The US Capitol 45rpm Release Of Fun Fun Fun: Songwriting Credit Variations?

[guitarfool2002]

I'm sure it's been answered before, but I just noticed how the Capitol 45rpm label on the Fun Fun Fun single has multiple variations, and the one which stood out most in light of what happened decades later is the change in writer credits. One pressing lists Brian as the sole writer, another pressing lists Brian and Mike as co-writers, and yet another has in bigger, bolder font "Arranged By Brian Wilson" under the sole Brian writing credit.

I admit I didn't keep up with nor do I actively collect all the reissues, repackages, etc. of BB's 45rpm records. The ones I have are original pressings, I don't know what else may have come out using the Capitol "swirl" label beyond the 60's when it was still the main Capitol design in the US. Same with Beatles 45's, apart from a few 70's 45rpm repackages I have which never existed in the 60's. It's all on the swirl label if it's Capitol, up to the change to Apple.

So what was going on with these credits? Am I seeing some kind of anniversary or reissue kind of deal with the Brian-Mike credit on that record, or did Capitol press then repress the Fun Fun Fun 45 to change those writer credits in the 60's?

Three variations on the swirl label:

[dogear]

Look here https://www.45cat.com/record/5118

[guitarfool2002]

Thank you for the link! It seems there was also an issue and questions with the label's writing credits on the flip side, "Why Do Fools...". But honestly, I read through the link top to bottom and it really doesn't address Fun Fun Fun specific to those credits, and it's a lot of commentary to where I still couldn't get an answer as to *when* that pressing showing the Brian-Mike credits versus the solo Brian credit was released. Can anyone help fill in that gap?

And I'm also curious why the label would be changed from a solo Brian credit to a Brian-Mike credit, the answers depending heavily on the year it would have been released with that change. I could see if it were one of those gimmick reissues after 1995, say, but how and why would a label's writing credits be changed in the 60's, the era when that Capitol swirl was still the standard design?

I tried to get the info from the link, but I didn't see what I was looking for - If someone can help me sort out what was said in those comments, thank you in advance!

[harveyw]

This link might be useful too, though again, it doesn't give a definitive pressing date for the Wilson/Love credit (though label layout & perimeter text would certainly narrow it down to pre-1968)

http://www.beachboys45.nl/USA-Regular-Capitol-64.htm

The Wilson/Love credit Fun Fun Fun certainly looks like a 1964 pressing; the "arranged by" credit varies in font size depending on the pressing plant.

[thetojo]

This reminded me that I once saw a 45 of Good Vibrations from 66 that listed Brian as the sole songwriter, and sent me searching - I found this one, but given I'm in Australia, it might have been from somewhere else.

https://www.discogs.com/The-Beach-Boys-Good-Vibrations/release/2209447

[harveyw]

This reminded me that I once saw a 45 of Good Vibrations from 66 that listed Brian as the sole songwriter, and sent me searching - I found this one, but given I'm in Australia, it might have been from somewhere else.

https://www.discogs.com/The-Beach-Boys-Good-Vibrations/release/2209447

The UK pressing was also credited to solely Brian

https://www.discogs.com/The-Beach-Boys-Good-Vibrations/release/4509359

[guitarfool2002]

This link might be useful too, though again, it doesn't give a definitive pressing date for the Wilson/Love credit (though label layout & perimeter text would certainly narrow it down to pre-1968)

http://www.beachboys45.nl/USA-Regular-Capitol-64.htm

The Wilson/Love credit Fun Fun Fun certainly looks like a 1964 pressing; the "arranged by" credit varies in font size depending on the pressing plant.

Thank you for the info! I was also thinking it was 1964 too for the Wilson/Love label pressing based on the other elements.

That's what also brought up a question: Was that credit on the label a misprint corrected by Capitol because it was originally a printing mistake to not have a Wilson/Love credit, or was it corrected in 1964 because the songwriting credits on the copyright and publishing papers also had to be corrected in order to credit Mike as co-writer and later label pressings had the corrected version?

And if Fun Fun Fun was corrected, what about the others in the next year or so that became part of the lawsuit in the 90's?

 

[thetojo]

I think the result of that lawsuit should be taken with a grain of salt.

At the time, nobody cared enough to stand up for Brian's side of things, and he was obviously an unwilling participant in those proceedings. We all know what Brian could be like -

I remember reading that Mike Love would sit in the witness box and sing parts of songs explaining how he wrote them - seriously, half the people on this board could've done that.

While undoubtedly some credits were not originally given that were arguable or stronger (California Girls) - there are clearly very many others where that was not the case. When the lawsuit started there were many many more songs included in the claim, and the list was reduced, I believe, at least twice. What's the explanation for that?

The reality is that songwriting is a very personal process, and unless you're in the room when it happens, you're not going to know the truth of it.

All I'm really saying is that Brian just didn't seem to care to fight that lawsuit for whatever reason - and it's not the type of claim that would ordinarily succeed - because there's never going to be hard evidence, unless you can produce a recording of the writing session, which will rarely be the case. I find this whole songwriting credits issue within the band fascinating. If you set the bar as low as what Mike Love would like for getting credit, then why isn't Dennis credited for "Surfin'"?

[thetojo]

Sorry to GF if I've hijacked your thread -  

[WillJC]

While undoubtedly some credits were not originally given that were arguable or stronger (California Girls) - there are clearly very many others where that was not the case. When the lawsuit started there were many many more songs included in the claim, and the list was reduced, I believe, at least twice. What's the explanation for that?

The list was reduced from 39 to 35. Not 79, as reported on Wikipedia.

Which others and why clear? If you can point to convincing fuel against the credits that Mike was awarded, sure. But there isn't really any. We can't know that he didn't as much as we can't know that he did. And most, his influence is pretty obvious. It's well established that often when Brian would write a song by himself in that '64-'65 period, Mike's role would be to complete or redraft the lyrics in the studio (EG Let Him Run Wild, recounted in a contemporary magazine). Doesn't matter how many words - that's still a songwriting credit.

[guitarfool2002]

While undoubtedly some credits were not originally given that were arguable or stronger (California Girls) - there are clearly very many others where that was not the case. When the lawsuit started there were many many more songs included in the claim, and the list was reduced, I believe, at least twice. What's the explanation for that?

The list was reduced from 39 to 35. Not 79, as reported on Wikipedia.

Which others and why clear? If you can point to convincing fuel against the credits that Mike was awarded, sure. But there isn't really any. We can't know that he didn't as much as we can't know that he did. And most, his influence is pretty obvious. It's well established that often when Brian would write a song by himself in that '64-'65 period, Mike's role would be to complete or redraft the lyrics in the studio (EG Let Him Run Wild, recounted in a contemporary magazine). Doesn't matter how many words - that's still a songwriting credit.

Just to correct a few things: It has nothing to do with info on Wikipedia. The numbers and details about the case were published in numerous newspaper accounts from 1992 (when Mike filed both the publishing/royalties lawsuit involving Brian and Irving Music in July 92 and the defamation lawsuit against Brian in October 92 that also included writing credits) up to 1994 when Mike won the case and the subsequent awards from the decision.

I have and would be happy to repost or clip any number of those articles for those interested in reading them. The issue of the labels on the Fun Fun Fun 45rpm reminded me of one of those articles, which is why I mentioned it.

The cases themselves are very detailed and in-depth to the point it can be confusing to wade through everything, and which elements refer to publishing versus credit, back royalties, etc. Mike had multiple cases in the courts, including some from this same time which no one ever discusses.

But here's the low-down: Again according to the reports from the trials, not someone on Wikipedia, the issue of the song credits and royalties from those songs included in the Sea Of Tunes sale was based on 79 songs that Mike and Brian co-wrote under the Sea Of Tunes agreement, 31 of which Mike received credit for, and 48 of which Mike claimed he was not properly credited for his work on those songs.

According to one of the lawyers in the cases, those 48 songs got pared down to 35 during the trial. That would leave 13 songs that Mike filed credit for but which didn't get included in the decision.

I think that's what Tojo was referring too, and he's right - The number of credit claims was pared down and Mike's lawyer said as much after the decision. I don't know where the number 39 came from, because nearly every report of the case mentions 48 songs, then 35 of which Mike won credit and royalties for in the decision. The original 79, I'm assuming, could have been included as part of the back royalties subsection of the lawsuits, in the same way Brian sued for and won the back royalties for those songs which he had lost after the Sea Of Tunes sale. Like I said, with multiple lawsuits happening and many elements of those suits in play, it can be hard to trace each element without a stack of documents nearby to reference.

Here's an old post of mine showing an original article clipping with the information. If anyone is interested in seeing more, please say the word and I'll try to post them as I can. And it's also a pretty deep-diving thread where this came from if anyone is interested in the nuts-and-bolts breakdowns of Mike's lawsuits.

Does anybody know which 13 songs Mike asked for credit for, but was denied?

In a Goldmine interview with Mike - forget the year, might be 1992 - the number of songs was 79, and one specific title mentioned that didn't make the cut was "Surfin' USA".

That must have been before the lawsuit was officially drawn up, because every news account I've seen, video and print, cites the "35 songs" as the ones Mike won the case on, and that number was shaved down from 48 in the initial claim. Maybe the 79 was the original number and the legal team decided they couldn't prove that many so they trimmed the list.

Or maybe Mike was either mistaken or exaggerating in that interview, as it's more than double what he eventually won in court.

Here's a December 14, 1994 AP report of the lawsuit with those details:

[WillJC]

What I'd heard came from another contemporary article that must've misinterpreted, don't recall which, but standing corrected on the number. My bad, thanks for the info. 79 in the context of claims for songs uncredited would still however be incorrect, which is what I was trying to point out. That's just something I've seen pop up often (IE wikipedia and modern reports in turn citing that) and assumed it was the one alluded to.

[WillJC]

.

[sloopjohnb72]

I've seen 79 as a number of songs he believed he deserved more credit for, including songs he was never credited for in the first place, but ALSO some songs he just wanted a bigger percentage of. Good Vibrations is an example of one of the 79 in the article I've seen that used that number, so the other 31 songs here were probably already Wilson/Love.

[guitarfool2002]

It's confusing and has been for years because of the complexity and the sheer volume of data involved in the case...and this was only one facet of it! Some of the reports at the time were a little confusing regarding details on the 79 songs some reports were citing at the time, but keep in mind the trial lasted 8 weeks, it took the judge 28 minutes to read his decision from the bench, and on top of all else the OJ Simpson trial was taking place at the same time in the same area, I think that was in a building across the street...besieged by media from all over the world. That must have been fun trying to find parking...

But anyway, yes, the 79 songs. It's a bit confusing because Mike was suing Brian for his cut of the settlement Brian received, but there was also an element of suing Irving/Almo (or Almo/Irving) who controlled the songs, and if those 79 Wilson/Love co-writes had been denied royalties since the 1969, Mike would try to recoup the lost income for those 31 songs he did receive credit for originally just as Brian's earlier suit on the Sea Of Tunes sale had done for him. Mike also included the law firm whose lawyers were involved in the original Sea Of Tunes deals in the suit, so there were essentially three separate entities being sued: Brian, the publisher Irving, and the law firm, each bringing different areas of dispute and background into this 8-week trial and all the years leading up to it.

***So yes, to sum up, there were 79 songs Mike was claiming co-writing credit for, 31 of those which he was already credited for, leaving 48 which were included in the lawsuit where he wanted both official credit to be given, back royalties and lost income to be calculated and paid, and to have the credits and royalty payments continue in perpetuity. Of those 48 songs he was asking for, he won on 35 of them. That leaves 13 songs where the court either threw out the claims, or the claims were withdrawn or not awarded to Mike in the decision.***

I'm sorry I don't have more info available right now to add to this discussion, because there is *a lot* more to it than what we're discussing here, and it spanned the years going back to 1967 up to when the case was heard in court and ended in '94-'95. An 8-week-long trial has literally stacks upon stacks of documents and transcripts, and what people have heard come out only scratches the surface.

What has come out since I first posted a lot about it here back in 2013-14 added some new info to the mix as well. It's fascinating, and as the saying goes relevant to this case, "you learn something new every day".

[WillJC]

That's more than I understood about it regardless. Really helpful stuff, thanks!

Assuming there were four other songs, I could've guessed what they were. Thirteen more... that gets very interesting.