gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680597 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 04:17:08 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 83 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Rocky Pamplin book about The Beach Boys?  (Read 489762 times)
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #100 on: December 13, 2015, 10:03:04 AM »

"And as for the lawsuit Mike brought against Brian claiming he was deserving of 50% of the royalties from the songs, I know there were shenanigans that took place in that trial that hopefully will see the light of day in the future. I gave Brian all the ammunition he would need to undo the wrong done him when I was deposed at length in AUG 2006 in connection with the Jardine-Love case. I feel that Brian was royally screwed by Mike and his highly effective lawyers. They really snowed that gullible jury. What a travesty that whole thing was. I believe it is one of the biggest injustices ever to occur in the history of pop music!"                                            - Steve Love from an online blog. I wonder what he meant by all of that?
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #101 on: December 13, 2015, 11:09:39 AM »

"And as for the lawsuit Mike brought against Brian claiming he was deserving of 50% of the royalties from the songs, I know there were shenanigans that took place in that trial that hopefully will see the light of day in the future. I gave Brian all the ammunition he would need to undo the wrong done him when I was deposed at length in AUG 2006 in connection with the Jardine-Love case. I feel that Brian was royally screwed by Mike and his highly effective lawyers. They really snowed that gullible jury. What a travesty that whole thing was. I believe it is one of the biggest injustices ever to occur in the history of pop music!"                                            - Steve Love from an online blog. I wonder what he meant by all of that?

Hopefully Steve will write his memoir too so we can hear his side.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2015, 11:47:16 AM by Cam Mott » Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
kiwi surfer
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 111


View Profile
« Reply #102 on: December 13, 2015, 11:27:59 AM »

"And as for the lawsuit Mike brought against Brian claiming he was deserving of 50% of the royalties from the songs, I know there were shenanigans that took place in that trial that hopefully will see the light of day in the future. I gave Brian all the ammunition he would need to undo the wrong done him when I was deposed at length in AUG 2006 in connection with the Jardine-Love case. I feel that Brian was royally screwed by Mike and his highly effective lawyers. They really snowed that gullible jury. What a travesty that whole thing was. I believe it is one of the biggest injustices ever to occur in the history of pop music!"                                            - Steve Love from an online blog. I wonder what he meant by all of that?

Perhaps Steve Love overstated the weight of his deposition.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #103 on: December 13, 2015, 11:53:16 AM »

What I've gleaned is that Brian caved and ML got undue credit.
Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #104 on: December 13, 2015, 12:35:27 PM »

What I've gleaned is that Brian caved and ML got undue credit.

Uh oh.  (<- <-  <- intended in good fun)
« Last Edit: December 13, 2015, 12:37:22 PM by Cam Mott » Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #105 on: December 13, 2015, 01:00:51 PM »

What I've gleaned is that Brian caved and ML got undue credit.

Uh oh.  (<- <-  <- intended in good fun)
Oh dear... I don't mean undue credit across the board.
I think credit was due on a lot of stuff. I think, as is a typical strategy in this sort of case, ML's lawyers put in songs where credit was clearly due, but for the sake of a negotiating buffer put in songs where a claim for credit is really weak, expecting push-back on the latter. A proper balance would've been found through a volley. It seems that BW just folded in court, so the volley never happened and over-reach was awarded credit.
A weird side-effect is that the over-reaches are now held up as examples of ML's entire case being nonsense, when for the most part it wasn't. He had a number of songs that he should've gotten 50-50 or more or less credit from the beginning. 
Logged
ontor pertawst
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2575


L♡VE ALWAYS WINS


View Profile WWW
« Reply #106 on: December 13, 2015, 01:04:26 PM »

Emily, you'll never get Cam Mott to agree that ML over-reached on absolutely anything, not even the timeless contribution of sleep tight/good night oh bay on WIBN. That's just not going to ever happen in this particular dimension. Would love to hear what our honored guest and Steve Love thinks before the filibustering begins!
« Last Edit: December 13, 2015, 01:05:44 PM by ontor pertawst » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #107 on: December 13, 2015, 01:05:35 PM »

Emily, you'll never get Cam Mott to agree that ML over-reached on absolutely anything, not even the timeless contribution of sleep tight/good night oh bay on WIBN. That's just not going to ever happen in this particular dimension.
That's cool. I don't need him to agree. I just don't want anyone to think that I was saying ML deserved no credit.
Logged
ontor pertawst
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2575


L♡VE ALWAYS WINS


View Profile WWW
« Reply #108 on: December 13, 2015, 01:06:03 PM »

Oh I know, but being fair isn't enough, really.
Logged
AndrewHickey
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1999



View Profile
« Reply #109 on: December 13, 2015, 01:15:54 PM »

What I've gleaned is that Brian caved and ML got undue credit.

Uh oh.  (<- <-  <- intended in good fun)
Oh dear... I don't mean undue credit across the board.
I think credit was due on a lot of stuff. I think, as is a typical strategy in this sort of case, ML's lawyers put in songs where credit was clearly due, but for the sake of a negotiating buffer put in songs where a claim for credit is really weak, expecting push-back on the latter. A proper balance would've been found through a volley. It seems that BW just folded in court, so the volley never happened and over-reach was awarded credit.
A weird side-effect is that the over-reaches are now held up as examples of ML's entire case being nonsense, when for the most part it wasn't. He had a number of songs that he should've gotten 50-50 or more or less credit from the beginning. 


This is largely the impression I've got. I think very few (not zero, but very few) people would argue that Mike should have a bigger share of the credit for Wouldn't It Be Nice than Tony Asher, as he does now. I'd also suggest that equally few (though again not zero) people think that Mike shouldn't have roughly 50% of the songwriting credits for California Girls.
I suspect that *just with regard to the share of credit between Brian and Mike* justice has pretty much been done -- Mike spent twenty-five or so years getting far too little credit and money, during the period when those songs were the most popular, and has spent another twenty-five or so years getting slightly too much credit and money, when the songs were less popular. I think though that lawyers' fees and so forth have made Brian lose out disproportionately, and that some of the more dubious claims have left Brian's collaborators hard done to.
Logged

The Smiley Smile ignore function: http://andrewhickey.info/the-smiley-smile-ignore-button-sort-of/
Most recent update 03/12/15
c-man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4941


View Profile WWW
« Reply #110 on: December 13, 2015, 02:29:38 PM »

The way I've always understood it, Mike's lawyers were willing to settle for something like $750,000 plus credit, but Brian's lawyers insisted they could win if it went to trial. It did, they didn't, and there you have it. If someone knows otherwise, feel free to correct me.
Logged
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #111 on: December 13, 2015, 02:56:42 PM »

That's how I've always heard it, from back at the time (mid-90s).
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
c-man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4941


View Profile WWW
« Reply #112 on: December 13, 2015, 03:03:05 PM »

The way I've always understood it, Mike's lawyers were willing to settle for something like $750,000 plus credit, but Brian's lawyers insisted they could win if it went to trial. It did, they didn't, and there you have it. If someone knows otherwise, feel free to correct me.

And, I believe Brian ended up suing his law team for advising against settlement and then losing.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #113 on: December 13, 2015, 03:27:37 PM »

Yeah. I'd heard about the settlement offer and rejection as well. It seems to me that Brian's lawyers thought they could do better in court, then when they got there their main witness (Brian) essentially refused to participate.
Mike's lawyers, judging by the settlement offer, did not expect to win as much as they did, because some of it was unwarranted. But they won the unwarranted stuff in the end because Brian's main witness (himself) refused to participate.
Basically, Brian and his lawyers screwed up and lost more than they should have.
Please keep in mind - I am not arguing that ML didn't deserve credit on many songs. And I don't dispute that he deserved 50% credit on many songs.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2015, 03:29:13 PM by Emily » Logged
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #114 on: December 13, 2015, 03:31:45 PM »

The way I've always understood it, Mike's lawyers were willing to settle for something like $750,000 plus credit, but Brian's lawyers insisted they could win if it went to trial. It did, they didn't, and there you have it. If someone knows otherwise, feel free to correct me.

And, I believe Brian ended up suing his law team for advising against settlement and then losing.

Yup, and rightly so. They ended up costing him roughly $9,250,000 more than if they'd just accepted the out of court offer.
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
c-man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4941


View Profile WWW
« Reply #115 on: December 13, 2015, 03:33:30 PM »

Also - supposedly Mike agreed to be deposed on Brian's behalf in the latter's lawsuit against A&M music publishing, in exchange for finally getting credit and royalties for half of "California Girls" (that half being the lyrics). When that didn't happen, his lawyers filed suit against Brian, but made it clear they would accept a settlement - which didn't happen.
Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #116 on: December 13, 2015, 06:39:24 PM »

Emily, you'll never get Cam Mott to agree that ML over-reached on absolutely anything, not even the timeless contribution of sleep tight/good night oh bay on WIBN. That's just not going to ever happen in this particular dimension.
That's cool. I don't need him to agree. I just don't want anyone to think that I was saying ML deserved no credit.

I get it and I don't need you to agree with me either but despite Ontor "graciously" speaking for me, we can discuss it with each other.

I suppose the fact is none of us knows for sure. I personally think it is pretty certain that Mike was under-credited (as he reportedly had witnesses) and even when he had been credited before 1967 he was sometimes under-credited as was Tony Asher (according to Tony Asher and Mike).  I guess Steve might disagree with me too.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2015, 06:40:24 PM by Cam Mott » Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #117 on: December 13, 2015, 07:37:50 PM »

Emily, you'll never get Cam Mott to agree that ML over-reached on absolutely anything, not even the timeless contribution of sleep tight/good night oh bay on WIBN. That's just not going to ever happen in this particular dimension.
That's cool. I don't need him to agree. I just don't want anyone to think that I was saying ML deserved no credit.

I get it and I don't need you to agree with me either but despite Ontor "graciously" speaking for me, we can discuss it with each other.

I suppose the fact is none of us knows for sure. I personally think it is pretty certain that Mike was under-credited (as he reportedly had witnesses) and even when he had been credited before 1967 he was sometimes under-credited as was Tony Asher (according to Tony Asher and Mike).  I guess Steve might disagree with me too.
Happily, it seems that even though we don't need to agree, we for the most part do. I have no qualms agreeing with the above.
Logged
kiwi surfer
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 111


View Profile
« Reply #118 on: December 13, 2015, 07:52:56 PM »

That's how I've always heard it, from back at the time (mid-90s).

Me too.
Logged
rockrush3
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 408


Rockrush3


View Profile
« Reply #119 on: December 14, 2015, 11:55:23 AM »

 Smiley   Yes...the "ONE  and  ONLY" reason Stan and I beat up Dennis...is because Carolyn Williams, Brian's live in nurse, called Stephen Loves former personal assistant Janet Nelson in a "PANIC" crying out for "HELP" because Dennis was showing up at Brian's house,in the Palisades, on a regular basis and borrowing money to buy COCAINE and then sharing the COCAINE with Brian... (brotherly love) UNTIL Brian had a "SEIZURE"... and she had to stick a rolled up washcloth in his mouth to keep Brian from swallowing his tongue!!! IS THAT REASON ENOUGH FOR Y'ALL ? Stan came and got me on a Yacht Party' in Marina Del Ray, (the same Marina Dennis drowned in three years later) it was Super Bowl Sunday 1980. At around midnight Stan told me about the phone call he had received  that afternoon from Janet, Visa vie Carolyn Williams, about the horrific development with the ever demonstrative Dennis... and the COCAINE ... resulting in the  extremely dangerous  LIFE THREATENING SEIZURE Brian incurred the day before! To Dennis this is all just FUN and GAMES... Carolyn was SCARRED out of her mind...and called  Janet because she knew Janet would know how to reach Stan Love... the only person who would know what to do!  My response was... HOLY sh*t... your kidding... so what do you want to do... Stan said lets you and I go to Venus beach, where Dennis lives, I got his address from Carolyn, who is in tears... and BEAT THE sh*t out of Dennis... it's  the only language Dennis understands!!! I announced to the party guests... where Stan and I were going... and what we were going to do... and the Yacht party erupted in applause!  Though we no longer worked for Brian, in the capacity of keeping DRUGS OUT OF BRIAN'S LIFE... we still loved him!!! Off we went... the CALVARY to the rescue! Stan kicked the front door off the hinges, he and I CHARGED in, and in front of a dozen people doing COCAINE... Stan and I BEAT THE sh*t out of Dennis!!! Then we showed up the next mourning at 8 am... to find Dennis, all alone, sitting on a six inch stool drinking Myers Rum and OJ... "breakfast of champions" We had  ONE MESSAGE for Dennis... LEAVE BRIAN ALONE... OR WILL BE BACK!!! Dennis never bothered Brian again... this is just part of the first chapter of my book "WIPEOUT" entitled "HAD TO PHONE YA"   Smiley  Smiley  Smiley
« Last Edit: January 19, 2016, 01:34:39 PM by rockrush3 » Logged
mtaber
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 489


View Profile
« Reply #120 on: December 14, 2015, 12:16:50 PM »

Are there any Wilsons that have NOT been physically assaulted by the Love/Pamplin posse? 
Logged
AndrewHickey
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1999



View Profile
« Reply #121 on: December 14, 2015, 12:18:12 PM »

So your way of dealing with two severely ill people with mental health problems and addictions wasn't to get them medical help, or even to involve the police (which might have led to court-ordered rehab), but to beat one of them up, doing permanent physical damage.
Class. Pure class.
Logged

The Smiley Smile ignore function: http://andrewhickey.info/the-smiley-smile-ignore-button-sort-of/
Most recent update 03/12/15
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #122 on: December 14, 2015, 12:20:26 PM »

Well, I'm sure there's no point in me trying to teach you the basics of civilization, so...

Can you let me know about B Wilson's therapy, between Landy periods? Was there a serious attempt to find him a residential treatment program and therapy with reputable doctors?
What was the process, both in terms of decision-making and legalities, to render him unto Landy?
Would you consider yourself to be about equivalently sophisticated as the decision-makers?
Was there anyone around who was educated and thoughtful and decent?

Who hired you initially to work for the Beach Boys? Were you a legal employee of BRI, or a direct employee of one of the Wilsons? Who actually paid you?
You say you worked for Brian, was it he who hired you, and was it he who was your manager (gave you instructions, approved your pay, etc.)?

How did you leave this position? Was it voluntary or was your position terminated? If it was terminated, who made that choice?

Did you generally feel welcome, socially and professionally, among the Beach Boys and their family, friends and colleagues? Do you feel that you saw eye-to-eye with them generally? That you fit in?

I must say, reading the post above is very revealing to me. If someone who would write such a thing was accepted within the BB world at that time, the BB world must have been hell altogether.

ETA: Wow. My opinion of everybody, family, friends, colleagues, associated with Brian and Dennis Wilson just spiraled. Anyone who gave half a sh*t about B Wilson wouldn't have stood by, let alone approved of him being held in the power of the sociopaths he was controlled by for years. I have never read something that affected my opinion as this one little post. Any defense has just been wiped out. If this is not trolling, if this is actually Rocky Pamplin, then anyone involved in that scene has been undeniably incriminated. There is no way a person who wrote such a post would not be transparently bad news.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2015, 12:43:00 PM by Emily » Logged
“Big Daddy”
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 400



View Profile
« Reply #123 on: December 14, 2015, 12:58:05 PM »

Most importantly, Rocky, when THE ROCK going to be reissued?
Logged

For those who believe that Brian walks on water, I will always be the Antichrist.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #124 on: December 14, 2015, 02:32:38 PM »

So your way of dealing with two severely ill people with mental health problems and addictions wasn't to get them medical help, or even to involve the police (which might have led to court-ordered rehab), but to beat one of them up, doing permanent physical damage.
Class. Pure class.
Andrew - winding the clock back to when this stuff all happened might be helpful to give people context about addiction and the way in which the law in most of the states treated it.  

Nowadays, when there is an addicted person, who needs help and is always jonesing for another fix, there is the option of having a family member or friend or police officer, doctor, etc., who can petition the court to get a civil committment in a hospital or other detox facility and there is no criminal penalty.  It is a civil matter and does not affect the criminal record of an individual.  I do not think that there was that option at that time.  The person is arrested, (for their own protection) and the family  and a court doctor has to go to court and testify that the person has lost control of themselves and personal health, etc., and the judge has to believe those parties, and have a detox bed to put that person into.  

It seems that in many ways the "bouncers" (private police) (and I have little knowledge of this whole era) were paid to take the law into their own hands to keep a lid (dysfunctional as it was over 30 years ago) and perhaps keep any bad BB news out of the papers.  

That kind of civil commitment that a family or other member could push for (and doesn't ever happen automatically) because you are depriving a person of their civil liberties, and judges don't always order treatment.  It was harder back then.  It was a value judgment system.  Addicts were treated as criminals, rather than patients who needed medical intervention.  Even now there is no guarantee that you can get treatment as a friend or family member.  There was no narcan to bring someone out of an overdose.  

So addicts (as they do now) did everything they could to exploit a money source they had a "source of dough" (Brian) even if they were "sharing" the goods.  I can only imagine the bad headlines which would be bad all the way around. They were barely out of the woods with regard the bad media post-Manson.  

Anything to do with drugs was criminal.  There was a bad attitude about mental illness where people were "put away" and institutionalized.

People really used to think that you could physically "beat the addiction" out of someone.  It was looked upon (falsely and incorrectly) as "tough love."

The post above attempts to justify the action.  I am not defending the action but explaining what was common practice during that time.   You can't  use a 2015 standard on events that happened nearly 4 decades ago.  What was criminal in nature, in those days, now is largely recognized as a health issue.   
« Last Edit: December 14, 2015, 02:44:17 PM by filledeplage » Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 83 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.655 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!