gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680598 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 07:33:46 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mike's Hand in Vocal Arrangements  (Read 26183 times)
c-man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4941


View Profile WWW
« Reply #100 on: February 25, 2017, 02:26:07 PM »

I don't think this topic should be so controversial and divisive. I don't think it's any secret that Mike was the "hook" man in the Beach Boys. It's been noted in various interviews by various people associated with the group. To me, it seems that's basically what Carl was referring to.

I don't think anyone is trying to make a claim that Mike deserves a co-arranger credit. I think there's a difference between contributing arrangement ideas and being the arranger. Many people can contribute to an arrangement, but the arranger himself has the final say with whether or not to use the suggestions.

And as I laid out above in one of those posts relating to WIBN, there is a difference too between contributing songwriting ideas and being the songwriter, yet that went to court and the decision went against that very notion.

I don't know all the details of the court case, but an argument could be made that the "good night/sleep tight" tag is a hook in "Wouldn't It Be Nice", even though the part seems minor from a lyrical standpoint. Not sure where I stand on that issue, other than I don't think it deserved a full 1/3 writing credit ... but probably more than contributing a line or two.

BUT ... writing is not arranging, and most BB records don't have an "Arranger" credit per se anyway. Arranging (and often producing) is not associated with royalties most of the time either.

I agree, Donny...and, guitarfool2000 - while I'm not suggesting a further alteration to any "official" songwriting credits, I am trying to find a way to bring some additional clarification to my own "unofficial" sessionography work at beachboysarchives.com...with that said, since we've read that Brian came up with the title for "WIBN" but Tony wrote the actual words...and then Mike added that "Goodnight baby" hookline in the tag...I would break it out as "Music - Brian Wilson / Words - Tony Asher; title by Brian Wilson; additional lyrics by Mike Love", or something to that effect. That way we know that even though Tony wrote the words, the title was still Brian's, and Mike added something "additional". Again - not suggesting any change to any official credits, just adding additional insight to my unofficial archival work.

Likewise, I'm not proposing a change to the "official" production credits for any albums or singles...but, just as we know from Mark Lewisohn's work that not every single Beatles session was actually produced by George Martin, despite the credit on nearly all official releases reading as such, we know from the session tapes and from statements made by Brian and Carl that their dad had a hand in producing, or co-producing, some of the BBs' records....so in my credits at beachboysarchives.com, I would be inclined to give Murry and others (such as Carl, Dennis, or Bruce, for example) credit for co-producing, or serving as "assistant producer", or providing "production assistance", or just serving as "control room ears" on various sessions....a way to give some acknowledgement t in an unofficial way, while keeping the overall single or album producer's credit as is. Another example would be "Surfin' U.S.A." - the song - where we know Brian and Murry produced, and Nik Venet was not even present, despite receiving the label credit - there's no way to change the official credit there, but at least the true producers - Brian and Murry - would receive acknowledgement of their status through my work.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #101 on: February 25, 2017, 02:47:47 PM »

I don't think this topic should be so controversial and divisive. I don't think it's any secret that Mike was the "hook" man in the Beach Boys. It's been noted in various interviews by various people associated with the group. To me, it seems that's basically what Carl was referring to.

I don't think anyone is trying to make a claim that Mike deserves a co-arranger credit. I think there's a difference between contributing arrangement ideas and being the arranger. Many people can contribute to an arrangement, but the arranger himself has the final say with whether or not to use the suggestions.

And as I laid out above in one of those posts relating to WIBN, there is a difference too between contributing songwriting ideas and being the songwriter, yet that went to court and the decision went against that very notion.

I don't know all the details of the court case, but an argument could be made that the "good night/sleep tight" tag is a hook in "Wouldn't It Be Nice", even though the part seems minor from a lyrical standpoint. Not sure where I stand on that issue, other than I don't think it deserved a full 1/3 writing credit ... but probably more than contributing a line or two.

BUT ... writing is not arranging, and most BB records don't have an "Arranger" credit per se anyway. Arranging (and often producing) is not associated with royalties most of the time either.

I can speak to that having worked ever so briefly as an arranger. The old-school way usually meant the arranger, if a member of the Musicians' Union, would get whatever the scale was per page, or depending on the project, per song. Same with the copyists who would extract the parts from the arranger's score. Per page, in that case, unless it was as happened in LA where they'd take the scores to Bob Ross and extract the parts onto onion skin and print them out or whatever method was used before Xerox. It would also depend on who the arranger was and what else he or she may have done for the song, and as per the deal worked out for the project. Look at Nelson Riddle, Billy May, Gordon Jenkins, "Hank" Mancini (as my arranger mentor called him, lol...). They get prominent credit for what they did on the projects which they worked. Whether royalties were involved, we'd need to go case by case because guys like Jenkins would both write the song and arrange it, and the arranger often conducted the studio session as well.

Producers - again, a case by case basis - but even into the modern era, they could either agree to a payment for services rendered up front, or negotiate for "points" on the records they worked. The points system could be akin to winning the lottery if that record or album hit big, because in those cases the points could equal six or seven figures in compensation - recurring - for that producer. But it was a gamble. If the record stiffed sales-wise, they would be better off taking the up front payment. But if the record hits, they get a portion of whatever that record or song earns as long as the agreement is valid.

Keep in mind as well that in the late 60's turmoil with Capitol, it wasn't just the breakage clause that the audit revealed Capitol had been stiffing the band with. Brian Wilson as producer was *not* paid his rightful share of producer royalties by Capitol, and even in the late 60's that was I think up into the 7-figure range which he was owed and eventually won from Capitol.

It's yet again a situation of going case by case because often it would change from project to project. But consider the examples of arrangers Nelson Riddle, Billy May, etc and how they were all but joined at the hip with Sinatra, Nat Cole, etc and were credited as such because that was the sound that helped sell the records and define that music.

So it was a credited role, both arranger and producer regarding payment systems, at least in the old school ways of the 60's and such. heck, even on late 70's Steely Dan albums they give an arranging credit for the musician who prepared the charts for the players.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1990



View Profile WWW
« Reply #102 on: February 25, 2017, 03:43:03 PM »

I don't think this topic should be so controversial and divisive. I don't think it's any secret that Mike was the "hook" man in the Beach Boys. It's been noted in various interviews by various people associated with the group. To me, it seems that's basically what Carl was referring to.

I don't think anyone is trying to make a claim that Mike deserves a co-arranger credit. I think there's a difference between contributing arrangement ideas and being the arranger. Many people can contribute to an arrangement, but the arranger himself has the final say with whether or not to use the suggestions.

And as I laid out above in one of those posts relating to WIBN, there is a difference too between contributing songwriting ideas and being the songwriter, yet that went to court and the decision went against that very notion.

I don't know all the details of the court case, but an argument could be made that the "good night/sleep tight" tag is a hook in "Wouldn't It Be Nice", even though the part seems minor from a lyrical standpoint. Not sure where I stand on that issue, other than I don't think it deserved a full 1/3 writing credit ... but probably more than contributing a line or two.

BUT ... writing is not arranging, and most BB records don't have an "Arranger" credit per se anyway. Arranging (and often producing) is not associated with royalties most of the time either.

I can speak to that having worked ever so briefly as an arranger. The old-school way usually meant the arranger, if a member of the Musicians' Union, would get whatever the scale was per page, or depending on the project, per song. Same with the copyists who would extract the parts from the arranger's score. Per page, in that case, unless it was as happened in LA where they'd take the scores to Bob Ross and extract the parts onto onion skin and print them out or whatever method was used before Xerox. It would also depend on who the arranger was and what else he or she may have done for the song, and as per the deal worked out for the project. Look at Nelson Riddle, Billy May, Gordon Jenkins, "Hank" Mancini (as my arranger mentor called him, lol...). They get prominent credit for what they did on the projects which they worked. Whether royalties were involved, we'd need to go case by case because guys like Jenkins would both write the song and arrange it, and the arranger often conducted the studio session as well.

Producers - again, a case by case basis - but even into the modern era, they could either agree to a payment for services rendered up front, or negotiate for "points" on the records they worked. The points system could be akin to winning the lottery if that record or album hit big, because in those cases the points could equal six or seven figures in compensation - recurring - for that producer. But it was a gamble. If the record stiffed sales-wise, they would be better off taking the up front payment. But if the record hits, they get a portion of whatever that record or song earns as long as the agreement is valid.

Keep in mind as well that in the late 60's turmoil with Capitol, it wasn't just the breakage clause that the audit revealed Capitol had been stiffing the band with. Brian Wilson as producer was *not* paid his rightful share of producer royalties by Capitol, and even in the late 60's that was I think up into the 7-figure range which he was owed and eventually won from Capitol.

It's yet again a situation of going case by case because often it would change from project to project. But consider the examples of arrangers Nelson Riddle, Billy May, etc and how they were all but joined at the hip with Sinatra, Nat Cole, etc and were credited as such because that was the sound that helped sell the records and define that music.

So it was a credited role, both arranger and producer regarding payment systems, at least in the old school ways of the 60's and such. heck, even on late 70's Steely Dan albums they give an arranging credit for the musician who prepared the charts for the players.

That’s all fine and good …

But we know that Brian and the Beach Boys challenged traditional roles and broke boundaries.  Brian was the primary writer, producer, arranger, singer, and often musician on these sessions. So these roles as pre-defined by industry standards were naturally blurred.

I think Dennis said it best, “Brian is the Beach Boys … we’re his messengers”. There is no other way to put it.

However … you need a mess of help to stand alone, and Brian certainly had help from the fellows, the wrecking crew, Marilyn, and probably everyone in his orbit.

I think what Craig/C-Man is after is trying to document these types of contributions, and using the Smiley board as a source to gather that info and brainstorm.

In the case of credits on Beach Boys releases, some say “Produced and Arranged by BW”, the Christmas Album has the Dick Reynolds credit for those orchestral arrangements … but most just say “Produced by Brian Wilson” or “Produced by The Beach Boys”. Which leads me to believe that Brian and the group were well-aware that “arranger” did not serve a function in their recordings because when you are the creator from start to finish, “arranger” as a defined role is not really applicable.

Additionally, we are discussing vocal arrangements specifically. Which was never anything that was credited as such on the original BB records. It is well-documented that Brian Wilson arranged the Beach Boys vocals. And in the case of a vocal arrangement in which Mike may have come up with a bass part, or a hook, or a style of bom-bom vs wow-wow vs. nah-nah-nah … Carl’s point seems to be that this was something that had an influence on the vibe of the song. In the case of a song that Mike did not co-author … I would say this falls firmly into the category of “having a hand” in the vocal arrangement. This does not make Mike the arranger, co-arranger or suggest that he is the vocal arranger or even co-vocal arranger. It simply means that he may have made some contributions to the vocal arrangement that Brian - the PRODUCER/ARRANGER - liked and decided to incorporate. It’s also worth pointing out that Carl does not seem to be referring specifically to Mike’s parts only.

Let’s face it, this would not be a problem if the topic were not Mike Love. Certainly there are plenty of reasons why responses may come as they do. But if the topic were Hal Blaine and his contributions to the arrangements via drum parts, I don’t think the responses would be so charged.

The fact remains that this type of discussion simply does not work on this board anymore, and that’s a shame.
Logged

c-man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4941


View Profile WWW
« Reply #103 on: February 25, 2017, 04:28:32 PM »

<<I think what Craig/C-Man is after is trying to document these types of contributions, and using the Smiley board as a source to gather that info and brainstorm.>>

Bingo, Donny. That's all I'm after.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #104 on: February 25, 2017, 05:39:53 PM »

I don't think this topic should be so controversial and divisive. I don't think it's any secret that Mike was the "hook" man in the Beach Boys. It's been noted in various interviews by various people associated with the group. To me, it seems that's basically what Carl was referring to.

I don't think anyone is trying to make a claim that Mike deserves a co-arranger credit. I think there's a difference between contributing arrangement ideas and being the arranger. Many people can contribute to an arrangement, but the arranger himself has the final say with whether or not to use the suggestions.

And as I laid out above in one of those posts relating to WIBN, there is a difference too between contributing songwriting ideas and being the songwriter, yet that went to court and the decision went against that very notion.

I don't know all the details of the court case, but an argument could be made that the "good night/sleep tight" tag is a hook in "Wouldn't It Be Nice", even though the part seems minor from a lyrical standpoint. Not sure where I stand on that issue, other than I don't think it deserved a full 1/3 writing credit ... but probably more than contributing a line or two.

BUT ... writing is not arranging, and most BB records don't have an "Arranger" credit per se anyway. Arranging (and often producing) is not associated with royalties most of the time either.

I can speak to that having worked ever so briefly as an arranger. The old-school way usually meant the arranger, if a member of the Musicians' Union, would get whatever the scale was per page, or depending on the project, per song. Same with the copyists who would extract the parts from the arranger's score. Per page, in that case, unless it was as happened in LA where they'd take the scores to Bob Ross and extract the parts onto onion skin and print them out or whatever method was used before Xerox. It would also depend on who the arranger was and what else he or she may have done for the song, and as per the deal worked out for the project. Look at Nelson Riddle, Billy May, Gordon Jenkins, "Hank" Mancini (as my arranger mentor called him, lol...). They get prominent credit for what they did on the projects which they worked. Whether royalties were involved, we'd need to go case by case because guys like Jenkins would both write the song and arrange it, and the arranger often conducted the studio session as well.

Producers - again, a case by case basis - but even into the modern era, they could either agree to a payment for services rendered up front, or negotiate for "points" on the records they worked. The points system could be akin to winning the lottery if that record or album hit big, because in those cases the points could equal six or seven figures in compensation - recurring - for that producer. But it was a gamble. If the record stiffed sales-wise, they would be better off taking the up front payment. But if the record hits, they get a portion of whatever that record or song earns as long as the agreement is valid.

Keep in mind as well that in the late 60's turmoil with Capitol, it wasn't just the breakage clause that the audit revealed Capitol had been stiffing the band with. Brian Wilson as producer was *not* paid his rightful share of producer royalties by Capitol, and even in the late 60's that was I think up into the 7-figure range which he was owed and eventually won from Capitol.

It's yet again a situation of going case by case because often it would change from project to project. But consider the examples of arrangers Nelson Riddle, Billy May, etc and how they were all but joined at the hip with Sinatra, Nat Cole, etc and were credited as such because that was the sound that helped sell the records and define that music.

So it was a credited role, both arranger and producer regarding payment systems, at least in the old school ways of the 60's and such. heck, even on late 70's Steely Dan albums they give an arranging credit for the musician who prepared the charts for the players.

That’s all fine and good …

But we know that Brian and the Beach Boys challenged traditional roles and broke boundaries.  Brian was the primary writer, producer, arranger, singer, and often musician on these sessions. So these roles as pre-defined by industry standards were naturally blurred.

I think Dennis said it best, “Brian is the Beach Boys … we’re his messengers”. There is no other way to put it.

However … you need a mess of help to stand alone, and Brian certainly had help from the fellows, the wrecking crew, Marilyn, and probably everyone in his orbit.

I think what Craig/C-Man is after is trying to document these types of contributions, and using the Smiley board as a source to gather that info and brainstorm.

In the case of credits on Beach Boys releases, some say “Produced and Arranged by BW”, the Christmas Album has the Dick Reynolds credit for those orchestral arrangements … but most just say “Produced by Brian Wilson” or “Produced by The Beach Boys”. Which leads me to believe that Brian and the group were well-aware that “arranger” did not serve a function in their recordings because when you are the creator from start to finish, “arranger” as a defined role is not really applicable.

Additionally, we are discussing vocal arrangements specifically. Which was never anything that was credited as such on the original BB records. It is well-documented that Brian Wilson arranged the Beach Boys vocals. And in the case of a vocal arrangement in which Mike may have come up with a bass part, or a hook, or a style of bom-bom vs wow-wow vs. nah-nah-nah … Carl’s point seems to be that this was something that had an influence on the vibe of the song. In the case of a song that Mike did not co-author … I would say this falls firmly into the category of “having a hand” in the vocal arrangement. This does not make Mike the arranger, co-arranger or suggest that he is the vocal arranger or even co-vocal arranger. It simply means that he may have made some contributions to the vocal arrangement that Brian - the PRODUCER/ARRANGER - liked and decided to incorporate. It’s also worth pointing out that Carl does not seem to be referring specifically to Mike’s parts only.

Let’s face it, this would not be a problem if the topic were not Mike Love. Certainly there are plenty of reasons why responses may come as they do. But if the topic were Hal Blaine and his contributions to the arrangements via drum parts, I don’t think the responses would be so charged.

The fact remains that this type of discussion simply does not work on this board anymore, and that’s a shame.


Notice I also said in multiple replies that these kinds of things should be looked at on a case by case basis, which is exactly how all of this went down and still goes down in the process of making a record, from conception to final approved mix. And specifically on who did what and breaking traditional roles. Heck, did Chet Atkins actually "produce" Elvis' first LP on RCA, or did Elvis basically run the session? Chet says he sat back and watched, in awe, and even called his wife to watch what Elvis was doing, and maybe added some rhythm guitar or whatever. Yet Chet is "producer", officially. That's the business.

I'll bring up one that I learned recently after years of listening to, reading about, and researching The Beatles.

Who is generally credited as arranger when The Beatles' records used instruments outside guitar-bass-drums-keyboards? 99% of the time it was George Martin who translated the Beatles ideas and added some of his own onto sheet music that the musicians brought in could read. The string quartets on Yesterday and Eleanor Rigby, the brass on Got To Get You... and Pepper, etc., the strings and wind instruments on Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields, I Am The Walrus, etc.

It was George Martin credited as producer but also did the bulk of the actual arranging, as in creating the parts for the outside players to play. That's common knowledge up to the White Album at least, when George would go on holiday and enlist Chris Thomas to fill that role. No dispute there.

Then factor in The Beatles themselves. It was surprising to learn how much of a key role George Harrison (happy birthday George, btw) played in arranging and translating the arrangements on his songs like Within You Without You. George Martin was not as well versed in Indian music,. meters, and rhythms as Harrison, nor did he know the ins and outs of the phrasing that characterized that music as well as Harrison. So Harrison worked hand-in-hand with both the Indian musicians they assembled as well as George Martin who scored it for the traditional Western string players also on that session. Martin's use of glissando and portamento on that chart influenced a lot of other arrangers at that time to write strings the same way, or on request from other artists who wanted that sound. It was, in fact, a "new" sound for traditional strings to play that way.

So George Harrison was the arranger and producer, right? As was McCartney who worked closely with Martin actually singing the brass and wind parts for Penny Lane, and onward and upward on everything from Here Comes The Sun to Martha My Dear. The Beatles themselves did not have the musical knowledge to do the full job, yet had ideas on what they wanted. So George Martin as producer also was their arranger, vocally too as on Because.

Common knowledge, yet it's exactly what I said earlier - Case by case basis, song by song or session by session basis. Who played what roles versus who got the credit on the albums and liners.

The reason why this is an issue, I do agree, is because it is Mike Love. Do you see the Beatles or their estates trying to seek credit for decades old recordings and releases as Mike has and had done? Do you see surviving Beatles or their families giving regular interviews where they mention credits as often as Mike does even though he won the case to get them? No. Is Olivia or Dhani Harrison saying George didn't get proper credit and looking for his name to be amended on this or that release? No. Any court cases over credits and partnerships where credit was sought when it was not justified? No. Has McCartney claimed he produced one of the many Beatles repackages and releases or do those releases still read "produced by George Martin" as they did all along? But I read in articles and interviews that Mike produced "Endless Summer", and I still don't know how that works logically. I see equal 1/3 credit given for "good night baby" in a fadeout of a record and still don't know how that works logically. Has Ringo ever tried to seek co-writer credit for Hard Day's Night, Tomorrow Never Knows, or any of the other phrases he uttered that got turned into songs? Of course not, even though his "a hard day's night" as a phrase was more crucial to that record and film than Mike saying "good night baby" in a fadeout.

So yes, as I said earlier too, the precedent is there from what Mike has done and tried to do regarding credits before.

Endless Summer, WIBN, how about the 30 or so songs that got taken out of his lawsuit after his initial claims and filings for co-authorship? For the roughly 30 he was awarded credit for, what about the other 30 or so that he claimed and never made it through to the final judgement?

That's just me. But yeah, if credit discussions come back to Mike, it is a factor because of the precedent set over the past decades and the rancor it caused on various fronts. Or even the head-scratching it causes when fans read that he produced Endless Summer, which was a collection of hits from 62-66 that Mike did not produce.

You brought up production and producer royalties, I answered it Donny - That's exactly how the biz works and how some producers are able to live comfortable for years off of those "points" and the royalties they negotiated before starting the project that became a smash hit. Capitol tried to put the screws to Brian in the 60's by not paying up on those, but they eventually did because Brian obviously produced the records and was due those payments and points.

I'd say if there were not overt attempts in the past to overshoot on seeking and applying credit, as unfortunately surrounds this band and perhaps always will, it says more about the band and the dynamics of the members and their behavior than it shows anything negative about this board's ability to have a discussion on this and related topics.

if you think it's isolated to this board and people here, see what the reaction is or would be to an article in a well-circulated music magazine that challenges the nature of the writing, arranging, and producing of the Beach Boys' classic hits, that 62-66 era specifically. Hypothetically If there was something published suggesting Mike in that era was "co-arranger", "co-producer", or similar credits on those records, you'd see reactions that would go beyond anything on this board. The people know, especially musicians, what went into those records. But I've said that already.

« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 05:41:33 PM by guitarfool2002 » Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1990



View Profile WWW
« Reply #105 on: February 26, 2017, 12:22:17 PM »

I don't think this topic should be so controversial and divisive. I don't think it's any secret that Mike was the "hook" man in the Beach Boys. It's been noted in various interviews by various people associated with the group. To me, it seems that's basically what Carl was referring to.

I don't think anyone is trying to make a claim that Mike deserves a co-arranger credit. I think there's a difference between contributing arrangement ideas and being the arranger. Many people can contribute to an arrangement, but the arranger himself has the final say with whether or not to use the suggestions.

And as I laid out above in one of those posts relating to WIBN, there is a difference too between contributing songwriting ideas and being the songwriter, yet that went to court and the decision went against that very notion.

I don't know all the details of the court case, but an argument could be made that the "good night/sleep tight" tag is a hook in "Wouldn't It Be Nice", even though the part seems minor from a lyrical standpoint. Not sure where I stand on that issue, other than I don't think it deserved a full 1/3 writing credit ... but probably more than contributing a line or two.

BUT ... writing is not arranging, and most BB records don't have an "Arranger" credit per se anyway. Arranging (and often producing) is not associated with royalties most of the time either.

I can speak to that having worked ever so briefly as an arranger. The old-school way usually meant the arranger, if a member of the Musicians' Union, would get whatever the scale was per page, or depending on the project, per song. Same with the copyists who would extract the parts from the arranger's score. Per page, in that case, unless it was as happened in LA where they'd take the scores to Bob Ross and extract the parts onto onion skin and print them out or whatever method was used before Xerox. It would also depend on who the arranger was and what else he or she may have done for the song, and as per the deal worked out for the project. Look at Nelson Riddle, Billy May, Gordon Jenkins, "Hank" Mancini (as my arranger mentor called him, lol...). They get prominent credit for what they did on the projects which they worked. Whether royalties were involved, we'd need to go case by case because guys like Jenkins would both write the song and arrange it, and the arranger often conducted the studio session as well.

Producers - again, a case by case basis - but even into the modern era, they could either agree to a payment for services rendered up front, or negotiate for "points" on the records they worked. The points system could be akin to winning the lottery if that record or album hit big, because in those cases the points could equal six or seven figures in compensation - recurring - for that producer. But it was a gamble. If the record stiffed sales-wise, they would be better off taking the up front payment. But if the record hits, they get a portion of whatever that record or song earns as long as the agreement is valid.

Keep in mind as well that in the late 60's turmoil with Capitol, it wasn't just the breakage clause that the audit revealed Capitol had been stiffing the band with. Brian Wilson as producer was *not* paid his rightful share of producer royalties by Capitol, and even in the late 60's that was I think up into the 7-figure range which he was owed and eventually won from Capitol.

It's yet again a situation of going case by case because often it would change from project to project. But consider the examples of arrangers Nelson Riddle, Billy May, etc and how they were all but joined at the hip with Sinatra, Nat Cole, etc and were credited as such because that was the sound that helped sell the records and define that music.

So it was a credited role, both arranger and producer regarding payment systems, at least in the old school ways of the 60's and such. heck, even on late 70's Steely Dan albums they give an arranging credit for the musician who prepared the charts for the players.

That’s all fine and good …

But we know that Brian and the Beach Boys challenged traditional roles and broke boundaries.  Brian was the primary writer, producer, arranger, singer, and often musician on these sessions. So these roles as pre-defined by industry standards were naturally blurred.

I think Dennis said it best, “Brian is the Beach Boys … we’re his messengers”. There is no other way to put it.

However … you need a mess of help to stand alone, and Brian certainly had help from the fellows, the wrecking crew, Marilyn, and probably everyone in his orbit.

I think what Craig/C-Man is after is trying to document these types of contributions, and using the Smiley board as a source to gather that info and brainstorm.

In the case of credits on Beach Boys releases, some say “Produced and Arranged by BW”, the Christmas Album has the Dick Reynolds credit for those orchestral arrangements … but most just say “Produced by Brian Wilson” or “Produced by The Beach Boys”. Which leads me to believe that Brian and the group were well-aware that “arranger” did not serve a function in their recordings because when you are the creator from start to finish, “arranger” as a defined role is not really applicable.

Additionally, we are discussing vocal arrangements specifically. Which was never anything that was credited as such on the original BB records. It is well-documented that Brian Wilson arranged the Beach Boys vocals. And in the case of a vocal arrangement in which Mike may have come up with a bass part, or a hook, or a style of bom-bom vs wow-wow vs. nah-nah-nah … Carl’s point seems to be that this was something that had an influence on the vibe of the song. In the case of a song that Mike did not co-author … I would say this falls firmly into the category of “having a hand” in the vocal arrangement. This does not make Mike the arranger, co-arranger or suggest that he is the vocal arranger or even co-vocal arranger. It simply means that he may have made some contributions to the vocal arrangement that Brian - the PRODUCER/ARRANGER - liked and decided to incorporate. It’s also worth pointing out that Carl does not seem to be referring specifically to Mike’s parts only.

Let’s face it, this would not be a problem if the topic were not Mike Love. Certainly there are plenty of reasons why responses may come as they do. But if the topic were Hal Blaine and his contributions to the arrangements via drum parts, I don’t think the responses would be so charged.

The fact remains that this type of discussion simply does not work on this board anymore, and that’s a shame.


Notice I also said in multiple replies that these kinds of things should be looked at on a case by case basis, which is exactly how all of this went down and still goes down in the process of making a record, from conception to final approved mix. And specifically on who did what and breaking traditional roles. Heck, did Chet Atkins actually "produce" Elvis' first LP on RCA, or did Elvis basically run the session? Chet says he sat back and watched, in awe, and even called his wife to watch what Elvis was doing, and maybe added some rhythm guitar or whatever. Yet Chet is "producer", officially. That's the business.

I'll bring up one that I learned recently after years of listening to, reading about, and researching The Beatles.

Who is generally credited as arranger when The Beatles' records used instruments outside guitar-bass-drums-keyboards? 99% of the time it was George Martin who translated the Beatles ideas and added some of his own onto sheet music that the musicians brought in could read. The string quartets on Yesterday and Eleanor Rigby, the brass on Got To Get You... and Pepper, etc., the strings and wind instruments on Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields, I Am The Walrus, etc.

It was George Martin credited as producer but also did the bulk of the actual arranging, as in creating the parts for the outside players to play. That's common knowledge up to the White Album at least, when George would go on holiday and enlist Chris Thomas to fill that role. No dispute there.

Then factor in The Beatles themselves. It was surprising to learn how much of a key role George Harrison (happy birthday George, btw) played in arranging and translating the arrangements on his songs like Within You Without You. George Martin was not as well versed in Indian music,. meters, and rhythms as Harrison, nor did he know the ins and outs of the phrasing that characterized that music as well as Harrison. So Harrison worked hand-in-hand with both the Indian musicians they assembled as well as George Martin who scored it for the traditional Western string players also on that session. Martin's use of glissando and portamento on that chart influenced a lot of other arrangers at that time to write strings the same way, or on request from other artists who wanted that sound. It was, in fact, a "new" sound for traditional strings to play that way.

So George Harrison was the arranger and producer, right? As was McCartney who worked closely with Martin actually singing the brass and wind parts for Penny Lane, and onward and upward on everything from Here Comes The Sun to Martha My Dear. The Beatles themselves did not have the musical knowledge to do the full job, yet had ideas on what they wanted. So George Martin as producer also was their arranger, vocally too as on Because.

Common knowledge, yet it's exactly what I said earlier - Case by case basis, song by song or session by session basis. Who played what roles versus who got the credit on the albums and liners.

The reason why this is an issue, I do agree, is because it is Mike Love. Do you see the Beatles or their estates trying to seek credit for decades old recordings and releases as Mike has and had done? Do you see surviving Beatles or their families giving regular interviews where they mention credits as often as Mike does even though he won the case to get them? No. Is Olivia or Dhani Harrison saying George didn't get proper credit and looking for his name to be amended on this or that release? No. Any court cases over credits and partnerships where credit was sought when it was not justified? No. Has McCartney claimed he produced one of the many Beatles repackages and releases or do those releases still read "produced by George Martin" as they did all along? But I read in articles and interviews that Mike produced "Endless Summer", and I still don't know how that works logically. I see equal 1/3 credit given for "good night baby" in a fadeout of a record and still don't know how that works logically. Has Ringo ever tried to seek co-writer credit for Hard Day's Night, Tomorrow Never Knows, or any of the other phrases he uttered that got turned into songs? Of course not, even though his "a hard day's night" as a phrase was more crucial to that record and film than Mike saying "good night baby" in a fadeout.

So yes, as I said earlier too, the precedent is there from what Mike has done and tried to do regarding credits before.

Endless Summer, WIBN, how about the 30 or so songs that got taken out of his lawsuit after his initial claims and filings for co-authorship? For the roughly 30 he was awarded credit for, what about the other 30 or so that he claimed and never made it through to the final judgement?

That's just me. But yeah, if credit discussions come back to Mike, it is a factor because of the precedent set over the past decades and the rancor it caused on various fronts. Or even the head-scratching it causes when fans read that he produced Endless Summer, which was a collection of hits from 62-66 that Mike did not produce.

You brought up production and producer royalties, I answered it Donny - That's exactly how the biz works and how some producers are able to live comfortable for years off of those "points" and the royalties they negotiated before starting the project that became a smash hit. Capitol tried to put the screws to Brian in the 60's by not paying up on those, but they eventually did because Brian obviously produced the records and was due those payments and points.

I'd say if there were not overt attempts in the past to overshoot on seeking and applying credit, as unfortunately surrounds this band and perhaps always will, it says more about the band and the dynamics of the members and their behavior than it shows anything negative about this board's ability to have a discussion on this and related topics.

if you think it's isolated to this board and people here, see what the reaction is or would be to an article in a well-circulated music magazine that challenges the nature of the writing, arranging, and producing of the Beach Boys' classic hits, that 62-66 era specifically. Hypothetically If there was something published suggesting Mike in that era was "co-arranger", "co-producer", or similar credits on those records, you'd see reactions that would go beyond anything on this board. The people know, especially musicians, what went into those records. But I've said that already.


I'm trying to follow this, but I'm getting a little lost!

As I'm sure you're aware, I'm personally with the differences between Producer, Arranger, etc. and 1960s recording history.

We've established that the credits on the jackets are not always correct. For instance, Sky Saxon was a personal friend of mine and told me that "Marcus Tybolt" (who is credited with producing all of the Seeds records) was a fictional name that he created! Sky is also credited with performing bass on all of those records ... which he did not. Tons and tons of examples, so I'll leave it at that ...

I don't have much interest in the Beatles, but what you have noted above is exactly what we're talking about here: the jackets say one thing, but what really happened is another. How do we determine what really happened? Interviews with people who were there, interested historians researching, fan communities brainstorming, etc ...

... and here we are, in the Beach Boys world, doing the same thing ...

... but if the subject involves a possible uncredited contribution from Mike Love, we are not to explore or discuss these possibilities on this board for fear of possible litigation against Brian Wilson. I say this makes it a political issue. It's not about research and discussing the history of the Beach Boys recordings ... it's now about Mike Love vs. Brian Wilson, and the "side" each poster is taking.

These are indeed issues isolated to this board in my opinion, as it has become increasingly divisive over the past couple years. It used to be that you, C-Man, aeijtzche, myself, and others used to have open discussions with primary goal of getting as much info down about these BB sessions that we love. With the occasional post by heavy hitters like Stephen Desper, Mark Linnet, Alan Boyd, etc.

The results of this thread are a good example of where we're at: valued contributors are either absent completely (from this thread and/or the board), and those who remain are attempting to have an adult discussion are brought into the politics and made to feel unwelcome.

If the board continues like this, at some point, these types of (in my opinion, important) discussions will simply disappear altogether.

PS -- Where is Mike Love credited as Producer of Endless Summer ?!? The label credit says BW. Mike is known to have sequenced and/or selected the songs and named the record ... so "Curator" at best ... or maybe "Executive in Charge of Production" Smiley
Logged

guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #106 on: February 26, 2017, 01:29:50 PM »

We did have some good discussions before 2013, Donny - Great ones. Unfortunately at some point the politics DID infect the fanbase, and various aspects of trying to tell the story and history of the band got more concerned with image making, legacy building, and damage control than they did with actual discussions of the history, the facts, and the research. I don't know if it will ever be the same, unfortunately, because the politics will always get in the way.

That was the precedent set as well - A sometimes blind and total refusal to see facts as they were laid out. Attempts to diminish or discredit one in order to boost another. When all else fails to change the facts or rewrite the history, either ignore, filibuster, or lie. I could go on, but it's old news. At some point "you reap what you sow" in terms of trying to discredit and diminish in order to boost. I got tired of seeing endless attempts to outright lie about Brian Wilson, his family, his recordings, the whole nine yards. Consequently, if someone challenged Mike, that was "bashing".

Such became the state of online fandom and discussions. Thanks to Doe and others who will remain nameless.

Check Mike's press releases, bio, various articles: According to those he "produced" Endless Summer. If I can find any, I'll try to list them.

Did Mike "produce" Endless Summer?

Did Carl produce "Party!"

Did Mike write "Alone On Christmas Day" by himself, or did Altbach co-write it? Because the credits on the releases don't have Altbach's name at all as co-writer.

Is "good night baby, sleep tight" worthy of equal credit with Tony and Brian?

On topic: Is there any way, logically, on many of these songs and parts to narrow it down and accurately credit what Brian had in mind when creating the parts to what Mike, or Carl, or Dennis, or anyone in the BB's added on their own to the existing outline of a song or arrangement during the process of the song developing? If it exists on a session tape, hard evidence, that's one thing...as in "Hey Brian, I want to try this part..." and that's what got on the final version. But "Mike says so" isn't the deciding factor...or is it? I'll leave that up to debate. Someone seems to say Mike "produced" Endless Summer, and other assorted questionable claims.

When all of these cases kept coming up, that's the direction Mike and some of his more vocal supporters in the fanbase seemed to want to take, so that's where it is now. Unfortunate, but no more unfortunate than the ignoring of any sense of appreciating and celebrating what was actually achieved and seeking to do more creatively, rather than seeking to revisit, argue, and futz with credits that are decades old to boost a legacy or image by knocking others like Brian or the Wilsons down years after the fact. That's what had been happening for too long. In my opinion.



Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1990



View Profile WWW
« Reply #107 on: February 26, 2017, 01:53:16 PM »

We did have some good discussions before 2013, Donny - Great ones. Unfortunately at some point the politics DID infect the fanbase, and various aspects of trying to tell the story and history of the band got more concerned with image making, legacy building, and damage control than they did with actual discussions of the history, the facts, and the research. I don't know if it will ever be the same, unfortunately, because the politics will always get in the way.

That was the precedent set as well - A sometimes blind and total refusal to see facts as they were laid out. Attempts to diminish or discredit one in order to boost another. When all else fails to change the facts or rewrite the history, either ignore, filibuster, or lie. I could go on, but it's old news. At some point "you reap what you sow" in terms of trying to discredit and diminish in order to boost. I got tired of seeing endless attempts to outright lie about Brian Wilson, his family, his recordings, the whole nine yards. Consequently, if someone challenged Mike, that was "bashing".

Such became the state of online fandom and discussions. Thanks to Doe and others who will remain nameless.

Check Mike's press releases, bio, various articles: According to those he "produced" Endless Summer. If I can find any, I'll try to list them.

Did Mike "produce" Endless Summer?

Did Carl produce "Party!"

Did Mike write "Alone On Christmas Day" by himself, or did Altbach co-write it? Because the credits on the releases don't have Altbach's name at all as co-writer.

Is "good night baby, sleep tight" worthy of equal credit with Tony and Brian?

On topic: Is there any way, logically, on many of these songs and parts to narrow it down and accurately credit what Brian had in mind when creating the parts to what Mike, or Carl, or Dennis, or anyone in the BB's added on their own to the existing outline of a song or arrangement during the process of the song developing? If it exists on a session tape, hard evidence, that's one thing...as in "Hey Brian, I want to try this part..." and that's what got on the final version. But "Mike says so" isn't the deciding factor...or is it? I'll leave that up to debate. Someone seems to say Mike "produced" Endless Summer, and other assorted questionable claims.

When all of these cases kept coming up, that's the direction Mike and some of his more vocal supporters in the fanbase seemed to want to take, so that's where it is now. Unfortunate, but no more unfortunate than the ignoring of any sense of appreciating and celebrating what was actually achieved and seeking to do more creatively, rather than seeking to revisit, argue, and futz with credits that are decades old to boost a legacy or image by knocking others like Brian or the Wilsons down years after the fact. That's what had been happening for too long. In my opinion.





It sounds like you're saying that this is essentially a counter-agenda to a previous agenda. But that is still a bias that interferes with discussing things like who did what in a recording session.
Logged

guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #108 on: February 26, 2017, 02:00:24 PM »

Expanding on something from my previous post, and which is on-topic for this thread: Is there a way to definitively assign these credits that would be possible with actual evidence (as in confirmed versions of events, actual session tape or film, etc...) ? On the topic of Mike contributing to the vocal arrangements, where could anything be found to back it up if it doesn't exist on tape or other documentation that can be backed up?

Isn't it speculation along the lines of trying to state a definite running order and tracklist for Smile as of April '67 or whenever? When there is no definite proof, how can it be determined who added what during the process of making these tracks and doing the vocals? To further make it cloudy, both Mike and Brian would sit in that car in Hawthorne and listen to doo-wop and R&B on the radio and sing along, the Wilsons lived under the same roof and heard everything from Brian's Four Freshmen to Carl's Chuck Berry and Spade Cooley, to Murry's Lawrence Welk, to Mike's R&B when he was there, to Al's folk, and whatever was in the Wilson family jukebox and on their radio...so wouldn't that make it even more challenging to definitively pin down every R&B or doo-wop style vocal on a BB's vocal arrangement to Mike's contribution and design?

Was every guitar part that sounded like Chuck Berry on those records Carl's or David's or Al's idea, or was it a part conceived by someone else (not just Brian) who could have told him "play this solo like Chuck Berry would play it", or whatever?

I'm just curious how trying to define these contributions can go beyond pure speculation if there is no documentation or proof available from the moment the song was drawn up, and if that's the case, should it revert back to the default credit of who wrote/produced/arranged the song?
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
c-man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4941


View Profile WWW
« Reply #109 on: February 26, 2017, 02:11:39 PM »

I'm just curious how trying to define these contributions can go beyond pure speculation if there is no documentation or proof available from the moment the song was drawn up, and if that's the case, should it revert back to the default credit of who wrote/produced/arranged the song?

That was kinda the whole point of my post in the first place, guitarfool2000 - since Carl gave two specific examples of syllabic riffs that Mike might choose to use...namely, "shoo-boo-bop" and "bom-bom-did-di-did-did"...are there any songs where these parts are clearly identifiable? If so, we can probably assume that Mike came up with those, or at least the idea to use them in those specific songs, rather than groundlessly speculating that he might have come with bass vocal parts on other songs where those two syllabic riffs AREN'T employed.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #110 on: February 26, 2017, 02:17:19 PM »

We did have some good discussions before 2013, Donny - Great ones. Unfortunately at some point the politics DID infect the fanbase, and various aspects of trying to tell the story and history of the band got more concerned with image making, legacy building, and damage control than they did with actual discussions of the history, the facts, and the research. I don't know if it will ever be the same, unfortunately, because the politics will always get in the way.

That was the precedent set as well - A sometimes blind and total refusal to see facts as they were laid out. Attempts to diminish or discredit one in order to boost another. When all else fails to change the facts or rewrite the history, either ignore, filibuster, or lie. I could go on, but it's old news. At some point "you reap what you sow" in terms of trying to discredit and diminish in order to boost. I got tired of seeing endless attempts to outright lie about Brian Wilson, his family, his recordings, the whole nine yards. Consequently, if someone challenged Mike, that was "bashing".

Such became the state of online fandom and discussions. Thanks to Doe and others who will remain nameless.

Check Mike's press releases, bio, various articles: According to those he "produced" Endless Summer. If I can find any, I'll try to list them.

Did Mike "produce" Endless Summer?

Did Carl produce "Party!"

Did Mike write "Alone On Christmas Day" by himself, or did Altbach co-write it? Because the credits on the releases don't have Altbach's name at all as co-writer.

Is "good night baby, sleep tight" worthy of equal credit with Tony and Brian?

On topic: Is there any way, logically, on many of these songs and parts to narrow it down and accurately credit what Brian had in mind when creating the parts to what Mike, or Carl, or Dennis, or anyone in the BB's added on their own to the existing outline of a song or arrangement during the process of the song developing? If it exists on a session tape, hard evidence, that's one thing...as in "Hey Brian, I want to try this part..." and that's what got on the final version. But "Mike says so" isn't the deciding factor...or is it? I'll leave that up to debate. Someone seems to say Mike "produced" Endless Summer, and other assorted questionable claims.

When all of these cases kept coming up, that's the direction Mike and some of his more vocal supporters in the fanbase seemed to want to take, so that's where it is now. Unfortunate, but no more unfortunate than the ignoring of any sense of appreciating and celebrating what was actually achieved and seeking to do more creatively, rather than seeking to revisit, argue, and futz with credits that are decades old to boost a legacy or image by knocking others like Brian or the Wilsons down years after the fact. That's what had been happening for too long. In my opinion.





It sounds like you're saying that this is essentially a counter-agenda to a previous agenda. But that is still a bias that interferes with discussing things like who did what in a recording session.


If arguments on these issues had not happened previously directly related to and using the issue of crediting, both undercrediting and overcrediting band members on their contributions to the recording process, it may not be an issue at all. If some individuals arguing some points that would effectively seek to diminish, say, Brian Wilson's role in something were not at the same time trying to diminish Brian Wilson personally in general through some very unsavory means and methods, perhaps the issues themselves would not be as loaded.

For an extreme example, can a discussion be had at this point on a BB's board about the legitimate contributions of Carol Kaye without a bias on that issue entering the discussion? For all that Carol has contributed musically, and it amounts to legit credits a mile long beyond the basic fact that she is a terrific musician who should be recognized for that work, try to find a discussion that does not devolve into the issues surrounding her credits and claims versus the actual issues at hand.

Maybe - just maybe - some fans see credits like that one on WIBN as similar, and it tends to negatively shade any discussions of credit and contributions rightly or wrongly. It was introduced in a court of law that there were clandestine studio bathroom breaks which contributed to the writing of that song, which is beyond laughable for obvious reasons. Once that kind of over-crediting if not stretching credibility and common sense is done, it may have the same effect on discussing the legit credits as the Motown issues had in the other cases.

But, "the court hath spoken" and WIBN will have now and forever more a 3-way equal split on the writing credit.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1990



View Profile WWW
« Reply #111 on: February 26, 2017, 02:24:49 PM »

Expanding on something from my previous post, and which is on-topic for this thread: Is there a way to definitively assign these credits that would be possible with actual evidence (as in confirmed versions of events, actual session tape or film, etc...) ? On the topic of Mike contributing to the vocal arrangements, where could anything be found to back it up if it doesn't exist on tape or other documentation that can be backed up?

Isn't it speculation along the lines of trying to state a definite running order and tracklist for Smile as of April '67 or whenever? When there is no definite proof, how can it be determined who added what during the process of making these tracks and doing the vocals? To further make it cloudy, both Mike and Brian would sit in that car in Hawthorne and listen to doo-wop and R&B on the radio and sing along, the Wilsons lived under the same roof and heard everything from Brian's Four Freshmen to Carl's Chuck Berry and Spade Cooley, to Murry's Lawrence Welk, to Mike's R&B when he was there, to Al's folk, and whatever was in the Wilson family jukebox and on their radio...so wouldn't that make it even more challenging to definitively pin down every R&B or doo-wop style vocal on a BB's vocal arrangement to Mike's contribution and design?

Was every guitar part that sounded like Chuck Berry on those records Carl's or David's or Al's idea, or was it a part conceived by someone else (not just Brian) who could have told him "play this solo like Chuck Berry would play it", or whatever?

I'm just curious how trying to define these contributions can go beyond pure speculation if there is no documentation or proof available from the moment the song was drawn up, and if that's the case, should it revert back to the default credit of who wrote/produced/arranged the song?

There is no way to know for sure, all of this is speculation ... which I thought was what we're all about around here? Brainstorming, guessing, speculating. Sort of like the guitar used on the intro of "Wouldn't It Be Nice". The best guess is the answer we go with ... until more info comes along.

Getting back "on topic" ... my contribution would be a more general comment. I'd say it would be impossible to know specifically what parts Mike came up with. But just as Carl has a guitar style, Mike has a vocal hook style. And you can kinda tell the type of "Mike Love elements", as Terry Melcher said. I think it goes back to that Bruce quote too ... Mike was able to take some of Brian's more abstract compositions and make them more accessible to the masses. I believe that was Carl's main point. Certainly, Brian was also able to do that himself in many instances.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2017, 02:27:05 PM by DonnyL » Logged

guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #112 on: February 26, 2017, 02:26:39 PM »

I'm just curious how trying to define these contributions can go beyond pure speculation if there is no documentation or proof available from the moment the song was drawn up, and if that's the case, should it revert back to the default credit of who wrote/produced/arranged the song?

That was kinda the whole point of my post in the first place, guitarfool2000 - since Carl gave two specific examples of syllabic riffs that Mike might choose to use...namely, "shoo-boo-bop" and "bom-bom-did-di-did-did"...are there any songs where these parts are clearly identifiable? If so, we can probably assume that Mike came up with those, or at least the idea to use them in those specific songs, rather than groundlessly speculating that he might have come with bass vocal parts on other songs where those two syllabic riffs AREN'T employed.

Do you hear either of those in any song beyond "Surfin" ? I think again beyond having hard proof, there isn't enough ground to go anywhere beyond speculation, surely not into saying this or that song had a bassline written by Mike or conceived by Mike unless something exists to back it up, like a session tape or some other documentation. And sometimes that speculation swells into people assuming that because Mike sang a part, he wrote that part, and that's just not true enough to use as a standard. There also isn't enough proof in so many of these cases to be able to say definitively that such a bass part didn't exist when Brian first started banging out the ideas at the piano.

We could turn it around and go back to how Brian said he would generate ideas at the piano. He'd start playing boogie-woogie patterns on the piano, which shared a lot in terms of bass motion with the kind of Doo-Wop and R&B basslines that we're discussing around Mike's parts, and who knows if something Brian played from those meditative boogie-woogie patterns didn't morph into whatever bassline Mike would eventually sing. Or maybe like Good Vibrations, Mike jumped on a bassline Brian already had and put some cool rhythmic words to it that fit perfectly - who knows what happened from the most basic idea to the end mixdown. There just isn't much to go on.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1990



View Profile WWW
« Reply #113 on: February 26, 2017, 02:36:44 PM »

We did have some good discussions before 2013, Donny - Great ones. Unfortunately at some point the politics DID infect the fanbase, and various aspects of trying to tell the story and history of the band got more concerned with image making, legacy building, and damage control than they did with actual discussions of the history, the facts, and the research. I don't know if it will ever be the same, unfortunately, because the politics will always get in the way.

That was the precedent set as well - A sometimes blind and total refusal to see facts as they were laid out. Attempts to diminish or discredit one in order to boost another. When all else fails to change the facts or rewrite the history, either ignore, filibuster, or lie. I could go on, but it's old news. At some point "you reap what you sow" in terms of trying to discredit and diminish in order to boost. I got tired of seeing endless attempts to outright lie about Brian Wilson, his family, his recordings, the whole nine yards. Consequently, if someone challenged Mike, that was "bashing".

Such became the state of online fandom and discussions. Thanks to Doe and others who will remain nameless.

Check Mike's press releases, bio, various articles: According to those he "produced" Endless Summer. If I can find any, I'll try to list them.

Did Mike "produce" Endless Summer?

Did Carl produce "Party!"

Did Mike write "Alone On Christmas Day" by himself, or did Altbach co-write it? Because the credits on the releases don't have Altbach's name at all as co-writer.

Is "good night baby, sleep tight" worthy of equal credit with Tony and Brian?

On topic: Is there any way, logically, on many of these songs and parts to narrow it down and accurately credit what Brian had in mind when creating the parts to what Mike, or Carl, or Dennis, or anyone in the BB's added on their own to the existing outline of a song or arrangement during the process of the song developing? If it exists on a session tape, hard evidence, that's one thing...as in "Hey Brian, I want to try this part..." and that's what got on the final version. But "Mike says so" isn't the deciding factor...or is it? I'll leave that up to debate. Someone seems to say Mike "produced" Endless Summer, and other assorted questionable claims.

When all of these cases kept coming up, that's the direction Mike and some of his more vocal supporters in the fanbase seemed to want to take, so that's where it is now. Unfortunate, but no more unfortunate than the ignoring of any sense of appreciating and celebrating what was actually achieved and seeking to do more creatively, rather than seeking to revisit, argue, and futz with credits that are decades old to boost a legacy or image by knocking others like Brian or the Wilsons down years after the fact. That's what had been happening for too long. In my opinion.





It sounds like you're saying that this is essentially a counter-agenda to a previous agenda. But that is still a bias that interferes with discussing things like who did what in a recording session.


If arguments on these issues had not happened previously directly related to and using the issue of crediting, both undercrediting and overcrediting band members on their contributions to the recording process, it may not be an issue at all. If some individuals arguing some points that would effectively seek to diminish, say, Brian Wilson's role in something were not at the same time trying to diminish Brian Wilson personally in general through some very unsavory means and methods, perhaps the issues themselves would not be as loaded.

For an extreme example, can a discussion be had at this point on a BB's board about the legitimate contributions of Carol Kaye without a bias on that issue entering the discussion? For all that Carol has contributed musically, and it amounts to legit credits a mile long beyond the basic fact that she is a terrific musician who should be recognized for that work, try to find a discussion that does not devolve into the issues surrounding her credits and claims versus the actual issues at hand.

Maybe - just maybe - some fans see credits like that one on WIBN as similar, and it tends to negatively shade any discussions of credit and contributions rightly or wrongly. It was introduced in a court of law that there were clandestine studio bathroom breaks which contributed to the writing of that song, which is beyond laughable for obvious reasons. Once that kind of over-crediting if not stretching credibility and common sense is done, it may have the same effect on discussing the legit credits as the Motown issues had in the other cases.

But, "the court hath spoken" and WIBN will have now and forever more a 3-way equal split on the writing credit.

I was going to bring up Carol Kaye actually ... Because I got into it with AGD for "defending" her on some old threads. But truthfully, my opinion is exactly the same there -- let's leave the personal stuff and politics out and discuss the topics like reasonable, civil fans.

Maybe I am missing a big piece of relevant info, but I just don’t get it.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2017, 02:37:26 PM by DonnyL » Logged

guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #114 on: February 26, 2017, 02:41:23 PM »

It also makes it very difficult to pin down because that very style of bass in doo-wop and R&B music as is being referenced was so ubiquitous, and a lot of it was far from unique enough musically to even pin down to one reference. We could say it was from T-Bone Walker's "T Bone Shuffle" or Arthur Smith's "Guitar Boogie" and they both have 90% of the same motion and phrasing as the bass vocal on Surfin. Then move that process to doo-wop...holy cow! It was one of the sounds of the entire genre to have bass parts moving and doing the various "bow bow" and "bom bom de bom" vocals on any number of thousands of doo-wop records. Name a few doo-wop artists and records from the 50's and you'll hear similar bass vocal patterns as I think we're trying to narrow down to whether Mike created them or not on Beach Boys records.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
c-man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4941


View Profile WWW
« Reply #115 on: February 26, 2017, 02:41:28 PM »

I think again beyond having hard proof, there isn't enough ground to go anywhere beyond speculation, surely not into saying this or that song had a bassline written by Mike or conceived by Mike unless something exists to back it up, like a session tape or some other documentation.

This one is a very, very late example...so late, in fact, that Carl sadly wasn't around to hear it...but Mike is on record as saying he came up with the bass vocal line for "Isn't It Time" (to go on top of the track already created by Jim Peterik and Larry Millas), then Brian wrote the melody (and maybe some words to go with it), and finally Mike finished off the lyrics. But I was really asking about the classic '60s songs...ones that Carl COULD have been referring to...yes, I could have just listened to all of them myself to see how times, if any, those example riffs quoted by Carl might show up...but it's more fun to involve others with an interest in musical academia.
Logged
southbay
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 1482



View Profile
« Reply #116 on: February 26, 2017, 04:05:20 PM »

I think again beyond having hard proof, there isn't enough ground to go anywhere beyond speculation, surely not into saying this or that song had a bassline written by Mike or conceived by Mike unless something exists to back it up, like a session tape or some other documentation.

This one is a very, very late example...so late, in fact, that Carl sadly wasn't around to hear it...but Mike is on record as saying he came up with the bass vocal line for "Isn't It Time" (to go on top of the track already created by Jim Peterik and Larry Millas), then Brian wrote the melody (and maybe some words to go with it), and finally Mike finished off the lyrics. But I was really asking about the classic '60s songs...ones that Carl COULD have been referring to...yes, I could have just listened to all of them myself to see how times, if any, those example riffs quoted by Carl might show up...but it's more fun to involve others with an interest in musical academia.

Yes, I was just going to post the recent example of Mike's bass line vocal creation/arrangement for Isn't it Time...
« Last Edit: February 26, 2017, 04:07:59 PM by southbay » Logged

Summer's gone...it's finally sinking in
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #117 on: February 26, 2017, 05:27:51 PM »

I'd like to post this for anyone interested, it's a great read: The full interview with Carl where the quote came from. I didn't realize Donny had even posted it, Donny - you didn't say anything about it! Some cool and some relevant quotes and comments from Carl. I'll just post a few, along with the actual link.

Link: http://troun.tripod.com/carl.html


Here is the full context of the original quote:

>>>>Harmony:

Everyone sensed their part. When Brian would present a song to us, we would almost know what our part would be. Michael always sang the bottom; I would sing the one above that, then would come Dennis or Alan, and then Brian on top. We had a feeling for it. It's not widely know, but Michael had a hand in a lot of the arrangements. he would bring out the funkier approaches, whether to go shoo-boo-bop or bom-bom-did-di-did-did. It makes a big difference, because it can change the whole rhythm, the whole color and tone of it. We're big oooh-ers; we love to oooh. It's a big, full sound, that's very pleasing to us; it opens up the heart.

Alan's voice has a bright timbre to it; it really cuts. Brian's voice is very complete. He's not using it now; it's really sad. But when he does, he has a very thick voice. Our voices are voiced like horn parts, the way those R&B records made background vocals sound like a sax section. They're all within the same octave; that's really the secret to it. We didn't just duplicate parts; we used a lot of counterpoint, a lot of layered sound. Obviously, Brian's influence is now massive.

Early production:

Brian was really the one making the records. Nick [Venet] would call out the take numbers, but he wasn't part of making the music. When Brian said he wouldn't work with Nick anymore, Capitol sent over this other guy. Then it became clear to Brian, and he said, "Look, I'm not cutting with these guys, and what's more, I'm not going to use your studio. We'll send you the next record." Now this was a big thing in those days, because record companies were used to having absolute control over their artists. It was especially nervy, because Brian was a 21 year old kid with just two albums. It was unheard of. But what could they say? Brian made good records. He wouldn't work at Capitol, because it was a crappy-sounding studio. It had a fabulous string sound, and that was great for those records that Nat King Cole made, but not for rock n' roll guitar. So we recorded at Western Recorders, which was really our home.

"In My Room" is a tune we've learned to appreciate more as the years go by. You can tell it's getting pretty close to home for Brian, and all those tender, vulnerable things are coming out. "California Girls" is a very artistic record for its time. The guitar part by Ray Pohlman and myself in the introduction was very different, very bizarre. You didn't expect a rock n' roll record to sound like that, classical and majestic. Then it came on like gangbusters out of nowhere.

Brian was evolving very fast. We learned as we went. He was writing stuff that really needed to be performed; that's why he needed session players.

Brian just adored Phil [Spector]; he couldn't get enough of him. Brian started going to Phil's sessions, and it just blew him away. Phil would play things back so loud it was scary. I think the psychological and emotional impact of going in and hearing songs before they came out made him totally fascinated with Phil, under a spell almost. That was Brian's kind of rock; he liked it more than the early Beatles stuff.

When Brian first heard a record, he would get the whole thing at once. The rest of us would have to listen ten times or so to really get everything that was going on. So when Brian taught us our parts, he had the total picture in his head.

I remember a date at Gold Star one night. There were a lot of players in the room. They were making a big, big sound, and Brian said, "Whoa!" because one little thing didn't happen; someone didn't ring an orchestra bell at the right time. He used to drive Michael crazy. Michael would be doing his lead, and Brian would say, "Okay, scratch." We'd say, "No, Brian, wait a minute, we love that part." And he'd say, "Nope, 86," and it'd be gone; we'd have to do it again. But he was always right.<<<<


>>>"Good Vibrations":

"Good Vibrations" has a lot of texture on it, because we did so many overdubs. We'd double or triple or quadruple the exact same part, so it would sound like 20 voices. When I first heard it, it was a much rougher sound; it had more whomp to it. Instead of making it bigger, bulgier and more raucous as Phil Spector might have, Brian refined it, and got it more even-sounding. He had the idea of "I'm picking up good vibrations," but Michael didn't write the lyrics until the very last minute.

We recorded different sections at three different studios. Each one had a good sound for a different thing. Recording in sections was an innovation. It was pretty daring back then to record a section and see if it would fit in later.<<<


>>>As for playing with the Beach Boys, Carl agreed to do some dates with the band in April of 1982, but again the lack of formal rehearsal time irked him:

Everything was rushed; it was very mechanical. There was resistance to rehearsing out of habit. But it all finally came together at the last minute. In 1983 they'll be a lot more rehearsals, new faces, new songs... I may open some shows with my new band.

I'd like to see the group take another shot at making one more good record. That's the thing we keep trying to do but can never quite pull together all the elements. But I don't think we'll make another Beach Boys album until Brian's healthy enough to produce again. I know we could make a real strong commercial record with an outside producer. So that's possible, but, if you're talking about making a great record, "Good Vibrations" class, you're talking about Brian with us. Anything else is bullshit.

And yet, I don't mind if he doesn't make any more music. That's fine with me. I don't care if he makes hits or not. My interest in Brian is that I love him as a human being and as a brother, as I love all my family. I want him to have some joy and satisfaction in life, and he's not getting that. I'm not discouraging him by any means, but the main thing is that he have a nurturing, loving life. That's all that matters anyway.<<<


After re-reading it, a few of those points will stand out and are at least interesting in weighing various discussions and even arguments we have had on this board and on other forums. As I have already said, it was Carl's use of the word arranging that I disagreed with and even moreso by the examples he gave, but I've already gone over that with my opinions and I still disagree to a point with the use of that word in this context. But, as Carl pointed out elsewhere in this interview, he made it crystal-clear about Brian's role in the arranging of the voices and instruments and making the records overall. After reading it in context, I'd even say Carl comes close to contradicting himself, unless he was trying to state something that didn't translate as clearly to print regarding contributions from the group and Mike in particular.

I also wish I had referenced this interview which Donny posted when the topic was Murry or Venet producing the early records, I think C-Man referenced that again in this thread. Add Carl to the voice of Chuck Britz in clarifying the role Brian played versus that of Venet, in terms of fair crediting. It doesn't get much more clear than when Carl said "Brian was really the one making the records", yet I remember getting a lot of flak here for saying the same thing Carl did 35 years ago in this interview, along with Britz.

And I also have to add for my own clarification that the comments about Mike's hand in arranging from Carl in this case are not the first time I've read something similar, yet it seems to have either been missed or bypassed in the months since Mike's book came out.

Page 39:
>>>“Either one of us might come up with a concept—what’s this song about?  Brian started with a melody, which he played for me; my specialty was finding the hook, or phrase, that drew people in.  I typically wrote the bulk of the words, while Brian structured the harmonies to fit our voices.  I weighed in on the arrangements as well, in particular the bass parts.”<<<

I wondered what Mike was referring to, and was hoping for examples at some point, or at least a forum topic, because structuring the harmonies is arranging them...but maybe that's just me and semantics. And Mike's comment is more vague and left more open than Carl's.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2017, 05:30:13 PM by guitarfool2002 » Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Don Malcolm
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 1108



View Profile
« Reply #118 on: February 26, 2017, 07:43:56 PM »

See, now, reports of the demise of this board in terms of this type of discussion are highly exaggerated...

We are just in a moment where any thread that mentions Mike by name is going to have to endure some flak from those who have a vested interest in venting. But most of that "content" in this thread is cartoon-like as opposed to the belligerence and "lawyerly double-speak" that sucked the air out of this place, leaving it like a summer day in Hawaii when the trade winds stop blowing...

That was a fine piece from MUSICIAN, and thanks to those who posted it here originally, and created an easy link for those of us who are beseiged with other projects and have no time to give at present in the pursuit of knowledge and happiness. Carl gives us a lot of valuable insight, and from what we know now he's being 95%+ straight.

It seems to me that, over time, Brian began to move away from the type of vocal arrangement that would have been served by Mike's ability to elaborate bass-line motifs. Carl pretty much pinpoints it for us with his remarks about SUMMER DAYS AND SUMMER NIGHTS, which seems to be the point where the balance tips..."Help Me Rhonda" is a holdover from TODAY, with more fixes to the instrumental arrangement than the vocal track; "Girl From NYC" just has a few held low notes; "Let Him Run Wild" has the "waited for you girl" half-line resolution. PET SOUNDS, the SMiLE sessions and SMILEY SMILE have a much different vocal arrangement approach, though "GV" is a clear exception. (H&V is always some kind of modified barbershop, more or less pronounced.) WILD HONEY is more soul than doo-wop based; FRIENDS was cut mostly while Mike was in India; when Carl and Dennis start producing their own material, you do see a resurgence of Mike's parts ("I Can Hear Music," "Celebrate the News", "Got to Know the Woman," "It's About Time," "Forever") but you don't hear that timbre much in Brian's tracks ("This Whole World" is the exception). Another exception is the tag for HOLLAND's "Funky Pretty."

When Brian comes back for 15 BIG ONES, he does revert back to the older vocal arranging style, but my ears tell me that Mike is not much in the mix as a backing vocalist for LOVE YOU. After that, we are getting into territory where the material is further divorced from the classic sound, and I find myself disinclined to even generalize about it.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #119 on: February 26, 2017, 10:30:27 PM »

I wonder how many of Mike's vocal parts (and the other Boys' vocal parts) were largely invented by the specific Boy singing those parts for material written when Brian was out of the band?

Is it safe to say that most of the vocal parts Mike sings on Summer in Paradise were his invention (sans input from Terry)? And the same question for higher quality material that the band released without Brian's input, of which there is a good amount of.

Separate question - what does everyone think are the most adventurous and complex vocal tracks on BB tunes without Brian's involvement? I think the earliest example of a pretty complex Brian-free vocal arrangement might be I Can Hear Music, which is why I suggested Mike's parts in the breakdown bridge part might perhaps have been Mike's own invention. That is unless Carl arranged parts for Mike to sing.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2017, 10:31:40 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Jay
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5985



View Profile
« Reply #120 on: February 26, 2017, 11:17:19 PM »

I wonder, did Mike come up with the brief vocalization part right before the whistle tag in "From There To Back Again"?
Logged

A son of anarchy surrounded by the hierarchy.
c-man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4941


View Profile WWW
« Reply #121 on: February 27, 2017, 03:17:18 AM »

I wonder how many of Mike's vocal parts (and the other Boys' vocal parts) were largely invented by the specific Boy singing those parts for material written when Brian was out of the band?

Is it safe to say that most of the vocal parts Mike sings on Summer in Paradise were his invention (sans input from Terry)? And the same question for higher quality material that the band released without Brian's input, of which there is a good amount of.

Separate question - what does everyone think are the most adventurous and complex vocal tracks on BB tunes without Brian's involvement? I think the earliest example of a pretty complex Brian-free vocal arrangement might be I Can Hear Music, which is why I suggested Mike's parts in the breakdown bridge part might perhaps have been Mike's own invention. That is unless Carl arranged parts for Mike to sing.

Bruce actually did the vocal arrangement for "I Can Hear Music", but Mike indeed came up with the idea to sing the "Do-rae-mi" part in the breakdown.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #122 on: February 27, 2017, 09:58:29 AM »

I wonder how many of Mike's vocal parts (and the other Boys' vocal parts) were largely invented by the specific Boy singing those parts for material written when Brian was out of the band?

Is it safe to say that most of the vocal parts Mike sings on Summer in Paradise were his invention (sans input from Terry)? And the same question for higher quality material that the band released without Brian's input, of which there is a good amount of.

Separate question - what does everyone think are the most adventurous and complex vocal tracks on BB tunes without Brian's involvement? I think the earliest example of a pretty complex Brian-free vocal arrangement might be I Can Hear Music, which is why I suggested Mike's parts in the breakdown bridge part might perhaps have been Mike's own invention. That is unless Carl arranged parts for Mike to sing.

Bruce actually did the vocal arrangement for "I Can Hear Music", but Mike indeed came up with the idea to sing the "Do-rae-mi" part in the breakdown.

Awesome, thanks for that bit of trivia, c-man! Sort of what I figured about Mike's part, and very interesting to hear about Bruce doing that arranging.  Bruce was obviously no slouch, having cowritten the brilliantly underrated Don't Run Away a couple of years earlier.  I'm guessing that Bruce would be the vocal arranger on that song as well?  And side question, I wonder what Terry Melcher contributed to songs like that to give him a cowriting credit. Lyrics, melody, arrangement? Or all of the above?

I think it is strange that these contributions - such as I Can Hear Music - have never been noted in any type of official capacity in actual liner notes.   Especially if it's for somebody's vocal arrangement of nearly the entire song.  Carl always gets the lions share of credit for that song, but obviously this proves there was more group input.  And I can't blame band members for being resentful for the misconception of being thought of as people who hardly contributed much of anything. I certainly don't think it's any type of concerted effort to undercredit people, but just the way that crediting tends to work in general I suppose.  

Again, as guitarfool has pointed out, it's a slippery slope with credits and obviously lots of people never really get much recognition for contributing cool things here and there. With this band, considering that vocals and vocal arrangements are such an important part of the songs, I would be extremely interested to hear more bits of information like this about other songs.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2017, 10:12:40 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1990



View Profile WWW
« Reply #123 on: February 27, 2017, 11:26:52 AM »

I'd like to post this for anyone interested, it's a great read: The full interview with Carl where the quote came from. I didn't realize Donny had even posted it, Donny - you didn't say anything about it! Some cool and some relevant quotes and comments from Carl. I'll just post a few, along with the actual link.

Link: http://troun.tripod.com/carl.html


Yep that was me ... I started that site around 1999-2000, haven't been able to access it in a good 15 years, but the pages are still floating around Smiley
Logged

DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1990



View Profile WWW
« Reply #124 on: February 27, 2017, 11:30:14 AM »

Bruce actually did the vocal arrangement for "I Can Hear Music", but Mike indeed came up with the idea to sing the "Do-rae-mi" part in the breakdown.

This is the exact type of info that we're talking about. How do we know that Bruce did the vocal arrangement? Because of this type of research/discussion! (And C-Man, of course)
Logged

gfx
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 1.068 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!