Documentary!

[HeyJude]

I think the deal is that, as Den Lega pointed out, anybody can file a suit for anything.

Mike *could* sue today and claim all sorts of things. He could say he and Brian wrote "Surfin' USA" from scratch, and he has no idea what you're talking about regarding "Sweet Little Sixteen." But he'd surely lose. On top of that, he'd have the extra layer of confusion that he wasn't even on the original credit/label when the song was first released.

If he was somehow able to get into court and prove it *wasn't* a steal sufficient to just be a Weird Al-style lyrical re-write of "Sweet Little Sixteen" and thus it should have involved some sort of split deal, then they'd probably point out his name was *never* on the song in the first place. So then he'd have to prove THAT.

But I think everybody acknowledges that while "Surfin' USA" changes a few of the chords, it's pretty close to a lyrical re-write of the Berry tune.

There *have* been cases where someone who does "pastiche" sort of music has been strong-armed into signing over songs that clearly are NOT steals. See the case of Neil Innes and his Rutles songs. He wrote and recorded 20 Rutles songs, 14 of which were put on an album, where most of them were not lifts of specific Beatles songs, but pastiches with no single song they could be linked back to. ATV/Northern Songs threatened a lawsuit, and even with a musicologist ready to prove the 14 album songs weren't steals (Innes noted in one case that the ATV lawyers said one of his songs sounded too much like "Twist and Shout", which obviously the Beatles hadn't even written), Innes's publisher backed down and settled and Innes got hosed.

Innes later commented that while it was kind of cool to see a "Lennon/McCartney/Innes" credit, he obviously didn't appreciate the whole process. He said in one interview that ATV/Northern Songs had essentially a war chest at the ready to fund bringing cases of infingement.

So yeah, back to Berry, he had both the money, clout, and the facts on his side.

I have little doubt that back in the early 90s as Mike started investigating the publishing situation, he probably had his legal team look into "Surfin' USA" as well. I'm guessing they were able to easily uncover that that particular track was a non-starter.

[Dan Lega]

Ok, I understand your point now, thanks for clarifying it.
Sure, Mike has no legal right to claim partial authorship of a "stolen" song.
I think that Mike could claim partial authorship if Chuck Berry had AUTHORIZED Surfin' USA, acknowledging it as a new song "based" on his original song. In that case the right credits for Surfin' USA should be Berry-Wilson-Love. But, as the song was "stolen", legally it is NOT a new song and so all the credit stays with the original author, Chuck Berry.
Is that right?

Yeah, you got it. 

Of course the Beach Boys could have approached Chuck Berry before releasing the song and they could have asked him, "Hey, we've got this rewrite of "Sweet Little Sixteen" that we think is going to be a smash hit, but we won't put it out unless you let us have 50% (or 25% or whatever) of the songwriting credit.  So if you make a deal with us, you'll get a share.  If you don't make a deal with us then we won't release it and you'll get no extra money from it."   And it could have gone anywhere from there.  Chuck could have said no, and the Beach Boys would have either had to really shelve the song, or they could have released it with a Chuck Berry only credit.  And then of course you get into the part of the law which I'm not 100% sure about, and that is, you can't change the lyrics without the original author's say so.  So if they released it with only Chuck's name on it I believe he could still sue to have it taken off the airways and out of the stores if he so chose.  And in a lawsuit he could demand money for damages done to his original song!  Now I do like the idea that the Beach Boys could then claim it was a parody, which is legal, though it still has to be solely credited to the original author.  In that case they probably wouldn't have to pay any damages.


Love and merci,
Dan Lega

[Rocker]

I guess we'd have to see more of this Paradise Cove footage to know for sure, but unless the singing and everything was like the most awful trainwreck of all time, I can't imagine why they wouldn't put even a bit of it in there.

Yeah, I don't get it.  If they sang beautifully, great!  Even if they were completely off key, wouldn't that be poignant too, i.e., that they're alive and singing just for the hell of it??  

I always wondered anyway why the hell no one asked them to do some impromptu acapella during any of the 2012 interviews. It seems like the only person who thought of that was a swedish reporter:


Beach boys i Göteborg 2012-07-29

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPWVGEP9u60

[Rocker]

The Beach Boys’ Mike Love | Cultural Manifesto

It’s been 50 years since The Beach Boys released their chart-topping compilation album Endless Summer in 1974. The band’s 2024 tour Endless Summer Gold celebrates the legendary Beach Boys hits featured on that album.

This week on Cultural Manifesto, Beach Boys vocalist and co-founder Mike Love will share his thoughts on the band’s legacy, and discuss The Four Freshmen, an Indianapolis vocal group that deeply influenced The Beach Boys’ sound.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ufNAmNWph8 

[Pretty Funky]

Seems to have slipped by without being noticed, but the documentary is up for an Emmy.

“Capturing the epic tale of the legendary group, the documentary is now Emmy-nominated in the “Outstanding Sound Mixing For A Nonfiction Program” category.”

https://www.mixonline.com/business/video-inside-the-sound-of-the-beach-boys

[Summer_Days]

I've been away for awhile. I'm watching the documentary right now. I was surprised that they mentioned Western Recorders, and Al and David being in the band on tour for awhile while Brian temporarily quit touring in 1963. Or Murry selling Sea of Tunes.
I didn't like how it basically went from Endless Summer being released in 1974 to Mike suing Brian in the '90s. It totally skipped over Dennis and Carl's deaths and the release of some of their best (Love You) and worst music in the late '70s through the late '80s,  and the 2012 reunion. This documentary, of course, didn't tell me anything new. But then, this documentary wasn't really for a hard-core fan like me, who's been a crazed fan for their best and their lesser known works for 25 years. It's meant for the newbies, I guess. It doesn't seem like we'll ever have a Beatles Anthology-length documentary series about them. Oh well.

[HeyJude]

I've been away for awhile. I'm watching the documentary right now. I was surprised that they mentioned Western Recorders, and Al and David being in the band on tour for awhile while Brian temporarily quit touring in 1963. Or Murry selling Sea of Tunes.
I didn't like how it basically went from Endless Summer being released in 1974 to Mike suing Brian in the '90s. It totally skipped over Dennis and Carl's deaths and the release of some of their best (Love You) and worst music in the late '70s through the late '80s,  and the 2012 reunion. This documentary, of course, didn't tell me anything new. But then, this documentary wasn't really for a hard-core fan like me, who's been a crazed fan for their best and their lesser known works for 25 years. It's meant for the newbies, I guess. It doesn't seem like we'll ever have a Beatles Anthology-length documentary series about them. Oh well.

I've said this in prior posts, but the problem with the documentary is not that it didn't tell us anything we didn't know, nor is the problem that it's not for hardcore fans. The problem is that it's poorly made, poorly written, and poorly constructed. It's *not* a good doc for new fans or casual fans. It improperly contextualizes important aspects of their career, making poor editorial decisions, and it also just doesn't even effectively do the most basic job of just telling the barebones of the story. It emphasizes stuff a "beginning/basic" doc doesn't need to, skips things it shouldn't, and obviously cuts off way too early.

I've seen some fans get excited because the film uses some cutesy graphics to emphasize the membership changes. But no, I'm not giving it extra credit for simply correctly reporting when Al and Dave came and went.

Someone mentioned above that it was nominated for an Emmy for sound mixing. And embarrassingly, it won. To be clear, this doc actually had pretty poor sound mixing. Much of the audio material, especially interviews, sounded strange. Someone suggested they used A.I. to assist beefing up some of those voices. I have no idea if that's true. But I recall specifically also finding that some of the music sounded very strange and poorly done, where they tried to awkwardly comp together studio and live recordings. Like, layering them *on top* of each other. Not good.

[Summer_Days]

I wasn't giving the documentary credit, was just surprised they mentioned the Al and David thing. That's all. I should also mention that it was frankly baffling that, with all the talk about SMiLE, you barely hear anything from it in the film. I have no idea why this is, when the damn SMiLE Sessions set has been out for a dozen goshdarn years. It was like," SMiLE this, and SMiLE that" while they played 'You're Welcome' which wasn't even part of SMiLE, really. They acted like the damn thing was still a taboo subject. Weird.

[HeyJude]

I wasn't giving the documentary credit, was just surprised they mentioned the Al and David thing. That's all. I should also mention that it was frankly baffling that, with all the talk about SMiLE, you barely hear anything from it in the film. I have no idea why this is, when the damn SMiLE Sessions set has been out for a dozen goshdarn years. It was like," SMiLE this, and SMiLE that" while they played 'You're Welcome' which wasn't even part of SMiLE, really. They acted like the damn thing was still a taboo subject. Weird.

No worries, my post above was not about your previous post. I was talking about reviews from several months back (not even sure I remember where I read them) that seemed to be giving the doc an awful lot of credit for a few graphics. As far as I'm concerned, creating that graphic for the coming and going of members was more a sign that the doc was being extra lazy, doing the easy work (e.g. covering personnel changes) rather than trying to contextualize any of the myriad of complicated topics in the band's history (Murry, Smile, songwriting credits, Manson, etc.).

[guitarfool2002]

It seems to be pretty universally shared that the sound and the quality of sound of this documentary was wonky at best...both the music and the interviews...and yet, here it wins an Emmy for audio mixing. I don't get it, but there are a lot of things about these kinds of awards and things in general that I don't get. Maybe it was more an emotional/supportive vote for Brian's classic records and how they sounded going back to the 60's rather than the actual product of the documentary? Who knows. Wonders never cease.

I will say if there was a BB's related audio project that should have been nominated in the film/TV/video awards sphere, it would have been Atticus Ross' and Trent Reznor's pastiche soundtrack for Love & Mercy. That was fresh, exciting, and vital to several key scenes in the film, and it took the original music to places I don't think we would have imagined before hearing it in the film. But as far as I know, that one which deserved an award did not win. Or I could be wrong.

[Sam_BFC]

Love & Mercy soundtrack is great. I think I read at time of release that it was all derived from the original music. I could be misremembering, because some of those synth sounds must be original to the soundtrack. I’d love to read more about the technical details behind it.

[guitarfool2002]

Just a correction before getting fact-checked...It was Atticus Ross alone, not with his collaborator Trent Reznor, who did Love & Mercy's soundtrack. It's been 9 years since the film came out - hard to believe - and I was just reading an article about Ross and Reznor's other film work so I erroneously credited Reznor too. It's fixed now. Too much going on to recall this stuff on the fly!

Here's one interview with Ross where he talks about how the L&M score came about, there's more out there online too:

https://silverscreenriot.com/talking-with-atticus-ross-of-love-mercy-gone-girl-social-network/

[HeyJude]

Weirdly on streaming and digital sale websites the soundtrack has been pared down from 35 to only 18 tracks, and has a different cover. 

[HeyJude]

To follow up, the "Music from the Documentary" soundtrack has gone from this:



1. Don’t Go Near the Water (A Cappella) (2:36)
2. Fun, Fun, Fun (Live/Remastered 2000) (3:13)
3. Their Hearts Were Full of Spring (Demo / Mono / Remastered 2013) (2:37)
4. Surfin’ (With Session Intro/Mono/Remastered 2013) (2:26)
5. Surfin’ Safari (Original Long Version / Mono / Remastered 2013) (2:17)
6. Surfin’ U.S.A. (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:27)
7. Little Deuce Coupe (1:40)
8. Surfer Girl (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:28)
9. In My Room (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:17)
10. Please Let Me Wonder (2007 Stereo Mix/Remastered 2012) (2:48)
11. Don’t Worry Baby (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:51)
12. Girl Don’t Tell Me (Remastered 2012) (2:20)
13. Do You Wanna Dance? (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:34)
14. I Get Around (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:13)
15. Help Me, Rhonda (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:48)
16. California Girls (Mono / Remastered 2001) (2:46)
17. Wouldn’t It Be Nice (Remastered 2012) (2:33)
18. God Only Knows (Remastered 1996) (2:55)
19. Good Vibrations (2021 Stereo Mix) (3:43)
20. You’re Welcome (2011 Smile Version) (1:07)
21. Vegetables (Remastered 2012) (2:10)
22. I Can Hear Music (2:36)
23. Forever (2:44)
24. Long Promised Road (3:32)
25. Don’t Go Near the Water (Remastered 2009) (2:40)
26. Here She Comes (2022 Mix) (5:10)
27. Wild Honey (Live at Carnegie Hall) (5:38)
28. California Saga (Big Sur) (Remastered 2000) (2:56)
29. Surfin’ U.S.A. (Live) (2:48)
30. Don’t Worry Baby (Live) (3:12)
31. Good Vibrations (Live) (4:48)
32. Wouldn’t It Be Nice (Live) (2:43)
33. A Day in the Life of a Tree (Track & Backing Vocals) (2:56)
34. Darlin’ (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:14)
35. Baby Blue Bathing Suit (Bonus Track) – Stephen Sanchez (3:15)

To This:



1. Surfin’ Safari (Original Long Version / Mono / Remastered 2013) (2:17)
2. I Get Around (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:13)
3. Help Me, Rhonda (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:48)
4. Surfer Girl (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:28)
5. Do You Wanna Dance? (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:34)
6. Little Deuce Coupe (1:40)
7. Surfin’ U.S.A. (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:27)
8. California Girls (Mono / Remastered 2001) (2:46)
9. Don’t Worry Baby (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:51)
10. In My Room (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:17)
11. Wouldn’t It Be Nice (Remastered 2012) (2:33)
12. God Only Knows (Remastered 1996) (2:55)
13. Good Vibrations (2021 Stereo Mix) (3:43)
14. I Can Hear Music (2:36)
15. Forever (2:44)
16. Long Promised Road (3:32)
17. Darlin’ (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:14)
18. Baby Blue Bathing Suit (Bonus Track) – Stephen Sanchez (3:15)


So they've morphed it back into mostly an incomplete "Sounds of Summer" plus a few others.

Strangely, if you access the soundtrack on Spotify via the BBs page, you get the 18-track version, but if you have a direct link to the 35-track version, or if you search by album title, it's still up as well. 

I can only find the 18-track version for purchase on Amazon.