Documentary!

[bossaroo]

first time seeing this graphic today. MUCH BETTER

[HeyJude]

If anyone is interested in high quality downloads of any of the posters, you can find them here:

http://www.impawards.com/2024/beach_boys.html

Despite the poster being kind of a mess, and the doc being so frustrating, I can't help but be kind of amused by that first poster with the 70s head shots. I actually like a representation of that era (an era not featured in the documentary!)

[Zenobi]

Thanks for the link! In fact, the poster above is really excellent. The Boys are shown at their best, as they should. 👍

[GoodVibrations33]

Short, but informational article with the doc's editors:  https://www.indiewire.com/features/craft/beach-boys-disney-plus-documentary-editing-1235015852/

[rab2591]

Short, but informational article with the doc's editors:  https://www.indiewire.com/features/craft/beach-boys-disney-plus-documentary-editing-1235015852/

Thanks for the link!

“As legendary a band as they are, the story could feel small if it only exists among the band members. So we wanted to broaden out the aperture of their influence and show the affect on the popular culture.”

I partially understand what Martinez is saying here (as one of my favorite books about the band spends the majority of the book talking about the culture/country surrounding the band) but I just can’t see how the story could feel small if it only existed “among the band members”.

Some of the most incredible music ever written, a schizo-affective bipolar bandleader, Dennis Wilson’s unbelievable solo album and incredibly sad alcoholism & downward spiral (going from living the dream to being basically homeless), anything to do with Carl Wilson, Ricky and Blondie, Mike going from gas station attendant to rock star, a mad psychiatrist taking control of Brian, surf nazis, Brian’s redemption, and I’m forgetting/leaving out a lot.

I do get wanting to show their affect on popular culture, and I also get that a lot of the above subjects could be a minefield of problems given the current nature of the band. BUT, no way this story could feel small if it were just about the band-members.

“I’ve done a couple of music docs, and this was genuinely one where the music never got old,”

Love this quote.

[HeyJude]

Those editors don't get it. I mean, a gig is a gig, and I would still fault the director more than these editors. But this interview with the editors tells me their work and approach only made things worse.

What they're basically saying in this interview is that telling an insular sort of version of the story (such as how they did "The Beatles Anthology") would feel "too small". And that's insane. That tells me they don't know the band's story. Even if you want to tackle the story from a salacious/dramatic point of view, there's TONS to work with.

But, even if that version would be "too small", their interviews with "outsiders" were so non-substantive and short that THOSE interviews didn't add anything either.

If by saying an interview focusing only on the members would feel "too small", they actually mean they don't have enough interview footage to properly explain everything, then that *could* make sense. But again, they didn't go get someone to fill the story out. They didn't get someone like Timothy White was in "Endless Harmony." It's not an invalid approach to bring some sort of expert in to flesh the story out. But they didn't get get Howie Edelson or Jon Stebbins or whomever on screen to fill the story out. They got meaningless soundbites from a few celebs, and then that ridiculous useless Josh Kun interview where he goes on his own sociological tangents/filters that have nothing to do with the band.

This interview reads like "we don't really get the Beach Boys, and we figure most people won't get them and don't know much about them, so we're going to dumb this thing down as much as humanly possible, down to punch-you-in-the-face on-screen graphics explaining each personnel change, because for some reason explaining the month David Marks left is more important than explaining the actual music."

At one point they basically say in the early photos the Beach Boys "all look the same", so they felt they had to work EXTRA hard to edit the film so people can tell them apart. They sound like grandmas in 1964 telling kids "The Beatles all look the same!"

These editors don't get it. Some people on any given production aren't going to "get it." But when nobody gets it, that becomes a problem. I'm assuming these editors are fine at the core skills of editing. They probably would have done a better job with a better writer and director(s).

[Zenobi]

The point of view of these director/writers/editors reminds me of an Italian song from the '60s, which was about the rebellious youth. Talking about the young men's long hair, in translation:
"Seen from the backside, you can't tell boy from girl."
That's about the depth of understanding of the Beach Boys shown by this documentary, the above article etc. Also, sadly, by the many, in several forums, who talk only of the Boys' hits, commercial success, or lack thereof. The reason I post here and only "lurk" elsewhere is right that here people tend to talk more of the music.

[juggler]

The irrepressible, inestimable Carol Kaye weighs in....

“Staged and Phony”: A Wrecking Crew Alum Shares Her Real Thoughts About New Beach Boys Documentary
https://americansongwriter.com/staged-and-phony-a-wrecking-crew-alum-shares-her-real-thoughts-about-new-beach-boys-documentary/

[guitarfool2002]

Since I went down the rabbit hole of researching Mike's song credit lawsuit years ago, and reviewing many interviews and comments he's given since, it stands out to me how much isn't mentioned about the whole saga. And as I said earlier in this thread, it is indeed a saga with many twists and turns and some nasty elements that should be talked about or at least mentioned, especially if an "official" video bio of the band is going to put it on the table in a surface-level way and not delve into it to provide any substantial background beyond offering the conclusion "Mike got screwed". Well, yes he did, but there is much more to it that should be mentioned somewhere if that element of the band's story is going to be included in the timeline.

I say that because it could be a long discussion (which we've done before), but a few things stick out.

One is pretty obvious in my opinion: Brian Wilson got screwed over too. First by his own label, who he had to sue decades ago to recoup his production royalties. Then by his own father, who sold the catalog under suspicious means and pocketed the profits, and then later by his own legal teams who he also sued in the wake of Mike's lawsuit.

But I have to think for all of the commentary Mike has given in the past 30 years about getting screwed by Murry Wilson, and those times where he suggested Brian also was a conspirator in screwing him over, Brian had to shoulder the fact that his own father pulled this on his own first-born son. His uncle didn't do that, his cousin didn't do that...it was his own dad. And for how many decades and how many lawsuits did he have to deal with that in his head, how his father sold the songs he had the biggest hand in creating under shady means and basically cut everyone off from the profits of that sale and future earnings. And I don't believe it was all about the money, as others have said, but also about those songs Brian created from nothing and managed to give his family and those around him a comfortable if not enviable lifestyle that would not exist had it not been for Brian banging out those hits at the piano.

The poignant moment comes from Hal Blaine, who said Brian showed up at his house one day carrying a box of gold records from his big hits, and tried to give them to Hal, saying he didn't need them anymore, they weren't his. And consider how his own dad facilitated that, after he had already been ripped off by his record label.

And we wonder why or how depression sets in after these events?

So that's one...a man's own father, not his uncle, doing this kind of thing with seemingly no comprehension of either the emotions involved or the future ramifications of the deals.

And onto Mike's lawsuit...again, much more could be written and said, but I'll leave it to two things which have always stood out. How did the list of songs Mike was denied credit for go from over 70 songs at the start of the court case, then get whittled down to 48 songs, and eventually decided at 35 songs for which Mike won the judgement? I understand negotiations, I understand lawyers often casting a net they know is way too wide in order to bargain down to where they want a number to land...but sh*t, either Mike co-wrote those 70+ songs or he didn't. Why were those 30 or so songs, and eventually 13 additional songs, thrown out of Mike's lawsuit? And was he claiming credits that were not his or simply couldn't be proven but were included anyway?

And after reading some of the eyewitness reports of the trial, and some of the testimony, I always thought it was a nasty move for Mike's lawyers to get photos of Murry with a pipe, and Dennis blown up to large proportions and placed on easels inside the courtroom when Brian was supposed to be involved in testimony. Those around Brian knew those images were serious triggers - to the point where Brian had at one point physically went after a therapist after the man unfortunately lit up a pipe during a therapy session with Brian and it triggered memories of Murry - yet that was perfectly fine for those lawyers to do this. At some point, since Mike was paying their fees, I suppose he as the client could have said "hey guys, that's going too far...", but I guess it is all about "winning at all costs" after a certain point, common decency be damned.

And that's only scratching the surface of what went on with that case.

Consider that Brian could have taken the whole thing further, even some years later, but chose not to.

Does this or other documentaries shine enough light on even those few issues in order to give a more well-rounded telling of events?

[Zenobi]

All true, but mentioning such things in a documentary would need ba..., er, guts.

[HeyJude]

I find every facet of the songwriting and publishing sagas interesting, and I’d read a huge book on the subject or watch hours of documentary material.

I think a good BB doc would take time to give the situation plenty of context; the Disney doc did not do that.

I don’t know *how* detailed any mainstream doc on the band’s career would go on this stuff, though. That’s just a consequence of the format as much as anything else. Even an 8-part, 10-hour documentary probably wouldn’t spend *that* much time on it. Indeed, look at how much time the Allen Klein stuff got in the “Beatles Anthology.” Not much. That was left to multiple books on the subject ("Apple to the Core", the more recent "You Never Give Me Your Money", etc.)

As far as trying to understand Mike’s level of disenfranchisement, it’s obvious that telling him (or arguing against his anger) that “Brian got screwed too” doesn’t really address Mike getting screwed. Mike’s position could easily be “what do Brian’s producer royalties have to do with completely leaving my name off of songs that everybody agrees I helped write?” In the songwriting credits realm, Brian wasn’t having his name left off of songs in that era. Mike was.

There are countless “well, what about?.....” rabbit holes.

Why didn’t Mike say something earlier? As this was a family issue, why didn’t he ever have his family intervene? Why didn’t he ask Brian to do something about it?

Also, why didn’t Brian try to do something about it, since he knew Mike wasn’t getting credited on stuff he co-wrote? Why didn’t anybody else in the organization try to do anything about it?

How did Mike’s name end up on some songs, and not others?

Why didn’t Mike put his foot down and say “I’m not touring or recording until this is fixed.”

If you listen to that recent Surf’s Up podcast I’ve been mentioning, some of these questions have been put to Mike, and Mike does have some answers.

While I’ve talked a lot recently about how to kind of understand where Mike is coming from (the “original sin” idea put forth in that podcast), I think it’s absolutely valid to criticize Mike for STILL being upset about something that was rectified in his favor 30 years ago and for which NOTHING more can be done.

But I do still read articles and even recently have heard some sort of more fan-type Beach Boys podcasts where it’s kind of implied that Mike is lying about having written those songs. And I think it’s a disservice to everyone, most especially the band’s accurate history, to question whether Mike co-wrote the songs for which he got credit. Again, with the one semi-caveat being “Wouldn’t It Be Nice”, where it’s not so much of a question of whether he added those bits, but whether that constitutes a co-writing credit.

It would be fascinating to see that list of 70 songs. I think the theory that it got whittled down in the horse-trading, deal-making process is likely accurate. I would tend to doubt they’d go into court and lie about half of the songs on the list just to make it look bigger before it got whittled down.

True, in all of the Mike’s subsequent complaints about the songwriting credits issue, I’ve never seen him complain that there are another 30+ songs he STILL hasn’t been credited on. Is that because he padded the list? Maybe. But I also think it’s pretty clear that when Mike thinks about the songwriting credits fiasco, he’s mostly thinking about that small hand full of hit songs. He was pissed his name wasn’t on “California Girls” far more than it not being on “Santa’s Beard.”

[Zenobi]

I tend to think that, when you tally Mike's songwriting credits, 70 is nearer to the truth than 35.
As HeyJude is pointing, it's easy to believe that Mike sacrificed some (or many) of his "lesser", non-hit songs to secure the hits.
And that, imho, is Mike's own "original sin" - against himself. Not valuing enough much of his legacy, to focus only on the hits.

[Zenobi]

On the other hand: that may STILL be a source of additional (justified) chagrin for Mike, though he does not mention it.
"Hey, I know I collaborated on 54 (say) songs, but I had to agree on 35 to secure at least those. I don't like to harp on that, too, because they were not so commercial. But, inside, I am angry about that, too. And that was NOT rectified."

Just speculation and personal opinion, of course.

[Zenobi]

And, sorry, another opinion.
Should he have "let it all go"? YES, many a years ago. Much better for everybody, including himself. And now it is too late.
Is it right to demand that from him? No.

[Dan Lega]

I think the reason why the number of songs Mike Love wanted credit for got whittled down is because he did very little  on those songs.   My guess is that, for example, the original lyric was "going to" and Mike changed it to "heading to" -- you know, very minor changes, which were deemed too insignificant.  Or, his contribution couldn't be verified or were strongly refuted.  Remember his lawyers' argument for having possibly written "Good night, sleep tight" was "couldn't Brian have received a phone call from Mike while you were in another room and Mike gave Brian the lyrics then?"(!)


Love and merci,
Dan Lega

[HeyJude]

There are cases in the band's history where people who should have been credited weren't (Kalinich on a few Dennis tunes if I'm recalling correctly), cases where credit was given for minimal contributions simply because nobody thought it was a big deal or someone was doing a favor, and even cases where a song wanted to be bought off (in terms of copyrights if not actual credits). I recall Burchman complaining about "It's About Time", and supposedly Ed Carter was unwilling to just hand over "Surfer Suzie" to the group without proper credits/rights/ownership. Al could have easily been given a co-arranger credit on "Sloop John B" alongside Brian, simply for having brought it to Brian and started the process of putting the song into the pop/rock idiom.

Apart from WIBN, I've yet to see anybody claim Mike didn't co-write the songs over which he sued and won. And again, let me reiterate that on many if not most of the songs for which he won credits, it doesn't mean he got 50% of the royalties. The division on those songs could have, and probably were/are, different. Again, the most simple theoretical breakdown of this being a case where Brian wrote all the music, and then Brian and Mike each wrote 50% of the lyrics. I don't know if anybody knows the precise royalty breakdown on each song. There are some songs where, especially in his more surly interviews (e.g. the infamous 1992 Goldmine interview), Mike claimed he wrote ALL of the lyrics. There are others where obviously he just added some, including by his own admission WIBN.

It's fair to say that, in terms of CREDITS and songwriting royalties, Mike being left off of dozens of songs, including some of their biggest hits, was by far the most pervasive/systematic, and certainly the biggest from the point of view of chart hits/popular songs and potential royalties.

Mike could have pursued all of that decades earlier than he did. Part of why he did by 1994 was likely because he had little left to lose, and a lot more to gain. He had made a "hit" without Brian by that point, the touring band was printing money, and there was not much of an ongoing band concern with Brian to worry about spoiling with a lawsuit. There was probably a time in the 60s/70s/80s where a band member would have not wanted to risk going after Brian in that way, either in terms of internal politics, or PR-wise. But by the mid 90s, Landy had deeply damaged the relationship between Brian and the other band members, they felt more like they didn't need Brian than they ever had (Brian had stopped making even rare concert appearances in 1990), so there was relatively little left to lose. And, as has been pointed out, Mike was clearly following up on the windfall that Brian had gotten from his Irving lawsuit.

[guitarfool2002]

There are cases in the band's history where people who should have been credited weren't (Kalinich on a few Dennis tunes if I'm recalling correctly), cases where credit was given for minimal contributions simply because nobody thought it was a big deal or someone was doing a favor, and even cases where a song wanted to be bought off (in terms of copyrights if not actual credits). I recall Burchman complaining about "It's About Time", and supposedly Ed Carter was unwilling to just hand over "Surfer Suzie" to the group without proper credits/rights/ownership. Al could have easily been given a co-arranger credit on "Sloop John B" alongside Brian, simply for having brought it to Brian and started the process of putting the song into the pop/rock idiom.

Apart from WIBN, I've yet to see anybody claim Mike didn't co-write the songs over which he sued and won. And again, let me reiterate that on many if not most of the songs for which he won credits, it doesn't mean he got 50% of the royalties. The division on those songs could have, and probably were/are, different. Again, the most simple theoretical breakdown of this being a case where Brian wrote all the music, and then Brian and Mike each wrote 50% of the lyrics. I don't know if anybody knows the precise royalty breakdown on each song. There are some songs where, especially in his more surly interviews (e.g. the infamous 1992 Goldmine interview), Mike claimed he wrote ALL of the lyrics. There are others where obviously he just added some, including by his own admission WIBN.

It's fair to say that, in terms of CREDITS and songwriting royalties, Mike being left off of dozens of songs, including some of their biggest hits, was by far the most pervasive/systematic, and certainly the biggest from the point of view of chart hits/popular songs and potential royalties.

Mike could have pursued all of that decades earlier than he did. Part of why he did by 1994 was likely because he had little left to lose, and a lot more to gain. He had made a "hit" without Brian by that point, the touring band was printing money, and there was not much of an ongoing band concern with Brian to worry about spoiling with a lawsuit. There was probably a time in the 60s/70s/80s where a band member would have not wanted to risk going after Brian in that way, either in terms of internal politics, or PR-wise. But by the mid 90s, Landy had deeply damaged the relationship between Brian and the other band members, they felt more like they didn't need Brian than they ever had (Brian had stopped making even rare concert appearances in 1990), so there was relatively little left to lose. And, as has been pointed out, Mike was clearly following up on the windfall that Brian had gotten from his Irving lawsuit.

There are a few things here which aren't 100% accurate, and I'd like to dive in and hopefully clear it up - apologies in advance if I get anything wrong so please feel free to correct, I dug into all this 10 years ago or whatever and I'm shooting from the hip without going back over all the previous research.

It has to be stated that the main reason Mike sued, or even could sue when he did, was Brian's winning his own suit against A&M/Irving/Almo/etc which nullified both his original contracts with Murry with Sea Of Tunes and the subsequent sale of that company's holdings to A&M/Irving in 1969. This is important to note: If Brian did NOT win that suit, Mike would be in the same situation he was in since 1969 regarding these specific legal points. After 1969, Brian could not do anything to change what Irving had bought from Murry, as ownership and control had been transferred to a new owner. In order to change the credits, Mike would have had to sue A&M/Irving and all of those parties and even then it would not be a case of suing for ownership since that label conglomorate now "owned" the catalog, unless the Brother corporation or at least Brian and perhaps other board members got together to file the claims which Brian eventually filed against A&M/Irving in 1989.

Consider this: If Brian's direct testimony was needed in a court case in order to "fix" Mike's credits and regain ownership overall, can you imagine a time from 1970 to 1988 or so where Brian's state, appearance, demeanor, etc would have made for a good plaintiff or witness in a lawsuit where specific details and a lot of legal red tape had to be hashed out? Brian in 1973? 1979? 1982? I think the optics of that are obvious. By 1988 and 1989, with his solo album released and his appearance much more "normal" for lack of a better word which included a media blitz to promote his album, things were in a better place.

But again, Brian had to first file and win his own lawsuit starting in 1989 to nullify those original deals and contracts for anything substantial to follow, otherwise Mike would have been faced with taking a major label and their legal department to court and having to prove something against them, not Brian or Murry, in order to have a shot at a case.

Where things got murky was when Brian, under a conservatorship, first had no power to simply sign over millions of dollars to Mike - He didn't control his own money under the law. All of that went to his legal team and conservatorship. And that legal team tried to make a deal with Mike where if Mike testified for Brian's case against A&M/Irving, Mike would receive an agreed upon sum from Brian's settlement. When the lawyers did not honor that agreement (and that's another story too), Mike took Brian to court because now Brian had nullified the earlier contracts and "won" his songs back. And Mike and his legal team then took Brian and his legal team to court. If the original deal, whatever exactly that was, between legal teams had been honored, Mike would not have taken the case against Brian to court.

There is literally so much more to unpack here, but just those points alone are enough to get started.

And consider the case of Surfin USA too. Why didn't Mike sue for credit on that song, which I think any fan can hear the lyrics and assume Mike had a hand in it. Mike claims he did, Brian said he did, yet why no Surfin USA on the list? Simple: Because Murry got threatened or even shaken down by the people who controlled Chuck Berry's music in 1963 (while Chuck himself was either in jail or just finishing up his jail time) and he signed over rights to the song to Chuck and his publishers. Worth noting that Chuck's publishers were said to have been mobbed up, I won't verify that but check into that claim and see who was involved then decide. Look up the infamous case with John Lennon, "Come Together", and his "oldies" album in the 70's for how business was done regarding Chuck Berry's song catalog.

So in that case, Mike would have to sue Chuck's publishers and rights-holders to get his credits and royalties...which he could have done...but those people didn't play nice in such cases, and Mike would have a much steeper hill to climb if not an impossible one in order to win as he did against Brian and the various legal teams in 1994.

How much in back royalties and monies would Surfin USA have generated for Mike since 1963? It's a massive hit that's been heard and used everywhere, so the back monies lost could be a staggering amount. Why doesn't Mike sue for that one? And if Mike's standard of what constitutes writing credit were applied to Surfin USA, Jimmy Bowles should be due co-writing credit on the lyrics since he wrote out all the surfing hotspots that get name-checked in the lyrics, which is a major part of the song, and a major musical feature in the song that ended up giving credit to Chuck Berry who did the same thing name-checking cities in Sweet Little Sixteen even apart from the musical similarities.

And if Mike co-wrote as much of or was as much of an influence on "Back In The USSR" as he has claimed, he could have sued The Beatles for that credit. And Ringo Starr could sue, under Mike's standard, for naming the band's number 1 hit single AND smash hit movie "Hard Day's Night" since it was 100% a Ringo-ism.

Questions, questions.



 

[guitarfool2002]

I think the reason why the number of songs Mike Love wanted credit for got whittled down is because he did very little  on those songs.   My guess is that, for example, the original lyric was "going to" and Mike changed it to "heading to" -- you know, very minor changes, which were deemed too insignificant.  Or, his contribution couldn't be verified or were strongly refuted.  Remember his lawyers' argument for having possibly written "Good night, sleep tight" was "couldn't Brian have received a phone call from Mike while you were in another room and Mike gave Brian the lyrics then?"(!)


Love and merci,
Dan Lega

Yep, you just hit on one of my triggers about the case right there. For one of Mike's lawyers to suggest in questioning that Mike was making clandestine phone calls from Japan or wherever the band was on tour to the studio while Brian (and Tony Asher) were in the studio recording the tracks in order to feed Brian lyrics like "good night, sleep tight" is one of the most ridiculous claims in all of the Beach Boys' saga. Of course a lawyer is going to say ridiculous things during testimony, but that one takes the cake. Not only is it ridiculous, but to prove it in a legal sense is impossible, and to suggest to (I believe it was) Tony Asher that maybe he just wasn't aware these calls were taking place during the tracking sessions is just plain dumb.

And Tony probably ended up losing millions as a result of a judge deciding that four words at the end of a record were equal to the entirety of the song's lyrics which Mike had no hand in writing in terms of credit and compensation. And Mike had the guts or whatever you want to call it to sell reproductions of the sheet music for Wouldn't It Be Nice with his name on it as part of a merch package on one of his tours back in the 2010's, if he's not still selling it.

That's why I cast a suspicious eye on a lot of the song credits, whether it's the original 70+ titles, the 48 titles that went into court, and yes in some cases perhaps even the 35 where he did get credit since "good night sleep tight" was equal to receiving as much credit as the actual lyricist Tony Asher who wrote the other 99% of the words.

[Dan Lega]

guitarfool said:  "Mike would have to sue Chuck's publishers and rights-holders to get his credits and royalties...which he could have done..."


Surfin' USA is unique.  As far as I understand the law on this, if you change words to another person's song you still do not get to claim any authorship of the song.  All the rights, lyrics and music, belong to the original writers.  Just because you changed the lyrics, or the arrangement, doesn't qualify you for lyricist or composer credits.  In fact, I think the law is that legally you're not supposed to change the lyrics when doing a cover of a song.  Meaning, I think the original copyright holders could sue you for changing the lyrics.  Now... most likely they won't do that, especially if the re-worked song is making money for them.

So, no, I don't think Mike had any legal footing to claim credits (and thus co-payments) on their "cover" song, Surfin' USA.


Love and merci,
Dan Lega

[guitarfool2002]

guitarfool said:  "Mike would have to sue Chuck's publishers and rights-holders to get his credits and royalties...which he could have done..."


Surfin' USA is unique.  As far as I understand the law on this, if you change words to another person's song you still do not get to claim any authorship of the song.  All the rights, lyrics and music, belong to the original writers.  Just because you changed the lyrics, or the arrangement, doesn't qualify you for lyricist or composer credits.  In fact, I think the law is that legally you're not supposed to change the lyrics when doing a cover of a song.  Meaning, I think the original copyright holders could sue you for changing the lyrics.  Now... most likely they won't do that, especially if the re-worked song is making money for them.

So, no, I don't think Mike had any legal footing to claim credits (and thus co-payments) on their "cover" song, Surfin' USA.


Love and merci,
Dan Lega

In some ways it is unique, and in others it is not. I'll point to the example of Jake Holmes' song "Dazed And Confused", which Jimmy Page essentially covered with some new lyrics on Zeppelin 1, and for decades took full credit for it. Holmes finally sued decades later, and a settlement was made which was for some reason immediately sealed by the court so no one knows who got what in the deal. But now, Dazed And Confused is credited as Jimmy Page, inspired by Jake Holmes. If the case was made that the Beach Boys essentially took Chuck Berry's Sweet Little Sixteen and wrote new lyrics over Chuck's music, there is the parallel with Jimmy Page and Dazed And Confused. On Surfin USA, does the backing track or the melody sound like Sweet Little Sixteen? The case could be made that it does not obviously enough to claim theft of the material. But Brian and other band members said they did it as a tribute to Chuck's music, which Carl and David loved. So it could hypothetically have been taken to court, just not in 1963 when Murry signed it over under threats of a lawsuit, and Morris Levy was apparently one of the key players doing the threat. Chuck didn't have anything to do with that since he was in jail at the time.

For more confusion, and it's kind of fun to see the variations, check out any "official" published sheet music that you can find for Surfin USA and check the variety of credits. It's listed any number of ways and with several co-credits to where I don't think anyone knows and anyone cares at this point what gets printed on a lead sheet. What is it on the more recent CD pressings? Is it still listed solely as a Chuck Berry composition?

I understand the logic laid out above, but since the 90's when a literal flood of copyright cases like those against Zeppelin and many others started hitting the courts, so too were new precedents in these legal cases start to be set that didn't exist in the 70's or even the 80's. Precedents such as the Robin Thicke/Marvin Gaye estate case where Gaye's estate sued over the Thicke song stealing the "feel" of an old Gaye dance hit, and a court agreed. That is more what Surfin USA was...it has the feel and the spirit of Sweet Little Sixteen, but musically they're more similar than sounding alike enough to warrant a full writer credit for Berry. It's like copyrighting a blues progression and a blues feel.

So this concept: "As far as I understand the law on this, if you change words to another person's song you still do not get to claim any authorship of the song.  All the rights, lyrics and music, belong to the original writers.  Just because you changed the lyrics, or the arrangement, doesn't qualify you for lyricist or composer credits."

...is basically disproven by the precedent set in the Dazed And Confused case, where it clearly was a Jake Holmes composition with the melody, main riff/hook, chord structure, and some lyrics already in place, and Jimmy Page expanded on Holmes' song including changing and adding lyrics without Holmes' permission, and a court found that Page still gets main songwriter credit for the song, with original composer Holmes only getting a somewhat odd "inspired by..." credit on all future releases.

I was suggesting that if Mike Love had proof that he wrote the lyrics to Surfin USA, even as a co-writer, there could be a valid claim after all the new legal precedents for backdated copyright claims have been set and continue to be set for a legal filing and perhaps even including a claim that Surfin USA is not entirely a Chuck Berry original composition, musically or lyrically, despite the deal struck with Levy and Arc Publishing back in '63. And it COULD be worth millions. Also, if Mike had as much of a hand in writing "Back In The USSR" as he has said, he'd have a valid claim against The Beatles, perhaps more valid than "Wouldn't It Be Nice".

And the Surfin USA credit, following the Page/Holmes example, could be (or could have been) more accurately listed as "Brian Wilson - Mike Love; Inspired by Chuck Berry" if a case were worked up and filed. Who knows.

I say "could" very deliberately, because it's hypothetical anyway. And who knows what future precedents will be set.

[Zenobi]

 I think that "Surfin' USA "- by Berry, Wilson, Love - would say exactly the truth.

[Rocker]

guitarfool said:  "Mike would have to sue Chuck's publishers and rights-holders to get his credits and royalties...which he could have done..."


Surfin' USA is unique.  As far as I understand the law on this, if you change words to another person's song you still do not get to claim any authorship of the song.  All the rights, lyrics and music, belong to the original writers.  Just because you changed the lyrics, or the arrangement, doesn't qualify you for lyricist or composer credits.  In fact, I think the law is that legally you're not supposed to change the lyrics when doing a cover of a song.  Meaning, I think the original copyright holders could sue you for changing the lyrics.  Now... most likely they won't do that, especially if the re-worked song is making money for them.

So, no, I don't think Mike had any legal footing to claim credits (and thus co-payments) on their "cover" song, Surfin' USA.


Love and merci,
Dan Lega

I'm not sure. He has a credit on "Under the Boardwalk" from SIP.


Re: Surfin' USA I heard different stories. Some say Brian wrote the lyrics, some say that he had the help of his girlfriends' brother, others say Dennis came up with the surfin' spots and then others say Mike wrote the lyrics (obviously Mike says so but also Carl mentioned it in the Beach Boys radio special from the mid 70s imo).

[STE]

The point of view of these director/writers/editors reminds me of an Italian song from the '60s, which was about the rebellious youth. Talking about the young men's long hair, in translation:
"Seen from the backside, you can't tell boy from girl."
That's about the depth of understanding of the Beach Boys shown by this documentary, the above article etc. Also, sadly, by the many, in several forums, who talk only of the Boys' hits, commercial success, or lack thereof. The reason I post here and only "lurk" elsewhere is right that here people tend to talk more of the music.

What song was that?

[HeyJude]

There are cases in the band's history where people who should have been credited weren't (Kalinich on a few Dennis tunes if I'm recalling correctly), cases where credit was given for minimal contributions simply because nobody thought it was a big deal or someone was doing a favor, and even cases where a song wanted to be bought off (in terms of copyrights if not actual credits). I recall Burchman complaining about "It's About Time", and supposedly Ed Carter was unwilling to just hand over "Surfer Suzie" to the group without proper credits/rights/ownership. Al could have easily been given a co-arranger credit on "Sloop John B" alongside Brian, simply for having brought it to Brian and started the process of putting the song into the pop/rock idiom.

Apart from WIBN, I've yet to see anybody claim Mike didn't co-write the songs over which he sued and won. And again, let me reiterate that on many if not most of the songs for which he won credits, it doesn't mean he got 50% of the royalties. The division on those songs could have, and probably were/are, different. Again, the most simple theoretical breakdown of this being a case where Brian wrote all the music, and then Brian and Mike each wrote 50% of the lyrics. I don't know if anybody knows the precise royalty breakdown on each song. There are some songs where, especially in his more surly interviews (e.g. the infamous 1992 Goldmine interview), Mike claimed he wrote ALL of the lyrics. There are others where obviously he just added some, including by his own admission WIBN.

It's fair to say that, in terms of CREDITS and songwriting royalties, Mike being left off of dozens of songs, including some of their biggest hits, was by far the most pervasive/systematic, and certainly the biggest from the point of view of chart hits/popular songs and potential royalties.

Mike could have pursued all of that decades earlier than he did. Part of why he did by 1994 was likely because he had little left to lose, and a lot more to gain. He had made a "hit" without Brian by that point, the touring band was printing money, and there was not much of an ongoing band concern with Brian to worry about spoiling with a lawsuit. There was probably a time in the 60s/70s/80s where a band member would have not wanted to risk going after Brian in that way, either in terms of internal politics, or PR-wise. But by the mid 90s, Landy had deeply damaged the relationship between Brian and the other band members, they felt more like they didn't need Brian than they ever had (Brian had stopped making even rare concert appearances in 1990), so there was relatively little left to lose. And, as has been pointed out, Mike was clearly following up on the windfall that Brian had gotten from his Irving lawsuit.

There are a few things here which aren't 100% accurate, and I'd like to dive in and hopefully clear it up - apologies in advance if I get anything wrong so please feel free to correct, I dug into all this 10 years ago or whatever and I'm shooting from the hip without going back over all the previous research.

It has to be stated that the main reason Mike sued, or even could sue when he did, was Brian's winning his own suit against A&M/Irving/Almo/etc which nullified both his original contracts with Murry with Sea Of Tunes and the subsequent sale of that company's holdings to A&M/Irving in 1969. This is important to note: If Brian did NOT win that suit, Mike would be in the same situation he was in since 1969 regarding these specific legal points. After 1969, Brian could not do anything to change what Irving had bought from Murry, as ownership and control had been transferred to a new owner. In order to change the credits, Mike would have had to sue A&M/Irving and all of those parties and even then it would not be a case of suing for ownership since that label conglomorate now "owned" the catalog, unless the Brother corporation or at least Brian and perhaps other board members got together to file the claims which Brian eventually filed against A&M/Irving in 1989.

Consider this: If Brian's direct testimony was needed in a court case in order to "fix" Mike's credits and regain ownership overall, can you imagine a time from 1970 to 1988 or so where Brian's state, appearance, demeanor, etc would have made for a good plaintiff or witness in a lawsuit where specific details and a lot of legal red tape had to be hashed out? Brian in 1973? 1979? 1982? I think the optics of that are obvious. By 1988 and 1989, with his solo album released and his appearance much more "normal" for lack of a better word which included a media blitz to promote his album, things were in a better place.

But again, Brian had to first file and win his own lawsuit starting in 1989 to nullify those original deals and contracts for anything substantial to follow, otherwise Mike would have been faced with taking a major label and their legal department to court and having to prove something against them, not Brian or Murry, in order to have a shot at a case.

Where things got murky was when Brian, under a conservatorship, first had no power to simply sign over millions of dollars to Mike - He didn't control his own money under the law. All of that went to his legal team and conservatorship. And that legal team tried to make a deal with Mike where if Mike testified for Brian's case against A&M/Irving, Mike would receive an agreed upon sum from Brian's settlement. When the lawyers did not honor that agreement (and that's another story too), Mike took Brian to court because now Brian had nullified the earlier contracts and "won" his songs back. And Mike and his legal team then took Brian and his legal team to court. If the original deal, whatever exactly that was, between legal teams had been honored, Mike would not have taken the case against Brian to court.

There is literally so much more to unpack here, but just those points alone are enough to get started.
 

Yes, the nuts and bolts of all the procedural stuff is very interesting.

But Mike *always* had recourse to sue over not being credited on those songs. *Ownership* is a whole other deal. But Mike could have sued from Day One after the first song he co-write was missing his name in 1963 or whenever it first happened. *Whom* he would have needed to sue would be a whole other question. It would have been Murry up until a certain date, and then Irving/A&M, and so on.

Which entity he would have been bringing a suit against would certainly play a role in the efficacy of his case, and how messy or confusing it may have gotten.

The point we all agree on is that through a confluence of many events, it was a much more opportune time to bring the suit when he did circa 1992/93/94.

But I think he would have had a very strong case to get *credits* (and thus royalties) during any of the intervening years. There has never been *anybody* that has called Mike's authorship on the songs into question.

Testimony from fellow band members, other musicians/family members, and possibly print or audio from Brian or others mentioning Mike's co-authorship, all would have helped Mike's case.

Unless Irving/A&M in the 70s or 80s could have gotten Brian on the stand to say Mike DIDN'T co-write the songs, I think Mike would have had a pretty strong case against *any* defendant. This wasn't like other cases where like the drummer in a band claims they helped "write" some hit song by workshopping it in the studio or something. This was a case where Mike and Brian co-wrote songs, and Murry was leaving Mike's name off the songs intermittently for whatever reason.

Any defendant in the case would have had to either argue Mike is lying, or that his contributions did not rise to the level of getting a co-author credit. The latter would be the less challenging argument to make, but again, I think there were plenty of witnesses that could have come forward who either directly witnessed Mike co-write lyrics, and/or heard Brian acknowledge over the years that Mike co-wrote the songs. And again, all of this is assuming Brian *wouldn't* be on the stand admitting Mike co-wrote the songs.

Maybe Brian in his deepest stupor of like Fall 1982 wouldn't have been a great court witness. But I think even late 70s Brian would have been able to be convincing enough that Mike co-wrote the songs. Maybe he wouldn't have been able to say *why* Murry did it. But I think even a shaky 1978 Brian would have been factually convincing enough. By the time of Landy Part 2, it becomes a whole other deal, because Landy easily could have coached/directed Brian to say Mike didn't co-write the songs. Separate from any other factors, Late 1982 to 1992, during Landy's reign, would have been the only truly challenging time for Mike to file suit against *anybody*, because that's the only period of time where I can picture Brian *not* just saying Mike co-wrote the songs.

So again, post-Landy, post-Irving settlement in the early 90s was certainly a much more opportune time for Mike to sue. But he could have sued Murry in 1968. He could have sued Irving/A&M in 1976.

[HeyJude]

And if Mike co-wrote as much of or was as much of an influence on "Back In The USSR" as he has claimed, he could have sued The Beatles for that credit. And Ringo Starr could sue, under Mike's standard, for naming the band's number 1 hit single AND smash hit movie "Hard Day's Night" since it was 100% a Ringo-ism.

Questions, questions.

Regarding "Back in the USSR", I think that's a case where Mike would know better than to shake THAT hornet's nest. I don't think Paul McCartney (or Lennon had he still been alive) would have testified in court that Mike co-authored that song.

As for the Beatles, I think it's interesting to point out how many times, even setting aside the Lennon/McCartney agreement, that various Beatles contributed to songs and DIDN'T CARE about getting credit because they were already so RICH and SUCCESSFUL. George Harrison clearly wrote some if not most of several "solo" Ringo tunes both from the Beatles and solo era ("Octopus's Garden", "It Don't Come Easy"), and never sought credit.