Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[Ang Jones]

It's all becoming far too tedious. I've already mentioned how Mike's problems with Van Dyke contributed to him leaving the project and it is obvious that Mike was more than happy when American Graffiti led to a nostalgia trip that saw the release of Endless Summer.

I'm sure all of the Beach Boys were nervous about SMiLE and they all worked hard on it but it's the way that history was conveniently re-written afterwards that I find irritating.

As for Mike's grievances about due credit, this was dealt with ages ago but he apparently still feels aggrieved. Mike always got plenty of recognition, far more so than  Gary Usher and Roger Christian, for the simple reason that he was singing a lot of the lead vocals and has the sort of personality that doesn't exactly blend into the background.

[Debbie KL]

He said it was his "theory".

His "theory" isn't that it's Mike Love propaganda. He doesn't state that as a theory. The only thing he points to theorizing about is specifically what part in the film he believes disturbed Brian and Melinda the most.

"My theory is that Brian and Melinda were most disturbed, apart from all the Mike Love propaganda at Brian's expense, by a scene that depicted Dennis Wilson screaming, 'You never supported me as an artist,' at his older brother. From everything I've read and everyone I've ever talked to, Dennis was the one guy -- perhaps the only guy -- who always stood by Brian."

They are both parts of his "theory".

Cam, you are wrong on this one.  Grammatically, Darian is not theorizing as to whether or not Brian and Melinda believed the film contained Mike Love propaganda any more than he was theorizing that Brian and Melinda believed there was a scene in the film with Dennis Wilson screaming, 'You never supported me as an artist'.

Your only avenue is to deny that Darian knows what he is talking about, accuse him of lying, or accuse the author of misquoting him.  The grammar of the statement as printed irrefutably supports CD on this one.  

EoL

So he was just theorizing that they were most disturbing.

As I don't think Darian was involved in TBB:AAF, he could be just plain wrong.

Darian was observing things that happened with Brian and Melinda at the time the final script was given to them on TBB:AAF (too short notice to correct, obviously).  He was there.  Clearly, by his description, they were upset with that script.  Yet you will deny Darian's experience anyway.  We know.  It's what you do.  It's just tiresome.

[Cam Mott]

As I understand it Murry was the publisher for the band and used this position to not credit Mike for some of the songs for which he wrote lyrics.  

According to Brian's suit against Irving Music, Murry was always just a co-publisher along with Brian in Sea Of Tunes Publishing, they each owned half of the company if I understand the LA Times coverage.

[Cam Mott]

He said it was his "theory".

His "theory" isn't that it's Mike Love propaganda. He doesn't state that as a theory. The only thing he points to theorizing about is specifically what part in the film he believes disturbed Brian and Melinda the most.

"My theory is that Brian and Melinda were most disturbed, apart from all the Mike Love propaganda at Brian's expense, by a scene that depicted Dennis Wilson screaming, 'You never supported me as an artist,' at his older brother. From everything I've read and everyone I've ever talked to, Dennis was the one guy -- perhaps the only guy -- who always stood by Brian."

They are both parts of his "theory".

Cam, you are wrong on this one.  Grammatically, Darian is not theorizing as to whether or not Brian and Melinda believed the film contained Mike Love propaganda any more than he was theorizing that Brian and Melinda believed there was a scene in the film with Dennis Wilson screaming, 'You never supported me as an artist'.

Your only avenue is to deny that Darian knows what he is talking about, accuse him of lying, or accuse the author of misquoting him.  The grammar of the statement as printed irrefutably supports CD on this one.  

EoL

So he was just theorizing that they were most disturbing.

As I don't think Darian was involved in TBB:AAF, he could be just plain wrong.

Darian was observing things that happened with Brian and Melinda at the time the final script was given to them on TBB:AAF (too short notice to correct, obviously).  He was there.  Clearly, by his description, they were upset with that script.  Yet you will deny Darian's experience anyway.  We know.  It's what you do.  It's just tiresome.

He could be wrong about propaganda, not what he observed.

[Ang Jones]

As for Tony Asher's claims it is hard to know whom to believe when different people say different things. However, Brian Wilson has composed a huge number of songs with a variety of collaborators and sometimes on his own. His talent IMO is undeniable. I know that sometimes he had help. I wonder if he needed those collaborators as much as they needed him. Some of those who have helped Brian have achieved success in their own right but not usually on the same scale which seems to suggest Brian has a greater level of talent than they do.

[Cam Mott]

54:23 “Mike did not like Smile at all. He hated it. He hated it”

1:01:08 “I’ll tell you from my heart… in 1967, the reasons why I didn’t finish Smile were: Mike didn’t like it, I thought it was too experimental, I thought that the Fire tape was too scary, and I thought people wouldn’t understand where my head was at at that time. Those were the reasons.”

If that is Brian's opinion he apparently is wrong, according to Mike, he did not hate it, in fact he liked it very much except he wasn't sure he understood some of the lyrics and he wasn't sure they were right for their fans. 

Brian had the Boys' full cooperation regardless of what they thought about this or that (you hear it in the tapes) or what little explanation they got; according to Brian at the time they didn't want him to "junk" the songs he did junk, so imo it is hard to see where the Boys were a contributing factor to SMiLE being junked. If the Boys did indeed have feelings about SMiLE being too experimental and that their fans wouldn't understand it then they were in agreement with Brian's own feelings about it, not in conflict with Brian's feelings.

Okay, so Brian's opinions are wrong because Mike, decades later, says otherwise.  How handy that many of the eyewitnesses are now dead.  So you're saying that only Mike knows and states the truth, unlike Brian.  Yeah, that 2005-2010 lawsuit is a fine example of that.

Brian's opinions in BD are also "decades later".  I'm saying Mike knows what Mike thought/thinks as does Brian know what Brian thought/thinks.

[Debbie KL]

As for Tony Asher's claims it is hard to know whom to believe when different people say different things. However, Brian Wilson has composed a huge number of songs with a variety of collaborators and sometimes on his own. His talent IMO is undeniable. I know that sometimes he had help. I wonder if he needed those collaborators as much as they needed him. Some of those who have helped Brian have achieved success in their own right but not usually on the same scale which seems to suggest Brian has a greater level of talent than they do.

And there we have it, Ang.  Brian Wilson is the man that his fellow musicians revere.  No doubt there have been other contributors with the right words at the right time.  It appears Brian often found lyrics, rhyming "moon" and "June," tedious.  I'm not certain how that equates to getting equal credit for that music he created.  Some here seem to think so, even though any number of people seem to have provided lyrics to Brian's music with the same results.  I'm not necessarily including VDP here, as he obviously has a number of talents including being a real poet, but Brian knew how to reach the hearts of the masses with sound.  It's not rocket science to see who the guy at the center of it all was.  It's obvious.  Yet people keep trying to rewrite history.

[AndrewHickey]

As for Tony Asher's claims it is hard to know whom to believe when different people say different things. However, Brian Wilson has composed a huge number of songs with a variety of collaborators and sometimes on his own. His talent IMO is undeniable. I know that sometimes he had help. I wonder if he needed those collaborators as much as they needed him. Some of those who have helped Brian have achieved success in their own right but not usually on the same scale which seems to suggest Brian has a greater level of talent than they do.

I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. Personally I think the only one of Brian's collaborators who had anything like the same level of talent as him is Van Dyke Parks, and that everyone else Brian's worked with has tended to do their best work when working with him. I think it's fairly obvious that had Brian written God Only Knows on his own it would have been a different song, but I don't think it would necessarily have been a worse one. That doesn't mean Asher, or Usher, Christian, Paley, Thomas, Love, whoever, doesn't deserve credit for their contribution though.  

I think there's a lot of falling into binary assumptions that goes on in this issue of how important the songwriting credits are. On one side there's "Brian could have done everything on his own anyway, and was vastly more important than his collaborators, so it doesn't matter that they were credited", and on the other there's "Mike (or whoever) was a part of the writing process so exactly as important as Brian". I don't think either is really accurate. Brian *could* have done it all on his own, or with any random collaborator, but he didn't, and the people he did work with deserved proper credit.

(I see it really as the same issue as wanting to see Carl, Al, and Dennis properly credited for their playing on many of the records that people think were the Wrecking Crew. Yes, Brian *could* have made those records with Glen Campbell, Carol Kaye, and Hal Blaine playing instead of Carl, Al, and Dennis, and they would probably have sounded as good or even better. But Carl, Al, and Dennis still *did* actually play on those records.)

[Ang Jones]

As for Tony Asher's claims it is hard to know whom to believe when different people say different things. However, Brian Wilson has composed a huge number of songs with a variety of collaborators and sometimes on his own. His talent IMO is undeniable. I know that sometimes he had help. I wonder if he needed those collaborators as much as they needed him. Some of those who have helped Brian have achieved success in their own right but not usually on the same scale which seems to suggest Brian has a greater level of talent than they do.

I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. Personally I think the only one of Brian's collaborators who had anything like the same level of talent as him is Van Dyke Parks, and that everyone else Brian's worked with has tended to do their best work when working with him. I think it's fairly obvious that had Brian written God Only Knows on his own it would have been a different song, but I don't think it would necessarily have been a worse one. That doesn't mean Asher, or Usher, Christian, Paley, Thomas, Love, whoever, doesn't deserve credit for their contribution though.  

I think there's a lot of falling into binary assumptions that goes on in this issue of how important the songwriting credits are. On one side there's "Brian could have done everything on his own anyway, and was vastly more important than his collaborators, so it doesn't matter that they were credited", and on the other there's "Mike (or whoever) was a part of the writing process so exactly as important as Brian". I don't think either is really accurate. Brian *could* have done it all on his own, or with any random collaborator, but he didn't, and the people he did work with deserved proper credit.

(I see it really as the same issue as wanting to see Carl, Al, and Dennis properly credited for their playing on many of the records that people think were the Wrecking Crew. Yes, Brian *could* have made those records with Glen Campbell, Carol Kaye, and Hal Blaine playing instead of Carl, Al, and Dennis, and they would probably have sounded as good or even better. But Carl, Al, and Dennis still *did* actually play on those records.)

No argument really. I agree everyone should get credit where it is due - sometimes it seems people may have exaggerated their entitlement but I can't prove that and maybe sometimes the reverse is true.

I agree about Van Dyke Parks. An amazing talent and his leaving the SMiLE project was a great pity. But thank God it was released eventually. Good things in life, as a Chicago lyric tells us, (can) take a little time.

[Debbie KL]

As for Tony Asher's claims it is hard to know whom to believe when different people say different things. However, Brian Wilson has composed a huge number of songs with a variety of collaborators and sometimes on his own. His talent IMO is undeniable. I know that sometimes he had help. I wonder if he needed those collaborators as much as they needed him. Some of those who have helped Brian have achieved success in their own right but not usually on the same scale which seems to suggest Brian has a greater level of talent than they do.

I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. Personally I think the only one of Brian's collaborators who had anything like the same level of talent as him is Van Dyke Parks, and that everyone else Brian's worked with has tended to do their best work when working with him. I think it's fairly obvious that had Brian written God Only Knows on his own it would have been a different song, but I don't think it would necessarily have been a worse one. That doesn't mean Asher, or Usher, Christian, Paley, Thomas, Love, whoever, doesn't deserve credit for their contribution though.  

I think there's a lot of falling into binary assumptions that goes on in this issue of how important the songwriting credits are. On one side there's "Brian could have done everything on his own anyway, and was vastly more important than his collaborators, so it doesn't matter that they were credited", and on the other there's "Mike (or whoever) was a part of the writing process so exactly as important as Brian". I don't think either is really accurate. Brian *could* have done it all on his own, or with any random collaborator, but he didn't, and the people he did work with deserved proper credit.

(I see it really as the same issue as wanting to see Carl, Al, and Dennis properly credited for their playing on many of the records that people think were the Wrecking Crew. Yes, Brian *could* have made those records with Glen Campbell, Carol Kaye, and Hal Blaine playing instead of Carl, Al, and Dennis, and they would probably have sounded as good or even better. But Carl, Al, and Dennis still *did* actually play on those records.)

Well, I think you made my point, actually.  It didn't matter who played on the songs if they were competent. or who wrote the lyrics, if they were intelligible.  The alternate lyric of GV has been heard.  They were "scratch" lyrics, but I'd have still loved the song equally.  Yes, verbal images are nice when they're done well.  I'm happily being paid for such things, so I hope my editor and her bosses aren't reading this.  

I just described a conversation the other day with a friend.  I talked about chatting with Brian on the phone many years ago and mentioned my friends, Karen and Mona.  Suddenly, Brian responded with, "You don't really have a friend named Mo-NA!"  He kept repeating the name, that way.  I believe that became a song and a song title.  Should I be getting an attorney and suing for credit?  Apparently, some people think so.  I think the man heard something in the sound of a name that I'd have never heard, frankly.  

It may sound absurd that I would ask for credit.  It da*n well should, actually.  The fact that a person was there and said something didn't make the song happen.  The song happened out of Brian's amazing talents.

[filledeplage]

Brian is a sympathetic character, Mike is unsympathetic. But take the personalities out of it for the moment, and look at who has wronged who.

Brian cheated Mike out of money, and out of the accolades that Mike deserved. It is those lost accolades that pains Mike the most. Think of it as if an Olympian was cheated out of a gold medal, and then 30 years later had the medal restored to him. At that point, who notices? Who cares? The glory train has long left the station.

Brian betrayed Mike over and over, reneged on promises he had made. What black marks are on Mike's record in his dealings with Brian?

Voicing a perfectly valid opinion about a group project that had his name on it? He didn't sabotage Smile. Smile's failure was down to Brian.

The only major black mark on Mike's record is that ill-advised 2005 lawsuit. And a black mark it is, undeniably, both in the fact that it was filed in the first place, and in the statements it contained.

Still, in balance, Mike was more sinned against than sinner.

clack - I think there is one key guy, here;  Murry.  He got a twofer.  Back-in-the-day no one would dream of challenging an "elder" in the family.  Murry, whatever he was, likely played that card very well.  This guy fined them for swearing.  Pretty formidable.  And, timely recognition of your work cannot be undone.  It is like giving accolades for a 40 year old movie that no one remembers.  You get your reward and recognition, in a timely fashion.  It would seem that Murry still exercised control over these matters long after he was technically fired by the band.    

So Murry got the twofer (Brian and Mike) with a contract that was wrong from the outset because of the ages of the band members, who were writing music and lyrics.  And Murry controlled this from the grave for nearly 20 years after he was dead until Brian first sued on the contract. Murray should have faced the music and all his con-conspirators who perpetrated this fraud on the band in front of a judge.  Murry didn't get his justice, for whatever reason.  This is like the original event that keeps on giving.  The wrongdoing of the predatory adult-in-the-room.    

And, I don't think Mike sabotaged Smile, notwithstanding philosophical differences that happen in the artistic context all the time.  Everything I have read recently suggests from their statements in the Spring of 1967, that it was out of the band's control, with whatever happened.  They sung their hearts out.  You don't put your all into vocals, etc. and pull the plug on the work that your company is invested in.   JMHO      

Mike was credited with having written at least some of the lyrics on the albums - I know, I have many which date from the 1960's - so it was common knowledge Mike wrote some of the lyrics.  As I understand it Murry was the publisher for the band and used this position to not credit Mike for some of the songs for which he wrote lyrics.  I very much doubt that the average record buying public or even the music journalists at the time spent much time looking at published music and so were unlikely to know that Mike had not been credited on these documents.  I don't know full chapter and verse on this stuff and can't be bothered to spend hours checking to make sure that Mike was credited on the albums for every single track he says he contributed to (and his claim over California Girls lyrics alone have changed in the last 2 weeks) but surely if Mike had not been credited he would have noticed.  However he was credited on the albums for at least some of what he did and as people knew he was the lyricist I think any recognition he was due, he had.  The fact that recognition was not as great as that afforded Brian seems likely to me that it was proportional to his skill.  

I don't know how Murry could have controlled them from beyond the grave especially as he sold the catalogue in 1969 before his death in 1973.  (You'd have thought that Mike would have noticed then that he didn't get paid enough.)  A good deal of ill feeling Mike has toward Brian (according to Mike in this very same interview) is due to Brian allowing Murry to get away with this fraud but if, as you say, you did not challenge an elder at that time it is not realistic to expect Brian to and consequently seems unlikely to be the reason Mike did nothing.  So Mike's failure to do anything until after Brian was awarded damages in the 1990's, when we are talking about songs written during the period 1961 to 1969,  seems a little puzzling.

FDP you say that 'everything you have read recently suggests from their statements in the Spring of 1967, that it was out of the band's control, with whatever happened'.  It seems then that you didn't read the long debate on this subject here.  Suffice to say that at that time the band was not in control, Brian was the producer and so this could not have been the reason.  The Beach Boys were first attributed producer status on Smiley Smile.

I get really tired of all this.  There is a long discussion where people more intelligent and knowledgeable than me, quote chapter and verse and finally when it appears the reality is in sight, someone posts something which takes us right back to the beginning again. Clack, I suggest that you go back and read the previous 38 pages rather than going through it all again.

Angua -

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-09-19/entertainment/ca-4315_1_brian-wilson   --hope this copies.  

In this case, reported about in the LA Times, Brian's attorneys  went after a double-whammy.  First, it was to challenge whether Brian actually signed a sales agreement for the Sea of Tunes catalog, in 1969, or whether it was forged.  It went after several record groups, the law firm, in LA(state court) and concurrently went after copyright in federal court for copyright issues.  Second part is whether at Brian's "minor age" whether he could have contracted anyway.  In 1969, the issues were competence and forgery.  Back to the beginning it was whether at his age he could "contract" and Brian could not because of his age, consent to the terms which defrauded them both.

And even though Murry was dead in 1973, four years after he Sold Sea of Tunes, the defrauding continued to Brian and Mike.  Murry sold work that did not belong to him.  It appears a "continuous offense" that they were robbed with every sale of their rightful profits.   That is the meaning of "controlling from the grave." He was dead and yet Murry's actions were still causing economic harm.  "Brian was underage and there was no court approval of the oral agreement, the contract was not legal."  

The contract needed to be declared illegal from the outset, to get to the second issue of those others who were defrauded intentionally by Murry and to "make them whole" with payment for their rightful work.

In another thread (I think the Smile-GV thread) or something similar, I provided direct quotes from the band, (I don't have that source material at hand) where the band is dismayed about the whole series of events in 1967 and do not think it is a nice, neat package where the band seems out-of-the-loop as to the status of Smile, which the band was paying for, and the kind of regressive promotion, (my characterization of the events) in the Spring of 1967.   JMHO

 

[Angua]

Mike was credited with having written at least some of the lyrics on the albums - I know, I have many which date from the 1960's - so it was common knowledge Mike wrote some of the lyrics.

Some. By the credits on the albums before Pet Sounds, Mike would have been the fourth most prominent lyricist for the band, after Brian, Gary Usher, and Roger Christian. In fact, assuming the revised credits are true, he wrote more than any of them.

 As I understand it Murry was the publisher for the band and used this position to not credit Mike for some of the songs for which he wrote lyrics.

Not just some. The vast majority. I listed earlier in this thread all the songs for which Mike was credited up to Pet Sounds. I think there were sixteen in total (can't be bothered to go back and check, but it was something like that). There were thirty-four songs in the lawsuit, and Mike's also claimed he wrote most of the lyrics to Surfin' USA (which presumably wasn't in the lawsuit because Chuck Berry won sole credit for the song because it was plagiarised from Sweet Little Sixteen).

(And Mike talks about Good Vibrations a lot, which he *was* credited for, as an example where he didn't get proper credit -- I'm not sure what's going on there...)

 I very much doubt that the average record buying public or even the music journalists at the time spent much time looking at published music and so were unlikely to know that Mike had not been credited on these documents.  I don't know full chapter and verse on this stuff and can't be bothered to spend hours checking to make sure that Mike was credited on the albums for every single track he says he contributed to (and his claim over California Girls lyrics alone have changed in the last 2 weeks) but surely if Mike had not been credited he would have noticed.

He wasn't credited on those songs on the albums either.

 However he was credited on the albums for at least some of what he did and as people knew he was the lyricist I think any recognition he was due, he had.  The fact that recognition was not as great as that afforded Brian seems likely to me that it was proportional to his skill.  

He was credited for about a third of what he did, so he got about a third of the recognition he was due -- and the other two thirds, along with the money, went wrongly to Brian.
It's likely he would still be regarded -- entirely correctly -- as a much lesser talent to Brian had he received the credit he was due. But it's also likely he would be held in higher regard than he currently is.

 A good deal of ill feeling Mike has toward Brian (according to Mike in this very same interview) is due to Brian allowing Murry to get away with this fraud

And Brian profiting from it -- and, if his behaviour towards Tony Asher is any guide (Asher talks about Brian claiming to have co-written lyrics which Asher wrote in full, and claiming to have written all the music on songs where Asher contributed musical ideas), colluding in it. All the songwriting royalties which were rightfully Mike's went to Brian instead.

Andrew

I admit - I should have checked all this stuff before I opened by big mouth and again I admit I just couldn't be bothered to spend the hours it would take and which it no doubt took you.  However, you used the words 'if these claims are true'.  I don't really understand how Mike managed to live without doing anything about this from 1961 until 1992.  Imagine, your first album has just been released and you've written lots of stuff for it, it arrives you open it and half the songs you wrote are credited to someone else.  You are so upset and incensed you do nothing until 1992.

Quote from Mike Love in the RS article “I wrote every last syllable of the words to ‘California Girls,’ and when the record came out, it said, ‘Brian Wilson’ – there was no ‘Mike Love,’ ” he says. “The only thing I didn’t write was ‘I wish they all could be California girls.’  Quote from Mike Love in Broward Palm Beach New Times, Feb 25th. "I wrote every single syllable of 'California Girls'."  So his claim seems to have changed over the last couple of weeks.  Which reminded me of reply 669 on 23rd February by Empire of Love  "Which brings me back to my prior question: if Mike even permitted these gross misrepresentations of fact in the 2005 lawsuit, does this introduce doubt into the earlier song writing credit lawsuit."

Brian may have profited from the credits but Mike won more than half the damages awarded to Brian without having done more than half the work so I think that he has been more than amply remunerated.  Additionally I doubt that the lyrical standard of these songs is greater than the musical standard and so doubt that Mike's reputation would have changed because of them.

[AndrewHickey]

I admit - I should have checked all this stuff before I opened by big mouth and again I admit I just couldn't be bothered to spend the hours it would take and which it no doubt took you.

It took approximately two minutes to walk over to my vinyl albums, pull a few out, and look at the labels and see Mike's name not on them.

 However, you used the words 'if these claims are true'.  I don't really understand how Mike managed to live without doing anything about this from 1961 until 1992.  Imagine, your first album has just been released and you've written lots of stuff for it, it arrives you open it and half the songs you wrote are credited to someone else.  You are so upset and incensed you do nothing until 1992.

Possibly he didn't think it a particularly big deal at the time, and only realised later how important an issue it was to him.

Quote from Mike Love in the RS article “I wrote every last syllable of the words to ‘California Girls,’ and when the record came out, it said, ‘Brian Wilson’ – there was no ‘Mike Love,’ ” he says. “The only thing I didn’t write was ‘I wish they all could be California girls.’  Quote from Mike Love in Broward Palm Beach New Times, Feb 25th. "I wrote every single syllable of 'California Girls'."  So his claim seems to have changed over the last couple of weeks.  Which reminded me of reply 669 on 23rd February by Empire of Love  "Which brings me back to my prior question: if Mike even permitted these gross misrepresentations of fact in the 2005 lawsuit, does this introduce doubt into the earlier song writing credit lawsuit."

Brian has said himself that Mike wrote the lyrics for that song and others for which he wasn't credited. David Marks has spoken about seeing Mike write lyrics for songs for which he wasn't credited. Dean Torrence has claimed to have co-written the lyrics to Surf City and not got credit. Tony Asher has spoken about Brian taking credit for lyrics that Asher wrote on his own.
There may be individual songs in Mike's claim that are overreaching or where he didn't contribute, and that was what I was referring to when I talked about accepting the list as accurate. But the broad thrust of his claims is correct.

Brian may have profited from the credits but Mike won more than half the damages awarded to Brian without having done more than half the work so I think that he has been more than amply remunerated.

I suspect actually that financially he still lost out, because Brian was still being paid the songwriting royalties for those songs for thirty years, even though the publishing had been sold.

Additionally I doubt that the lyrical standard of these songs is greater than the musical standard and so doubt that Mike's reputation would have changed because of them.

It might well not have. But it's not a completely ridiculous position to say that *some* of the success of songs like California Girls or Help Me Rhonda came from their lyrics, and thus Mike would have been thought of somewhat more highly when those songs were hits had he been credited for them. How much that is actually the case, of course, we'll never know.

[Cam Mott]

I don't know how to turn the documents but it is claimed that Mike only got 25% credit (similar to Asher) for even GV.

I believe Mike has said he did bring it up to Brian, who apparently thought he was co-publisher at the time, back in the day and was told it would be corrected.

[guitarfool2002]

Let's run some facts. Mike testified in the 90's lawsuit that in 1969 he was pressured to sign and signed "under duress" documents related to the Sea Of Tunes sale to Irving/Almo. A lawyer and a manager told him to sign "or else" his credits would be in jeopardy as a result. So Mike signed. The lawsuit filed by Brian in 1989 into the early 90's was against Irving/Almo and he won that suit and settlement. It was revealed that the "lawyer" in question had also misrepresented facts to Brian and claims were made that documents couriered to Brian by (I think) one of Mike's brothers had been doctored or altered possibly by Murry himself, or the documents themselves contained false information from counsel which Brian signed, essentially signing something that turned out not to be true or perhaps not signing at all if the forgery claims were true. And the principals involved including the lawyer had direct personal interests with Irving and stood to profit from the sale of Sea Of Tunes, and the court found that indeed the lawyer had a direct conflict of interest due to the connection with the company who bought the catalog. So, that legal advice given to the various Beach Boys like Brian and Mike as clients (even beyond the claims of forgery and false information) in 1969 would be in conflict because of that association with the other party involved in the sale.

And the court found that Brian had indeed been essentially ripped off or deceived by his own legal counsel and involving the Sea Of Tunes sale debacle overall. To the award of over 100 million dollars or whatever the amount was. Mike signed similar papers in '69.

Brian's fault, or the people who ultimately were found responsible by that court who awarded the case to Brian?

Anyone who doubts Murry was the main, go-to guy for anything related to documents, publishing, or anything related to the business and finances of the songs: All I can say is do some basic research and you'll find enough on the record to show until that Sea Of Tunes sale in '69, all that business went straight to Murry, including the papers that were signed and deals negotiated related to publishing.


As far as Tony Asher: He was directed to Murry to work out the deal for his collaboration. He was basically told "take it or leave it" by Murry. And he took it. Here is that part of the story from an old post of mine and a Carlin book quote:

How were Brian's other collaborators in the mid-60's handled when it came to royalties, payments, and publishing was a question someone asked. Since so much weight seems to be put on a letter Murry wrote, I thought it would be just as crucial to the story to hear from one of those collaborators directly. To save time I simply copied it from the book itself, "Catch A Wave" by Peter Ames Carlin, but this is Tony Asher describing how his collaboration with Brian for Pet Sounds was dealt with in a business sense with Murry, including publishing, royalties, and for the poster above who suggested a cash transaction "didn't happen", the amount Asher was given by Murry in a lump sum for his work.

Take note of these two paragraphs, pay special attention on how it touches on many of the issues I and others in this thread have raised as possibilities only to have them shot down or dismissed (i.e. 'It just didn't happen'), and also how Asher's memory of how Brian dealt with business deals by most often not dealing with them is something Hal Blaine and David Anderle also reported, involving checks written in 6-figure dollar amounts that Brian had to be coaxed to even take a few seconds to sign.

And note that Asher thinks this is how Murry wanted it or even planned it, as Brian's creative work was the "cash cow" of his business enterprise, he wanted to keep Brian focused on cranking out the hits while he (Murry) took care of the business deals and finances around those songs.

Hmm. Sounds familiar.

Oh, and that little bit in this book excerpt about Asher dealing solely with Murry on these issues of songwriting and business matters.

I'll stop there, judge for yourself:

Keep in mind, too, that Tony Asher was a witness in the 90's lawsuit and had to deal with a line of questioning from one of Mike's lawyers that included the suggestion that Mike wrote more than Tony knew he actually wrote in songs that were Wilson-Asher collaborations because the lawyer suggested Mike while away on tour had been having phone conversations to Brian during sessions...phone calls made during secret bathroom breaks or something, when Mike was supposedly contributing Pet Sounds lyrics Tony Asher knew nothing about.

So Tony was a guy who was there writing with Brian while the band was not, and the claim was made in court that some of the bathroom breaks were actually when those lyrics from Mike which Tony knew nothing about had been given to Brian. Is that a credible theory? Of course not, unless the intent was to put doubt into the courtroom about Tony's knowledge of what he wrote on Pet Sounds versus what the lawyers claimed Mike wrote but did not. Secret bathroom breaks.  

[Bill30022]

A few thoughts:

SMiLE's demise:
I have always thought that Mike's role in it has been overstated. I have trouble believing that a guy as commercially minded as Mike would not have pushed even more heavily against "Smiley Smile".

My theory on SMiLE's demise is that Brian did not have a clue as to how to tie it all together.

Mike not seeing Brian's point of view:
If one is to take BB:AAF and the 2005 suit (as well as other digs throughout the years regarding handlers controlling Brian), Mike believes that Brian is too damaged to have a legitimate point of view

Carl and the Oldies:
I think Carl did voice frustration with the direction of the band, however, I believe his sabbatical was more due to the band's work ethic and the deteriation of the performances than the material performed.

[guitarfool2002]

Directed to all of the "blame Brian" implications versus blaming Murry...Read this and see who Mike blamed in 2004. Key lines in bold

Mojo magazine, 2004, Mike Love interview:

There was a lot of disharmony in the band following those years, but Love points out that there was always something “not entirely harmonious” about The Beach Boys. “Certainly never as harmonious as the sounds made around the microphone,” he says, “because from very early on, my Uncle Murry was involved. He basically took over publishing of the songs Brian and I wrote. He was always pretty tough to deal with. I think he was a thief. He could be very obnoxious; I mean he was terrible to his sons – emotionally, physically and financially. Definitely an abusive person. Brian and I ended up firing him at one point, so I think his way of getting back at me was not include me on the co-authorship of many, many songs, including California Girls and I Get Around. So from the very beginning of our song writing together, there was always that negative vibe underneath it all.”

He complained about it at the time? “Yes, but my cousin Brian would usually say, 'Well my dad f***ed up.' He said that at least a half-dozen times when I'd bring it up. I blame my uncle a lot more in the cheating of Mike Love because my cousin Brian was so shaky for so many years. He has auditory delusions and mental illness [which] made him very afraid to speak up for himself. He was very hard-pressed to protect my interests in our collaborative efforts, let alone his own.”

History has demonstrated that song writing cases are very hard to win, so one has to wonder how Love was able to convince a court. “Well, ironically, my cousin Brian wanted to settle the issue but he was unable to because he was in a consevatorship due to his mental state. The conservator was a lawyer who said that the statute of limitations had expired. That's what Brian was told, so that's the course he had to follow. But because of everything that went on with Murry and the selling of the catalogue, it could be considered fraud. So I was able to plead my case. In court my attorney would say something like, '“She's real fine, my 409”. Did Mike Love make that up?' And Brian would say, on the witness stand, 'That sounds like something Mike would do.' They'd bring him out of the courtroom and tell him, 'You're going to go bankrupt if you keep saying things like that!' In his own way, he was trying to rectify things, even though his attorney didn't want him to pay. He even told me he wanted to, on the phone and in person, before all this happened. But it was his attorney who forced me to go to court to resolve the issue. I certainly don't have any animosity or hard feelings towards Brian, especially understanding his state of mind at the time. But he knows what I wrote and so do I.”


Mike in his own words, 2004. Based on his own words at that time, Mike doesn't blame Brian as much as some posters here seem to do.

[Angua]

I admit - I should have checked all this stuff before I opened by big mouth and again I admit I just couldn't be bothered to spend the hours it would take and which it no doubt took you.

It took approximately two minutes to walk over to my vinyl albums, pull a few out, and look at the labels and see Mike's name not on them.

 However, you used the words 'if these claims are true'.  I don't really understand how Mike managed to live without doing anything about this from 1961 until 1992.  Imagine, your first album has just been released and you've written lots of stuff for it, it arrives you open it and half the songs you wrote are credited to someone else.  You are so upset and incensed you do nothing until 1992.

Possibly he didn't think it a particularly big deal at the time, and only realised later how important an issue it was to him.

Quote from Mike Love in the RS article “I wrote every last syllable of the words to ‘California Girls,’ and when the record came out, it said, ‘Brian Wilson’ – there was no ‘Mike Love,’ ” he says. “The only thing I didn’t write was ‘I wish they all could be California girls.’  Quote from Mike Love in Broward Palm Beach New Times, Feb 25th. "I wrote every single syllable of 'California Girls'."  So his claim seems to have changed over the last couple of weeks.  Which reminded me of reply 669 on 23rd February by Empire of Love  "Which brings me back to my prior question: if Mike even permitted these gross misrepresentations of fact in the 2005 lawsuit, does this introduce doubt into the earlier song writing credit lawsuit."

Brian has said himself that Mike wrote the lyrics for that song and others for which he wasn't credited. David Marks has spoken about seeing Mike write lyrics for songs for which he wasn't credited. Dean Torrence has claimed to have co-written the lyrics to Surf City and not got credit. Tony Asher has spoken about Brian taking credit for lyrics that Asher wrote on his own.
There may be individual songs in Mike's claim that are overreaching or where he didn't contribute, and that was what I was referring to when I talked about accepting the list as accurate. But the broad thrust of his claims is correct.

Brian may have profited from the credits but Mike won more than half the damages awarded to Brian without having done more than half the work so I think that he has been more than amply remunerated.

I suspect actually that financially he still lost out, because Brian was still being paid the songwriting royalties for those songs for thirty years, even though the publishing had been sold.

Additionally I doubt that the lyrical standard of these songs is greater than the musical standard and so doubt that Mike's reputation would have changed because of them.

It might well not have. But it's not a completely ridiculous position to say that *some* of the success of songs like California Girls or Help Me Rhonda came from their lyrics, and thus Mike would have been thought of somewhat more highly when those songs were hits had he been credited for them. How much that is actually the case, of course, we'll never know.

Took me the same amount of time to get the record - what I didn't have was the details of the songs Mike had claimed credit for to compare them.

I can't imagine that anyone could be stupid enough not to realise how important it was and nor can I imagine him not being bitterly disappointed when his name didn't appear in the credits.  CM says that he approached Brian about it and it was going to be rectified, how much time did him give him - 30 years?

I was comparing 2 different claims from Mike about his authorship. One says that he didn't write the line "I wish they all could be California Girls" in the other he claims that he wrote every syllable of the song.  These are his own words spoken 2 weeks apart.

I don't know how much in royalties Brian got which should have gone to Mike but presumably the court did and took this into consideration.  

As for Mike's reputation I can honestly say that it didn't change my opinion of him.  The lyrics of California Girls and Help Me Rhonda are not exactly poetry.

[AndrewHickey]

Took me the same amount of time to get the record - what I didn't have was the details of the songs Mike had claimed credit for to compare them.

That took ten seconds on Google.

I can't imagine that anyone could be stupid enough not to realise how important it was and nor can I imagine him not being bitterly disappointed when his name didn't appear in the credits.  CM says that he approached Brian about it and it was going to be rectified, how much time did him give him - 30 years?

Many, many songwriters in those days were ripped off in that way or similar ways, and didn't take legal recourse til decades later. Chuck Berry's publisher added names like Alan Freed, who had nothing to do with the songwriting, to the credits of his records in order to pay off people who were helpful, but at the same time Berry's piano player, Johnny Johnson, who co-wrote most of the music, didn't get any credit at all. The songwriting credits on Buddy Holly's songs usually had little to do with who actually wrote them. Same for anyone who worked with Morris Levy. It was very, very normal in the early days of rock and roll for songwriting credits to go to people other than the writers, and for the writers not to realise there was anything wrong with this until years later.

Solomon Linda, the writer of the South African song Mbube, which with English lyrics became The Lion Sleeps Tonight, didn't get writing credit until 2006. The actual writers of Why Do Fools Fall In Love, Herman Santiago and Jimmy Merchant, didn't get the correct credit until 1992 (and that was later reverted on appeal as the statute of limitations had passed).

So while you can't imagine that anyone would be that stupid, a *lot* of people were (if you want to call it stupidity, rather than receiving bad advice).

As for Mike's reputation I can honestly say that it didn't change my opinion of him.  The lyrics of California Girls and Help Me Rhonda are not exactly poetry.

It doesn't change my opinion of him either. But it's not unreasonable to think that other people might have different tastes in lyrics from yours or mine, and think better of him for writing them.

[Emily]

Mike was credited with having written at least some of the lyrics on the albums - I know, I have many which date from the 1960's - so it was common knowledge Mike wrote some of the lyrics.

Some. By the credits on the albums before Pet Sounds, Mike would have been the fourth most prominent lyricist for the band, after Brian, Gary Usher, and Roger Christian. In fact, assuming the revised credits are true, he wrote more than any of them.

As I understand it Murry was the publisher for the band and used this position to not credit Mike for some of the songs for which he wrote lyrics.

Not just some. The vast majority. I listed earlier in this thread all the songs for which Mike was credited up to Pet Sounds. I think there were sixteen in total (can't be bothered to go back and check, but it was something like that). There were thirty-four songs in the lawsuit, and Mike's also claimed he wrote most of the lyrics to Surfin' USA (which presumably wasn't in the lawsuit because Chuck Berry won sole credit for the song because it was plagiarised from Sweet Little Sixteen).

(And Mike talks about Good Vibrations a lot, which he *was* credited for, as an example where he didn't get proper credit -- I'm not sure what's going on there...)

 I very much doubt that the average record buying public or even the music journalists at the time spent much time looking at published music and so were unlikely to know that Mike had not been credited on these documents.  I don't know full chapter and verse on this stuff and can't be bothered to spend hours checking to make sure that Mike was credited on the albums for every single track he says he contributed to (and his claim over California Girls lyrics alone have changed in the last 2 weeks) but surely if Mike had not been credited he would have noticed.

He wasn't credited on those songs on the albums either.

 However he was credited on the albums for at least some of what he did and as people knew he was the lyricist I think any recognition he was due, he had.  The fact that recognition was not as great as that afforded Brian seems likely to me that it was proportional to his skill.  

He was credited for about a third of what he did, so he got about a third of the recognition he was due -- and the other two thirds, along with the money, went wrongly to Brian.
It's likely he would still be regarded -- entirely correctly -- as a much lesser talent to Brian had he received the credit he was due. But it's also likely he would be held in higher regard than he currently is.

A good deal of ill feeling Mike has toward Brian (according to Mike in this very same interview) is due to Brian allowing Murry to get away with this fraud

And Brian profiting from it -- and, if his behaviour towards Tony Asher is any guide (Asher talks about Brian claiming to have co-written lyrics which Asher wrote in full, and claiming to have written all the music on songs where Asher contributed musical ideas), colluding in it. All the songwriting royalties which were rightfully Mike's went to Brian instead.

For the most part, I don't disagree with this, but I think the idea of Brian profiting should be qualified: I don't think he necessarily did until after Murry Wilson died. The unsent (do we know if a copy was sent?) '65 letter from Murry to Brian indicates that Murry had been withholding Sea of Tunes funds from Brian under a guise of 'protecting' him.

"I have protected your income tax payment for the year of 1964, and I am paying a sizable amount for doing this, but now I must see that you are paid in full sometime this year. I have been trying to prevent Capitol from paying the Sea of Tunes Publishing Company the fortune owing to yourself so that you would not be penalized by the income tax bracket you have achieved. My books are going to be audited by CPA's and I expect to pay you, after the audit and after receipt of funds from Capitol Records, approximately $276,000 and I am proud to turn over these funds to you as a tribute to your great talent, and if I should die by accident prior to this audit, I would ask that you, as my eldest son, obtain the audit from my legal records and see that you are paid."

And, as GF2002 cited above and I'm pretty sure I've seen other quotes, Brian Wilson was not involved in the management of Sea of Tunes nor the management of his money in a practical way. At the time of Pet Sounds, Murry and Audree Wilson each had their own house as upscale as Brian's. It's easy to imagine that Brian Wilson didn't reap any material benefits of being credited as the sole author of those songs until after Murry Wilson died.

So, yes, he did ultimately profit from it, but I don't think it's clear that he did at the time the crediting was assigned.

[CenturyDeprived]

  However, you used the words 'if these claims are true'.  I don't really understand how Mike managed to live without doing anything about this from 1961 until 1992.  Imagine, your first album has just been released and you've written lots of stuff for it, it arrives you open it and half the songs you wrote are credited to someone else.  You are so upset and incensed you do nothing until 1992.

Possibly he didn't think it a particularly big deal at the time, and only realised later how important an issue it was to him.

[/quote]

You know, I don't fault Mike for waiting until 1992 because I don't think there would've ever been a good time to address the issue.

What I do fault him for is this new line of resentful talk and egregious blaming coming from Mike. The reason I think it's ridiculous at this point because Mike is seemingly trying to blame all the negative aspects of his entire reputation on Brian and the crediting issue, when that avoids a sh*t ton of other reasons which Mike convinently pretends don't exist.

He has found the one reason that will garner him sympathy (and make many people think Brian did something very uncool)... Mike's one ace in the hole.

But he is overplaying this card already by simple omission. Asking a question "why am I the villain" and not actually wanting an answer, all the while thinking, wishing, hoping, praying people all think that Brian is now the big bad wolf, and that Mike's bad reputation was all Brian's fault all along, and that's the entire story of the band and Mike's reputation, case closed.

That's the impression one gets from this article and it's ridiculous.

[Angua]

Took me the same amount of time to get the record - what I didn't have was the details of the songs Mike had claimed credit for to compare them.

That took ten seconds on Google.

I can't imagine that anyone could be stupid enough not to realise how important it was and nor can I imagine him not being bitterly disappointed when his name didn't appear in the credits.  CM says that he approached Brian about it and it was going to be rectified, how much time did him give him - 30 years?

Many, many songwriters in those days were ripped off in that way or similar ways, and didn't take legal recourse til decades later. Chuck Berry's publisher added names like Alan Freed, who had nothing to do with the songwriting, to the credits of his records in order to pay off people who were helpful, but at the same time Berry's piano player, Johnny Johnson, who co-wrote most of the music, didn't get any credit at all. The songwriting credits on Buddy Holly's songs usually had little to do with who actually wrote them. Same for anyone who worked with Morris Levy. It was very, very normal in the early days of rock and roll for songwriting credits to go to people other than the writers, and for the writers not to realise there was anything wrong with this until years later.

Solomon Linda, the writer of the South African song Mbube, which with English lyrics became The Lion Sleeps Tonight, didn't get writing credit until 2006. The actual writers of Why Do Fools Fall In Love, Herman Santiago and Jimmy Merchant, didn't get the correct credit until 1992 (and that was later reverted on appeal as the statute of limitations had passed).

So while you can't imagine that anyone would be that stupid, a *lot* of people were (if you want to call it stupidity, rather than receiving bad advice).

As for Mike's reputation I can honestly say that it didn't change my opinion of him.  The lyrics of California Girls and Help Me Rhonda are not exactly poetry.

It doesn't change my opinion of him either. But it's not unreasonable to think that other people might have different tastes in lyrics from yours or mine, and think better of him for writing them.

As I said earlier - I didn't bother to look. I can keep saying it if it helps in some way.

I think guitar fool has covered the rest of this.

As for respect - as you said who knows but I doubt it as there hasn't been any great adulation since it became common knowledge.

[guitarfool2002]

Seriously though, minus the speculation still happening, isn't it somewhat necessary to weigh Mike's own words when discussing these exact issues of blame and credit and everything related? It's spelled out right here, and it was how Mike viewed the situations in his own words as of 2004. Take his word or not - This is what he said and felt about all of this, at that time. And he was clearly NOT blaming Brian for the issues as much as fans are posting here, nor as Mike himself has seemingly been doing since 2004.

If there is a better source than the person we're talking about, speaking in their own words answering direct questions about the issues being argued here...maybe someone can let us know what that source could be. Or better yet, explain the contradicting statements between 2004, 2005, and 2016.

Directed to all of the "blame Brian" implications versus blaming Murry...Read this and see who Mike blamed in 2004. Key lines in bold

Mojo magazine, 2004, Mike Love interview:

There was a lot of disharmony in the band following those years, but Love points out that there was always something “not entirely harmonious” about The Beach Boys. “Certainly never as harmonious as the sounds made around the microphone,” he says, “because from very early on, my Uncle Murry was involved. He basically took over publishing of the songs Brian and I wrote. He was always pretty tough to deal with. I think he was a thief. He could be very obnoxious; I mean he was terrible to his sons – emotionally, physically and financially. Definitely an abusive person. Brian and I ended up firing him at one point, so I think his way of getting back at me was not include me on the co-authorship of many, many songs, including California Girls and I Get Around. So from the very beginning of our song writing together, there was always that negative vibe underneath it all.”

He complained about it at the time? “Yes, but my cousin Brian would usually say, 'Well my dad f***ed up.' He said that at least a half-dozen times when I'd bring it up. I blame my uncle a lot more in the cheating of Mike Love because my cousin Brian was so shaky for so many years. He has auditory delusions and mental illness [which] made him very afraid to speak up for himself. He was very hard-pressed to protect my interests in our collaborative efforts, let alone his own.”

History has demonstrated that song writing cases are very hard to win, so one has to wonder how Love was able to convince a court. “Well, ironically, my cousin Brian wanted to settle the issue but he was unable to because he was in a consevatorship due to his mental state. The conservator was a lawyer who said that the statute of limitations had expired. That's what Brian was told, so that's the course he had to follow. But because of everything that went on with Murry and the selling of the catalogue, it could be considered fraud. So I was able to plead my case. In court my attorney would say something like, '“She's real fine, my 409”. Did Mike Love make that up?' And Brian would say, on the witness stand, 'That sounds like something Mike would do.' They'd bring him out of the courtroom and tell him, 'You're going to go bankrupt if you keep saying things like that!' In his own way, he was trying to rectify things, even though his attorney didn't want him to pay. He even told me he wanted to, on the phone and in person, before all this happened. But it was his attorney who forced me to go to court to resolve the issue. I certainly don't have any animosity or hard feelings towards Brian, especially understanding his state of mind at the time. But he knows what I wrote and so do I.”


Mike in his own words, 2004. Based on his own words at that time, Mike doesn't blame Brian as much as some posters here seem to do.

[CenturyDeprived]

Seriously though, minus the speculation still happening, isn't it somewhat necessary to weigh Mike's own words when discussing these exact issues of blame and credit and everything related? It's spelled out right here, and it was how Mike viewed the situations in his own words as of 2004. Take his word or not - This is what he said and felt about all of this, at that time. And he was clearly NOT blaming Brian for the issues as much as fans are posting here, nor as Mike himself has seemingly been doing since 2004.

If there is a better source than the person we're talking about, speaking in their own words answering direct questions about the issues being argued here...maybe someone can let us know what that source could be. Or better yet, explain the contradicting statements between 2004, 2005, and 2016.

Directed to all of the "blame Brian" implications versus blaming Murry...Read this and see who Mike blamed in 2004. Key lines in bold

Mojo magazine, 2004, Mike Love interview:

There was a lot of disharmony in the band following those years, but Love points out that there was always something “not entirely harmonious” about The Beach Boys. “Certainly never as harmonious as the sounds made around the microphone,” he says, “because from very early on, my Uncle Murry was involved. He basically took over publishing of the songs Brian and I wrote. He was always pretty tough to deal with. I think he was a thief. He could be very obnoxious; I mean he was terrible to his sons – emotionally, physically and financially. Definitely an abusive person. Brian and I ended up firing him at one point, so I think his way of getting back at me was not include me on the co-authorship of many, many songs, including California Girls and I Get Around. So from the very beginning of our song writing together, there was always that negative vibe underneath it all.”

He complained about it at the time? “Yes, but my cousin Brian would usually say, 'Well my dad f***ed up.' He said that at least a half-dozen times when I'd bring it up. I blame my uncle a lot more in the cheating of Mike Love because my cousin Brian was so shaky for so many years. He has auditory delusions and mental illness [which] made him very afraid to speak up for himself. He was very hard-pressed to protect my interests in our collaborative efforts, let alone his own.”

History has demonstrated that song writing cases are very hard to win, so one has to wonder how Love was able to convince a court. “Well, ironically, my cousin Brian wanted to settle the issue but he was unable to because he was in a consevatorship due to his mental state. The conservator was a lawyer who said that the statute of limitations had expired. That's what Brian was told, so that's the course he had to follow. But because of everything that went on with Murry and the selling of the catalogue, it could be considered fraud. So I was able to plead my case. In court my attorney would say something like, '“She's real fine, my 409”. Did Mike Love make that up?' And Brian would say, on the witness stand, 'That sounds like something Mike would do.' They'd bring him out of the courtroom and tell him, 'You're going to go bankrupt if you keep saying things like that!' In his own way, he was trying to rectify things, even though his attorney didn't want him to pay. He even told me he wanted to, on the phone and in person, before all this happened. But it was his attorney who forced me to go to court to resolve the issue. I certainly don't have any animosity or hard feelings towards Brian, especially understanding his state of mind at the time. But he knows what I wrote and so do I.”


Mike in his own words, 2004. Based on his own words at that time, Mike doesn't blame Brian as much as some posters here seem to do.

It seems totally contradictory, and fueled by some other misdirected resentment.

Mike gets vilified for C50, for endlessly mentioning Brian's drug use, for throwing in Autotune digs despite being an egregious Autotune devotee himself... Just to name a few recent items.... Then Mike finds himself in the social media age where he can't just get away with this stuff.

Then either his mental Rolodex or some yes-people around him keep encouraging him to find a way to not acknowledge why those other actions are wrong, which leads him back to pin *everything* on big bad Brian, on an old issue, one which he already largely publicly absolved Brian for due to his illness and Murry's absuse - when in reality, this issue is not the major reason, or certainly not the only for his reputation, by far. And it ain't gonna work. The comments on the Rolling Stone article are probably making Mike realize just that.

Own up to saying and doing all sorts of horrible stuff, point by point... Apologize and even say that anger management issues were to blame, but accept responsibility... and then by golly Mike might find more respect headed his way. It ain't gonna happen before this happens. It doesn't matter if Mike thinks this is "fair" or not. His current attempts will not garner any results.

That's the Mike Love reality check.

[AndrewHickey]

For the most part, I don't disagree with this, but I think the idea of Brian profiting should be qualified: I don't think he necessarily did until after Murry Wilson died. The unsent '65 letter from Murry to Brian indicates that Murry had been withholding Sea of Tunes funds from Brian under a guise of 'protecting' him.

That's a very good point.