as we now know it used his lyrics for the chorus and he was yet again uncredited for it. In all the interviews about SMiLE and his dislike for the lyrics, why has he never brought up the fact that he wrote this piece? He likes to brag about his accomplishments. Being able to say "I hated the lyrics. I wrote some for VT that I think better suited that song, and had Brian allowed me to, I could've written some great stuff for the other tracks too." It's just not in Mike's character to keep quiet about something like this.

And just because it was recorded in Jan 67 doesn't mean it was written then. It was probably written earlier. To claim now that it was actually penned by Mike in the hallway that day is unlikely. Like, WIBN over the phone from Japan level unlikely.

That's my case for why I think it very likely could have been written by Mike just as the publishing says and the only thing close to evidence so far is the publishing in favor of Mike. E-mail VDP, maybe he remembers writing it.

We ARE talking about how the publishing can be wrong but, as I pointed out, so far it does not go in Mike's favor and this does which that history makes it stronger as evidence for Mike as the author.

[CenturyDeprived]

The fact, however it might disagree with opinions or however arrogant it might be perceived, is that cases which go into the legal system up to a judge or jury are not being funded on the basis of pride or righting a wrong, they're filed for money and potential to make more money. Interpersonal squabbles and debates within bands or among artists over such credits happen every minute of every day, but the costs involved with filing a legal case are so great that much of that remains interpersonal, and very rarely if ever are these cases filed over songs that have not or will not generate enough income to cover the costs.

Have there been some music-related legal claims that have gone to the courts based solely on righting a wrong without financial interest? Perhaps. But consider how many of these cases which have been heard by and decided in a court of law have come from a band or group that is actively working together or actively enjoying success, or how many are filed when that artist is actively signed into any kind of a contractual agreement that is paying off due to the commercial success or popularity of that venture. Most of the notable cases involving band members or partners come after that partnership has been dissolved, after a member or members have quit or been forced out, or after the songs or works in question have already made money for that partnership or organization.

Wasn't Mike's suit for credit without stipulating how much and a very lowball offer of a monetary settlement. Isn't that much more about credit and less about money?  Actually it is kind of low flying for both.

Cam, I'm not proscribing this to the Mike and Brian case, I'm just putting it up there as a general thing based on the last two pages' discussions about this kind of case, how the ones that do come before the courts most often make it that far and who files them, and the potential for who can claim credit for contributing to songs.

My main idea, again, is that the issue of credit only becomes an issue if one of the parties involved pursues it, and pursuing it is as much financial as anything else which prevents interpersonal squabbles from making it that far into the legal system. If there is no money involved, the case will not go to court, and the cases usually don't involve anything but projects which make a lot of money.

The Brian and Mike cases are much more involved and the reasons behind them are more nuanced than a lot of similar filings, which means they can't be summarized as easily and shouldn't be.

I'm just making an observation about that case specifically. The eyewitness account of the whole trail showed it was not just or even mostly about money for Mike's people.

I’d tend to agree with this, to a degree.

Firstly, I think that Mike didn’t want to be seen as kicking Brian when Brian was down (and at that point in Brian’s life, Brian was certainly not in any kind of “empowered” position – in fact, he seemed to be drifting and trying to find footing in his life just after the decade-long Landy horror show). This is probably why he was "going easy" on Brian in terms of offering his own acceptance of a proposed lowball Brian settlement. I think, overall, he was being nice because he legitimately didn't want to go after his cousin "in that way", in a manner that would be really ugly. And I'm glad that he made that decision.

One has to wonder, if the crediting lawsuit would have happened at another point in the lifespan of the band - say, 2004 just after BWPS came out - would Mike have gone after Brian more viciously legally-speaking?

Still, I think Mike absolutely wanted to make money for what he was owed, but that pride of authorship was a big part of it too. Mike has shown time and again that his pride is of huge importance to him. Too much so. I think he does/says many things out of a desperate craving for respect, and to be taken seriously.
 

[clack]

Since this thread took a tangent into specifically discussing WIBN, I think an interesting question to ask at this point is:

If Mike had received proper co-writing credits for songs that he really deeply collaborated on, like I Get Around, California Girls, etc... would he have felt the need to pursue legal action for being omitted as a co-writer on WIBN? Would he have felt bummed out and somehow "robbed" or "cheated" by not getting a credit on that one song for his ad lib?
 

A related question -- If Brian and Tony knew that Mike would someday claim a co-write credit, would Brian have left in Mike's ad-lib on the outro?

My guess : Brian wouldn't have cared if the song is better for it, which it is (albeit marginally). Asher would have objected, but I'm unclear as to whether his objection would have carried weight with Brian.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

Was the mama says section with those lyrics ever ascribed to or recorded together during the VDP/SMILE era? I don't think so. Unless I'm forgetting something. 

Umm...yes, actually. The aforementioned Do a Lot take for H&V was recorded in January '67. The height of the SMiLE Era, before VDP quit, but after the Cabin Essence incident. What does the CE fight have to do with it? Because it cemented the wedge between them. To someone like VDP, if Brian had had Mike rewrite his lyrics, *especially* after that, it wouldve been a great insult. I think he would've quit even sooner than he did, had this happened.

Give it up. You sound like Mike's lawyer trying to pretend WIBN was written by Mike over the phone in Japan. Utterly ridiculous.

Well I don't share your certainty that VDP wrote those lyrics and that Mike can't be the author. Someone should ask Parks, his email address used to be on his website.

In H&V this was January '67 right? Parks says he was out after Fire in November and then I don't believe there is any evidence of him again until the lastest of February. H&V was going through overhaul through December and January and on through February. Mike is established as a guy who can write a lyric in the hallway of the studio. The April Veg is in April after Parks has left all together. It's not farfetched at all. So far there is no evidence that Parks wrote those lyrics but there is the evidence that Mike actually has the credit. Unless there is something I am over looking, which is likely, why are we twisting ourselves in knots when the publishing tells the story? After all the history is Mike didn't get unduly credited, he got unjustly uncredited.

But we've spent 15 pages worth of posts discussing how inaccurate the publishing is. History is Brian going the path of least resistance regarding this stuff. It was easier to keep Mike off the early hits rather than rock the boat. And it was easier to just throw Mike's name on Mama Says than involve Van Dyke in it over a one minute chant tagged onto WH.

I really doubt Mike would just let it be if VT as we now know it used his lyrics for the chorus and he was yet again uncredited for it. In all the interviews about SMiLE and his dislike for the lyrics, why has he never brought up the fact that he wrote this piece? He likes to brag about his accomplishments. Being able to say "I hated the lyrics. I wrote some for VT that I think better suited that song, and had Brian allowed me to, I could've written some great stuff for the other tracks too." It's just not in Mike's character to keep quiet about something like this.

And just because it was recorded in Jan 67 doesn't mean it was written then. It was probably written earlier. To claim now that it was actually penned by Mike in the hallway that day is unlikely. Like, WIBN over the phone from Japan level unlikely.

That's my case for why I think it very likely could have been written by Mike just as the publishing says and the only thing close to evidence so far is the publishing in favor of Mike. E-mail VDP, maybe he remembers writing it.

We ARE talking about how the publishing can be wrong but, as I pointed out, so far it does not go in Mike's favor and this does which that history makes it stronger as evidence for Mike as the author.

Ythe only evidence for your case is the publishing, which we all agree is faulty. Everything else, the audio recordings, session listings, circumstancial evidence (Mike not claiming co-authorship of VT or mentioning this contribution to SMiLE to defend against accusations that he killed it--"I didn't hate SMiLE, I even wrote some lyrics for it!") points to this being just another mistake in the publishing. Occam's Razor. Whether you personally believe your argument or not is irrelevant to me, but you're making a pretty huge claim here and you had better be able to back it up. So far, you have not.

I'm not gonna waste VDP's time asking him to defend his lyrics against such a baseless accusation. I think to even mention this theory to him would be an insult. Plus, I don't have his email. Do it yourself, if you're so inclined.