gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680597 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 12:46:15 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Sea of Tunes Sale Revisited  (Read 6341 times)
endofposts
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 837


View Profile
« on: February 20, 2007, 06:55:25 PM »

I was reading an online article about Irving/Almo music, which is the company that Murry Wilson sold Sea of Tunes to in 1969.  This was widely believed to be a major business blunder, in retrospect.  However, was it really a bad deal at the time, at least in Murry's reckoning? 

For one thing, $700,000 is now close to $4 million, allowing for inflation.  That's still not a lot of money, but consider that it came on the heels of Capitol records deleting the Beach Boys' back catalog, which means they could no longer sell records.  Not that there was much interest on the public's part at that point, anyways.  They had no future record deal lined up at the time.  Their concerts were not selling, but losing money.

Keep in mind, too, that Irving/Almo is partly owned by Herb Alpert (a marquee name that no doubt attracted Murry), along with Jerry Moss, another respected figure in pop music.  Maybe Murry's thinking was that while Brian would get a smaller share of the overall pie, Irving/Almo could grow the pie, thus making it possible for Brian to earn more money.  Murry had plans to make demos with new lyrics to get the songs recorded by middle-of-the-road artists, and Brian even cooperated in making these demos (though they supposedly were never used).  I'm also not sure of this, but don't music publishers also have a role in song placement in commercials and in films?  If that's so, then Irving/Almo has done a bang-up job of that over the years, even to this day.  Another example of growing the pie, making Brian richer by volume if not percentage. 

Murry was tired of the publishing business.  He was not a true music professional, in any event.  While it might have cost Brian a lot of money, it doesn't seem at all illogical for the times it took place in.  Murry probably could not have anticipated "Endless Summer" and the nostalgia trend of the future.  It hurt Brian's feelings, but I think even that may have been overstated, seeing as how Brian did participate in the demo sessions.
Logged
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2007, 09:09:37 PM »

I was reading an online article about Irving/Almo music, which is the company that Murry Wilson sold Sea of Tunes to in 1969.  This was widely believed to be a major business blunder, in retrospect.  However, was it really a bad deal at the time, at least in Murry's reckoning? 

For one thing, $700,000 is now close to $4 million, allowing for inflation.  That's still not a lot of money, but consider that it came on the heels of Capitol records deleting the Beach Boys' back catalog, which means they could no longer sell records.  Not that there was much interest on the public's part at that point, anyways.  They had no future record deal lined up at the time.  Their concerts were not selling, but losing money.

Keep in mind, too, that Irving/Almo is partly owned by Herb Alpert (a marquee name that no doubt attracted Murry), along with Jerry Moss, another respected figure in pop music.  Maybe Murry's thinking was that while Brian would get a smaller share of the overall pie, Irving/Almo could grow the pie, thus making it possible for Brian to earn more money.  Murry had plans to make demos with new lyrics to get the songs recorded by middle-of-the-road artists, and Brian even cooperated in making these demos (though they supposedly were never used).  I'm also not sure of this, but don't music publishers also have a role in song placement in commercials and in films?  If that's so, then Irving/Almo has done a bang-up job of that over the years, even to this day.  Another example of growing the pie, making Brian richer by volume if not percentage. 

Murry was tired of the publishing business.  He was not a true music professional, in any event.  While it might have cost Brian a lot of money, it doesn't seem at all illogical for the times it took place in.  Murry probably could not have anticipated "Endless Summer" and the nostalgia trend of the future.  It hurt Brian's feelings, but I think even that may have been overstated, seeing as how Brian did participate in the demo sessions.

You're missing two very important points - one, when Murry sold SOT, he sold it completely, for  a one-off payment (SOT is now reckoned to be worth $25-30 million). Brian retained nothing of his publishing, and that's where the big money is. Murry made the sale because he figured Brian's time was past and there would never be any more money from these songs. The re-written lyrics were the idea of Irving/Almo, not Murry.

Two, and most importantly, he did it behind Brian's back: a court case in the 1990s determined that he forged Brian's signature on the contract. He didn't just do this to a client, he did this to his son - and that's unforgiveable. He did it for himself, not Brian.
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
MBE
Guest
« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2007, 02:50:54 AM »

Andrew you hit it on the head. This was the worst thing Murry ever did.

Funny though the sale had long term repercussions on Brian, 1970 was to be a very good year for him. He lost some weight, went on tour, recorded a lot, did a TV commercial with the group, posed for group photos. Brian truly declined in 1973 after Murry died. Murry in a dysfunctional way motivated Brian. He had to show his dad he was a winner. Brian was never the same nor were his brothers after 73.
Logged
endofposts
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 837


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2007, 11:19:41 AM »

But did the Beatles not wind up not owning their publishing, as well as the Stones?  It wasn't that unusual for acts to lose their publishing in that era, even ones you would never think would be that stupid.  After all, the Beatles and Stones were selling way more records when they lost their publishing.

Brian still gets mechanical royalties.  It isn't as much as owning the whole lot, but it's something.  And Murry was not a professional music publisher, by any stretch.  It's similar to the Brian Epstein situation, where you had an amateur probably not exploiting the catalog to its fullest potential.  The Beach Boys also limited themselves by instigating a lawsuit against Capitol, which caused Capitol to give up on them.

If Murry had not sold SOT in '69, would Brian have still held on to the publishing company?  Given that Murry did die in 1973, it would have been interesting to see what would have happened to SOT had he held onto it.  My thinking is a sale would have taken place, and it might not have been that lucrative, especially given the fact that this was before "Endless Summer."  The Beach Boys were doing better in the early '70s than the late '60s, but there's no way they could have foreseen how their careers and back catalog sales would take off.

Another point about the SOT sale is that Brian did not contest it in '69/'70.  Why, this has never been made clear.  I'm sure Brian was afraid of confronting his father, plus he had personal problems,  but he was surrounded by lawyers and other advisers.  Was there any effort made to void the sale?  By waiting years to contest it, Brian lost his rights, because that fact undoubtedly weighed on the later lawsuit's judge's decision.  He really didn't win that lawsuit in terms of getting his publishing back.  It was more a matter of giving him something closer to modern market value for selling it, and not even close to recapturing all the money made off of it to that point. 

I'm just attempting to look at this from Murry's point of view.  He probably was not in good health even then, given that he had a heart attack a few years later.  That condition often doesn't happen overnight, and maybe he was really tired.  Even Brian has said in interview that his father was just tired of dealing with business.  The Beach Boys themselves were involved in a deal to sell Brian's publishing rights at the same time, which probably is what instigated Murry to sell the publishing on his own.  He felt they were giving up on him, which was the final blow to  his ego, after being fired as their manager (which caused him to take to his bed for weeks).  So, he felt justified in forging Brian's signature, even though Brian may actually have not been happy about the Beach Boys negotiating the other deal, either (Brian certainly sabotaged a record deal the Boys made at the time by discussing their financial problems in an interview).  Murry left himself open to having the deal voided and being charged with fraud by doing that.  Brian knew the signature wasn't his.  Murry also never gave him any money, even though Brian was a co-owner of the company. So, again, what happened with that, why was nothing done at the time by Nick Grillo and the rest of them?  And did anyone at Irving/Almo ever talk to Brian, even once, while doing this deal?  He was the writer of the songs and a co-owner of SOT.  I find it curious that Murry did this entirely behind Brian's back, and it didn't come into question when dealing with people as supposedly artist-friendly as Herb Alpert and Jerry Moss.   I'm surprised biographers haven't delved into this in more detail, or maybe they did, and just left it out.   
Logged
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2007, 02:37:14 PM »

Another point about the SOT sale is that Brian did not contest it in '69/'70.  Why, this has never been made clear.

There's a very good reason why he didn't contest the sale - as I've already pointed out, he didn't know anything about it until Murry told him the sale had gone through. Brian wasn't even consulted about the sale of his own songs... his own father forged his signature on the sale documents... and you don't see anything wrong in that ?
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
endofposts
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 837


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 21, 2007, 03:26:14 PM »

Another point about the SOT sale is that Brian did not contest it in '69/'70.  Why, this has never been made clear.

There's a very good reason why he didn't contest the sale - as I've already pointed out, he didn't know anything about it until Murry told him the sale had gone through. Brian wasn't even consulted about the sale of his own songs... his own father forged his signature on the sale documents... and you don't see anything wrong in that ?

I'm not saying it's not wrong, but it's what Murry chose to do, and he had his own justifications in his sometimes-sadistic mind.  The fact remains that Brian had every right to contest a sale he was not party to, and never signed for -- if it wasn't valid due to forgery, then it could be undone, if contested in timely fashion, even if the deal was closed.  I'm sure Brian knew damn well that he didn't sign that document.  Maybe he didn't realize it required his signature, but as a co-owner of SOT, he had grounds to take legal action, or at least have the sale investigated.  He did not.  He never asked for any of the money, either.  Maybe Brian was not in good shape then, and had a lifelong antipathy to confronting his father, as well.  However, where on earth were the people around Brian at that time?  Why didn't they protect his interests?  I looked this up in the Gaines book, and Nick Grillo is quoted as saying how unforgiveable it was that Murry didn't give any of the proceeds to Brian.  Given that Grillo was Brian's rep, and also had access to legal counsel, why didn't he do anything about it back then, instead of saying it was just a shame?  Grillo was even the person that drove Brian to his dad's house when they had a confrontation over the sale, so he was very in-the-loop.  Why didn't his lawyers advise Brian to contest it?  Not only did Brian not contest it, the rest of the band didn't, either.  They must have believed Murry had some sort of entitlement, is all I can think.  Plus, the other deal that Grillo cut with Filmways that was shot down by Murry was brought on behalf of the Beach Boys, not Brian.   The band was going to get the proceeds from the sale, even though it was Brian's songs that were being sold.  The whole thing is more complicated than it appears on its face.  I think the answer lies in Brian maybe having guilt feelings about his dad, perhaps relating back to his firing as manager, in addition to being afraid of him.  Perhaps the band had similar feelings.  Also, maybe Brian felt it was a choice between pleasing his dad or pleasing the Beach Boys, and he really, in his heart, didn't want to do either, so he withdrew from fighting out of apathy.  Remember, too, that Brian was also loaning the band money at this point.  He was always the sucker in those matters, especially during that period.  But I think a lot of the blame lay squarely on Nick Grillo and company, because they did clearly have recourse at that time, or should have at least attempted it,  and chose not to exercise it on behalf of their client. 
Logged
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2007, 04:53:16 PM »

Does anybody know the time frame (dates?) when Brian found out/was devasted by Murry's sales of the catalogue, and when Brian wrote "Breakaway" with Murry?
Logged
endofposts
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 837


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2007, 06:56:33 PM »

I think "Breakaway" was written in the summer of '69, and SOT was sold in November.  Carl and Brian also recorded one of Murry's songs in '69, which is on the "Get the Boot" album.  I'm not sure what month, though. 

Now I've looked it up in the Brian Wilson "autobiography," and the information in there is actually helpful, and I'd have to think truthful.  It's not really a Landy spin job, but the why's of the instigation of the lawsuit.  Not only was Irving/Almo and A & M records sued, but the Beach Boys' law firm of that time.  Apparently, the law firm not only worked for the Beach Boys, but Irving/Almo as well.  The lawsuit was triggered by Brian's lawyers in 1989, due to facts discovered while auditing royalties for Brian from Irving/Almo.  The  '89 lawyers did a search for songwriter's agreements, and were unable to get them, at first.  They requested the contract that sealed the sale, and discovered the forgery of Brian's name.  Where it gets even more interesting is that they eventually did discover the songwriter's agreements.  These were the agreements originally entered between Brian and Sea of Tunes, pre-Irving/Almo sale.  However, these documents in the Irving/Almo files were forgeries.  Brian's name was also forged on all these documents; so, Brian's name was not just forged once, but numerous times on various documents.  Did Murry do all these multilple forgeries?  The question is asked partly because the songwriter's agreements give radically wrong dates for publication for various songs, such as giving a date of 1962 for "Caroline, No," which, of course, wasn't written until 1966.  There were other instances of earlier agreements for songs written years later.  You'd think that Murry would know the general dates of these songs if he did these forgeries.  Not that maybe someone else forged the documents, then requested that Murry forge Brian's name numerous times as part of signing a stack of documents.  But why would Murry forge the documents themselves with such odd dates?  It's probable he never had formal songwriting agreements, especially as an amateur publisher of his son's own songs, and somebody in the purchasing party invented/forged the documents later to help formalize the sale.

It's worth noting that the Beach Boys' law firm also presumably represented them in the prospective Filmways deal, which was supposedly scotched by Murry in favor of the Irving deal.  But given the relationship between the law film and that company, maybe Murry was deliberately steered in that direction.  It also begs the question of what Nick Grillo knew and when he knew it, another subject hinted at in the Brian autobio.  So, Murry was only one piece of the puzzle, and the legal ramifications landed squarely at the door of the Beach Boys/Brian's 1969 law firm, as well as Irving/Almo/A & M.  Unfortunately, Brian did not really prevail, because for some reason, the judge did not see fit to reaward him the publishing, instead giving him a cash settlement that fell short of past and future earnings had he remained  publisher of his own catalog.  I'm not sure on what basis they decided the settlement; the case hadn't been decided as of the publication of that book, and I've never read complete details of the final lawsuit settlement anywhere else.  There's more available about the Mike Love songwriting suit against Brian than Brian's original publishing suit.

The one thing that may have influence both Murry's actions and the eventual settlement is the fact that Brian and Murry had an oral agreement, rather than a formal contract,  to split SOT 50/50.  There was a mention in Gaines' book that Murry structured the later pubished contracts to read himself as the controlling interest in the company.  "Brian" also stated in "his" book that Murry always told him that he, Murry, owned SOT, and Brian never attempted to correct him on that.  So, it may have been the belief that Murry was the owner of SOT, and Brian's name was forged on the final contract just to cross the t's, and it was felt it wasn't totally necessary, anyways.  Plus, Brian was a legal minor when he entered into the agreement with his father, further weakening his position, and no lawyers were present when that was done.  The fact that the Brian signature forgery was so extensive as part of the I/A sale, and that false documents were also filed, points to a very large fraud and collusion that Murry could not have accomplished alone.  It undoubtedly involved the Beach Boys' own legal representatives, which also makes one wonder if and how any other Beach Boys knew about it.  It certainly looks damning of Nick Grillo, by omission if not direct commission.
Logged
Uncomfortable Seat
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 196



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2007, 02:16:28 AM »

But did the Beatles not wind up not owning their publishing, as well as the Stones?  It wasn't that unusual for acts to lose their publishing in that era, even ones you would never think would be that stupid.  After all, the Beatles and Stones were selling way more records when they lost their publishing.

How many bands that wrote their own material in those days A) knew anything about how publishing worked, B) managed to retain all or even some of their own publishing?  Let's not forget that if it wasn't for the quick thinking of Gary Usher and the largesse of Dick James respectively, Sea Of Tunes and Northern Songs may very well have not have even existed in the first place . . .
Logged

"There's one thing I do that's kind of a personal thing -- I tell jokes sometimes which are corny, which are outright stupid, and bomb. That, to me, is funny when nobody laughs."
humanoidboogie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


deer


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2007, 04:02:50 AM »

I think "Breakaway" was written in the summer of '69, and SOT was sold in November.  Carl and Brian also recorded one of Murry's songs in '69, which is on the "Get the Boot" album.  I'm not sure what month, though.

Is that 'Won't You Tell Me'? I have the following information on file:

'Won't You Tell Me' (B. Wilson/M. Wilson)
Recorded August 24, 1971.
Produced by Murry Wilson.

I have no idea if it's correct though...
Logged
Glenn Greenberg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 307


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2007, 10:02:02 AM »

<<a court case in the 1990s determined that he forged Brian's signature on the contract. He didn't just do this to a client, he did this to his son - and that's unforgiveable.>>


Just wanted to mention that I read the Peter Ames Carlin book recently, and if I recall correctly, it says that Brian reluctantly went along with the sale, and signed off on it.  No mention at all of Murry forging the signature and telling Brian after the deal was done.
Logged

Glenn
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2007, 10:25:07 AM »

I'll see if I can find the source, but I'm pretty sure that Brian testified that what was on the sale documents wasn't his signature, something that was borne out by handwriting analysis.
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
endofposts
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 837


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2007, 11:39:02 AM »

The account in WIBN, which almost reads like a lawyer's summary (therefore making me think Todd Gold got it from the actual lawyers, not Landy) reveals that the signature was forged on the final contract and other papers as well, in addition to the songwriter agreements.  Another thing uncovered is that Brian was never paid as the owner of 100% of the copyrights to the songs he wrote.  SOT was held 50/50 between Brian and Murry, at least on the surface, though disputed by Murry.  But it was never disputed, and SOT was structured as such, that Brian owned the actual copyrights to the songs.  So, they had to get his signature(s) to get the copyrights transferred to Irving/Almo, not just buy the publishing.  Murry was given the 700K for SOT, but absolutely no payment was given to Brian for the copyright sale, which should have been done, forged signature or not.  There was no paperwork for that, nor any checks.   The judge in the final case may have been paying Brian for his copyrights, not necessarily compensating him for the SOT part, or maybe compensating for both.  But it does seem a real injustice that Brian couldn't get his publishing back, and maybe the fact he didn't appeal reflects badly on his lawyers in the late '80s (a real possibility).

Brian protested the sale to his father before the sale went through, which was the confrontation at Murry's house.  But not only Murry, but Nick Grillo as well, said Murry was completely within his rights to sell SOT entirely on his own.  Very odd, indeed.

If this details in WIBN are at all accurate, it's another sad chapter in music industry exploitation of artists.  These folks that bought Brian's songs exploited the bad blood between father and son, plus Brian's apparent personal problems, all in the name of greed.  They've been paid back for that several million dollars times over, and were never really punished, other than a settlement that doesn't cover what was earned and will be earned in the future.  Plus, I see that Nick Grillo has done pretty well for himself as a film producer, thus being rewarded for at least incompetence, if not something more sinister.
Logged
gfx
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 1.233 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!