Brian and Murry not crediting each other properly

[Emily]

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.

Thanks, GuitarFool. I've actually thought that through with song-writing and arranging. A violinist might suggest making a section more staccato and the conductor or arranger might agree that it's a good idea but that doesn't now give the violinist credit for arranging or eventually the whole orchestra will have credit. There is the one (perhaps more), person who has the job of taking ideas, his own or others, choosing among them, putting it together and implementing the final decisions.
I guess what I'm not clear on with Murry is, on those early sessions, was Murry deferred to? Would he make a suggestion and Brian would decide whether to implement it? Or would Murry decide whether to implement it? I think if Murry had the power to decide, then he was implicitly being regarded as producer to some degree, even if he took rather than was given that power.

[Emily]

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.

Regarding the actual on paper credit - I don't advocate changing it. And, I assume, that there was a firm agreement on whom would be credited before they entered the studio and I assume that nothing dramatic enough happened to warrant changing that.

I guess I haven't been thinking about the question of "should the credit be changed?" but the question of "based on what actually happened in the studio is it reasonable to think of Murry as being a producer in effect on some of the recordings." I should've been more clear on that.
I feel like I'm tap-dancing here and communicating very poorly. But I'll try to express myself again - I'm not clear what Murry's in effect input - and consequent influence on output - was in the studio. If he was deferred to by Brian, or over Brian on the part of others, then I think it would be reasonable to think of him of having played in effect a producer's role. That's all.
Kind of if I'm arranging a piece and Loren Maazel shows up and says "do it this way, that way and the other way" and I say "OK" and do, or the instrumentalists say, "screw Emily, we're doing what Maazel says," what should happen and what can happen? Well, if everyone's being nice, Maazel will give me a pat on the head and leave me with my credit. But I will offer him credit (or co-credit) due to his effective input. And some decision will be made. If there's a corporation involved, I'm sure they'll have their (perhaps definitive) say. But, in history, it's not unreasonable for people to say "Emily has the credit of arranging that piece but Maazel really earned a credit as well."

[ontor pertawst]

The real tragedy is that Murry and Landy never got to collaborate. There's a pair that deserved each other!

[Emily]

[ontor pertawst]

Finally! A historically accurate release!

[CenturyDeprived]

Here's a question... on the early material, does Nik Venet deserve to be credited in any producer capacity (Producer or Co-Producer) any more or less than Murry Wilson, or for that matter, Eugene Landy on the BW88 record?

It seems from what I've read that Nik shoehorned his credit into material that he had no business taking that credit. Maybe moreso on some tracks than others. Now, obviously I'm grateful to Nik for getting the BBs onboard with Capitol, and he's an integral part of the story, just like Murry for biologically fathering his sons and legitimately promoting the hell out of them in the early years, and Landy for helping to save Brian's life in late 1982. Not a conversation where I'm trying to discuss the bad things those last two guys did, that's a whole other topic.

Granted, Landy did ALL sorts of horrible stuff, which I suppose one could say his credit removal could be considered "punishment", in addition to wanting to set the record straight about his actual involvement, and to avoid a bad guy from continuing to profit off Brian.

But if, for example, Landy left the BW scene right after BW88 was recorded, and did not stick around until 1992 and attempt to get into Brian's will... would actions still have been taken to remove Landy's name from credits? Would the name have stuck around on future pressings, Nik Venet-style? On the same token, does Nik Venet's name deserve to retroactively be taken off the early records? Or does the credit just stay put because he wasn't a horrible person like Landy, and it would be too much legal trouble to deal with at this point?

Because as far as I can see it, Nik Venet may have about as much claim to producing or co-producing the early records as Murry has. Which in actuality is not very much at all, yet *possibly* slightly more claim than zero. I guess if Nik deserves credit, does Murry too? Or do they both not deserve credit for the early albums, and only Brian deserves it, but Nik's credit is just something that everyone has to live with (and perhaps nobody in the BB world is particularly upset about at this point, unlike the Landy credit)?

[Peter Reum]

The demo tape that got Nik Venet excited to sign the Beach Boys was produced by Murry, with Brian's help, according to most sources. Nik supervised the tunes on Surfin'Safari that were not part of the demo tape. On Surfin'USA, Lonely Sea was a Murry/Brian production, and Surfin' USA was Brian.The instrumental tracks are Brian, and the rest of that album is most likely Brian with Venet approving the final mix, which is why he was given the production credit on that album.

[Cam Mott]

Is anyone claiming Murry deserves some sort credit for producing an earlier session Britz describes where Murry wasn't even in attendance? Or later sessions where Murry was allegedly deceived?  Or sessions where Desper says Murry wasn't acting as a producer? I didn't think anyone was.  I don't think anyone has suggested the official credit for Brian (or Venet) should be revised in the future, have they and I missed it?

I believe the claim has been restricted to the early sessions where c-man says some of the Boys themselves credit Murry with helping as a producer where those claims are corroborated by the tapes c-man mentioned.

[guitarfool2002]

Then what was Chuck Britz talking about in this quote I posted earlier? Who does he say was producing "everything"? This from the engineer of those sessions in a decades old interview.

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.

[Cam Mott]

Then what was Chuck Britz talking about in this quote I posted earlier? Who does he say was producing "everything"? This from the engineer of those sessions in a decades old interview.

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.

I thought you said it was about a particular session.

[CenturyDeprived]

Is anyone claiming Murry deserves some sort credit for producing an earlier session Britz describes where Murry wasn't even in attendance? Or later sessions where Murry was allegedly deceived?  Or sessions where Desper says Murry wasn't acting as a producer? I didn't think anyone was.  I don't think anyone has suggested the official credit for Brian (or Venet) should be revised in the future, have they and I missed it?

I believe the claim has been restricted to the early sessions where c-man says some of the Boys themselves credit Murry with helping as a producer where those claims are corroborated by the tapes c-man mentioned.

Personally speaking, I'm certainly not "advocating" for any person to get a credit, or for anyone to have a credit taken away.  Nor am I defending Murry or Landy, or trying to somehow get them their just "due". Nothing like that at all.

I'm just speaking in hypotheticals, and trying to understand peoples' opinions, and whether or not people (Venet, Murry, Landy) were credited or not credited for reasons that make any kind of consistent sense. Not that consistent sense is something in large supply in BB-land, but it does seem that either those three guys all contributed roughly the same amount of actual contribution as BB/BW Producers to tape (ie. not really much at all - although not necessarily completely zilch either, and/or that they essentially were *mostly* background noise/interference during Brian's producing)... but despite this, the three guys are inconsistently either credited, not credited, and did (or in Murry's case, apparently somewhat inexplicably did not) seek to be credited for any imagined or actual contributions.  

If after the 1st 2 albums were released, with Venet's name present, subsequently post 1963, Venet had done some very unscrupulous thing to the band, would the band have retroactively delete Venet's credit? It seems that his credit has roughly as much (or as little) weight as Landy's (or Murry's, despite Murry's name not being present). Obviously, few people could be as big a scumbag as Landy was, but if Venet (nothing against Venet personally, just using him as an example of a guy who contributed very little yet got a credit, much like Landy) had done a horrible action to the band, it seems that they'd have tried to retroactively remove his name if they legally could - Landy-style - right?

Using Landy's credit removal as a case study, it almost seems the only reason Venet's Producer credit is only really still there is because unlike Landy, Venet just faded into the background for the most part, and didn't inflict any scumbag actions worthy of retribution on the band.

[guitarfool2002]

Then what was Chuck Britz talking about in this quote I posted earlier? Who does he say was producing "everything"? This from the engineer of those sessions in a decades old interview.

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.

I thought you said it was about a particular session.

What?

Um...409/Surfin Safari...the first songs they cut with Chuck at Western.

Chuck Britz contradicted what Peter Reum just posted. Murry may have been involved but it's hard to argue with the words "producing everything" and this line: "As far as I'm concerned the total commitment of producing was from him."

I'm sure someone will find a way, though.

[Emily]

Here's a question... on the early material, does Nik Venet deserve to be credited in any producer capacity (Producer or Co-Producer) any more or less than Murry Wilson, or for that matter, Eugene Landy on the BW88 record?

It seems from what I've read that Nik shoehorned his credit into material that he had no business taking that credit.

To be fair to Nik Venet, I think this was Capitol's deal more than his. It was just the business process and he was following it, as far as I understand.
It's not my impression that NV was actually producing the record in any real sense.

But if, for example, Landy left the BW scene right after BW88 was recorded, and did not stick around until 1992 and attempt to get into Brian's will... would actions still have been taken to remove Landy's name from credits?

Obviously I have no clue what would have happened, but he would still have been using undue influence in order to enforce his involvement illegally, so should
not have been awarded remuneration or reward of any form even if his input were included on the output.

[guitarfool2002]

Venet's credit is there because that was part of the contract and part of the label corporate mechanism when the Boys signed to Capitol. I've already covered this, but to recap: At that time, when an artist signed to a label, the label assigned a producer to that artist, actually the more appropriate job title for that time was "A&R" exec to oversee the recording process.

RCA assigned Chet Atkins to "produce" or be the A&R guy for Elvis when RCA signed him from Sun. Chet basically did nothing but play some rhythm guitar, and admitted calling his wife when Elvis and the band got fired up and started to record so she could watch the show he was putting on in the studio. Elvis basically produced that material, even calling takes good or bad, but RCA needed an A&R liaison and that job was given to Chet...who got producers credit but didn;t do much hands-on producing as we know that job would later become.

Brian *DID* produce and do the things we would say a producer would be expected to do in modern terms. Venet had to be there like Chet had to be there with Elvis as per RCA procedures. Whatever he actually did, it was in the contract that Venet would be the producer. Just like Chet. Just like Tom Wilson with Dylan.

Simple as that.

[CenturyDeprived]

Here's a question... on the early material, does Nik Venet deserve to be credited in any producer capacity (Producer or Co-Producer) any more or less than Murry Wilson, or for that matter, Eugene Landy on the BW88 record?

It seems from what I've read that Nik shoehorned his credit into material that he had no business taking that credit.

To be fair to Nik Venet, I think this was Capitol's deal more than his. It was just the business process and he was following it, as far as I understand.
It's not my impression that NV was actually producing the record in any real sense.

True, but in any case, the end result is that you have a guy (who didn't actually produce a record) getting to make money and get royalties in the future. It's odd that this was just allowed to transpire (and continue in perpetuity), considering how the only other guy in the BB story who finagled entire albums' worth of credits, had his credit removed. IMO, it seems like they both should have had credits removed, or neither should. But I'm sure that emotions understandably drove the Landy removal decision too, and his actions were obviously considered (and obviously were in fact) ethically off-the-cliff horrible.

Yet... there is a very inconsistent crediting result between the 1st 2 BB albums, and BW88, which doesn't make much logical sense to me.

[CenturyDeprived]

Venet's credit is there because that was part of the contract and part of the label corporate mechanism when the Boys signed to Capitol. I've already covered this, but to recap: At that time, when an artist signed to a label, the label assigned a producer to that artist, actually the more appropriate job title for that time was "A&R" exec to oversee the recording process.

RCA assigned Chet Atkins to "produce" or be the A&R guy for Elvis when RCA signed him from Sun. Chet basically did nothing but play some rhythm guitar, and admitted calling his wife when Elvis and the band got fired up and started to record so she could watch the show he was putting on in the studio. Elvis basically produced that material, even calling takes good or bad, but RCA needed an A&R liaison and that job was given to Chet...who got producers credit but didn;t do much hands-on producing as we know that job would later become.

Brian *DID* produce and do the things we would say a producer would be expected to do in modern terms. Venet had to be there like Chet had to be there with Elvis as per RCA procedures. Whatever he actually did, it was in the contract that Venet would be the producer. Just like Chet. Just like Tom Wilson with Dylan.

Simple as that.

Fair enough, and it makes sense that if that was simply the corporate approved crediting structure of the time, that things transpired the way they did.

That said... just speaking in terms of fairness of who ACTUALLY did/didn't do what, and trying to keep our emotions and feelings about people like Murry or Landy out of the decision... do you think it's fair to say that Venet, Murry, and Landy all are consistently deserving of no producing or co-producing credit? And by "deserve", I'm not talking about ethics where a bad person who did a bad thing doesn't deserve the same rights as others (I'm specifically trying to remove that from the conversation, to just strictly talk about the facts of what got recorded on tape, and who contributed to it) - speaking in those terms, Venet doesn't really deserve a credit anymore than Murry or Landy, right?

I assume that Venet's name being there makes about as much sense as the John Lennon co-writing credit on "Yesterday": in-name only, for contractual reasons, but in reality, something completely fabricated and inaccurate.

[Cam Mott]

Then what was Chuck Britz talking about in this quote I posted earlier? Who does he say was producing "everything"? This from the engineer of those sessions in a decades old interview.

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.

I thought you said it was about a particular session.

What?

Um...409/Surfin Safari...the first songs they cut with Chuck at Western.

Chuck Britz contradicted what Peter Reum just posted. Murry may have been involved but it's hard to argue with the words "producing everything" and this line: "As far as I'm concerned the total commitment of producing was from him."

I'm sure someone will find a way, though.

My bad, the discussion of Murry not being at a session was regarding HM,R not the session Britz was referencing in the quote.

So this would be another session which is ruled out by testimony, still leaving the rest of the early sessions claimed where the Boys and the tapes testify.

[Emily]

Venet's credit is there because that was part of the contract and part of the label corporate mechanism when the Boys signed to Capitol. I've already covered this, but to recap: At that time, when an artist signed to a label, the label assigned a producer to that artist, actually the more appropriate job title for that time was "A&R" exec to oversee the recording process.

RCA assigned Chet Atkins to "produce" or be the A&R guy for Elvis when RCA signed him from Sun. Chet basically did nothing but play some rhythm guitar, and admitted calling his wife when Elvis and the band got fired up and started to record so she could watch the show he was putting on in the studio. Elvis basically produced that material, even calling takes good or bad, but RCA needed an A&R liaison and that job was given to Chet...who got producers credit but didn;t do much hands-on producing as we know that job would later become.

Brian *DID* produce and do the things we would say a producer would be expected to do in modern terms. Venet had to be there like Chet had to be there with Elvis as per RCA procedures. Whatever he actually did, it was in the contract that Venet would be the producer. Just like Chet. Just like Tom Wilson with Dylan.

Simple as that.

Fair enough, and it makes sense that if that was simply the corporate approved crediting structure of the time, that things transpired the way they did.

That said... just speaking in terms of fairness of who did what, and trying to keep our emotions and feelings about people like Murry or Landy out of the decision... do you think it's fair to say that Venet, Murry, and Landy all are consistently deserving of no producing or co-producing credit? And by "deserve", I'm not talking about ethics where a bad person who did a bad thing doesn't deserve the same rights as others (I'm specifically trying to remove that from the conversation, to just strictly talk about the facts of what got recorded on tape, and who contributed to it) - speaking in those terms, Venet doesn't really deserve a credit anymore than Murry or Landy, right?

I assume that Venet's name being there makes about as much sense as the John Lennon co-writing credit on "Yesterday": in-name only, for contractual reasons, but in reality, something completely fabricated and inaccurate.

I think it's a little fuzzy what Landy actually succeeded in doing in production. Do we know to what degree his decisions made it onto the album? (though, actually, please don't answer that. It would end up another whole kerfluffle.)
I think that if I make the assumptions that I think you're making then I'd agree that none of them were actually producers in a practical sense.

[guitarfool2002]

Now we're getting into legal territory, and that's where giving these credits becomes more than fans discussing it. Venet got that credit because that's what was agreed by contract. Just like Chet Atkins is still listed as producer of those early RCA Elvis records, that was the way it was done. The Lennon/McCartney songwriting credit remained steadfast because they agreed on that credit for everything either one of them wrote for the Beatles, and they stuck to that agreement.

Go even further...should we go case-by-case and try to recoup "points" on a major hit album for the producer who signed a deal to get a one-time lump payment versus signing for a percentage and points on future sales? It all goes back to what was agreed, unless some kind of deception or outright fraud and malfeasance can be proven legally to show someone got cheated out of a rightful credit.

Murry...look at what those who were involved say he did. It's fine for fans to debate back and forth as long as it doesn't get taken to the point of taking it further to try to win Murry some producer credit (and all the financial implications that would come with such a thing) and have the credits changed in the official histories of this music.

If we start to reshape the definitions of what qualifies someone to receive a production credit, it would literally open up the floodgates for potentially hundreds of thousands of people from engineers to disgruntled former band members to try staking a claim on a producer's credit on a hit record or album based on their input, anything from a sonic hook created by an engineer to a conga player on the session who suggested extending a solo break that became a trademark of that record. It would be ridiculous.

And again I'll ask in return - Can what Chuck Britz said about Brian producing those earliest session be disproven? If so, then by who?

[guitarfool2002]

Venet's credit is there because that was part of the contract and part of the label corporate mechanism when the Boys signed to Capitol. I've already covered this, but to recap: At that time, when an artist signed to a label, the label assigned a producer to that artist, actually the more appropriate job title for that time was "A&R" exec to oversee the recording process.

RCA assigned Chet Atkins to "produce" or be the A&R guy for Elvis when RCA signed him from Sun. Chet basically did nothing but play some rhythm guitar, and admitted calling his wife when Elvis and the band got fired up and started to record so she could watch the show he was putting on in the studio. Elvis basically produced that material, even calling takes good or bad, but RCA needed an A&R liaison and that job was given to Chet...who got producers credit but didn;t do much hands-on producing as we know that job would later become.

Brian *DID* produce and do the things we would say a producer would be expected to do in modern terms. Venet had to be there like Chet had to be there with Elvis as per RCA procedures. Whatever he actually did, it was in the contract that Venet would be the producer. Just like Chet. Just like Tom Wilson with Dylan.

Simple as that.

Fair enough, and it makes sense that if that was simply the corporate approved crediting structure of the time, that things transpired the way they did.

That said... just speaking in terms of fairness of who did what, and trying to keep our emotions and feelings about people like Murry or Landy out of the decision... do you think it's fair to say that Venet, Murry, and Landy all are consistently deserving of no producing or co-producing credit? And by "deserve", I'm not talking about ethics where a bad person who did a bad thing doesn't deserve the same rights as others (I'm specifically trying to remove that from the conversation, to just strictly talk about the facts of what got recorded on tape, and who contributed to it) - speaking in those terms, Venet doesn't really deserve a credit anymore than Murry or Landy, right?

I assume that Venet's name being there makes about as much sense as the John Lennon co-writing credit on "Yesterday": in-name only, for contractual reasons, but in reality, something completely fabricated and inaccurate.

I think it's a little fuzzy what Landy actually succeeded in doing in production. Do we know to what degree his decisions made it onto the album? (though, actually, please don't answer that. It would end up another whole kerfluffle.)
I think that if I make the assumptions that I think you're making then I'd agree that none of them were actually producers in a practical sense.

The Landy issue actually parallels what would be standard in almost all court cases. If one side calls a witness, and that witness is proven to be a liar, anything else that witness might say or claim in testimony is immediately rendered basically useless...no matter how valuable. It's part of the vetting process to ensure that a witness called will not get caught perjuring themselves in testimony. because once that happens, anything that witness said before or after the lie is garbage.

So if a court of law saw proof that Landy claimed writing credit on even one song that he never had the right to claim, all of his other claims no matter if they're valid or not, have doubt cast on them and his word means nothing.

So if it is shown that Landy put his name on something he had no hand in writing or producing, anything he claimed aside from that would be in doubt in a legal sense. You lie once on a legal document...everything else goes out the door. That's the consequence of lying on contracts and other legal situations, which songwriting agreements are when the forms are filed and signed.

So Landy shouldn't have lied and claimed credit on something he had no involvement in writing. The baby goes out with the bathwater. Rightfully so. He screwed himself by claiming fake credits.

[CenturyDeprived]

Now we're getting into legal territory, and that's where giving these credits becomes more than fans discussing it. Venet got that credit because that's what was agreed by contract. Just like Chet Atkins is still listed as producer of those early RCA Elvis records, that was the way it was done. The Lennon/McCartney songwriting credit remained steadfast because they agreed on that credit for everything either one of them wrote for the Beatles, and they stuck to that agreement.

Go even further...should we go case-by-case and try to recoup "points" on a major hit album for the producer who signed a deal to get a one-time lump payment versus signing for a percentage and points on future sales? It all goes back to what was agreed, unless some kind of deception or outright fraud and malfeasance can be proven legally to show someone got cheated out of a rightful credit.
 

I guess it just shows that if Venet had done something unscrupulous behind the scenes leading to him getting the credit that he indeed got - but the 1st 2 albums got recorded in the identical manner, with Venet's minimal involvement being identical and unchanged - that the band would possibly been able to remove the credit down the line.  

It is weird that the business (which it is, first and foremost) is really about lawyers finding ways to get people other than their clients to not have credits if at all possible (regardless of what they did/didn't contribute). But those rules shouldn't apply to simply having a discussion on this board regarding our opinions about what's right or wrong. Contracts shouldn't be king.

Outside of legal technicalities... I don't think Venet's name being present (or the Elvis credit, in your example) has any more or less of a logical right to be present than, say, Murry or Landy have a right to have their credit present, or Lennon's name being on "Yesterday". If Lennon had zero involvement, his credit is pretty ridiculous (as Paul surely thinks), even if that's the contract they signed years before. Yes it's business, yes it's just how it goes... but that doesn't exactly make it "right", anymore than it's "right" for Mike to not be a credited cowriter on songs he did in fact cowrite. My discussion is more about what's "right" in our estimation, and less about crediting falsehoods that are legally allowable to transpire.

I think that Venet would have retroactively been stripped of credits if the band could legally have done it, even if they otherwise were grateful to him. Venet's one saving grace was that it was simply Venet playing by the official record company sanctioned rules at the time. In this case, it really isn't about who did or didn't do what as a Producer, just what a person or corporation is legally allowed to get away with.

Again, nothing against Venet, and certainly not trying to score points for Landy or Murry, I have absolutely no agenda in saying this stuff, only just talking about hypotheticals out of pure curiosity, because many inconsistencies abound... but it seems that Venet/Murry/Landy's crediting (or lack thereof) should more or less hold identical weight, if we are to take scruples out of the discussion and just talk about who got what on tape. However, due to circumstance and technicalities, of those three guys... one guy never had credit, one guy had credit (but had it removed), and one guy has retained credit all along.  

[c-man]

And again I'll ask in return - Can what Chuck Britz said about Brian producing those earliest session be disproven? If so, then by who?

I'm not claiming that what Chuck said was wrong - just that there's more to the story. I'm sure Brian absolutely produced everything from the beginning, as much as he could with Murry being there in his way. But I also believe Murry was producing as well. I've heard tons of BBs sessions tapes, and what Murry was doing from the control booth in terms of "directing" was a more brusque, blunt, and less articulate version of what Brian did on the sessions to follow (after Murry was gone and Brian moved from the studio floor to the control room). The one aspect of production which Brian had that Murry did not, was the genuine artistic vision. That and a better personality.

As for what Desper said - that's a bit different. He's saying the group humored Murry until he left, then did what they wanted. Therefore, I would NOT credit Murry with co-producing those records. But on the stuff recorded at Western for the first five albums, it didn't work that way: Murry stayed in charge through the final take, and therefore IMO was fulfilling an important aspect of production.

And regarding the legal thing - Joe Thomas is not credited with co-producing TWGMTR, just with "recording" it. Yet I'm think we all know he produced it at least as much as Brian. But he's not credited with production, undoubtedly because of the worded agreement that was reached by the parties involved.

Another point to make is that it's widely known that George Martin did not serve as producer on every single Beatles session: he was infrequently absent, as early as "Yellow Submarine" But they always had someone sitting in the both to guide things along, whether it be Martin's assistant, or whomever. These people are not credited on the records, of course, and I'm sure that's because the contract reads that George Martin alone be officially credited as producer. And I'm not saying those folks had any kind of artistic vision, but rather "produced" in the same practical sense that Murry did (minus his boorish mannerisms). They ARE given credit with producing, however, in the official history of The Beatles sessions, written by Mark Lewisohn.

Getting back to the BBs, both Ed Roach and Geoffrey Cushing-Murray have shared that THEY acted as producer on particular Beach Boys sessions (Ed for a "Love Surrounds Me" session, probably for keyboard overdubs, at Kaye Smith in Seattle, and Geoffrey for Carl's lead vocal on "Goin' South", at Shang-ri-la in Malibu). I could be wrong, but I'm assuming neither of them had any hand in the "artistic vision" side of the productions, but rather the "practical" side of needing somebody in the booth to oversee the proceedings, listen objectively to what was being performed, offer advice when they felt it was needed, and coach/inspire the artist to the best possible outcome. Does that mean they were the sole producer of those cuts? No, but they certainly produced those particular sessions.

Lastly, am I advocating that the official producer credits be changed to include Murry as co-producer on the early stuff? Not really, because I know that won't happen, any more than Brian will be credited (or co-credited with Murry) for producing "Surfin' U.S.A." and "Shut Down": even though I know Nik Venet was no where near Western Recorders on the nights those tunes were recorded, he is legally designated as "producer", so that's how it stands - for eternity, seemingly.

[DonnyL]

And again I'll ask in return - Can what Chuck Britz said about Brian producing those earliest session be disproven? If so, then by who?

I'm not claiming that what Chuck said was wrong - just that there's more to the story. I'm sure Brian absolutely produced everything from the beginning, as much as he could with Murry being there in his way. But I also believe Murry was producing as well. I've heard tons of BBs sessions tapes, and what Murry was doing from the control booth in terms of "directing" was a more brusque, blunt, and less articulate version of what Brian did on the sessions to follow (after Murry was gone and Brian moved from the studio floor to the control room). The one aspect of production which Brian had that Murry did not, was the genuine artistic vision. That and a better personality.

As for what Desper said - that's a bit different. He's saying the group humored Murry until he left, then did what they wanted. Therefore, I would NOT credit Murry with co-producing those records. But on the stuff recorded at Western for the first five albums, it didn't work that way: Murry stayed in charge through the final take, and therefore IMO was fulfilling an important aspect of production.

And regarding the legal thing - Joe Thomas is not credited with co-producing TWGMTR, just with "recording" it. Yet I'm think we all know he produced it at least as much as Brian. But he's not credited with production, undoubtedly because of the worded agreement that was reached by the parties involved.

Another point to make is that it's widely known that George Martin did not serve as producer on every single Beatles session: he was infrequently absent, as early as "Yellow Submarine" But they always had someone sitting in the both to guide things along, whether it be Martin's assistant, or whomever. These people are not credited on the records, of course, and I'm sure that's because the contract reads that George Martin alone be officially credited as producer. And I'm not saying those folks had any kind of artistic vision, but rather "produced" in the same practical sense that Murry did (minus his boorish mannerisms). They ARE given credit with producing, however, in the official history of The Beatles sessions, written by Mark Lewisohn.

Getting back to the BBs, both Ed Roach and Geoffrey Cushing-Murray have shared that THEY acted as producer on particular Beach Boys sessions (Ed for a "Love Surrounds Me" session, probably for keyboard overdubs, at Kaye Smith in Seattle, and Geoffrey for Carl's lead vocal on "Goin' South", at Shang-ri-la in Malibu). I could be wrong, but I'm assuming neither of them had any hand in the "artistic vision" side of the productions, but rather the "practical" side of needing somebody in the booth to oversee the proceedings, listen objectively to what was being performed, offer advice when they felt it was needed, and coach/inspire the artist to the best possible outcome. Does that mean they were the sole producer of those cuts? No, but they certainly produced those particular sessions.

Lastly, am I advocating that the official producer credits be changed to include Murry as co-producer on the early stuff? Not really, because I know that won't happen, any more than Brian will be credited (or co-credited with Murry) for producing "Surfin' U.S.A." and "Shut Down": even though I know Nik Venet was no where near Western Recorders on the nights those tunes were recorded, he is legally designated as "producer", so that's how it stands - for eternity, seemingly.

Yeh ... credits in the Beach Boys world are not exactly accurate. Just look at the production credits on the "Ten Years of Harmony" (likely the most accurate) vs. the credits on the original album releases.

I personally think Brian produced the 2012 album about as much as he "executive produced" the MIU Album. Brian Wilson productions are distinct. So are Joe Thomas productions.

There's an interview with Hal Blaine about the "Everything I Need" recording ... How Joe Thomas basically ruined what Hal thought was a great record:

http://www.steve-escobar.com/?p=13

[Andrew G. Doe]

And again I'll ask in return - Can what Chuck Britz said about Brian producing those earliest session be disproven? If so, then by who?

I'm not claiming that what Chuck said was wrong - just that there's more to the story. I'm sure Brian absolutely produced everything from the beginning, as much as he could with Murry being there in his way. But I also believe Murry was producing as well. I've heard tons of BBs sessions tapes, and what Murry was doing from the control booth in terms of "directing" was a more brusque, blunt, and less articulate version of what Brian did on the sessions to follow (after Murry was gone and Brian moved from the studio floor to the control room). The one aspect of production which Brian had that Murry did not, was the genuine artistic vision. That and a better personality.

As for what Desper said - that's a bit different. He's saying the group humored Murry until he left, then did what they wanted. Therefore, I would NOT credit Murry with co-producing those records. But on the stuff recorded at Western for the first five albums, it didn't work that way: Murry stayed in charge through the final take, and therefore IMO was fulfilling an important aspect of production.

Just playing Devil's Advocate and no disrespect to SWD... but we're talking about the earliest BB sessions here, 1962-63, and he didn't come into the scene until the late Smile era (unofficially), or Friends (officially). Did he listen to those earlier sessions, or is he recollecting sessions from 1967 on ? Just seeking clarity here.

[Wirestone]

And again I'll ask in return - Can what Chuck Britz said about Brian producing those earliest session be disproven? If so, then by who?

I'm not claiming that what Chuck said was wrong - just that there's more to the story. I'm sure Brian absolutely produced everything from the beginning, as much as he could with Murry being there in his way. But I also believe Murry was producing as well. I've heard tons of BBs sessions tapes, and what Murry was doing from the control booth in terms of "directing" was a more brusque, blunt, and less articulate version of what Brian did on the sessions to follow (after Murry was gone and Brian moved from the studio floor to the control room). The one aspect of production which Brian had that Murry did not, was the genuine artistic vision. That and a better personality.

As for what Desper said - that's a bit different. He's saying the group humored Murry until he left, then did what they wanted. Therefore, I would NOT credit Murry with co-producing those records. But on the stuff recorded at Western for the first five albums, it didn't work that way: Murry stayed in charge through the final take, and therefore IMO was fulfilling an important aspect of production.

And regarding the legal thing - Joe Thomas is not credited with co-producing TWGMTR, just with "recording" it. Yet I'm think we all know he produced it at least as much as Brian. But he's not credited with production, undoubtedly because of the worded agreement that was reached by the parties involved.

Another point to make is that it's widely known that George Martin did not serve as producer on every single Beatles session: he was infrequently absent, as early as "Yellow Submarine" But they always had someone sitting in the both to guide things along, whether it be Martin's assistant, or whomever. These people are not credited on the records, of course, and I'm sure that's because the contract reads that George Martin alone be officially credited as producer. And I'm not saying those folks had any kind of artistic vision, but rather "produced" in the same practical sense that Murry did (minus his boorish mannerisms). They ARE given credit with producing, however, in the official history of The Beatles sessions, written by Mark Lewisohn.

Getting back to the BBs, both Ed Roach and Geoffrey Cushing-Murray have shared that THEY acted as producer on particular Beach Boys sessions (Ed for a "Love Surrounds Me" session, probably for keyboard overdubs, at Kaye Smith in Seattle, and Geoffrey for Carl's lead vocal on "Goin' South", at Shang-ri-la in Malibu). I could be wrong, but I'm assuming neither of them had any hand in the "artistic vision" side of the productions, but rather the "practical" side of needing somebody in the booth to oversee the proceedings, listen objectively to what was being performed, offer advice when they felt it was needed, and coach/inspire the artist to the best possible outcome. Does that mean they were the sole producer of those cuts? No, but they certainly produced those particular sessions.

Lastly, am I advocating that the official producer credits be changed to include Murry as co-producer on the early stuff? Not really, because I know that won't happen, any more than Brian will be credited (or co-credited with Murry) for producing "Surfin' U.S.A." and "Shut Down": even though I know Nik Venet was no where near Western Recorders on the nights those tunes were recorded, he is legally designated as "producer", so that's how it stands - for eternity, seemingly.

Yeh ... credits in the Beach Boys world are not exactly accurate. Just look at the production credits on the "Ten Years of Harmony" (likely the most accurate) vs. the credits on the original album releases.

I personally think Brian produced the 2012 album about as much as he "executive produced" the MIU Album. Brian Wilson productions are distinct. So are Joe Thomas productions.

There's an interview with Hal Blaine about the "Everything I Need" recording ... How Joe Thomas basically ruined what Hal thought was a great record:

http://www.steve-escobar.com/?p=13

Yes, because quotes about a session held in 1996 -- which Brian still produced! -- are totally applicable to an album recorded in 2011-2012.

You don't know what you're talking about, and are making yourself look foolish.