Soundtrack

[Steve Latshaw]

<<But. One question: didn't the theatrical release of this film, with its portrayals and BB-filled soundtrack have to been approved by BRI also? Why would one vote for the release of a movie and then hold back its harmless soundtrack?>>

Licensing for use in a film and licensing for release on a soundtrack are two separate issues.  In many - in most cases, musicians/artists sign deals for music use in a movie under what's called a "sync license agreement."  This covers use of the music, in the film, in perpetuity.

In the case of Love & Mercy, I am sure the producers negotiated a sync license agreement for use of the tracks in the film only, under a sync license agreement.

A sync license agreement does not cover separate release of music in a soundtrack or other media.  Those rights - and all publishing - remain with the music creators.  In my last film, we had both source cues (featuring some surf music icons) and also a complete original score by another composer.  We have rights to use the music in our film - but the soundtrack rights remain with the creators.  We can encourage the release of a soundtrack - and help promote same - but we have no rights to or control over such release.

I'm sure that's  where the soundtrack to Love & Mercy presently lies in this contractual mess.  The producers of the film made their deal for the music.  But it's now up to the composer of the score and whoever else is involved in the prospective soundtrack to wade the legal waters in Beach Boys land for their separate deal.

[Autotune]

Ok then. In this legal context, it makes no sense to hold back a soundtrack while voting in favor of making the film.

[Steve Latshaw]

<<Ok then. In this legal context, it makes no sense to hold back a soundtrack while voting in favor of making the film.>>

Actually, it makes perfect sense.  Licensing for use in a film is a relatively simple cash deal.  Soundtrack LP, on the other hand, involves the potential release of a Brian Wilson/Beach Boys ALBUM, or at least a sound track containing same, and possible with a license deal to another label (unless Capitol is involved).  That's much more complex.  And a certain member of BRI, whoever that might be, might not believe it's the right context, presentation and/or commercial vehicle for a new album with Beach Boys content.

Not saying it's right... just throwing out some issues that might be at play.

[CenturyDeprived]

<<Ok then. In this legal context, it makes no sense to hold back a soundtrack while voting in favor of making the film.>>

Actually, it makes perfect sense.  Licensing for use in a film is a relatively simple cash deal.  Soundtrack LP, on the other hand, involves the potential release of a Brian Wilson/Beach Boys ALBUM, or at least a sound track containing same, and possible with a license deal to another label (unless Capitol is involved).  That's much more complex.  And a certain member of BRI, whoever that might be, might not believe it's the right context, presentation and/or commercial vehicle for a new album with Beach Boys content.

Not saying it's right... just throwing out some issues that might be at play.

Using the same set of legal finagling, if (and it remains an if) Mike is responsible for holding up the soundtrack, could Mike have also held up No Pier Pressure because of his co-writing credit on "In the Back of My Mind" if he'd wanted to? Or maybe because that was just a bonus track on a more obscure retailer-only release, it wouldn't legally count, and his hands would be tied?

If the current-day blood is as bad as we (including me) are possibly assuming, it would be surprising if Mike wouldn't have said no to that track being released too. Maybe that would indicate it's more about making a statement specifically against the L&M film, rather than holding up any other release. I dunno.

[Steve Latshaw]

<<Using the same set of legal finagling, if (and it remains an if) Mike is responsible for holding up the soundtrack, could Mike have also held up No Pier Pressure because of his co-writing credit on "In the Back of My Mind" if he'd wanted to? Or maybe because that was just a bonus track on a more obscure retailer-only release, it wouldn't legally count, and his hands would be tied?>>

I would think the issue would center, specifically, on actual Beach Boys recordings incorporated into the score, not solo cover versions.

[CenturyDeprived]

<<Using the same set of legal finagling, if (and it remains an if) Mike is responsible for holding up the soundtrack, could Mike have also held up No Pier Pressure because of his co-writing credit on "In the Back of My Mind" if he'd wanted to? Or maybe because that was just a bonus track on a more obscure retailer-only release, it wouldn't legally count, and his hands would be tied?>>

I would think the issue would center, specifically, on actual Beach Boys recordings incorporated into the score, not solo cover versions.

Right - but my question is, would the same legal maneuvers that could disallow actual Beach Boys recordings on a score actually  give anyone any legal right to block a solo cover version (with that person's writing credit listed)? It's a no-brainer why the soundtrack would be more "offensive" or "inappropriate" by comparison of the two unrelated projects, I'm just wondering if it would even be legally possible if he had wanted to take things to that level. I'd imagine soundtrack legalities and ordinary album legalities are different beasts entirely...

[Steve Latshaw]

I'm not a party to these contracts, of course.  There's a difference between having a legal right to black something and choosing to block something.  This may be a simple case of not having an issue with music license for a film - but having an issue with releasing BB content on a soundtrack album.

[CenturyDeprived]

I'm not a party to these contracts, of course.  There's a difference between having a legal right to black something and choosing to block something.  This may be a simple case of not having an issue with music license for a film - but having an issue with releasing BB content on a soundtrack album.

That makes the most sense. I just wonder how far the bad blood will actually go. One almost gets the impression that Mike listens to a tape loop of Cassius Love vs. Sonny Wilson on repeat for hours on end, the way Brian did with Be My Baby.   

[Autotune]

Ok, my point was that if I held grudges for my genius cousin, and if I wanted to keep him from portraying me in a film, I would probably try and block the use of music I sang on for said film; I would try and keep my name from being mentioned it; and heck, I would try and block the movie. But a soundtrack release?

[CenturyDeprived]

Ok, my point was that if I held grudges for my genius cousin, and if I wanted to keep him from portraying me in a film, I would probably try and block the use of music I sang on for said film; I would try and keep my name from being mentioned it; and heck, I would try and block the movie. But a soundtrack release?

If it were actually desired to do so, going to such lengths of outright blocking a portrayal in a film would be so blatantly obvious to the public, and then the film's story would have to awkwardly somehow sidestep the existence of a founding bandmember, whose positive and not so positive contributions to the story are well documented. That would lead to a C50-implosion level of endless sh*tstorm flak in movie blogs, going all the way throughout media in general, wouldn't it? That would just be super embarrassing to deal with, much moreso than whatever embarrassment might be felt from the actual portrayal (which by most accounts is quite tame anyway). Every article would talk about the undeniably pivotal Mike Love being completely missing from the film. Whereas IF the soundtrack is in fact being blocked, it would be a more subtle gesture that could fly under the radar of finger pointing, and a gesture that is also probably much more easily achievable.

[Autotune]

Ok. Did Mike block the release of the soundtrack then?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Seems to be some confusion here. You can't stop anyone making a movie just because you're portrayed in it. Example: the Von Trapp singers didn't try to block The Sound Of Music even though there were some serious factual errors in it. If said portrayal is distinctly unflattering, then of course you can rightly sue their sorry ass once it's released.

Moving closer to home and slightly changing media, a while back someone asked if Mike could ask to see the text of Brian's #2 auto bio. Yes, he could ask, but he'd have no legal right to demand to see it (as illustrated by auto bio #1). Recorded, copyrighted music is something else entirely, as noted below by those far more expert in this field than I.

[Wirestone]

However, given that Mike is a public figure, an unflattering portrayal is not enough to sustain a lawsuit by itself. There has to be evidence of malicious intent, a standard that at least in the United States is almost impossible to meet. In other words, both Brian and Mike will be free to say whatever they like about the other in their books. It's virtually certain that their publishers and cowriters know this too.

[Nicko1234]

I can`t say I know anything about the soundtrack but some of the earlier posts indicating that this has any real importance to their legacy are melodramatic to say the least imo.

The legacy for the group will be the greatest hits, Pet Sounds, Smile and their other work from decades ago (in pretty much that order). Nothing they do now will change that.

[Autotune]

Seems to be some confusion here. You can't stop anyone making a movie just because you're portrayed in it. Example: the Von Trapp singers didn't try to block The Sound Of Music even though there were some serious factual errors in it. If said portrayal is distinctly unflattering, then of course you can rightly sue their sorry ass once it's released.

Moving closer to home and slightly changing media, a while back someone asked if Mike could ask to see the text of Brian's #2 auto bio. Yes, he could ask, but he'd have no legal right to demand to see it (as illustrated by auto bio #1). Recorded, copyrighted music is something else entirely, as noted below by those far more expert in this field than I.

Point taken. Now, is it possible to block your songs from being included in the film?

[Steve Latshaw]

Point taken. Now, is it possible to block your songs from being included in the film? >>

It's possible - but this is a moot point.  We have a locked picture that's already screened and has a distributor.  When you deliver a movie to a distributor, you have to include copies of all contracts, sync license agreements and cue sheets for music in the entire film.  Without all of those elements, the distributor will not accept delivery of the picture and the distribution deal is off.

Given that this film has distribution, this means all the deals are already signed, for the film.  And all of the music in the film has been licensed and paid for.  Deals done.  BRI, Capitol, whoever, have already signed off on their use in the film. 

Keep in mind, the release of this major motion picture and accompanying promotion has the potential to increase catalog sales, which is the holy grail for all of the parties extant.  And it makes more sense, financially. for all parties, to generate income from increased catalog sales, increased sales of NPP, etc., of a film release.  A film soundtrack, as much as I'd love to hear it, would probably have significantly less impact on catalog or NPP sales, particularly as the revenue stream and profits would be split among many more individuals besides the usual suspects (the composer of the score, for instance).

Personally, if the film does very well, we may eventually see some deal come to fruition and a soundtrack or original score album released, albeit maybe just digital.  It's all going to be down to whether or not the numbers make sense.

[Jim V.]

I can`t say I know anything about the soundtrack but some of the earlier posts indicating that this has any real importance to their legacy are melodramatic to say the least imo.

The legacy for the group will be the greatest hits, Pet Sounds, Smile and their other work from decades ago (in pretty much that order). Nothing they do now will change that.

I mostly agree with that. But then again, look at what the Jersey Boys film and Broadway show have done for the Four Seasons. So while one woulda thought ten years ago that their story was all over, wrapped up, now Frankie and company have a new lease on life.

And even The Beach Boys, I'd say that while the legacy is yes basically stuff from decades ago, I think C50 and stuff like "Summer's Gone" will show how the group rode into the sunset, and will have a nice little part in that legacy.

[Steve Latshaw]

<< But then again, look at what the Jersey Boys film and Broadway show have done for the Four Seasons. So while one woulda thought ten years ago that their story was all over, wrapped up, now Frankie and company have a new lease on life.>>

The difference here is that the Four Seasons catalog is A.) not as large and B.) not as exploited over the years.  The Four Seasons have come back primarily because they've been out of the public eye for a while, in terms of attention (though still on the road).

The Beach Boys have never really gone away. 

[Autotune]

Point taken. Now, is it possible to block your songs from being included in the film? >>

It's possible - but this is a moot point.  We have a locked picture that's already screened and has a distributor.  When you deliver a movie to a distributor, you have to include copies of all contracts, sync license agreements and cue sheets for music in the entire film.  Without all of those elements, the distributor will not accept delivery of the picture and the distribution deal is off.

Given that this film has distribution, this means all the deals are already signed, for the film.  And all of the music in the film has been licensed and paid for.  Deals done.  BRI, Capitol, whoever, have already signed off on their use in the film. 

Keep in mind, the release of this major motion picture and accompanying promotion has the potential to increase catalog sales, which is the holy grail for all of the parties extant.  And it makes more sense, financially. for all parties, to generate income from increased catalog sales, increased sales of NPP, etc., of a film release.  A film soundtrack, as much as I'd love to hear it, would probably have significantly less impact on catalog or NPP sales, particularly as the revenue stream and profits would be split among many more individuals besides the usual suspects (the composer of the score, for instance).

Personally, if the film does very well, we may eventually see some deal come to fruition and a soundtrack or original score album released, albeit maybe just digital.  It's all going to be down to whether or not the numbers make sense.

Thank you for your insights, Steve.

[CenturyDeprived]

<< But then again, look at what the Jersey Boys film and Broadway show have done for the Four Seasons. So while one woulda thought ten years ago that their story was all over, wrapped up, now Frankie and company have a new lease on life.>>

The difference here is that the Four Seasons catalog is A.) not as large and B.) not as exploited over the years.  The Four Seasons have come back primarily because they've been out of the public eye for a while, in terms of attention (though still on the road).

The Beach Boys have never really gone away. 

That's because surfers rule. Four Seasons, you better believe it.

[Debbie Keil-Leavitt]

I just saw Love and Mercy for the first time this evening which Bill Pohlad told us was the first showing featuring One Kind of Love as the film's ending.  If this soundtrack isn't released, it will be a loss to everyone who loves this music.  It's impact is phenomenal.

[bgas]

Point taken. Now, is it possible to block your songs from being included in the film? >>

It's possible - but this is a moot point.  We have a locked picture that's already screened and has a distributor.  When you deliver a movie to a distributor, you have to include copies of all contracts, sync license agreements and cue sheets for music in the entire film.  Without all of those elements, the distributor will not accept delivery of the picture and the distribution deal is off.

Given that this film has distribution, this means all the deals are already signed, for the film.  And all of the music in the film has been licensed and paid for.  Deals done.  BRI, Capitol, whoever, have already signed off on their use in the film. 

Keep in mind, the release of this major motion picture and accompanying promotion has the potential to increase catalog sales, which is the holy grail for all of the parties extant.  And it makes more sense, financially. for all parties, to generate income from increased catalog sales, increased sales of NPP, etc., of a film release.  A film soundtrack, as much as I'd love to hear it, would probably have significantly less impact on catalog or NPP sales, particularly as the revenue stream and profits would be split among many more individuals besides the usual suspects (the composer of the score, for instance).

Personally, if the film does very well, we may eventually see some deal come to fruition and a soundtrack or original score album released, albeit maybe just digital.  It's all going to be down to whether or not the numbers make sense.

I just saw Love and Mercy for the first time this evening which Bill Pohlad told us was the first showing featuring One Kind of Love as the film's ending.  If this soundtrack isn't released, it will be a loss to everyone who loves this music.  It's impact is phenomenal.

Wondering how the addition of this song to the the film squares with your statements about the distribution deals.
Could other songs/music be added at this point if they( Brian/Pohlad/??) wanted to do so?

[ArchStanton]

I just saw Love and Mercy for the first time this evening which Bill Pohlad told us was the first showing featuring One Kind of Love as the film's ending.  If this soundtrack isn't released, it will be a loss to everyone who loves this music.  It's impact is phenomenal.

Sigh. This is so bizarre! It is staggeringly dumb to think there will not be a soundtrack available for a movie about Brian flipping Wilson. I was fine with it if it was going to be a compilation of Beach Boys tunes we all have, but the fact that they have been rearranged for the film in an artful way makes this awfully frustrating.

Spot checking some related films: Walk the Line (Johnny Cash), La Bamba (Richie Valens), The Buddy Holly Story, Ray, The Doors, Bird (Charlie Parker), and What's Love Got to do With it (Tina Turner) all have soundtracks.

[pixletwin]

Technology being the way it is nowadays, I am sure one of our technophile members here will be able to provide.

[Autotune]

It has been suggested that there's no soundtrack available because Mike, being conflicted about Brian's "artistic side" is blocking it. If this is not the case, if there are other reasons for the soundtrack not appearing, or if those that submitted the ML reasons don't really know, it better be clarified.