Brian and Murry not crediting each other properly

[guitarfool2002]

Cam - The Sunrays thought Murry walked on water. Which is somewhat expected since he basically took them out of high school and got them in a professional recording studio and elevated them into a different level of the music business with the sole (devious) purpose of sticking it to his sons who had fired him. Murry wanted to make a surf band that would be "better" and more successful than the band who had fired him and didn't appreciate the "good advice" he had given them. So the Sunrays got some records released, but as Brian was alleged to have said, by the time Murry got the Sunrays out there surf music of the type Murry wanted them to do was already passe and pop music was moving forward.

As Hal Blaine said, Murry was often lecturing Brian on the way records should be made, and wanted it to go more like the way he thought Lawrence Welk made records. Then when Murry actually did fully produce a band, he made a Sunrays record that sounded more like what his son Brian had already done and basically trademarked as a "sound" several years earlier. So Murry was again behind the times and didn't even seem to get the point that by the time the Sunrays records came out, it had, as Brian said, already been done and was passe, especially as fast as trends in pop music were moving at that time. Brian looked ahead, Murry looked back. Who ended up being right?

The Sunrays' most famous single made it to around #50 on the charts, and that was it. Meanwhile Brian was one of the most talked about *PRODUCERS* in the years 1964-65-66 with a handful of top-5 records and now legendary albums to his credit, done on his terms while Murry still wanted to ride the wild surf with a group of high-school age musicians from the neighborhood. So much for Murry's plan to go one better on his son. Brian was right.

Harsh but true.

GF - I can clearly remember first hearing a few measures of The Sunrays on the radio, and thinking "for a second" - that they were the "Boys," but within a half minute knew they were a wannabe "copycat" outfit.  They lacked the "vocal subtlety" of the BB's, the vocal quality of the blend, and were sort of "processed"  (we won't use "that" word.)  And, you (and Brian) are correct; it was already passe.  

One of the most telling moments on that Help Me Rhonda tape (and that gets referenced so often because it is one of the few unfiltered examples of dialogue between Murry and Brian) is where Brian asks Murry this:

"So you want the 409 sound on Help Me Rhonda?"

And the answer was obviously *yes* based on Murry's Sunrays records. Which again is also ironic because when Brian was doing the sound Murry carbon-copied for the Sunrays, Murry thought Brian should be making records the way Lawrence Welk made them.

I'd be surprised if more than that was necessary to show how Murry on a most basic level just didn't get it, despite all his talk and bluster.

[Mike's Beard]

Surfin' Safari was a three way combination of Brian, Murry and Venet producing, after that it was essentially all Brian with Murry just getting in the way of things.

[Cam Mott]

Cam - The Sunrays thought Murry walked on water. Which is somewhat expected since he basically took them out of high school and got them in a professional recording studio and elevated them into a different level of the music business with the sole (devious) purpose of sticking it to his sons who had fired him. Murry wanted to make a surf band that would be "better" and more successful than the band who had fired him and didn't appreciate the "good advice" he had given them. So the Sunrays got some records released, but as Brian was alleged to have said, by the time Murry got the Sunrays out there surf music of the type Murry wanted them to do was already passe and pop music was moving forward.

As Hal Blaine said, Murry was often lecturing Brian on the way records should be made, and wanted it to go more like the way he thought Lawrence Welk made records. Then when Murry actually did fully produce a band, he made a Sunrays record that sounded more like what his son Brian had already done and basically trademarked as a "sound" several years earlier. So Murry was again behind the times and didn't even seem to get the point that by the time the Sunrays records came out, it had, as Brian said, already been done and was passe, especially as fast as trends in pop music were moving at that time. Brian looked ahead, Murry looked back. Who ended up being right?

The Sunrays' most famous single made it to around #50 on the charts, and that was it. Meanwhile Brian was one of the most talked about *PRODUCERS* in the years 1964-65-66 with a handful of top-5 records and now legendary albums to his credit, done on his terms while Murry still wanted to ride the wild surf with a group of high-school age musicians from the neighborhood. So much for Murry's plan to go one better on his son. Brian was right.

Harsh but true.

Weren't the Sunrays an established band by the time Murry "discovered" them?  Not that familiar with The Sunrays.

I hear you, but none of that disqualifies Murry as a co-producer "barking orders and giving commands" on some of the BBs records, even if sometimes the Boys considered some of his co-producing as passe.  Maybe someone will come up with something definitive as to whether Murry was or was not a sometimes co-producer.


 

[guitarfool2002]

Would the word of Chuck Britz be considered definitive?

An excerpt from Chuck Britz talking about the first sessions they did at Western, with Murry, Audree, and Gary Usher also in attendance:

"As far as producing, indirectly Brian was producing everything even at that early stage. As far as I'm concerned the total commitment of producing was from him. He was beautiful, an all-American kid who knew what he wanted and was pretty sure of himself."

Sounds definitive to me from the guy who was as close to Brian in the studio process as anyone. And this was on the 409/Surfin Safari demo material before Venet and Capitol even got involved.

[Emily]

Would the word of Chuck Britz be considered definitive?

An excerpt from Chuck Britz talking about the first sessions they did at Western, with Murry, Audree, and Gary Usher also in attendance:

"As far as producing, indirectly Brian was producing everything even at that early stage. As far as I'm concerned the total commitment of producing was from him. He was beautiful, an all-American kid who knew what he wanted and was pretty sure of himself."

Sounds definitive to me from the guy who was as close to Brian in the studio process as anyone. And this was on the 409/Surfin Safari demo material before Venet and Capitol even got involved.

OK. We’ve got quotes from Britz, Desper and Blaine that Murry was not constructively producing (eta: and Venet if you want to credit that). I’ve not seen any quotes from anyone actually involved saying that Murry did anything constructive, production-wise. Are there any?
C-man makes a strong argument based on session tapes but where c-man says "...And by 'proceedings', I'm not talking about the technicalities of reverb, EQ, compression, limiting, etc. - I'm talking about 'OK, guys, you can do better - treble up those amps - pick up the pace, you're retarding - enunciate more' - that kind of thing - over and over, for every take. On a recording session, if someone is calling the shots to that extent, they are in fact acting as 'producer' (or co-producer), whether they are credited or not. And, Brian and Carl have both been quoted as saying Murry helped produce their early records," I have to think about the difference between calling shots and calling the shots. Were Murry's called shots adhered to? Or were they patiently listened to then ignored? If there's evidence of a significant difference in outcome based on Murry's shots, then this would be production.

Also, there are two posts above that credit Murry with making choices to benefit Brian financially. As Murry extracted money from Sea of Tunes while he was co-owner, and kept the receipt from the sale entirely, and as he, reputedly, had BBs billed for the costs for his solo album (and perhaps his other studio experiments in the 1960s) and as he and Audree separately had substantial housing upgrades during the 1960s, what evidence do you have that he was motivated by a desire to benefit Brian, vs. himself, financially?

I really don’t get why, without significant evidence, people will work so hard to attribute positive actions to people (see earlier Landy threads) for whom there is significant evidence of negative actions. Is it because it’s important to prove that “all people have good in them?”

[Andrew G. Doe]

Surfin' Safari was a three way combination of Brian, Murry and Venet producing, after that it was essentially all Brian with Murry just getting in the way of things.

Not Venet on this session.

[Mike's Beard]

I meant Surfin' Safari the album.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Apologies for not being a mind reader.

[c-man]

If barking orders and giving commands and saying whether something was good or not as takes were being done warrants a production credit, then by listening to that Help Me Rhonda tape (to use an example that has been more widely heard and discussed) it could be shown that Murry should get a credit as producer on that record. Right?

Wrong - the results of that particular session were junked, and the band returned without Murry the next day to record the final vocals as heard on the record.

But let's just say they HAD used the vocals from that session - the question would then become, how much did they follow Murry's orders on that particular session? If they had followed this orders, then yes, Murry "co-produced" the session. If they didn't, then no. The answer is dependent on the extent to which the person trying to produce actually influenced the results.

[c-man]

Surfin' Safari was a three way combination of Brian, Murry and Venet producing, after that it was essentially all Brian with Murry just getting in the way of things.

For the Surfin' Safari and Surfin' U.S.A. album sessions at Capitol, Murry was not present - he is not heard on the session tapes, and sources have indicated that what would have been his normal place in the control booth was occupied by Venet. For the hit singles, recorded at Western, yes, he was present.

I would definitely credit Brian with co-producing the Capitol sessions along with Venet, even though he received no official credit. The one time they were co-credited with production was on the Honeys' singles - and here's a description of that arrangement: "According to Nik Venet, the earliest Honeys singles were recorded with Venet producing from the control room and Brian directing within the actual studio". (Brad Elliott's book "Surf's Up", pg. 176) From what we hear on the Western session tapes, that's also how it worked with Murry and Brian - Murry giving commands in the booth, Brian directing from the floor.

But, how much "production" was really involved with those BBs Capitol Studios tracks - other than the tone of Carl's and David's amps, the natural sound of Brian's bass, Dennis' drums, Mike's sax, and of course the group vocal blend. I haven't listened to any of those cuts in awhile, so I don't really remember if there was much (or any) reverb added in mixdown compared to the natural ambiance of Capitol's Studio A. So how much was there for the producer to do on those records, anyway? Just making sure the band was tight, which Brian did from the floor, and deciding when a take should stop or start, which was Venet.


 

[c-man]

Would the word of Chuck Britz be considered definitive?

An excerpt from Chuck Britz talking about the first sessions they did at Western, with Murry, Audree, and Gary Usher also in attendance:

"As far as producing, indirectly Brian was producing everything even at that early stage. As far as I'm concerned the total commitment of producing was from him. He was beautiful, an all-American kid who knew what he wanted and was pretty sure of himself."

Sounds definitive to me from the guy who was as close to Brian in the studio process as anyone. And this was on the 409/Surfin Safari demo material before Venet and Capitol even got involved.

OK. We’ve got quotes from Britz, Desper and Blaine that Murry was not constructively producing (eta: and Venet if you want to credit that). I’ve not seen any quotes from anyone actually involved saying that Murry did anything constructive, production-wise. Are there any?
C-man makes a strong argument based on session tapes but where c-man says "...And by 'proceedings', I'm not talking about the technicalities of reverb, EQ, compression, limiting, etc. - I'm talking about 'OK, guys, you can do better - treble up those amps - pick up the pace, you're retarding - enunciate more' - that kind of thing - over and over, for every take. On a recording session, if someone is calling the shots to that extent, they are in fact acting as 'producer' (or co-producer), whether they are credited or not. And, Brian and Carl have both been quoted as saying Murry helped produce their early records," I have to think about the difference between calling shots and calling the shots. Were Murry's called shots adhered to? Or were they patiently listened to then ignored? If there's evidence of a significant difference in outcome based on Murry's shots, then this would be production.

...

I really don’t get why, without significant evidence, people will work so hard to attribute positive actions to people (see earlier Landy threads) for whom there is significant evidence of negative actions. Is it because it’s important to prove that “all people have good in them?”

Emily, to your first point - yes, the band adhered to Murry's commands most of the time on these sessions, in terms of stopping and starting takes, paying smoother or faster, trebling up the amps, etc. Sometimes they did not, like when Brian rejected Murry's suggestion to come in later with the piano on "Fun, Fun, Fun". But Murry still "co-produced" that session, IMO, because he gave orders that were followed.

To your second point - if you're referring to my agreement with Landy's co-producer credit on Brian's first solo album, or with many peoples' assertions that Landy saved Brian's life in a literal sense - sometimes you gotta give the devil his due. Landy was, in many ways, a horrible person, as was Murry. Does that mean they never did any positive things that benefited Brian or the band? No. It is what it is. It's like Manson deserving songwriting credit for "Never Learn Not To Love". He did in fact write the original version of that song, under a different title. Dennis "re-wrote" it, if you will, but Manson in fact wrote it first. He didn't want credit, so he didn't get it. But in reality, he deserved it - despite being the most despicable person to ever cross paths with the band, and one of the most notorious killers in history. I reject everything he stands for. But, objectively, facts are facts!

[guitarfool2002]

The producer in terms of the job description Brian held (if not helped define) also has the overall vision for how the final outcome will sound, and in almost every case (and according to other comments from Chuck Britz), that was Brian's deal as well. And from what Chuck witnessed, most often in the earlier sessions with Chuck Brian would have already taught and rehearsed the guys on the vocal arrangements before they got to the studio. It was in the year 1963 going into 64 that Brian's growth and learning curve was amazing, according to Marilyn for one, he was soaking up everything he could about cutting records, and writing and recording at a fever pitch...and that included sitting in on and observing Phil Spector producing at Gold Star. It was either Hal or another musician who remembered seeing Brian sitting in the studio watching intently, and people were asking who he was.

This was 1963. Brian was learning and applying all of this that he was taking in. And you can hear it - Notice when he starts to incorporate the "doubling" overdubs of the Boys harmony parts to thicken the sound into what became a sonic trademark of his records, and also how once he sussed it out, he began experimenting with Spector's techniques and using them on his own records. But that's common knowledge among fans.

What isn't as common knowledge is just how much work and self-teaching this man did in 1963 to make himself and his records what they became, which was records that many in the business wanted to know how he made them.

The learning curve was incredible in the span of just about a year, 1963. But according to Chuck, Brian on those first Western sessions like 409/Surfin Safari was *the* producer. And I cannot see apart from Venet being there for Capitol's corporate and financial reasons how that role changed as much as some would suggest.

[c-man]

Would the word of Chuck Britz be considered definitive?

An excerpt from Chuck Britz talking about the first sessions they did at Western, with Murry, Audree, and Gary Usher also in attendance:

"As far as producing, indirectly Brian was producing everything even at that early stage. As far as I'm concerned the total commitment of producing was from him. He was beautiful, an all-American kid who knew what he wanted and was pretty sure of himself."

Sounds definitive to me from the guy who was as close to Brian in the studio process as anyone. And this was on the 409/Surfin Safari demo material before Venet and Capitol even got involved.

No arguments there. But I would also take as definitive the word of Brian and Carl, both of whom have stated that Murry helped produce their early records. I think Brian even sounded grateful when saying this, even though there was obviously friction as time went on. Folks, if two people are in charge of a project, they both deserve that credit, even if they are butting heads throughout, and even if one doesn't always take the other's advise. This is all objective, but true - even if one was far less brilliant than the other, and became more of a thorn in the other's side. If they both influenced the result in a commanding way, they both "produced", or "co-produced".

[c-man]

The producer in terms of the job description Brian held (if not helped define) also has the overall vision for how the final outcome will sound, and in almost every case (and according to other comments from Chuck Britz), that was Brian's deal as well. And from what Chuck witnessed, most often in the earlier sessions with Chuck Brian would have already taught and rehearsed the guys on the vocal arrangements before they got to the studio. It was in the year 1963 going into 64 that Brian's growth and learning curve was amazing, according to Marilyn for one, he was soaking up everything he could about cutting records, and writing and recording at a fever pitch...and that included sitting in on and observing Phil Spector producing at Gold Star. It was either Hal or another musician who remembered seeing Brian sitting in the studio watching intently, and people were asking who he was.

This was 1963. Brian was learning and applying all of this that he was taking in. And you can hear it - Notice when he starts to incorporate the "doubling" overdubs of the Boys harmony parts to thicken the sound into what became a sonic trademark of his records, and also how once he sussed it out, he began experimenting with Spector's techniques and using them on his own records. But that's common knowledge among fans.

What isn't as common knowledge is just how much work and self-teaching this man did in 1963 to make himself and his records what they became, which was records that many in the business wanted to know how he made them.

The learning curve was incredible in the span of just about a year, 1963. But according to Chuck, Brian on those first Western sessions like 409/Surfin Safari was *the* producer. And I cannot see apart from Venet being there for Capitol's corporate and financial reasons how that role changed as much as some would suggest.

Craig - not arguing at all that Brian had the "Visionary" aspect of producer locked up - I'm just talking in practical terms. Brian and Murry fulfilled different aspects of the producer role on those sessions. But they both "produced".

[guitarfool2002]

If barking orders and giving commands and saying whether something was good or not as takes were being done warrants a production credit, then by listening to that Help Me Rhonda tape (to use an example that has been more widely heard and discussed) it could be shown that Murry should get a credit as producer on that record. Right?

Wrong - the results of that particular session were junked, and the band returned without Murry the next day to record the final vocals as heard on the record.

But let's just say they HAD used the vocals from that session - the question would then become, how much did they follow Murry's orders on that particular session? If they had followed this orders, then yes, Murry "co-produced" the session. If they didn't, then no. The answer is dependent on the extent to which the person trying to produce actually influenced the results.

Stephen Desper's observations (some reprinted in the Carlin book) state that he'd be recording with the band, they'd get word that Murry was coming and hide the pot and do whatever else, and they'd basically lose however many hours Murry was there for as he did the old barking orders routine. And he wasted everyone's time until he left, and they got back to doing what they had been doing just fine, thank you, before he showed up, which was actually making the records free of the distractions and pep talks and empty orders.

The guy didn't change at all, and I have to go with Desper, Blaine, Britz, and others along with the scant recorded evidence we can reference which most have heard and say Murry as described by Desper was the same Murry as heard on the Rhonda tape and that was the same Murry that came into Western that first day with Chuck and the band to cut a demo. In the early days he may have been more tolerated, but once it became clear who was actually being listened to and who had the ideas and the vision for these records, Murry got relegated to a fake console and was given a few hours of the band's time to waste while he was humored before the actual work resumed.

I'm all for getting facts straight myself, but I'm a little incredulous at wanting to go back and give Murry Wilson some overdue co-production credit for essentially barking orders, telling David Marks to put more treble on his amp, and calling takes bad or keepers especially since most who were involved - unless there is someone in the band or in the inner circles of the band - trying to say otherwise.

"Produced by Brian Wilson", that's the proper credit where applied.

[guitarfool2002]

I guess what I'm also factoring in is the way Murry deliberately screwed his sons and his band on many fronts acting as "manager" and then as the custodian of Sea Of Tunes throughout the 60's. In terms of producer credits, consider one of the lesser-discussed lawsuits of the late 60's was filed to recoup a 7-figure amount that Capitol never paid Brian on his producer points, as terms of their contracts. Brian won that case. Then there was the Smile-era "breakage clause" case against Capitol, which also found the label had failed to pay the band hundreds of thousands in earnings, and the whispers were that Murry knew this was going on but turned his head. It wasn't his money, it wasn't Capitol's money, it was money the band had earned, just like all those payments Brian earned but had to file a suit to actually collect.

Then there was the several hundred thousand in earnings Murry refused to pay the band in an act of spite after he was fired. Again, not his call, not his money, and if brought to a court he'd be found guilty of malfeasance or a similar charge. The band earned the money, it wasn't up to Murry to decide to spite them by withholding it from them.

Then there was the classic "Many Moods Of Murry Wilson" album, which Murry bankrolled by dipping into a reserve fund the band had set up to hold some of their royalty income. Murry basically stole money from the band to bankroll his own vanity project of an album.

This is a father (and uncle) doing this to his own family - inexcusable. Criminal, even, in it's devious and spiteful nature. I'd say as a personal opinion if there are efforts to go back and give him credit for things he rarely did or had little effect over, and thereby remove a portion of the credit from those who actually did that work, there are many, many other priorities to tackle before elevating Murry Wilson into what he always claimed to be but was not.

[Cam Mott]

I don't think anyone has argued that Brian wasn't always the Producer when he is credited as such.  If Brian was also a Producer, an uncredited Co-producer, on some or all sessions credited to Venet, by the same token, Murry was also sometimes an uncredited Co-producer to Brian's Producer in a seemingly narrow window of time it seems to me. Not in the same way as Brian, not always welcome, sometimes just to humor him, etc., etc. etc.. Brian's credit is undiminished even with Murry's sometimes co-production.

[Emily]

Would the word of Chuck Britz be considered definitive?

An excerpt from Chuck Britz talking about the first sessions they did at Western, with Murry, Audree, and Gary Usher also in attendance:

"As far as producing, indirectly Brian was producing everything even at that early stage. As far as I'm concerned the total commitment of producing was from him. He was beautiful, an all-American kid who knew what he wanted and was pretty sure of himself."

Sounds definitive to me from the guy who was as close to Brian in the studio process as anyone. And this was on the 409/Surfin Safari demo material before Venet and Capitol even got involved.

OK. We’ve got quotes from Britz, Desper and Blaine that Murry was not constructively producing (eta: and Venet if you want to credit that). I’ve not seen any quotes from anyone actually involved saying that Murry did anything constructive, production-wise. Are there any?
C-man makes a strong argument based on session tapes but where c-man says "...And by 'proceedings', I'm not talking about the technicalities of reverb, EQ, compression, limiting, etc. - I'm talking about 'OK, guys, you can do better - treble up those amps - pick up the pace, you're retarding - enunciate more' - that kind of thing - over and over, for every take. On a recording session, if someone is calling the shots to that extent, they are in fact acting as 'producer' (or co-producer), whether they are credited or not. And, Brian and Carl have both been quoted as saying Murry helped produce their early records," I have to think about the difference between calling shots and calling the shots. Were Murry's called shots adhered to? Or were they patiently listened to then ignored? If there's evidence of a significant difference in outcome based on Murry's shots, then this would be production.

...

I really don’t get why, without significant evidence, people will work so hard to attribute positive actions to people (see earlier Landy threads) for whom there is significant evidence of negative actions. Is it because it’s important to prove that “all people have good in them?”

Emily, to your first point - yes, the band adhered to Murry's commands most of the time on these sessions, in terms of stopping and starting takes, paying smoother or faster, trebling up the amps, etc. Sometimes they did not, like when Brian rejected Murry's suggestion to come in later with the piano on "Fun, Fun, Fun". But Murry still "co-produced" that session, IMO, because he gave orders that were followed.

--then I would agree that he, rightfully, could claim a credit.

To your second point - if you're referring to my agreement with Landy's co-producer credit on Brian's first solo album, or with many peoples' assertions that Landy saved Brian's life in a literal sense - sometimes you gotta give the devil his due. Landy was, in many ways, a horrible person, as was Murry. Does that mean they never did any positive things that benefited Brian or the band? No. It is what it is. It's like Manson deserving songwriting credit for "Never Learn Not To Love". He did in fact write the original version of that song, under a different title. Dennis "re-wrote" it, if you will, but Manson in fact wrote it first. He didn't want credit, so he didn't get it. But in reality, he deserved it - despite being the most despicable person to ever cross paths with the band, and one of the most notorious killers in history. I reject everything he stands for. But, objectively, facts are facts!

For clarity, I brought this up mainly because people were saying Murry was making choices for Brian's financial benefit as opposed to his own. That was more in my thoughts than the Murry-production discussion overall.

For your points, I'm going to break this down to different mini-subjects:

Manson - this whole thing is just so awkward... Yes, he should have gotten credit. There's some claim that Dennis paid him in some form to keep his name off, but they clearly didn't have written contract and such an oral agreement on something with such long-term ramifications with such an imbalance of influence may not have held up in court had Manson chosen to pursue it. Also, I agree with those who argue that one should be able to buy or sell future earnings if one is properly advised, but that buying or selling credit is perhaps another issue.
The real awkwardness comes in with - what to do if Manson is given credit? I would think that at this point it wouldn't matter, but at that time it would have meant that they should pull the song and recording from publication/release, which would have been a shame.

Landy credits - this for me hinges on two things: how he obtained the credits; and whether he actually earned them. I am unaware of strong, specific evidence of what he actually contributed in terms of writing and production. I've heard lots of stories about him bringing in his lyrics and making production decisions, but I've also heard stories of those decisions being scrapped and things being secretly reworked later, etc. So, if there's evidence that what he actually wrote/produced is on the released material, then we have the latter of the two factors resolved. For the former, I'm a strong believer, and it is the law in the jurisdiction we are discussing, that one should not profit from crime. If Landy obtained the credit or the ability to interfere/"collaborate" through coercion or undue influence, as I believe occurred, then he should  not have rights to profit from his contributions whether he made them or not. This is actually the law and I believe that had it been pursued in court, Landy would have legally and rightfully lost at least his profits. Technically, if his credit could remain without profit, that's probably the right thing to do, upon calm consideration, but Landy has forfeited any chance for me to use much energy defending anything on his behalf by otherwise being such a scuzz.

Landy saving Brian's life -I agree he did. What bothers me is sometimes the context in which people bring up the life-saving. That's in discussions in which person A says something in terms of evaluating Landy as a person, as a human with benign or nefarious motives or character and person B responds, "Well, he did save Brian's life." That bothers me because it implies that this action is benign when there's no evidence for that. If someone hires me to go save poor doomed little Lindsay Lohan's life (knock on wood) and they give me tons of money, and the right to hire goons and whisk her away to a private location and have complete control of everything she does with no interference for a year, I could get her off of her illegal substances as well. And I would not necessarily have any benevolence in doing it. I'd be getting paid. Landy was being very well-paid .What did he do next? He took advantage of the fact that Brian had no personal support system to try to steal everything else Brian had and came very close to killing him.  So with Landy, we have lots of evidence of his intent being negative and as far as I'm aware no evidence of his intent being positive.
If someone want to say he saved Brian's life. OK. But if they use that to ameliorate his reputation to any degree, not OK.

--if you want to discuss Landy further, perhaps we should go back to the Landy thread so as not to irritate other people on this thread.

So, I don't have a problem with people saying facts. Not at all. But, as with the Murry financial thing, I've seen on many threads people ascribing positive motives and actions to Murry and Landy without evidence multiple times (I don't think you, particularly). Many people seem to have an impulse, not just with regard to Beach Boy people but generally, to look for positives from someone who has been shown to do something negative and to believe they found something positive with no particular evidence. And I wonder about this impulse. I don't think I have it. I have a similar impulse that isn't always activated, but often when someone's demonized I will defend the negative actions (this impulse has never yet been activated for Murry or Landy, I'm afraid). But I've never tried to find different, good things that baddies have done to, I guess (?), balance out the bad with the good.
I'm just babbling at this point. Anyway, thanks for your response

[Emily]

[If they both influenced the result in a commanding way, they both "produced", or "co-produced".

I agree with this.

[Emily]

I guess what I'm also factoring in is the way Murry deliberately screwed his sons and his band on many fronts acting as "manager" and then as the custodian of Sea Of Tunes throughout the 60's. In terms of producer credits, consider one of the lesser-discussed lawsuits of the late 60's was filed to recoup a 7-figure amount that Capitol never paid Brian on his producer points, as terms of their contracts. Brian won that case. Then there was the Smile-era "breakage clause" case against Capitol, which also found the label had failed to pay the band hundreds of thousands in earnings, and the whispers were that Murry knew this was going on but turned his head. It wasn't his money, it wasn't Capitol's money, it was money the band had earned, just like all those payments Brian earned but had to file a suit to actually collect.

Then there was the several hundred thousand in earnings Murry refused to pay the band in an act of spite after he was fired. Again, not his call, not his money, and if brought to a court he'd be found guilty of malfeasance or a similar charge. The band earned the money, it wasn't up to Murry to decide to spite them by withholding it from them.

Then there was the classic "Many Moods Of Murry Wilson" album, which Murry bankrolled by dipping into a reserve fund the band had set up to hold some of their royalty income. Murry basically stole money from the band to bankroll his own vanity project of an album.

This is a father (and uncle) doing this to his own family - inexcusable. Criminal, even, in it's devious and spiteful nature. I'd say as a personal opinion if there are efforts to go back and give him credit for things he rarely did or had little effect over, and thereby remove a portion of the credit from those who actually did that work, there are many, many other priorities to tackle before elevating Murry Wilson into what he always claimed to be but was not.

I feel this very much. If some omniscient court were to go back and sort through all the threads and reallocate funds where they were actually due, the result would be a big loss for Murry and a big gain for Brian and Mike and some gain for the remaining BBs. So it's easy to begrudge giving anything to Murry over here when we know he already has so much stuff that shouldn't be his over there.
For me, there's also in the Help Me Rhonda session that I don't hear him saying anything useful so it's easy to imagine him bellowing around at lots of sessions without actually doing or saying anything useful. And this would fit with Blaine/Desper/Britz.
But, if c-man's right that he did influence the outcome, then he could rightfully claim credit, though I would begrudge it because I know he stole so much else from his kids.
One more "but" - I also think that a parent's proper role in a case like this is to support their kids in their efforts and help where possible without expecting payment or credit, but that's clearly personal philosophy.

[Mike's Beard]

Apologies for not being a mind reader.

It's known that Murry helped on the sessions that got the lads the deal with Capitol, that Surfari and 409 were used on the debut with Venet 'offically' producing the other tracks, so it's fairly clear (at least to me!) that I was talking about the album.

[guitarfool2002]

[If they both influenced the result in a commanding way, they both "produced", or "co-produced".

I agree with this.

I do not.

Influencing the outcome is NOT grounds for getting a producer's credit, which is more than just a name listed in liner notes. Let's not stretch the definition to include everyone from the assistant engineer to the guy playing a saxophone on the session to the roadie carrying the equipment into the session who may have had an idea that ended up making it onto the final release. When we start stretching definitions like that, anyone can try to go back and retroactively grab credit for "producing" a record that isn't warranted nor is it deserved, and with that come other implications that aren't worth going into right now.

If that definition were the case, then someone could probably convince a court to take up the issue of who produced the Beatles records and sift through the percentage of musical or sonic/production ideas that came from the band, Norman Smith, Geoff Emerick, or one of the other EMI staff and try to make a case that their ideas affected the results in a commanding enough way to warrant a co-production credit instead of George Martin being labeled the producer. If anyone tried to do that, the fan base would justifiably start a revolution and put so much shame and bad feelings on the person trying to claim that, it would be a PR and personal disaster. Rightfully so.

There are certain facts that are accepted, one is that Brian produced those records which we're talking about no matter how loudly Murry gave them orders.

Do we just ignore what Chuck Britz said, who apart from the band themselves was one of the key people actually involved in this process? He said Brian was the producer, that's pretty definitive and conclusive wording from a guy who was there.

[Emily]

Influencing the outcome is NOT grounds for getting a producer's credit. Let's not stretch the definition to include everyone from the assistant engineer to the guy playing a saxophone to the roadie carrying the equipment into the session who may have had an idea that ended up making it onto the final release. When we start stretching definitions like that, anyone can try to go back and retroactively grab credit for "producing" a record that isn't warranted nor is it deserved, and with that come other implications that aren't worth going into right now.

There are certain facts that are accepted, one is that Brian produced those records which we're talking about no matter how loudly Murry gave them orders.

This is uncomfortable because I think there's a gray area. So it may seem like I'm "playing both sides" but I actually think there's subtlety involved.
Yes, if there's someone just hanging out  in the studio who makes a suggestion and Brian says "hey, good suggestion, let's do that" then no, that shouldn't get a producer credit.
When someone, like Carl, works as Brian's sounding board - "Carl, what do you think? Would it sound better to do x or y?" then there's a gray area. At what point is he co-producing? Is he being consulted on everything? Is Brian requiring him to be in the studio during all productive hours because he's an integral part of the decision-making and Brian can't really move ahead without his participation? Then I'd think credit would be due. But there's somewhere less than that where Carl's just helping.
So, is Murry self-invited? Is he inserting himself where not required or desired? Is he deferred to as a "decider" or does Brian think "eh, ok, I'll take that suggestion" or "nah, I don't like that idea" at will and generally make decisions at will without deference to Murry's preferences? How much does Murry affect the outcome? How much is he leading/guiding what happens? I don't know the answer to any of these and I think these and many more questions would have to be answered to come to a conclusion. And, I think there's part that remains gray and it just remains a judgment call.

So, I should not have been assertive previously about "Yes, he could rightfully receive credit" or "No, he couldn't". I think there's so much to consider that I don't know.
I learned from this! Yay!

But, I will reiterate that I think as a parent the right thing to do is not take the credit whether he rightfully could or couldn't.

[guitarfool2002]

Maybe some of this comes down to either a misunderstanding of or an unfamiliarity with the process of making a record. It's a structure like any business structure, where there are jobs assigned and performed, yet the ideas begin flying around like mad as soon as the process kicks in. Again, if influencing the outcome of a song/recording is a consideration, you'd have almost every engineer, and tens of thousands of drummers, bassists, and other musicians coming forward to claim a production credit on some classic record that made a fortune. Everyone from the drummer who suggested a different groove or pattern to the bass player who suggested leaving the verses as only drums and bass under the vocal. Production just doesn't get credited that way, and it should not either, imo. Especially retroactively.

[guitarfool2002]

Credit like a producer's credit is not a judgement call. Nor is it something to go back and rewrite retroactively, unless the credit given originally was so egregious a mistake or intentional omission that a case could be made. With the Beach Boys, neither of those is the case.