Specifics on Brian's extraction from Landy

[guitarfool2002]

but to rewrite history and pretend that Landy never contributed creatively during this era is just daft.

I really think you should make it your mission to ensure history is recorded properly, fight this terrible injustice wherever it occurs and make sure the good name of Eugene Landy isn't besmirched. All of his creativity can't be forgotten by history. His contributions were so critical, so worthy of fighting the good fight. Brian Wilson has stolen credit from Eugene Landy for long enough, right? This revisionism must not stand! Maybe team up with Evan and pursue legal action, I'm sure Mike Love would find it "interesting."

There's still time! Don't let "them" win!

You really are an idiot.

That's out of line.

As was his snarky response to my original post.

It's out of line to provoke by calling another board member an idiot or any similar name no matter how the debate/discussion/argument is going. Consider it a warning.

Sorry, I'm with Mike's Beard on this. Okay, maybe the use of the word "idiot" might have been inappropriate and knee-jerk but there was a high degree of provocation – Ontor Pertawst's response seems far from polite and may well have had an element of goading.

Billy's suggestion –

If (and I must stress, IF) Landy's contributions actually made it to any of the released songs, then I think yes, he DOES deserve label credit (and only that, nothing financial)....but only after the same happens for Gary Usher on 'Walk the Line', and not before.

– strikes me as a route that might have been much more acceptable to all parties, including those keen on historical accuracy.

I take this with a grain of salt, John, considering you've been challenging and questioning me personally in recent weeks if not months up to the absurd discussions a few weeks ago where you tried to twist my words and intent into something it was not, then joined in a victory dance for which there was nothing to celebrate a victory in the first place. So, maybe half a grain of salt or less would be more fitting. If it's personal, that's your problem to deal with. Don't use that to defend a clear breaking of the rules of the board based on your issues with the moderators.

Stating again, it's fine to give and take and have debates and arguments, but it crosses the line when someone starts with the name calling routine directed at fellow board members and posters. That isn't welcome, it's not allowed as per the board rules, and it will not be tolerated. Period, end of story. No matter how much you want to second guess it, a board member called another board member an idiot, and that will not be tolerated, thus the warning being issued. That's the final word.

[ontor pertawst]

Besides, I'm a jerk... not an idiot.

I have documents proving this. Keep up the miserable work, Mike's Beard! Maybe you can be special friends with Evan and he'll sell you his dad's old leisure suit in exchange for all the help fighting the vicious tide of historical revisionism. Calling people idiots is a great first step in this long process. Best of luck!

Almost touching to see Manning being so petty, I suppose he'd be all for people calling him names as well. Grudge-a-go-go! Hopefully if someone called him a blithering moron he'd be equally understanding, right?

You guys seriously want to roll around in the mud over... Eugene Landy? That's what it's come to? By all means, go salvage his songwriting legacy... I'm sure that's a noble cause that will attract a groundswell of support.

I'll leave you to it, then. This is pretty tedious stuff and not worth annoying the mods.

[Wirestone]

You guys seriously want to roll around in the mud over... Eugene Landy? That's what it's come to? By all means, go salvage his songwriting legacy... I'm sure that's a noble cause that will attract a groundswell of support.

Um, yes. This a thousand times over.

In most circumstances, I'm in favor of crediting as many writers as possible (which means, for instance, that Ringo should have credits on a bunch of Beatles songs). But Landy's association with Brian was not normal or usual. He was essentially a hostage-taker, a terrorist-therapist. Removal of his name from those songs is not only defensible, but as I said earlier, a moral necessity.

[SMiLE Brian]

Exactly wirestone!

A great choice of words with a "terrorist- therapist" because that who Landy was. Its a miracle BW survived and is doing great things even in 2015.

[Mike's Beard]

But again, Landy being a scumbag who forced himself on Brian creatively doesn't alter the fact that he had a hand in many of the songs Brian wrote during this period. It's part of Beach Boys history, like it or not.

[SMiLE Brian]

Landy is not dead enough....

[Mike's Beard]

Landy is not dead enough....

Last I heard he was still slug bait.

[Alan Smith]

but to rewrite history and pretend that Landy never contributed creatively during this era is just daft.

I really think you should make it your mission to ensure history is recorded properly, fight this terrible injustice wherever it occurs and make sure the good name of Eugene Landy isn't besmirched. All of his creativity can't be forgotten by history. His contributions were so critical, so worthy of fighting the good fight. Brian Wilson has stolen credit from Eugene Landy for long enough, right? This revisionism must not stand! Maybe team up with Evan and pursue legal action, I'm sure Mike Love would find it "interesting."

There's still time! Don't let "them" win!

You really are an idiot.

That's out of line.

As was his snarky response to my original post.

It's out of line to provoke by calling another board member an idiot or any similar name no matter how the debate/discussion/argument is going. Consider it a warning.

Sorry, I'm with Mike's Beard on this. Okay, maybe the use of the word "idiot" might have been inappropriate and knee-jerk but there was a high degree of provocation – Ontor Pertawst's response seems far from polite and may well have had an element of goading.

Billy's suggestion –

If (and I must stress, IF) Landy's contributions actually made it to any of the released songs, then I think yes, he DOES deserve label credit (and only that, nothing financial)....but only after the same happens for Gary Usher on 'Walk the Line', and not before.

– strikes me as a route that might have been much more acceptable to all parties, including those keen on historical accuracy.

I take this with a grain of salt, John, considering you've been challenging and questioning me personally in recent weeks if not months up to the absurd discussions a few weeks ago where you tried to twist my words and intent into something it was not, then joined in a victory dance for which there was nothing to celebrate a victory in the first place. So, maybe half a grain of salt or less would be more fitting. If it's personal, that's your problem to deal with. Don't use that to defend a clear breaking of the rules of the board based on your issues with the moderators.

Stating again, it's fine to give and take and have debates and arguments, but it crosses the line when someone starts with the name calling routine directed at fellow board members and posters. That isn't welcome, it's not allowed as per the board rules, and it will not be tolerated. Period, end of story. No matter how much you want to second guess it, a board member called another board member an idiot, and that will not be tolerated, thus the warning being issued. That's the final word.

Speaking of taking things with a grain of salt, let's those of us who wish to, do the same with this example of moderating.

You obviously have some personal axe to grind with John - pls grind away via pm rather than try to disguise your grievances as appropriate crowd control.

[The Shift]

But again, Landy being a scumbag who forced himself on Brian creatively doesn't alter the fact that he had a hand in many of the songs Brian wrote during this period. It's part of Beach Boys history, like it or not.

This. I deplore Landy's actions as much as the next smileysmiler. What motivates humans to behave like he did to fellow humans is completely beyond me, especially as I tend to naively assume the best in people from the outset before starting to form an opinion based on experience. But rewriting history? Isn't that what Stalin did?

Accurately and fairly record the terrible things Landy did, for all to learn from. Accurately and fairly record the credits for songs for future Beach Boys historians to learn from. Spin his royalties into a charity account for victims of similar abuse to benefit from.

[rab2591]

Landy did not co-write or work on songs in any traditional sense whatsoever. He wormed his way into the process by drugging the hell out of Brian and sucking the very air Brian was breathing. He had no business ever being around a piano or a recording studio or what have you with Brian anywhere in sight. He deserves jack.

Based on the original "lyrics" he wrote for "Black Widow", I heartily agree. Not to mention his mix of the 1988 album which was literally laughed out of the room when the suits heard it.

I agree with you guys (am also intrigued about that mix). Wirestone is perfectly on point above: "He was essentially a hostage-taker, a terrorist-therapist. Removal of his name from those songs is not only defensible, but as I said earlier, a moral necessity."

Again I'll say, there are plenty of credible sources one can cull from, both in print and on the web, to find out who did what on the album...these sources will not go away. But giving a criminal thug who terrorized and abused Brian official recognition for his "work" on the album is morally reprehensible.

[Emily]

I don't get it. It's well established in the U.S. that one has no right to profit from fruits of criminal activity. Why an exception for Landy?

[Wirestone]

You can hear the Landy mixes on "Come Back, Brian," I believe. They're pretty bad.

[The Shift]

You can hear the Landy mixes on "Come Back, Brian," I believe. They're pretty bad.

Many thanks for that. Been an age since I've played that but I'll dig it out tomorrow.

[bgas]

I don't get it. It's well established in the U.S. that one has no right to profit from fruits of criminal activity. Why an exception for Landy?

Just devil's advocate senseless bantering, seems to me, from those who usually don't stoop that low

[Emily]

I don't get it. It's well established in the U.S. that one has no right to profit from fruits of criminal activity. Why an exception for Landy?

Just devil's advocate senseless bantering, seems to me, from those who usually don't stoop that low

Okay. Thanks for clarifying. I was baffled.

[guitarfool2002]

but to rewrite history and pretend that Landy never contributed creatively during this era is just daft.

I really think you should make it your mission to ensure history is recorded properly, fight this terrible injustice wherever it occurs and make sure the good name of Eugene Landy isn't besmirched. All of his creativity can't be forgotten by history. His contributions were so critical, so worthy of fighting the good fight. Brian Wilson has stolen credit from Eugene Landy for long enough, right? This revisionism must not stand! Maybe team up with Evan and pursue legal action, I'm sure Mike Love would find it "interesting."

There's still time! Don't let "them" win!

You really are an idiot.

That's out of line.

As was his snarky response to my original post.

It's out of line to provoke by calling another board member an idiot or any similar name no matter how the debate/discussion/argument is going. Consider it a warning.

Sorry, I'm with Mike's Beard on this. Okay, maybe the use of the word "idiot" might have been inappropriate and knee-jerk but there was a high degree of provocation – Ontor Pertawst's response seems far from polite and may well have had an element of goading.

Billy's suggestion –

If (and I must stress, IF) Landy's contributions actually made it to any of the released songs, then I think yes, he DOES deserve label credit (and only that, nothing financial)....but only after the same happens for Gary Usher on 'Walk the Line', and not before.

– strikes me as a route that might have been much more acceptable to all parties, including those keen on historical accuracy.

I take this with a grain of salt, John, considering you've been challenging and questioning me personally in recent weeks if not months up to the absurd discussions a few weeks ago where you tried to twist my words and intent into something it was not, then joined in a victory dance for which there was nothing to celebrate a victory in the first place. So, maybe half a grain of salt or less would be more fitting. If it's personal, that's your problem to deal with. Don't use that to defend a clear breaking of the rules of the board based on your issues with the moderators.

Stating again, it's fine to give and take and have debates and arguments, but it crosses the line when someone starts with the name calling routine directed at fellow board members and posters. That isn't welcome, it's not allowed as per the board rules, and it will not be tolerated. Period, end of story. No matter how much you want to second guess it, a board member called another board member an idiot, and that will not be tolerated, thus the warning being issued. That's the final word.

Speaking of taking things with a grain of salt, let's those of us who wish to, do the same with this example of moderating.

You obviously have some personal axe to grind with John - pls grind away via pm rather than try to disguise your grievances as appropriate crowd control.

Just so it's on the record, I know what's going on and it won't work. Pass it on to other interested parties.

With that out of the way, why didn't you take this to PM, Alan, instead of once again trying to call me out as the asshole moderator of the board in a public post?

Moving forward, perhaps you should consider taking your own advice about taking things to PM's, but in case you forgot I sent YOU one back in June (June 18th if you want to check) in reply to one of your posts directed at me, and you have yet to reply to it. Rather, you chose to throw numerous challenges and underhanded digs at me in your public posts for everyone to read. So that's the result of trying to keep things like this off the board, and not broadcast it for all to see. And I get called the hypocrite? Sure.

Another "perhaps" to consider. Perhaps what you're being told isn't the whole story, or beyond that isn't totally accurate. Wherever that applies, consider applying it.


Was that too long-winded of a post?

[The Shift]

This is all getting to be a mighty personal storm for a supposed Beach Boys message board. And it's a shame.

[Peter Reum]

The MO that the  Beach Boys collectively and individually with respect to songs they wanted to record written by people outside of the group  was to buy the individual's  copyright interest out and to credit the group member that was interested in the song. They  did that with Manson and Landy, and with Ersel Hickey,they bought the Bluebirds copyright, but couldn't realistically credit a group member with writing it because it was enough of a hit in the 1950s that it would have been  ridiculous to say a group member  wrote it or co-wrote it. Part of the group's approach was to pay generously a song's writer,then publish it through Sea of Tunes and later Brother.

[The Shift]

The MO that the  Beach Boys collectively and individually with respect to songs they wanted to record written by people outside of the group  was to buy the individual's  copyright interest out and to credit the group member that was interested in the song. They  did that with Manson and Landy, and with Ersel Hickey,they bought the Bluebirds copyright, but couldn't realistically credit a group member with writing it because it was enough of a hit in the 1950s that it would have been  ridiculous to say a group member  wrote it or co-wrote it. Part of the group's approach was to pay generously a song's writer,then publish it through Sea of Tunes and later Brother.

Many thanks for that insight Peter. I find it an odd approach; understandable that the bought-out writer will appreciate the payment, but a clear shame that someone else gets he Actual credo for their work. Not just in this case but any works by anyone, anywhere, in any field.

Art and creativity as a commodity? I'm not terribly comfortable with that.

[Sheriff John Stone]

The MO that the  Beach Boys collectively and individually with respect to songs they wanted to record written by people outside of the group  was to buy the individual's  copyright interest out and to credit the group member that was interested in the song. They  did that with Manson and Landy, and with Ersel Hickey,they bought the Bluebirds copyright, but couldn't realistically credit a group member with writing it because it was enough of a hit in the 1950s that it would have been  ridiculous to say a group member  wrote it or co-wrote it. Part of the group's approach was to pay generously a song's writer,then publish it through Sea of Tunes and later Brother.

Other than "Never Learn Not To Love", which songs did The Beach Boys do this with?

[filledeplage]

Landy did not co-write or work on songs in any traditional sense whatsoever. He wormed his way into the process by drugging the hell out of Brian and sucking the very air Brian was breathing. He had no business ever being around a piano or a recording studio or what have you with Brian anywhere in sight. He deserves jack.

Based on the original "lyrics" he wrote for "Black Widow", I heartily agree. Not to mention his mix of the 1988 album which was literally laughed out of the room when the suits heard it.

I agree with you guys (am also intrigued about that mix). Wirestone is perfectly on point above: "He was essentially a hostage-taker, a terrorist-therapist. Removal of his name from those songs is not only defensible, but as I said earlier, a moral necessity."

Again I'll say, there are plenty of credible sources one can cull from, both in print and on the web, to find out who did what on the album...these sources will not go away. But giving a criminal thug who terrorized and abused Brian official recognition for his "work" on the album is morally reprehensible.

The deal with Landy as a "treating provider" (and I include his whole crew) is that the minute Landy wanted to "change careers" he needed to relinquish his "treatment duties" and another treatment provider brought in.  The conflict of interest is just too great.  His prime duty is to his patient. 

Once he engaged in the business aspect, he (and his agents) should  likely have withdrawn from his care.  But, somehow he got away with this out in the open. It seemed to be an open secret.  He was photographed at the board with Brian.  He developed a company with Brian.  And, hindsight is 20/20 but somehow he evaded prosecution.

[HeyJude]

The idea of "buying out" a writer seems rather weird both in terms of needing to "own" the copyright, and certainly to just stick their names on the song. The BB's had covered many songs, some more popular than others. Why all of a sudden would they need to hide a cover version? Especially when they were doing less covers on later albums compared to their early stuff.

And why buy the copyright, even if they kept the author's name? Sure, if the song ended up being a huge hit, it might end up being a good investment.

How often did they actually do this? I know there is evidence they had this frame of mind (apparently this may have been why Ed Carter's "Surfer Suzie" or whatever it's called didn't make the cut for the KTSA album; Carter wouldn't sign it all over), but other than a few things like Manson's song, how much evidence is there that songs on BB albums credited to actual BB's were actually songs written by outsiders and then bought out and credits changed?

The Landy (or Gary Usher) situation doesn't even seem to fall under this category. In the case of Landy, nobody denies he co-wrote some stuff; they just took his name off with a settlement to further remove him from the picture. In the case of Usher, it appears he was just forgotten or purposely left off (or maybe they felt they had "bought out" Usher when they parted ways with him in 1987; I'd have to go back and read the Usher book again to recall).

For that matter, is even the Manson thing a case of Manson being "bought out?" Or did Dennis just take the song and put his name on it?

But how many songs presently credited solely to BB band members are known to have actually been written *completely* by an outsider, only to have their name removed by a financial agreement?

It just doesn't make a ton of sense to me; especially considering they surely could have found a song with true hit potential in the 80s or 90s if they were willing to shot around to outside writers and buy them off. Or I dunno, maybe that's precisely why they couldn't do it, because many if not most writers would not be willing to both sign over their copyright *and* remove their name from the credits. If you actually had any hit-writing potential, that would be the dumbest thing to do.

[37!ws]

Other than "Never Learn Not To Love", which songs did The Beach Boys do this with?

I'm guessing the songs on the '85 album that had Landy in the credits.

And IINM, "It's About Time," as well. There was a post about it on this board not too long ago...man, talk about finding out there's no Santa Claus...

[Mike's Beard]

Landy did not co-write or work on songs in any traditional sense whatsoever. He wormed his way into the process by drugging the hell out of Brian and sucking the very air Brian was breathing. He had no business ever being around a piano or a recording studio or what have you with Brian anywhere in sight. He deserves jack.

Based on the original "lyrics" he wrote for "Black Widow", I heartily agree. Not to mention his mix of the 1988 album which was literally laughed out of the room when the suits heard it.

I agree with you guys (am also intrigued about that mix). Wirestone is perfectly on point above: "He was essentially a hostage-taker, a terrorist-therapist. Removal of his name from those songs is not only defensible, but as I said earlier, a moral necessity."

Again I'll say, there are plenty of credible sources one can cull from, both in print and on the web, to find out who did what on the album...these sources will not go away. But giving a criminal thug who terrorized and abused Brian official recognition for his "work" on the album is morally reprehensible.

The deal with Landy as a "treating provider" (and I include his whole crew) is that the minute Landy wanted to "change careers" he needed to relinquish his "treatment duties" and another treatment provider brought in.  The conflict of interest is just too great.  His prime duty is to his patient. 

Once he engaged in the business aspect, he (and his agents) should  likely have withdrawn from his care.  But, somehow he got away with this out in the open. It seemed to be an open secret.  He was photographed at the board with Brian.  He developed a company with Brian.  And, hindsight is 20/20 but somehow he evaded prosecution.

Landy always claimed that working with Brian was part of his 'treatment', which seems to be how he managed to get away with having duel careers. Plus you got to imagine that those close to Brian were just so relieved to see him still alive that they daren't risk rocking the boat by questioning Landy's tactics.

[KDS]

Other than "Never Learn Not To Love", which songs did The Beach Boys do this with?

I'm guessing the songs on the '85 album that had Landy in the credits.

And IINM, "It's About Time," as well. There was a post about it on this board not too long ago...man, talk about finding out there's no Santa Claus...

I have to check, but I'm pretty sure my copy of the 2000 remastered KTSA/85 2-fer still has the Landy credits.