gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
660580 Posts in 26466 Topics by 3770 Members - Latest Member: robertscool August 10, 2020, 08:44:42 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mike Sums Up Life in 3 Minutes on PBS - Does he mention songwriting credits?  (Read 3039 times)
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8891



View Profile WWW
« on: January 10, 2020, 06:19:01 AM »

The answer is, of course, yes, yes he does. His under-three-minutes summation of his life/career goes: Childhood, cutting "Surfin'", and then Murry/songwriting credit issues.

Here's a video as well a transcript:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/brief/326896/mike-love

I actually *almost* feel sorry for Mike if the songwriting credit issue is *that* much of a main bullet point in his life. Above co-writing all those songs, playing all those famous gigs, and despite being insanely rich and famous to this day. When he sums up his *life*, after childhood and the band's first record, the very next thing that pops into his mind is Murry and getting screwed over on songwriting credits.

All his talent and accomplishments, and all of his luck and good fortune, and 25 years after he won a lawsuit to rectify the songwriting issue, the Murry/songwriting stuff still seems to be like the main bullet point he thinks about for his life and career. Truly, it makes me feel sorry for him.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 06:24:20 AM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
SBonilla
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 177



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2020, 07:11:00 AM »

The answer is, of course, yes, yes he does. His under-three-minutes summation of his life/career goes: Childhood, cutting "Surfin'", and then Murry/songwriting credit issues.

Here's a video as well a transcript:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/brief/326896/mike-love

...he sums up his *life*, after childhood and the band's first record, the very next thing that pops into his mind is Murry and getting screwed over on songwriting credits.


It's evident that it wasn't "the very next thing that pops into his mind.." There's an edit there. He was responding to a prompt or question.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8891



View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2020, 09:09:27 AM »

The answer is, of course, yes, yes he does. His under-three-minutes summation of his life/career goes: Childhood, cutting "Surfin'", and then Murry/songwriting credit issues.

Here's a video as well a transcript:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/brief/326896/mike-love

...he sums up his *life*, after childhood and the band's first record, the very next thing that pops into his mind is Murry and getting screwed over on songwriting credits.


It's evident that it wasn't "the very next thing that pops into his mind.." There's an edit there. He was responding to a prompt or question.


The crux of these little bits seem to be to sum one's life/career up briefly (the segments are called "Brief But Spectacular"). I can't of course say with certainty how many edits are in this piece; the video cuts away and music is also interspersed at several points. I have no reason to doubt that some amount of editing took place. Whether it was literally the "very next thing" to pop into his mind is admittedly hard to determine, but it's clear it was among the main bullet points he wanted to cover. As the purpose of this segment is to be "brief", I don't think it's out of line to assume this was not a lengthy sit-down.

I can only imagine he was responding to questions or prompts; but I also tend to doubt he was specifically asked anything about the songwriting lawsuit. In many interviews, he has tended to go into that saga with no specific prompting. I tend to think it's far more likely Mike brought it up and made it a main point of the brief discussion, and far less likely an interviewer asked specifically about it or that the editor/director of this segment chose out of hours of interviews to spend half the 3 minutes covering *his life* to discuss Murry and the songwriting lawsuit.

My main point remains (and is backed up by many print and other media interviews he has given in recent years), which is that when discussing a truly remarkable, blessed, accomplished career, he regularly and *quickly* moves to discussing the songwriting issue, one that was rectified in his favor over a quarter century ago. One of his next main go-to topics is how the Wilsons did drugs.

I mean, he even goes to those topics often before talking about John Stamos and even "Kokomo", that's how rankled he still is. It's really strange, and the songwriting lawsuit is curiously something he's harped on *more extensively* in the aftermath of the 2012 reunion.

The guy was a part of so many amazing things, so many amazing experiences. He's so rich and famous and has adulation and all the enriching things both personally and professionally. Yet, he seems obsessed with harping on a legal issue that was rectified *in his favor* over 25 years ago.

I'm not sure what else he wants concerning the songwriting issue. Dig up Murry? A time machine? He won the lawsuit, nobody denies he co-wrote those songs (outside of some spectators questioning that one bit from "WIBN"), and he has collected royalties and has his name on the songs since 1994 or whenever that lawsuit finally ended. While my understanding is that he didn't collect full back royalties going back to the 60s, I believe there was a monetary settlement on top of the future credits/royalties.

Seriously, there are other bands/writers that got screwed over a million times worse than Mike, and ended up forgotten/marginalized/poor/living in poverty, etc.

It would be like if McCartney talked about Allen Klein unprompted at the front of every one of his interviews. Or if Al Jardine talked in every interview about being edged out in 1998.

I think if/when someone does a career-spanning biography and/or film covering the band's entire history, that would be an opportune and appropriate time to dredge up the songwriting thing again (and dredge everything else up for that matter). But beyond that, why is this still being brought up?

« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 09:27:37 AM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5571


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2020, 10:15:30 AM »

Agreed. The time and place was his book, which he did. Let it rest.
Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 5242


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2020, 10:26:27 AM »

The answer is, of course, yes, yes he does. His under-three-minutes summation of his life/career goes: Childhood, cutting "Surfin'", and then Murry/songwriting credit issues.

Here's a video as well a transcript:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/brief/326896/mike-love

...he sums up his *life*, after childhood and the band's first record, the very next thing that pops into his mind is Murry and getting screwed over on songwriting credits.


It's evident that it wasn't "the very next thing that pops into his mind.." There's an edit there. He was responding to a prompt or question.


The crux of these little bits seem to be to sum one's life/career up briefly (the segments are called "Brief But Spectacular"). I can't of course say with certainty how many edits are in this piece; the video cuts away and music is also interspersed at several points. I have no reason to doubt that some amount of editing took place. Whether it was literally the "very next thing" to pop into his mind is admittedly hard to determine, but it's clear it was among the main bullet points he wanted to cover. As the purpose of this segment is to be "brief", I don't think it's out of line to assume this was not a lengthy sit-down.

I can only imagine he was responding to questions or prompts; but I also tend to doubt he was specifically asked anything about the songwriting lawsuit. In many interviews, he has tended to go into that saga with no specific prompting. I tend to think it's far more likely Mike brought it up and made it a main point of the brief discussion, and far less likely an interviewer asked specifically about it or that the editor/director of this segment chose out of hours of interviews to spend half the 3 minutes covering *his life* to discuss Murry and the songwriting lawsuit.

My main point remains (and is backed up by many print and other media interviews he has given in recent years), which is that when discussing a truly remarkable, blessed, accomplished career, he regularly and *quickly* moves to discussing the songwriting issue, one that was rectified in his favor over a quarter century ago. One of his next main go-to topics is how the Wilsons did drugs.

I mean, he even goes to those topics often before talking about John Stamos and even "Kokomo", that's how rankled he still is. It's really strange, and the songwriting lawsuit is curiously something he's harped on *more extensively* in the aftermath of the 2012 reunion.

The guy was a part of so many amazing things, so many amazing experiences. He's so rich and famous and has adulation and all the enriching things both personally and professionally. Yet, he seems obsessed with harping on a legal issue that was rectified *in his favor* over 25 years ago.

I'm not sure what else he wants concerning the songwriting issue. Dig up Murry? A time machine? He won the lawsuit, nobody denies he co-wrote those songs (outside of some spectators questioning that one bit from "WIBN"), and he has collected royalties and has his name on the songs since 1994 or whenever that lawsuit finally ended. While my understanding is that he didn't collect full back royalties going back to the 60s, I believe there was a monetary settlement on top of the future credits/royalties.

Seriously, there are other bands/writers that got screwed over a million times worse than Mike, and ended up forgotten/marginalized/poor/living in poverty, etc.

It would be like if McCartney talked about Allen Klein unprompted at the front of every one of his interviews. Or if Al Jardine talked in every interview about being edged out in 1998.

I think if/when someone does a career-spanning biography and/or film covering the band's entire history, that would be an opportune and appropriate time to dredge up the songwriting thing again (and dredge everything else up for that matter). But beyond that, why is this still being brought up?

I think the funniest/saddest part about this is that Mike is so open about how much meditation has helped him in life. Isn't a major part of TM is being mindful of your present moment and thus there is really no past and future - you only have the present to live in? So why the hell, in his almost 50 years of practicing TM, has he not learned to let things of the past go? Especially after they have been rectified?

He got screwed over with the songwriting credits. Not only was he compensated for it, I personally think there are songs that he now has credit on that he had nothing to do with.
The Wilson brothers doing drugs made band life difficult. Well Carl and Dennis have passed away at this point, and Brian rehabilitated and hasn't touched hard drugs in decades. Let it go.

Nobody is perfect, and I don't expect Mike to be. But I also think that issues that happened 30-50 years ago need to be let go at some point. The fact is, nothing can change the past, constantly complaining about the Wilson brothers doing hard drugs will not change anything - the only thing it will do is a) make you sound like a broken record and b) perhaps sadden those who are in Dennis' and Carl's family (how would anyone like it if someone kept publicly bringing up the demons of your deceased father, brother, spouse?).

These things happened in Mike's life, and I don't expect him to ignore these issues and completely be silent about them - but it's crazy how he can answer a completely unrelated question with these topics. And as HeyJude says:

Quote
My main point remains (and is backed up by many print and other media interviews he has given in recent years), which is that when discussing a truly remarkable, blessed, accomplished career, he regularly and *quickly* moves to discussing the songwriting issue, one that was rectified in his favor over a quarter century ago.

It's not even about this specific interview but others in the recent past. Idk, if I were Mike, I'd sit down in some quiet moment of meditation and try to release this angst he obviously still feels about an issue that happened a long time ago.
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site
Rebel
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2020, 10:30:34 AM »

Here is the direct Youtube link


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xoHaLpFn78&feature=emb_logo



Logged
urbanite
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 858


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2020, 12:07:30 PM »

I was really surprised that Mike gets to summarize his career and all the amazing things he experienced being a pop superstar and he brings up ..... a songwriting credit lawsuit.  If that's what he feels is one of the most significant things to him, so be it, but it diminishes him to bring up complaints he had in the past.  I agree about the whole TM thing and his inability to move beyond his grievances.  I wish someone would ask him a serious question about it, why hasn't TM helped him on this issue.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5225



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2020, 12:12:01 PM »

The answer is, of course, yes, yes he does. His under-three-minutes summation of his life/career goes: Childhood, cutting "Surfin'", and then Murry/songwriting credit issues.

Here's a video as well a transcript:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/brief/326896/mike-love

I actually *almost* feel sorry for Mike if the songwriting credit issue is *that* much of a main bullet point in his life. Above co-writing all those songs, playing all those famous gigs, and despite being insanely rich and famous to this day. When he sums up his *life*, after childhood and the band's first record, the very next thing that pops into his mind is Murry and getting screwed over on songwriting credits.

All his talent and accomplishments, and all of his luck and good fortune, and 25 years after he won a lawsuit to rectify the songwriting issue, the Murry/songwriting stuff still seems to be like the main bullet point he thinks about for his life and career. Truly, it makes me feel sorry for him.

It is really sad, and I also feel sorry for him to still be so hung up on this. I'd just say he has a warped mindset, for some partially understandable reasons, but it's still very unfortunate. When he got screwed over - coupled with watching the ascent of Brian's legend - it must have rewired his brain. I think everyone should understand that, first and foremost.

I can only imagine that must be because - I presume - he regularly notices and obsesses on observing the amount of adulation and profound respect that people have for Brian, and other *major* artists like Elton John, Bowie, Paul McCartney, John Lennon, etc... artists who hit it BIG BIG BIG (as big as you can make it), *and* also attained a legendary level of personal respect for their songwriting craft that is widely known/respected among John Q. Public... and Mike must be  thinking about this stuff often - comparing his own place in music history, and feeling shortchanged by comparison. Mike probably feels like people look at him and say "oh, that dumbass least-talented-member-of-the-band guy onstage, yeah he's an original member I guess", and have no idea that Mike did in fact help contribute to the California Myth, the California tourism industry, and certainly had a big impact on the band's direction for a number of years in the '60s. So yeah, I get that he feels shortchanged, but the glass doesn't have to be half empty, especially with what he puts forward in his public presentation of himself.

I see this same type of thing with a handful of other artists such as Billy Corgan, who also hit it massively huge, but then they *expect* to attain a certain level of public respect, feel *entitled* to having a huge amount of music fans, scholars, and critics thinking that their personal contributions "changed music history", and to basically be revered and have people fellate their egos constantly in that regard. It's understandable for artists to want respect, but it's also a sick thing to not simply have an appreciation for the HUGE ways that did succeed (and continue to live blessed lives of having huge bank accounts and being able to do music as much or as little as they want without having to worry about pesky things like office jobs).

For any major artist who has hit it big, the biggest way to get people to *not* want to show you more respect is to repeatedly publicly say that you deserve more respect, to some magical respect level known only to said artist.

But once again, I'll personally never feel any such artist like Mike - who I deem worthy of respect as a fan - deserves less credit or praise, even if they run their mouths incessantly and annoyingly. Mike deserves praise for what he contributed, I personally go out of my way in real life to tell those people who think he's a no talent hack that in fact, he brought a good deal of good stuff to the band which is absolutely undeniable.  So yeah, I literally advocate on behalf of a guy who has pissed me off as a fan a crap ton, simply because I feel it's the right thing to do.

But dude has what appears to be very little perspective on how he comes across. I get that he's been in a bubble for 60 years, but when looking at his much, much more humble bandmates in The BBs, he comes across as the exception to that rule, even if one realizes that barring Denny's non-credit on YASB, Mike had a unique experience. Mike can't change the past, so he should take his own TM advice and live in the now, and let this stuff GO.

Edit : I just watched the peace and I think it comes across not nearly as bad as I was assuming it would be. I guess Mike has just said the same stuff over and over again that I, as many other fans would probably agree, feel practically numb to hearing the same complaints and talking points over and over again. Just as I'm sure other people are numb and annoyed by reading responses to those interviews. LOL
« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 06:28:11 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
SBonilla
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 177



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2020, 12:12:14 PM »

Mike was betrayed by his uncle and cousin. He was swindled. The copyrights to the songs he co-wrote were his at the moment of their creation. More than that, he was denied the most important thing in the business: credit. In the end, that is tops. That's what I learned in life and in the law for the movie industry course I took at NYU.

Yes, he bitches. I don't particularly want to hear it.  What really annoys me is when he brings up drugs and the Wilsons. I don't admire him for that.
Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 5242


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 10, 2020, 02:02:27 PM »

Mike was betrayed by his uncle and cousin. He was swindled. The copyrights to the songs he co-wrote were his at the moment of their creation. More than that, he was denied the most important thing in the business: credit. In the end, that is tops. That's what I learned in life and in the law for the movie industry course I took at NYU.

Yes, he bitches. I don't particularly want to hear it.  What really annoys me is when he brings up drugs and the Wilsons. I don't admire him for that.

To me, they're nearly two of the same thing (drugs/credit) - in that, both are past subjects, the former being a non-issue anymore and the latter a rectified issue that he constantly brings up).

BTW, this has always been a foggy area of band history for me - but was Brian just passive about the credit issue at the time it happened? Or was he actually directly involved in keeping Mike Love out of the credits for these songs?
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site
PhilSpectre
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 159


May You Never Hear Surf Music ... Again


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 10, 2020, 02:23:06 PM »


It would be like if McCartney talked about Allen Klein unprompted at the front of every one of his interviews. Or if Al Jardine talked in every interview about being edged out in 1998.


 Thumbs Up This exactly. Never thought about it quite that way.

It would be as if every time someone asked Ringo Starr about George Harrison, he made damn sure he mentioned how George had an affair with his first wife while they were married - and obviously also took lots of drugs and alcohol, thus wasting his potential.

Guess all that TM never really worked.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5225



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 10, 2020, 05:18:16 PM »



BTW, this has always been a foggy area of band history for me - but was Brian just passive about the credit issue at the time it happened? Or was he actually directly involved in keeping Mike Love out of the credits for these songs?

This has always been a topic of speculation that I, too, wonder about. It really is one of the great mysteries with this band, and frankly one of the pivotal moments that set a series of events/emotions/attitudes in motion which still sadly is an open wound for Mike, 60 years later. Really, it's the elephant in the room. I think Mike is the way he is in no small part because of how deeply he was hurt by this, and that's really sad.

But when one compares other examples of Brian being particularly generous in crediting people, such as Van Dyke Parks during SMiLE, it does make you wonder why Mike would more seem to be the exception to the rule. Brian has collaborated with a lot of folks. Are there other known examples of collaborators disgruntled over this simiilar issue? Especially in this time period? It would seem the opposite, actually.

Also of course, years later, Landy conversely got credit on a bunch of stuff that he didn't exactly deserve credit on, but one could easily surmise Landy yielded lots of domineering influence over Brian in order for that to happen. I think that in of itself proves that Brian would do what he was told in terms of assigning credits when overpowered by a domineering figure who tapped into Brian's father wound. That's a good argument in terms of Landy knowing what made Brian tick, knowing that he could influence credits one way or another; he knew that because it's probably a big part of how Mike's credits were not properly assigned in the 60s, being that Murry's presence must have been a huge factor in that happening.

This leads me to think that Brian was being heavily influenced/pressured by Murry, and that Brian was afraid to stand up to his dad. And maybe he got caught up in just letting this stuff slide again and again, and didn't want to rock that boat.

Some theories on how it started in the 1st place:

- Maybe this is some weird family sh*t that went back to the Wilsons vs Loves, pre Beach Boys, where there was that wealth disparity in the Loves' favor, and somehow Murry was being a dick to subtly, passive aggressively stick it to that side of the family a bit by diminishing how much Mike got in terms of credit and money.  Also, Murry and Mike didn't get along, and it could have easily been a f*** you move above all else.

- Maybe in those early years, Mike was always a bit too eager to jump into writing a song, insert himself, and throw in his two cents in order to leave his mark on a song, and that possibly bugged either Murry and/or Brian... but when those ideas were often golden and resulting in hit records, they kept that winning formula up, until Brian's artistic itch to do something very different led him down a road to write entire albums sans Mike. If that was something that there was initially some resentment from (against Mike), then maybe the songwriting omissions could have been impacted by this.

- Also, maybe if it was something where it was family contributing, that Brian and his brothers just didn't feel it was always absolutely necessary to credit someone. Maybe Brian just viewed it as someone "helping out a bit" and not something fully needing credits and money. Consider, that Brian was a guy who happily did *not* take or seek credit on any number of his own contributions to songs that were mainly written by his family members. Cases in point: uncredited writing contribution on Little Bird, and (I'm assuming, or maybe I read it somewhere?) uncredited vocal arrangements on Never Learn Not to Love. Basically, it would seem that if Brian was operating from a standpoint that a band member (especially it being family) was just helping out another band member, that maybe it wasn't necessary to have an icky convo about finances.

- Ultimately, I see it as about avoidance as well. Having a convo about splitting up profits can be awkward, and nobody really *wants* to do that. Brian is the undisputed king of avoidance in many areas, so I think it was just a bad situation set in motion by Murry that just kept happening little by little, and not corrected because of the hornet's nest that would be.

I really, realllly don't see Brian as being some greedy dick who did this to intentionally screw Mike out of money. I think it's a lot more nuanced a situation, with Murry mainly being the culprit.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 05:23:47 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1815



View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 10, 2020, 05:43:47 PM »

I think Mike just has certain talk tracks he goes to in interviews. In this case:

* BB songs transcend generations/time & space
* Brian singing “Danny Boy”
* Hearing “Surfin” on the radio for the first time
* “The problem started with my Uncle Murry” - what problem? This was a question - maybe about lawsuits? Not getting along w/ other members? Worth pointing out that his main focus seemed to be the selling of the publishing, and mentions having to go to court to gain legal authorship after that. He also says, “If you focus on that stuff, it loses sight on the incredible positivity that are music has meant …” … clearly this was prompted by a question about that topic.

Truly, I think it’s worth thinking about the money the Wilson family lost as a result of Murry selling the publishing rights for $700,000(?) in 1969. The estimated revenue/value since then I believe is about $100 Million.

Mike got screwed even more due to the loss of songwriting royalties (Brian and Mike would still get the [much smaller] royalties for the songs they were credited for). “California Girls” alone would be millions I would think. I don’t actually think it’s unreasonable to bring it up as a major issue. I think Mike usually brings it up to defend himself (rightfully or wrongfully).

Also thinking about the human element — as a random example (I don’t mean this scenario to correlate to the BB situation directly) — If I had a job I went to every day for 10 years, then found out I was making half the money that was owed to me and someone asked me later “What was it like working for that company?”, it would probably be one of the things that came up ha. “Well it was cool, I learned a lot, but it kind of sucked that I had to sue them to get half of my wages”.

Not really trying to defend him here, just saying he’s only human, and he has his experience. I don’t really think this piece looks weird or comes off too negative.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 05:45:10 PM by DonnyL » Logged

Lonely Summer
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3420


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: January 10, 2020, 09:32:40 PM »

The answer is, of course, yes, yes he does. His under-three-minutes summation of his life/career goes: Childhood, cutting "Surfin'", and then Murry/songwriting credit issues.

Here's a video as well a transcript:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/brief/326896/mike-love

...he sums up his *life*, after childhood and the band's first record, the very next thing that pops into his mind is Murry and getting screwed over on songwriting credits.


It's evident that it wasn't "the very next thing that pops into his mind.." There's an edit there. He was responding to a prompt or question.


The crux of these little bits seem to be to sum one's life/career up briefly (the segments are called "Brief But Spectacular"). I can't of course say with certainty how many edits are in this piece; the video cuts away and music is also interspersed at several points. I have no reason to doubt that some amount of editing took place. Whether it was literally the "very next thing" to pop into his mind is admittedly hard to determine, but it's clear it was among the main bullet points he wanted to cover. As the purpose of this segment is to be "brief", I don't think it's out of line to assume this was not a lengthy sit-down.

I can only imagine he was responding to questions or prompts; but I also tend to doubt he was specifically asked anything about the songwriting lawsuit. In many interviews, he has tended to go into that saga with no specific prompting. I tend to think it's far more likely Mike brought it up and made it a main point of the brief discussion, and far less likely an interviewer asked specifically about it or that the editor/director of this segment chose out of hours of interviews to spend half the 3 minutes covering *his life* to discuss Murry and the songwriting lawsuit.

My main point remains (and is backed up by many print and other media interviews he has given in recent years), which is that when discussing a truly remarkable, blessed, accomplished career, he regularly and *quickly* moves to discussing the songwriting issue, one that was rectified in his favor over a quarter century ago. One of his next main go-to topics is how the Wilsons did drugs.

I mean, he even goes to those topics often before talking about John Stamos and even "Kokomo", that's how rankled he still is. It's really strange, and the songwriting lawsuit is curiously something he's harped on *more extensively* in the aftermath of the 2012 reunion.

The guy was a part of so many amazing things, so many amazing experiences. He's so rich and famous and has adulation and all the enriching things both personally and professionally. Yet, he seems obsessed with harping on a legal issue that was rectified *in his favor* over 25 years ago.

I'm not sure what else he wants concerning the songwriting issue. Dig up Murry? A time machine? He won the lawsuit, nobody denies he co-wrote those songs (outside of some spectators questioning that one bit from "WIBN"), and he has collected royalties and has his name on the songs since 1994 or whenever that lawsuit finally ended. While my understanding is that he didn't collect full back royalties going back to the 60s, I believe there was a monetary settlement on top of the future credits/royalties.

Seriously, there are other bands/writers that got screwed over a million times worse than Mike, and ended up forgotten/marginalized/poor/living in poverty, etc.

It would be like if McCartney talked about Allen Klein unprompted at the front of every one of his interviews. Or if Al Jardine talked in every interview about being edged out in 1998.

I think if/when someone does a career-spanning biography and/or film covering the band's entire history, that would be an opportune and appropriate time to dredge up the songwriting thing again (and dredge everything else up for that matter). But beyond that, why is this still being brought up?


One of the things that annoys me about McCartney, though, is how he kept complaining publicly about the Lennon-McCartney songwriting credit; how it was so unfair for John's name to be before his on Yesterday, Michelle, Penny Lane, Let it Be, etc.
Of course he had no such reservations about completely removing Denny Laine's name from some songs they wrote together.
Logged
The LEGENDARY OSD
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1841

luHv Estrangement Syndrome. It's a great thing!


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: January 11, 2020, 09:17:53 AM »


In a way, I'm not totally against that ungrateful crumb still acting like a big crybaby about his due. It really justifies what I've been saying about that creep for years. I know that there would be quite a long line of those who would want to have the opportunity he did. The stupid meditation thing is an absolute front to portray his as a peaceful, loving and together individual but nothing could be further from the truth. Meditation didn't help him with his outlandish ego, it did not help him with being a greedy SOB with money, and it certainly failed to protect himself against his rotten image whatsoever. The lawsuits only helped to solidify his image as a person with an agenda to tear down Brian Wilson and bring attention to himself all the while trying to convince the world that he is the musical equivalent to Brian. No matter what this sad person attempts to do to restore his image, nothing will produce what he's seeking. Or, perhaps, he's totally ambivalent about it. His best work on this planet was the job he did creating his foul image that will go with him to the end and beyond. 

Logged

myKe luHv, the most hated, embarrassing clown the world of music has ever witnessed.
super sally
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: January 11, 2020, 09:48:22 AM »

The constant talking about the lawsuit -- to me-- shows someone who could feel guilty about pursuing the whole thing and/or he feels like a fraud. Either way he's constantly looking for public validation. The truth is NOBODY real cares at this point.

Live in the moment Mike!
Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 5242


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2020, 12:29:18 PM »

The constant talking about the lawsuit -- to me-- shows someone who could feel guilty about pursuing the whole thing and/or he feels like a fraud. Either way he's constantly looking for public validation. The truth is NOBODY real cares at this point.

Live in the moment Mike!

Couldn't agree more. Also, I think that if Mike does have any guilt about that lawsuit I would imagine it is for songs that he had nothing to do with writing that he ended up getting credit on...and I don't know this for a fact, so I'm not saying that's the case, its just based off things I've heard here and there.

And Century Deprived, thanks so much for that awesome writeup of your theories about the songwriting credits. I guess I should read Mike's book one of these days to try and get a better look at his perspective of the issue. Frankly, I just don't see Brian sitting in a room with Murry scheming up this plot to screw Mike out of royalties...thus I don't think it's fair to say that Brian had motive to swindle and betray Mike...unless there is evidence I'm missing.

Has anyone ever wondered why Mike has a writing credit on every Wild Honey song (outside of the cover)? I mean, does anyone think that Mike had anything to do with the lyrics of 'Mama Said'? Yet Mike gets credit on it. Giving Mike credit for song(s) that he had nothing to do with doesn't sound like the act of a swindler/betrayer to me.

*Edit. And I want to add that I'm glad that Mike's issue got rectified. I can't even imagine the hurt he felt looking at some of the greatest records recorded and not seeing his name on the tracks (or getting any compensation for them). But I just don't believe that this is something that Brian and Murry cooked up together - more likely Brian was passive about the whole situation and either didn't see the problem or didn't want to open that can of worms.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2020, 03:17:11 PM by rab2591 » Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5225



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: January 11, 2020, 04:24:36 PM »

The constant talking about the lawsuit -- to me-- shows someone who could feel guilty about pursuing the whole thing and/or he feels like a fraud. Either way he's constantly looking for public validation. The truth is NOBODY real cares at this point.

Live in the moment Mike!

Couldn't agree more. Also, I think that if Mike does have any guilt about that lawsuit I would imagine it is for songs that he had nothing to do with writing that he ended up getting credit on...and I don't know this for a fact, so I'm not saying that's the case, its just based off things I've heard here and there.

And Century Deprived, thanks so much for that awesome writeup of your theories about the songwriting credits. I guess I should read Mike's book one of these days to try and get a better look at his perspective of the issue. Frankly, I just don't see Brian sitting in a room with Murry scheming up this plot to screw Mike out of royalties...thus I don't think it's fair to say that Brian had motive to swindle and betray Mike...unless there is evidence I'm missing.

Has anyone ever wondered why Mike has a writing credit on every Wild Honey song (outside of the cover)? I mean, does anyone think that Mike had anything to do with the lyrics of 'Mama Said'? Yet Mike gets credit on it. Giving Mike credit for song(s) that he had nothing to do with doesn't sound like the act of a swindler/betrayer to me.

*Edit. And I want to add that I'm glad that Mike's issue got rectified. I can't even imagine the hurt he felt looking at some of the greatest records recorded and not seeing his name on the tracks (or getting any compensation for them). But I just don't believe that this is something that Brian and Murry cooked up together - more likely Brian was passive about the whole situation and either didn't see the problem or didn't want to open that can of worms.

One of the biggest head scratchers in this entire saga is why didn't Mike speak up earlier, as in the early 60s, and ask for the situation to be rectified? If it kept happening again and again, did he just sit idly by quietly grumbling? Or did he ask, but nothing happened, and they kept screwing him over one time after the next after the next? Did he not feel he was in a position to argue with Murry?

 I know Mike has spoken of asking Brian to fix things (which Brian then said he would, but never addressed). But that seems to be referring to a later point in time, perhaps Mike's asking - and Brian's inaction - occurred in the late 1960s or early 1970s. If this was a recurring thing, you would think Mike would've done something right at that moment in time. I am not saying this scenario makes me doubt Mike's songwriting claims (except a few of them), but by and large it seems like Mike was letting this stuff happen for unexplained reasons.

And also, it's not like it was a blanket thing where he was always excluded. Some songs in the early years most definitely have his name on them but some which he did contribute to don't.

It's just so weird.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2020, 09:31:41 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Bicyclerider
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2081


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2020, 07:58:37 PM »

To be even handed, Brian did leave Van Dyke off of two songs he wrote the lyrics to - Wonderful was originally credited just to Brian, wasn’t it?  And Wind Chimes.  Even though Wind Chimes is an atypical lyric for Van Dyke and sounds like it certainly could have been written by Brian.  Both credits were corrected however.
Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 5242


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: January 12, 2020, 10:30:06 AM »

To be even handed, Brian did leave Van Dyke off of two songs he wrote the lyrics to - Wonderful was originally credited just to Brian, wasn’t it?  And Wind Chimes.  Even though Wind Chimes is an atypical lyric for Van Dyke and sounds like it certainly could have been written by Brian.  Both credits were corrected however.

Very good point. I wonder had SMiLE actually come out in ‘67 would VDPs been credited for all the songs he was a part of for that record. And it also begs the question why was Parks’ name originally left off the credits for the Smiley Smile work? It’s not like those two songs were going to take in lottery sized numbers, right?
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8891



View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2020, 07:52:53 AM »

One of the things that annoys me about McCartney, though, is how he kept complaining publicly about the Lennon-McCartney songwriting credit; how it was so unfair for John's name to be before his on Yesterday, Michelle, Penny Lane, Let it Be, etc.
Of course he had no such reservations about completely removing Denny Laine's name from some songs they wrote together.

The McCartney songwriting credit/naming order has always been largely much ado about nothing. First, it’s not even really enforceable as to what order names have to be on credits. As long as all the names are listed and proper royalties paid, it probably doesn’t matter. I recall a Beach Boys release (perhaps the “Knebworth 1980” CD?) that has all the Brian/Mike songs credited to “Love/Wilson” even though it’s usually the other way around.

McCartney obviously for many years had this naming order thing gnawing away at him. In his defense, he actually did offer an understandable and plausible explanation/scenario where the naming order caused a bit of a problem. He noted times where he has seen performers with sheet music writing out shorthand and only including the first name. So he had some story of like looking at some piano player’s sheet music for a Paul song and seeing the person had just scribbled “Lennon…” instead of “Lennon/McCartney.” This was obviously not a very common or high profile problem Paul was citing. But at least he had some sort of scenario he could paint.

That being said, nobody noticed or cared when he listed the Beatles tunes as “McCartney/Lennon” back in 1976 on “Wings Over America.” He did this *during* Lennon’s lifetime and Lennon didn’t care. All names were credited, everybody was paid appropriately. That’s also ignoring that songs were all “McCartney/Lennon” on the band’s first album.

When decades later McCartney tried flipping the credits again, it of course arbitrarily created a media ruckus and Yoko had to weigh in, etc. It appears that after that point, McCartney gave up and let it go. He clearly realized he was losing the PR battle on that one, whether he was at all justified or not.

The “it isn’t a big deal” thing works both ways. McCartney should have let it go (and eventually did; he has specifically gone on record in more recent years that he gave up raising a stink about it and is over it; a far different reaction from Mike Love’s of course), but Yoko could have thrown him a bone too. Apparently, even though he probably didn’t even need to ask, at some point McCartney specifically asked Yoko if she would agree to reverse the credits *only* for the song “Yesterday.” She said no. They were both being too stubborn I’d say, but however much McCartney was overly-obsessed with this thing at some point, it appears Yoko could have avoided ill will by exerting exactly *zero* effort and just letting him do it on that song.

Not sure what the Denny Laine reference is. I don’t believe he ever took Laine’s name off of a song he previously had credits on. Did Laine later claim to have co-written stuff he was never credited for? Probably, as many ousted band members have in many bands over the years (Billy Joel’s drummer Libery DeVitto for instance). Heck, even within the Beatles, there were many songs where others should have been credited. Harrison should have been credited on some of those Lennon/McCartney songs. Harrison should have been credited in some Ringo Beatles and solo tracks. For that matter, while Harrison was rightly disenfranchised about such things, I also think *McCartney* probably earned a co-writing credit on some of *Harrison’s* songs like “Weeps” and “Something.” John and Paul should have been throwing George more bones all those years. Yet, Harrison’s two most popular Beatles songs have *Paul* playing (and arguably writing) some of the key elements.

Unlike Mike Love, the Beatles all largely realized they were *so effing rich* off all their success, and had more accolades and credit than they could ever hope for, and so usually never sought extra credit even when they deserved it. Harrison probably wrote more of “It Don’t Come Easy” than Ringo did, yet Harrison didn’t give a f**k about getting credit for it.

I’m not saying Mike didn’t deserve to pursue credits on songs he co-wrote; I’m just saying others have gotten over it *without* the credits being rectified. Mike hasn’t gotten over it even *after* the situation being righted both in terms of credits and financially.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5225



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: January 13, 2020, 09:43:24 AM »

In the mid to late 60s, I could see that Mike might have seen past instances of non-crediting as ones that it would be very hard to rectify without Brian (who was getting increasingly sicker) stepping up and getting changes to happen, and perhaps he didn't want to push an erratic Brian too much, plus Mike knew that Mike would have to step into some MAJOR family drama with getting Murry involved should he rattle the hornet's nest.

And maybe as the 60s wore on, Mike himself felt all the more marginalized in terms of his place in the band, seeing as he was no longer really the "frontman" as it became more of a shared thing. So maybe he was just not feeling confident on the whole that this was an appropriate time to create family drama, especially when he had large income streams from the band anyway. Maybe it seemed like the band was hanging by a thread at times, so pushing the issue then could have been something that would have further eroded relations between everyone, and also further might have made Brian not want to collaborate with Mike.

So yes, it makes sense to me that during the period (when Brian was getting increasingly more ill, particularly during Murry's lifetime), that Mike could have seen this as something to avoid.

The thing I do not for the life of me understand, however, is how right at the moment this stuff was happening, how Mike allowed it to keep happening. (This is not a slight against Mike, I'm just a tad baffled and don't quite understand the dynamic of how it could have happened). For example, if Mike saw a credit omitted on a song in '63, wouldn't he have said to Brian and/or Murry "what gives?", which would have to have been met with *some* response from them. Unless he just stayed quiet. Because if he inquired about it, I don't see how the omissions kept happening again, and again, and again. Unless Murry and/or Brian somehow felt justified in this situation, and/or Mike was given a reason.

The real time aspect of this just makes no sense for it to have happened over a long period of time, with a bunch of hit songs.

The family dynamic in this band was obviously very, very weird and dysfunctional, so I assume this scenario is something I'll never quite understand, but curious to know what everyone else thinks here.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2020, 09:50:41 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
urbanite
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 858


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: January 13, 2020, 11:30:56 AM »

In Mike's book he discusses how Brian's lawyers came to him for help when Brian was suing to get back the rights to the Beach Boys' songs or damages for the rights his father improperly sold.  Supposedly the lawyers told Mike he would be given compensation for his share.  Brian's lawsuit was not as successful as it was represented to Mike in the beginning, but Brian did get a substantial payment.  Mike was stiffed again, as none of the recovery from the lawsuit was shared with him.  This was in the 90's.

I understand Mike's complaints and bitterness over the publishing rights to an extent, but it was so long ago and he has made so much money since then, that he has long since passed the point to let it go.  When asked about his great career, I would expect him to talk about the time they had their first hit, their first number one, being mobbed by fans wherever they went for years her and overseas, the heights reached with Good Vibrations, playing the UN show in Paris and hanging out with Marlon Brando, playing at the Washington Monument before 500,000 fans, etc.  I would not have expected the song rights to come up, which he should not have brought up, but I think the way he was torched in the media when he cancelled the continuation of the reunion, might have something to do with it.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8891



View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 13, 2020, 12:04:56 PM »

When it comes to the songwriting issue, I look at this way: How else can it be further rectified? Mike pursued all of the recourse he could back in 1994, and he was successful on all counts. He got his name on the songs, and got both future royalties going forward as well as a settlement lump sum.

What else could he ask for at that point? A full accounting and full back royalties for all those years? As I understand it, that's typically not awarded in these types of lawsuits (see Matthew Fisher's suit regarding "Whiter Shade of Pale"), and either way, even amidst Mike's harping on the topic to this day in interviews, he never professes to be upset about back royalties or money owed him. I guess Mike never got a huge, worldwide press conference apology from Brian on the matter, but again, I haven't really seen him much complain specifically that what's still angering him is a lack of a more epic, loud apology from Brian. Brian to this day happily discusses Mike's hand in co-writing songs.

He's still just pissed it happened in the first place; he can't let *that* go. Spectators could be forgiven for wondering why Mike went decades seemingly happily without filing suit, then filed suit and WON, and then for a number of years after that went back to seeming to feel vindicated and getting past it, and then went *back* to being intensely bitter about it all over again as he approached 80 years old while continuing to rake in money and adulation and having the entire Beach Boys setup just the way he wants. What does this guy want?

He also seems to vacillate between blaming Murry and Brian, blaming mostly Brian, or blaming mostly Murry. Sometimes, I guess when he's feeling a bit more charitable, he'll point out that Murry had Brian in a difficult spot both logistically and emotionally. Other times, Mike seems as angry with Brian as he is with Murry.  

Mike will literally say in interviews that Al is unhappy and negative, yet you haven't seen Al any time in recent years rant and rave about all of the wrongs perpetrated against him in this Beach Boys saga (and there are plenty for him to go into if he wanted).

Considering the songwriting credits issue ultimately did not bankrupt him or otherwise force him to not live his privileged lifestyle (he *literally* appeared on "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" at one point!), and considering it was remedied in every legal way possible, ensuring he would always be credited on the songs in the future and collect royalties, I think Mike would be well served to go get some therapy and let go of this.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2020, 12:07:23 PM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5225



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2020, 12:25:33 PM »



He's still just pissed it happened in the first place; he can't let *that* go. Spectators could be forgiven for wondering why Mike went decades seemingly happily without filing suit, then filed suit and WON, and then for a number of years after that went back to seeming to feel vindicated and getting past it, and then went *back* to being intensely bitter about it all over again as he approached 80 years old while continuing to rake in money and adulation and having the entire Beach Boys setup just the way he wants. What does this guy want?

I think at this point all he wants is more respect than he has, from the music community, the public at large, and music critics. Aimed squarely at HIS contributions, not respect for The Beach Boys' music as whole, necessarily, but I'm sure that Mike just feels that praise has been - and continues to be - heaped on Brian to a degree that is too large, when compared with the measly amount of respect that people have for Mike, as an artist. I personally would like to see people know more of Mike's contributions to great stuff like Wild Honey, All I Wanna Do, etc.

I'm guessing he looks at the songwriting snafu as the reason for that, because it's an easy go-to catch-all item that he can blame for people having the wrong idea (weighted in Brian's favor) of who in the band to praise when it comes to recognition of members. Of course, that ignores the many other reasons where Mike has done stuff that has rubbed people the wrong way, which has contributed to his reputation and unfortunate lack of respect that he has. Even an artistic genius like Phil Spector didn't and won't ever receive the recognition for his art that it deserves, because of his decades of non-music antics that are beyond terrible.

I'd argue the way Mike was screwed could be fingered as the chief reason in his behaviors which manifested in all sorts of ways that continue to harm his cause in rectifying his reputation. It messed him up, and every BBs fan should have a degree of empathy for how it must have warped his outlook. It's unfortunate.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2020, 01:20:54 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
gfx
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.621 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!