gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
655266 Posts in 26178 Topics by 3725 Members - Latest Member: suitable_rasberry February 18, 2020, 10:16:07 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mike Love at his worst  (Read 1511 times)
The Nearest Faraway Place
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 43


View Profile
« on: January 18, 2020, 11:42:19 AM »

I haven't scene a lot of people talking about this full interview. It's almost 2 hours, and it starts off ok. It's just Mike trying to promote SIP, but it quickly just turns in to him trashing Brian for like an hour strait. Also, Mike just rambles throughout the entire thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljsGG3sbEL0&t=32s
Logged
Lonely Summer
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3277


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2020, 12:35:01 PM »

I haven't scene a lot of people talking about this full interview. It's almost 2 hours, and it starts off ok. It's just Mike trying to promote SIP, but it quickly just turns in to him trashing Brian for like an hour strait. Also, Mike just rambles throughout the entire thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljsGG3sbEL0&t=32s
It's been referenced many times. I remember buying that issue of Goldmine and thinking "what a tremendous ego Mike has".
I'm not a Mike basher; saw his BB's last summer and loved the show; I have Unleash the Love in my collection and enjoy that tremendously. But in the years immediately following Kokomo, Mike was at his absolute worst. He bragged about the success of Kokomo while putting down "a bit turkey of an album" that Brian did with Landy. He was certain that the key to success for the Beach Boys was a full album of just sun, surf, sand, with a loud drum machine over all over it. Still Cruisin' was a flop because Mike didn't have total control over the contents.
I'd like to see someone ask him today about SIP. "So what happened there, Mike? It was supposed to be the biggest album you guys had had in decades! Instead, it sank like a stone".
Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5098


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


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2020, 12:38:01 PM »

I only listened to some 15 minutes of this thus far, but this really demonstrates how ripped off (completely understandably) Mike felt about the songwriting credits issue. He just sounds like a guy who has been really hurt, and when he talks about how Brian took "100% of the credit" of California Girls (and many other songs) you can hear that hurt in his voice and tone. I mean, when he states that "100%" figure, you really realize how messed up that is. It takes time to write lyrics, no matter how simple or intricate, so credit is due where credit is due.

In this interview Mike chalks it up to Brian's ego. Relating to this, I started thinking about other people Brian didn't give credit to - as was pointed out in another thread, he didn't give Van Dyke Parks credit on 'Wonderful' or 'Wind Chimes' from Smiley Smile. And he also didn't give Chuck Berry any credit on 'Surfin USA'. Are there other instances? However, outside of those instances I think Brian was always fair when it came to credits - Roger Christian, Gary Usher, etc. I am fairly certain that Tony Asher was credited on all of his work with Brian.

On the flip side, look at all the shady garbage that Murry did to David Marks regarding royalties. Murry also apparently forged Brian's signature on documents to sell the Sea of Tunes music. I just think that the guy with the history of screwing people over regarding royalties (Murry) would likely be the guy who did this to Mike. I don't know for a fact thats what happened, but it just makes sense to me.

This was obviously an issue that Mike would have studied a great deal for years upon years prior to the 90s, and yet he says in this interview that it was "two dozen" songs he didn't get credited on (a number that he would've likely known by heart as he studied what songs he was and wasn't credited on - especially since he says they were going to be suing Brian within a week of this interview - at this point he would've studied and known that number well) and YET he later claimed he was owed credit on 79 songs! How do you go from 24 to 79 songs?

Highlights of the interview (thus far) for me:

- Mike stating that Brian is a very pathetic figure (so much so he says this twice) due to this royalty issue
- says that he is going to sue Brian's "ass to pieces"
- his remarks about Brian's solo album are really tactless

TBH I've loved listening to this though. Mike has a legitimate gripe here and it comes through loud and clear. The person interviewing him is a huge fan of the music, so hearing someone like that interact with a member of the band is always a treat. Mike goes back and forth between ridiculing Brian and praising Brian...it's just really odd. Odd and fascinating.

Thanks for sharing this!
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site
The Nearest Faraway Place
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 43


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2020, 04:07:05 PM »

I only listened to some 15 minutes of this thus far, but this really demonstrates how ripped off (completely understandably) Mike felt about the songwriting credits issue. He just sounds like a guy who has been really hurt, and when he talks about how Brian took "100% of the credit" of California Girls (and many other songs) you can hear that hurt in his voice and tone. I mean, when he states that "100%" figure, you really realize how messed up that is. It takes time to write lyrics, no matter how simple or intricate, so credit is due where credit is due.

In this interview Mike chalks it up to Brian's ego. Relating to this, I started thinking about other people Brian didn't give credit to - as was pointed out in another thread, he didn't give Van Dyke Parks credit on 'Wonderful' or 'Wind Chimes' from Smiley Smile. And he also didn't give Chuck Berry any credit on 'Surfin USA'. Are there other instances? However, outside of those instances I think Brian was always fair when it came to credits - Roger Christian, Gary Usher, etc. I am fairly certain that Tony Asher was credited on all of his work with Brian.

On the flip side, look at all the shady garbage that Murry did to David Marks regarding royalties. Murry also apparently forged Brian's signature on documents to sell the Sea of Tunes music. I just think that the guy with the history of screwing people over regarding royalties (Murry) would likely be the guy who did this to Mike. I don't know for a fact thats what happened, but it just makes sense to me.

This was obviously an issue that Mike would have studied a great deal for years upon years prior to the 90s, and yet he says in this interview that it was "two dozen" songs he didn't get credited on (a number that he would've likely known by heart as he studied what songs he was and wasn't credited on - especially since he says they were going to be suing Brian within a week of this interview - at this point he would've studied and known that number well) and YET he later claimed he was owed credit on 79 songs! How do you go from 24 to 79 songs?

Highlights of the interview (thus far) for me:

- Mike stating that Brian is a very pathetic figure (so much so he says this twice) due to this royalty issue
- says that he is going to sue Brian's "ass to pieces"
- his remarks about Brian's solo album are really tactless

TBH I've loved listening to this though. Mike has a legitimate gripe here and it comes through loud and clear. The person interviewing him is a huge fan of the music, so hearing someone like that interact with a member of the band is always a treat. Mike goes back and forth between ridiculing Brian and praising Brian...it's just really odd. Odd and fascinating.

Thanks for sharing this!
I think that the credits from 1963-68 were all extremely unclear. I donít blaim Brian, and honestly I feel bad for Mike.
My problem is just the way that he talks about Brian.
Really? You want to sue your cousin with health and mental problemís ass  to pieces?
I canít blaim Brian, because every interview Iíve seen has him giving Mike a lot of credit.
Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5098


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


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2020, 04:42:53 PM »

I think that the credits from 1963-68 were all extremely unclear. I donít blaim Brian, and honestly I feel bad for Mike.
My problem is just the way that he talks about Brian.
Really? You want to sue your cousin with health and mental problemís ass  to pieces?
I canít blaim Brian, because every interview Iíve seen has him giving Mike a lot of credit.

It is odd, isn't it? He talks about how Brian had (during the time of the interview) been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. And it's obvious that Brian had had a history of mental health issues from the time he freaked out on the plane to Houston. It was obvious Brian had anxiety (due to his lack of stage presence). Mike asked Brian to fix the issue many times, and every time nothing ever happened. If rectifying the issue meant confronting Murry is anyone surprised that anxiety-prone Brian didn't want to confront Murry over the issue of money? So why didn't Mike take matters into his own hands? Was he afraid of the same thing Brian was afraid of?

It just makes me think that the credits thing had more to do with Murry - even Mike, whilst in the same interview calls Brian a "pathetic figure" over this credits issue, admits that he didn't know if it was either Murry or Brian who did it. And if Murry orchestrated it, it's no wonder that Brian (full of anxiety) wouldn't want to challenge his father over Mike's problems.

Anyways, so many questions. I know this issues isn't a simple one. Mike did get screwed over, and Brian sat passively by. If it cost Mike millions of dollars and credit, I can see why he'd be upset. But knowing your cousin has had mental health issues all his life, it's not very high-minded to call this guy a pathetic figure for not standing up to his bully father.

Does anyone know if Brian ever publicly talked about the writing of 'California Girls' in the mid/late-60s? As in, if he acknowledged if Mike wrote the lyrics?
Logged

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

Gender: Male
Posts: 6184


I had to fix a lot of things this morning


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2020, 04:48:09 PM »

I've never heard this interview before, thanks for posting.

Mike sounds negative, that's just how he is. Even during the C50 tour.. An incredible tine for the band and fans alike, he was the turd in the punch bowl. Thats Mike.
Logged

According to someone who would know.

Seriously, there was a Beach Boys Love You condom?!  Amazing.
JakeH
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 74


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2020, 06:20:38 PM »

I think this issue has been dealt with before, either here or in various published material.  Some unsolicited comments to help focus the issue (assuming its worth discussing, and I'm not sure it is)

Does anyone know if Brian ever publicly talked about the writing of 'California Girls' in the mid/late-60s? As in, if he acknowledged if Mike wrote the lyrics?

I don't know. Brian is on record, in print, circa mid-1966 or so, denigrating Mike's songwriting ability.  This is known. Brian is using typically elliptical language, but his commentary is not complimentary. Also, I recall reading - though I cannot recall where - something where Brian is discussing the authorship of those Phil Spector records he loves.  Someone, maybe it was a journalist, points out that Elie Greenwich and Jeff Barry wrote the songs, or something like that, and Brian replies with something like, "no, Phil wrote those songs. He could not have made those records if he didn't write those songs." I don't recall where I read that, but if anyone can remember...

The point is that there is evidence that Brian has a certain subjective opinion as to what does, and does not constitute "songwriting" in his mind.


Murry also apparently forged Brian's signature on documents to sell the Sea of Tunes music.


I believe that by now it should be clear that Murry did not forge Brian's signature on the relevant documents.   A reading and understanding of Beach Boys and Wilson history would make it clear that Murry would never need to engage in such subterfuge. 

Mike knows that Brian signed the documents. The interesting thing, and one of the most interesting comments from Mike's autobiography is that Mike (1) doesn't know why Brian would do such a thing, and, even more importantly, (2) is not interested in asking that question at all. The question "Why would Brian do that" is not one Mike is interested in asking. He says this on page 376 of his book.

Mike's book inadvertently helps clarify (1) why Brian would sign those papers and (2) why Mike doesn't want to ask the question why or know the answer.


If rectifying the issue meant confronting Murry is anyone surprised that anxiety-prone Brian didn't want to confront Murry over the issue of money? [***]

And if Murry orchestrated it, it's no wonder that Brian (full of anxiety) wouldn't want to challenge his father over Mike's problems.


The idea the Brian didn't challenge his father over songwriting credits - maybe that's true, but that is not a sufficiently nuanced approach to the issue of Brian's relationship with his father.  Brian Wilson stood up to Murry - he had been doing it all his life - but he could only stand up to so much; the problem fans, researchers and commentators have is that they have utterly misinterpreted Murry Wilson's role in the story of the Beach Boys. The assumption is that Murry "drove" the boys, "helped" them, and "protected" them, and set them up in show business... All of that is false. Murry was an abusive destroyer, and his goal (be it conscious or unconscious) was to destroy his son Brian Wilson.  If you can accept that fact (there is a pile of evidence to support this), it will be easier for you to see that Murry would have destroyed the Beach Boys even before they got started. He failed at that because Brian would not let him do it. Following that, Murry would have destroyed the Beach Boys music, and there is evidence that he in fact tried, and Brian stood up to him and protected the music. I won't go into the nitty-gritty of this here.

But really all Brian could do is protect the music, which was the most important thing. He did in fact let Murry wreak havoc and control business and money matters to a degree. So in that respect, yes, it looks like he was a wimp who couldn't stand up to his father.  My point is, that is not true. In fact, had Brian not been able to protect the music for as long as he was able, the Beach Boys would have been in much worse shape. Mike benefitted from certain ways in which Brian stood up to Murry, and he perhaps suffered economic damage as a result of Brian's failure to stand up to Murry in other respects. 

Also, it wasn't just Murry that Brian had to stand up to.


This was obviously an issue that Mike would have studied a great deal for years upon years prior to the 90s, and yet he says in this interview that it was "two dozen" songs he didn't get credited on (a number that he would've likely known by heart as he studied what songs he was and wasn't credited on - especially since he says they were going to be suing Brian within a week of this interview - at this point he would've studied and known that number well) and YET he later claimed he was owed credit on 79 songs! How do you go from 24 to 79 songs?


This is basic litigation strategy. 

Which, by the way leads you to the well-known fact that courts exist to resolve disputes and facilitate the transfer of money from one part to another. Sometimes, as a part of this process, truth can be ascertained, but truth is not necessary at all.  Had Mike lost his songwriting claim, it would not mean that he didn't write the lyrics to "California Girls." All it would mean is that he lost the case.
 
Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5098


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


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2020, 06:45:20 PM »

Jake, thanks a bunch for that detailed response. The part about Brian's idea of what constitutes songwriting is interesting. I guess I just find it odd considering Brian usually credited his cowriters - but with Mike it was a somewhat different story. I don't know how this crediting process worked so I can't really speculate (even though I've already done that) about who along the line kept Mike out of the documentation (whether it was Murry or Brian - and why).

Quote
I believe that by now it should be clear that Murry did not forge Brian's signature on the relevant documents.   A reading and understanding of Beach Boys and Wilson history would make it clear that Murry would never need to engage in such subterfuge. 

Mike knows that Brian signed the documents. The interesting thing, and one of the most interesting comments from Mike's autobiography is that Mike (1) doesn't know why Brian would do such a thing, and, even more importantly, (2) is not interested in asking that question at all. The question "Why would Brian do that" is not one Mike is interested in asking. He says this on page 376 of his book.

Mike's book inadvertently helps clarify (1) why Brian would sign those papers and (2) why Mike doesn't want to ask the question why or know the answer.

Being an ignorant soul, I can't really decipher why Brian would sign those papers...could you clarify this for me?

Thanks again for your post.
Logged

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

Posts: 74


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2020, 08:47:53 PM »

Jake, thanks a bunch for that detailed response. The part about Brian's idea of what constitutes songwriting is interesting. I guess I just find it odd considering Brian usually credited his cowriters - but with Mike it was a somewhat different story. I don't know how this crediting process worked so I can't really speculate (even though I've already done that) about who along the line kept Mike out of the documentation (whether it was Murry or Brian - and why).

Quote
I believe that by now it should be clear that Murry did not forge Brian's signature on the relevant documents.   A reading and understanding of Beach Boys and Wilson history would make it clear that Murry would never need to engage in such subterfuge. 

Mike knows that Brian signed the documents. The interesting thing, and one of the most interesting comments from Mike's autobiography is that Mike (1) doesn't know why Brian would do such a thing, and, even more importantly, (2) is not interested in asking that question at all. The question "Why would Brian do that" is not one Mike is interested in asking. He says this on page 376 of his book.

Mike's book inadvertently helps clarify (1) why Brian would sign those papers and (2) why Mike doesn't want to ask the question why or know the answer.

Being an ignorant soul, I can't really decipher why Brian would sign those papers...could you clarify this for me?

Thanks again for your post.

You can't really get into it without totally taking apart and deconstructing the entire accepted Beach Boys narrative - which should be done, and I believe will be done sometime soon.  You would need to reckon with the level of abuse in the Wilson household in which Brian and his brothers were raised, and what it meant.  This hasn't been done.   The selling of the song catalog was just another way to abuse Brian.  With either conscious intent or through native instinct, Sea of Tunes was set up by Murry in a way to exploit and abuse Brian - it was just another way to do it to him, and because of the way it was set up, it was (relatively) easy to get Brian to sign the papers.  Sea of Tunes - an idea originally conceived of by Gary Usher and Brian Wilson (without using that name) - was usurped by Murry Wilson and then converted into a Sea of Money for the benefit of Brian's parents, neither of whom deserved that windfall, in my opinion.  But that was the purpose of that song publishing entity, and Murry was only acting in line with the true, original purpose, and in line with the way Brian had been raised.  This was understood between father and son at some deeper psychological level, due to the abuse.  Once it was clear that Brian was washed up as a commercial hitmaker, they cashed out. 
Logged
Cabinessenceking
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2085


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2020, 12:56:49 PM »

I think when Mike pulled that infamous RRHoF stunt, he basically excluded the entire group from participating in events that brought together these kind of rock legends. Nobody can stomach that fool. Brian is invited at an individual level, but it could never be together as The Beach Boys because it would mean everyone would have to see Mike's stupid face.

Mike Love at his worst - pick your moment I guess.
Logged
The LEGENDARY OSD
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1804

luHv Estrangement Syndrome. It's a great thing!


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2020, 02:48:20 PM »

I think when Mike pulled that infamous RRHoF stunt, he basically excluded the entire group from participating in events that brought together these kind of rock legends. Nobody can stomach that fool. Brian is invited at an individual level, but it could never be together as The Beach Boys because it would mean everyone would have to see Mike's stupid face.

Mike Love at his worst - pick your moment I guess.

Mike Love at his worse-24/7.
Logged

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

Posts: 3277


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2020, 11:13:47 PM »

I think when Mike pulled that infamous RRHoF stunt, he basically excluded the entire group from participating in events that brought together these kind of rock legends. Nobody can stomach that fool. Brian is invited at an individual level, but it could never be together as The Beach Boys because it would mean everyone would have to see Mike's stupid face.

Mike Love at his worst - pick your moment I guess.
Just a guess - but I think if Mike had kept his mouth shut at the HOF bash, the reports of that night would have only mentioned the Beach Boys in passing. The headlines would have all been about Macca  and Ms. Ross not showing up.
So in Mike's own twisted view of the event, he did good by making sure he made the headlines.
Logged
The Nearest Faraway Place
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 43


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2020, 09:07:17 PM »

I think when Mike pulled that infamous RRHoF stunt, he basically excluded the entire group from participating in events that brought together these kind of rock legends. Nobody can stomach that fool. Brian is invited at an individual level, but it could never be together as The Beach Boys because it would mean everyone would have to see Mike's stupid face.

Mike Love at his worst - pick your moment I guess.
I still say this, because at least at the HOF, he doesnít go at Brian.
I think when Mike pulled that infamous RRHoF stunt, he basically excluded the entire group from participating in events that brought together these kind of rock legends. Nobody can stomach that fool. Brian is invited at an individual level, but it could never be together as The Beach Boys because it would mean everyone would have to see Mike's stupid face.

Mike Love at his worst - pick your moment I guess.

Mike Love at his worse-24/7.
He has chilled out over the last few years. Now if only he would stop using Dennis Wilsonís Manson incident for publicity, and would stop releasing terrible albums, then there would be world peace.
I think when Mike pulled that infamous RRHoF stunt, he basically excluded the entire group from participating in events that brought together these kind of rock legends. Nobody can stomach that fool. Brian is invited at an individual level, but it could never be together as The Beach Boys because it would mean everyone would have to see Mike's stupid face.

Mike Love at his worst - pick your moment I guess.
Just a guess - but I think if Mike had kept his mouth shut at the HOF bash, the reports of that night would have only mentioned the Beach Boys in passing. The headlines would have all been about Macca  and Ms. Ross not showing up.
So in Mike's own twisted view of the event, he did good by making sure he made the headlines.
I never thought about it that way, but its true.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8852


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 25, 2020, 11:16:29 AM »

Jake, thanks a bunch for that detailed response. The part about Brian's idea of what constitutes songwriting is interesting. I guess I just find it odd considering Brian usually credited his cowriters - but with Mike it was a somewhat different story. I don't know how this crediting process worked so I can't really speculate (even though I've already done that) about who along the line kept Mike out of the documentation (whether it was Murry or Brian - and why).

Quote
I believe that by now it should be clear that Murry did not forge Brian's signature on the relevant documents.   A reading and understanding of Beach Boys and Wilson history would make it clear that Murry would never need to engage in such subterfuge. 

Mike knows that Brian signed the documents. The interesting thing, and one of the most interesting comments from Mike's autobiography is that Mike (1) doesn't know why Brian would do such a thing, and, even more importantly, (2) is not interested in asking that question at all. The question "Why would Brian do that" is not one Mike is interested in asking. He says this on page 376 of his book.

Mike's book inadvertently helps clarify (1) why Brian would sign those papers and (2) why Mike doesn't want to ask the question why or know the answer.

Being an ignorant soul, I can't really decipher why Brian would sign those papers...could you clarify this for me?

Thanks again for your post.

You can't really get into it without totally taking apart and deconstructing the entire accepted Beach Boys narrative - which should be done, and I believe will be done sometime soon.  You would need to reckon with the level of abuse in the Wilson household in which Brian and his brothers were raised, and what it meant.  This hasn't been done.   The selling of the song catalog was just another way to abuse Brian.  With either conscious intent or through native instinct, Sea of Tunes was set up by Murry in a way to exploit and abuse Brian - it was just another way to do it to him, and because of the way it was set up, it was (relatively) easy to get Brian to sign the papers.  Sea of Tunes - an idea originally conceived of by Gary Usher and Brian Wilson (without using that name) - was usurped by Murry Wilson and then converted into a Sea of Money for the benefit of Brian's parents, neither of whom deserved that windfall, in my opinion.  But that was the purpose of that song publishing entity, and Murry was only acting in line with the true, original purpose, and in line with the way Brian had been raised.  This was understood between father and son at some deeper psychological level, due to the abuse.  Once it was clear that Brian was washed up as a commercial hitmaker, they cashed out. 


I agree about deconstructing the accepted Beach Boys narrative and getting to the facts - But I'm not holding my breath waiting for that, and citing Mike's book is giving one side of a multi-faceted issue which is important but does not stand as the sole truth of the matter. There are things in Mike's book which should be fact-checked as well, again perhaps as part of the deconstruction.

But my real focus was on setting up Sea Of Tunes - Did it not come out in one of the court cases that a key legal point was that Brian was underage when Sea Of Tunes was established, which meant any contracts agreed to (specific to California law at the time of establishment) could be challenged if not made null and void because one of the signatures on the papers was from an underage signer when the company was formed?

Beyond the legal issues such as that, I agree Murry had his position as administrator of the company positioned for a level of control over Brian and the thing he knew mattered the most to his oldest son even after Murry was fired as the band's manager: The music. I think Murry felt if he controlled the music from a behind the scenes standpoint, he could control his son(s) and manipulate/control even after he was not involved in the everyday management of the band.

It can also be seen in Murry's work with The Sunrays - IMO. Murry found a surrogate Brian and a surrogate band after "his band" showed him the door.
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
The Nearest Faraway Place
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 43


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: January 25, 2020, 12:00:48 PM »

Jake, thanks a bunch for that detailed response. The part about Brian's idea of what constitutes songwriting is interesting. I guess I just find it odd considering Brian usually credited his cowriters - but with Mike it was a somewhat different story. I don't know how this crediting process worked so I can't really speculate (even though I've already done that) about who along the line kept Mike out of the documentation (whether it was Murry or Brian - and why).

Quote
I believe that by now it should be clear that Murry did not forge Brian's signature on the relevant documents.   A reading and understanding of Beach Boys and Wilson history would make it clear that Murry would never need to engage in such subterfuge. 

Mike knows that Brian signed the documents. The interesting thing, and one of the most interesting comments from Mike's autobiography is that Mike (1) doesn't know why Brian would do such a thing, and, even more importantly, (2) is not interested in asking that question at all. The question "Why would Brian do that" is not one Mike is interested in asking. He says this on page 376 of his book.

Mike's book inadvertently helps clarify (1) why Brian would sign those papers and (2) why Mike doesn't want to ask the question why or know the answer.

Being an ignorant soul, I can't really decipher why Brian would sign those papers...could you clarify this for me?

Thanks again for your post.

You can't really get into it without totally taking apart and deconstructing the entire accepted Beach Boys narrative - which should be done, and I believe will be done sometime soon.  You would need to reckon with the level of abuse in the Wilson household in which Brian and his brothers were raised, and what it meant.  This hasn't been done.   The selling of the song catalog was just another way to abuse Brian.  With either conscious intent or through native instinct, Sea of Tunes was set up by Murry in a way to exploit and abuse Brian - it was just another way to do it to him, and because of the way it was set up, it was (relatively) easy to get Brian to sign the papers.  Sea of Tunes - an idea originally conceived of by Gary Usher and Brian Wilson (without using that name) - was usurped by Murry Wilson and then converted into a Sea of Money for the benefit of Brian's parents, neither of whom deserved that windfall, in my opinion.  But that was the purpose of that song publishing entity, and Murry was only acting in line with the true, original purpose, and in line with the way Brian had been raised.  This was understood between father and son at some deeper psychological level, due to the abuse.  Once it was clear that Brian was washed up as a commercial hitmaker, they cashed out. 


I agree about deconstructing the accepted Beach Boys narrative and getting to the facts - But I'm not holding my breath waiting for that, and citing Mike's book is giving one side of a multi-faceted issue which is important but does not stand as the sole truth of the matter. There are things in Mike's book which should be fact-checked as well, again perhaps as part of the deconstruction.

But my real focus was on setting up Sea Of Tunes - Did it not come out in one of the court cases that a key legal point was that Brian was underage when Sea Of Tunes was established, which meant any contracts agreed to (specific to California law at the time of establishment) could be challenged if not made null and void because one of the signatures on the papers was from an underage signer when the company was formed?

Beyond the legal issues such as that, I agree Murry had his position as administrator of the company positioned for a level of control over Brian and the thing he knew mattered the most to his oldest son even after Murry was fired as the band's manager: The music. I think Murry felt if he controlled the music from a behind the scenes standpoint, he could control his son(s) and manipulate/control even after he was not involved in the everyday management of the band.

It can also be seen in Murry's work with The Sunrays - IMO. Murry found a surrogate Brian and a surrogate band after "his band" showed him the door.
Brian was 19.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8852


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 25, 2020, 12:06:44 PM »

Yes, Brian was 19 - The legal age in California was 21 when the original papers were signed establishing the Sea Of Tunes company. I believe - and I remember writing it on this board somewhere - that the legal age point was used in one of the court cases.
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
gfx
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 1.097 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!