History of Mike's reputation

[Andrew G. Doe]

I think what rubs most fans up the wrong way is the timing - "California Girls" excepted, for some 30 years Mike never said word one about his contributions to the songs named in the suit... then right after Brian wins a $10 million settlement with Irving/Almo, boom !, suddenly he remembers. Sorry, but that's just not how Mike's wired. Can you say, 'opportunism' ?

BTW, in more than one interview during this time, Mike was claiming he contributed to something like 80 songs he wasn't credited on, including "Surfin' USA" - I'm guessing it was whittled down to 30-odd by his lawyers.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Yes, by the logic of Mike (or his lawyers), Ringo should have demanded a credit for A Hard Day's Night because supposedly he came up with that phrase. And that makes the song. "Good night oh baby, sleep tight oh baby" sounds like a singer riffing at the end of a song, like Sinatra or Ella might have done. It does not make that person a writer on that song.

Brian got a writing credit on No Wrong Notes in Heaven for exactly that reason didn't he? Anyway, if Ringo had been cheated out of the credit for 29 other songs then, who knows, maybe he would have later claimed a credit for Hard Days Night. Even if it's not a great comparison with Mike's claimed contribution on WIBN.

I have no idea what Brian's contributions to No Wrong Notes in Heaven were. I assume the title?

There's a bit that sounds awfully like the "Shortenin' Bread" riff - I'm thinking that was Brian's contribution. 

[Nicko]

BTW, in more than one interview during this time, Mike was claiming he contributed to something like 80 songs he wasn't credited on, including "Surfin' USA" - I'm guessing it was whittled down to 30-odd by his lawyers.

I assume that Mike was just picking a random number out of thin air to stress how much he had been taken advantage of. Obviously he couldn't have actually calculated that there were 80 specific songs that he hadn't been credited with as that would be physically impossible. Certainly if you just confine it to BBs stuff anyway. Impossible to say how much he contributed to Surfin USA as Brian seems slightly confused about the writing of that song too.

Mike stated at the time that it was only when the twofers were released that he realised how bad it was and decided to take action. I can understand people not really believing that and obviously there was some financial motivation behind Mike's action but it's equally clear that it can't just have been about that.

Anyway, if this had happened in any other band then Mike would be seen as having been wronged rather than the other way around. The people in the wrong were clearly Murry (and to a lesser extent Brian) and Brian's management for allowing it to go to court.

[Cam Mott]

As I remember Mike has said that he became aware that he could press for his rights because he testified for Brian in Brian's suit against Irving. So to those fans who feel Mike's suit was opportunistic, how long should one wait after they discover they have a shot at correcting a 30+ years old injustice? Brian believes Mike has always deserved it [so he said]. Brian sued Irving et al for an injustice he felt happened 24 years earlier, Mike sued Irving et al for what he and Brian agree was an injustice beginning 30+ years earlier. Would it have been better to press for their rights at some other time? Would they have been less screwed over or less deserving at some later or earlier date?

[TdHabib]

Yes, by the logic of Mike (or his lawyers), Ringo should have demanded a credit for A Hard Day's Night because supposedly he came up with that phrase. And that makes the song. "Good night oh baby, sleep tight oh baby" sounds like a singer riffing at the end of a song, like Sinatra or Ella might have done. It does not make that person a writer on that song.

Brian got a writing credit on No Wrong Notes in Heaven for exactly that reason didn't he? Anyway, if Ringo had been cheated out of the credit for 29 other songs then, who knows, maybe he would have later claimed a credit for Hard Days Night. Even if it's not a great comparison with Mike's claimed contribution on WIBN.

I have no idea what Brian's contributions to No Wrong Notes in Heaven were. I assume the title?

There's a bit that sounds awfully like the "Shortenin' Bread" riff - I'm thinking that was Brian's contribution. 

Scott said that Brian said the title in a conversation...

[TdHabib]

"Good night oh baby, sleep tight oh baby" sounds like a singer riffing at the end of a song, like Sinatra or Ella might have done. It does not make that person a writer on that song.

Bingo! My thoughts exactly.

[Andrew G. Doe]

As I remember Mike has said that he became aware that he could press for his rights because he testified for Brian in Brian's suit against Irving. So to those fans who feel Mike's suit was opportunistic, how long should one wait after they discover they have a shot at correcting a 30+ years old injustice? Brian believes Mike has always deserved it [so he said]. Brian sued Irving et al for an injustice he felt happened 24 years earlier, Mike sued Irving et al for what he and Brian agree was an injustice beginning 30+ years earlier. Would it have been better to press for their rights at some other time? Would they have been less screwed over or less deserving at some later or earlier date?

Cam, ol' pal, my point is that in those intervening decades, Mike never once (to my knowledge - corrections welcomed, embraced and given a sloppy kiss) said he'd been denied credit except on "California Girls", something Brian has admitted for many years. A whinge now and then might have been expected. Further, in one of the first interviews when he claimed the denied credits, one of the titles he mentioned was "Good Vibrations", a song which he's been properly credited with since October 1966. Say it again - Mike isn't one to let something fester in silence, like Alan. He's not wired that way.

[Nicko]

Cam, ol' pal, my point is that in those intervening decades, Mike never once (to my knowledge - corrections welcomed, embraced and given a sloppy kiss) said he'd been denied credit except on "California Girls", something Brian has admitted for many years. A whinge now and then might have been expected. Further, in one of the first interviews when he claimed the denied credits, one of the titles he mentioned was "Good Vibrations", a song which he's been properly credited with since October 1966. Say it again - Mike isn't one to let something fester in silence, like Alan. He's not wired that way.

But as the article states, David Marks testified in court to say that Mike was denied credits on early songs. That was well before California Girls.

Mike also said in interviews that Al was a witness to the fact that he'd co-written I Get Around.

Brian has spoken about Mike coming up with the start of 409.

Carl's testimony was also read out in court.

So are you saying that they are all mistaken?

[Wirestone]

We're at a very special turning point on this board when AGD -- AGD! -- is accused, however pleasantly, of carrying water for Brian.

Give it up, guys. Part of accepting Mike is accepting that he's an unpleasant, flawed person, who has often tried to bend circumstances to his own ends. That doesn't necessarily make him evil, just a person. We don't have to deify him to move beyond villification.

[Nicko]

Give it up, guys. Part of accepting Mike is accepting that he's an unpleasant, flawed person, who has often tried to bend circumstances to his own ends. That doesn't necessarily make him evil, just a person. We don't have to deify him to move beyond villification.

Ludicrous post.

[Cam Mott]

We're at a very special turning point on this board when AGD -- AGD! -- is accused, however pleasantly, of carrying water for Brian.

Give it up, guys. Part of accepting Mike is accepting that he's an unpleasant, flawed person, who has often tried to bend circumstances to his own ends. That doesn't necessarily make him evil, just a person. We don't have to deify him to move beyond villification.

I don't know if you are including me but I think an earlier post of mine shows I in no way see Andrew as carrying anyone's water, quite the opposite. I just don't happen to agree that because Mike hadn't publically complained, before he knew he had the rights to do something about it, that it means he didn't have something to do about.

Thanks for dismissing us but pointing out the vagaries of arguments against someone is not deifying them.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Cam, ol' pal, my point is that in those intervening decades, Mike never once (to my knowledge - corrections welcomed, embraced and given a sloppy kiss) said he'd been denied credit except on "California Girls", something Brian has admitted for many years. A whinge now and then might have been expected. Further, in one of the first interviews when he claimed the denied credits, one of the titles he mentioned was "Good Vibrations", a song which he's been properly credited with since October 1966. Say it again - Mike isn't one to let something fester in silence, like Alan. He's not wired that way.

But as the article states, David Marks testified in court to say that Mike was denied credits on early songs. That was well before California Girls.

Mike also said in interviews that Al was a witness to the fact that he'd co-written I Get Around.

Brian has spoken about Mike coming up with the start of 409.

Carl's testimony was also read out in court.

So are you saying that they are all mistaken?

Nope... not at all (although Mike claiming Alan was a witness isn't the same as Alan saying the same)... but for someone as assertive as MEL to say nothing for literally decades goes against character. That's all.

[Nicko]

Nope... not at all (although Mike claiming Alan was a witness isn't the same as Alan saying the same)... but for someone as assertive as MEL to say nothing for literally decades goes against character. That's all.

I don't disagree but that's obviously what he did.

[Surfer Joe]

Give it up, guys. Part of accepting Mike is accepting that he's an unpleasant, flawed person, who has often tried to bend circumstances to his own ends. That doesn't necessarily make him evil, just a person. We don't have to deify him to move beyond villification.

GREAT post. 

What I've been trying to say all along.

[mtaber]

Oh, what the heck... let's vilify him!!!

[TdHabib]

Give it up, guys. Part of accepting Mike is accepting that he's an unpleasant, flawed person, who has often tried to bend circumstances to his own ends. That doesn't necessarily make him evil, just a person. We don't have to deify him to move beyond villification.

I agree with this statement 100%

[Cam Mott]

Hasn't Mike said that he brought it up to Brian back in the day and Brian said - something like don't worry about it or he'll take care of it or blamed his dad or something? Or was it Murry he said he brought it up to?

Brian admits he knew about it  and that Mike deserved it so I'm not seeing how Mike's not going public is a disqualifier for some fans. Can you imagine what would be said by some fans if Mike had just complained about it, without having to prove anything, for the decades prior to the suit?

[Surfer Joe]

We're at a very special turning point on this board when AGD -- AGD! -- is accused, however pleasantly, of carrying water for Brian.

Give it up, guys. Part of accepting Mike is accepting that he's an unpleasant, flawed person, who has often tried to bend circumstances to his own ends. That doesn't necessarily make him evil, just a person. We don't have to deify him to move beyond villification.

I don't know if you are including me but I think an earlier post of mine shows I in no way see Andrew as carrying anyone's water, quite the opposite. I just don't happen to agree that because Mike hadn't publically complained, before he knew he had the rights to do something about it, that it means he didn't have something to do about.

Thanks for dismissing us but pointing out the vagaries of arguments against someone is not deifying them.

It's not a question of that, Cam- and I'm not directing this at you or anyone, but over the course of time you will see any criticism of anything Mike has ever said or done bitterly contested and disputed to a point that becomes comical.  ("Oh YEAH? Well, What about BRIAN?", shriek the offended.  Can't speak for others, but I have always accepted that Brian is a flawed human, as were Dennis and Carl, and would have no trouble believing or accepting- for example- that Brian shouldn't have been credited for "Deirdre". It just wouldn't be a devastating reversal of my world view).

A couple years ago Brian's much-vilified wife supposedly quoted Mike as making a somewhat snarky joke to her on the roof of the Capitol building. Personally, I found the remark completely harmless.  Mike's vilifiers, of course, didn't like it at all, and Mike's Guardian Angels, to coin a phrase, angrily decided it was all a lie, another part of the great David Leaf conspiracy against Mike, and they based this accusation on...well, nothing.  They weren't there, had no information beyond the quote itself, but since it was quoted by Mrs. Brian, and she's an evil strumpet from Hell, and Mike is this misunderstood guy with no flaws whatsoever, with no history of saying blunt things or making jokes some find tacky, well, let's call the lady a liar. It's laughable, but you have to admire the dedication.

The irony I've pointed out often is that Mike, from what I've seen, mans up about these things, and I'll bet if you asked him, even now, if he made the silly little joke on the Capitol roof (which no one ever did or would, because it wasn't significant enough to bother) he'd probably say something like "Oh, hell, I don't know. Probably.  Sounds like me."  Say it ain't so, Mike!

[Dancing Bear]

Oh God. I knew it would come the day when the former-Brianistas-now-kind-of-sympathetic-to-Mike-what-the-hell would lose it. Guys, walk toward the light. Mike is the real Beach Boy.

[Amy B.]

So it's...

Brian Wilson: Untouchably gifted and incapable of malice vs. manipulative and washed up
Melinda Wilson: Guardian angel and love of Brian's life vs. evil shrew who is trying to profit off Brian
Mike Love: Misunderstood and severely underestimated lyric genius vs. phony, bitter and talentless

Can we get some nuance in here?

[Surfer Joe]

So it's...

Brian Wilson: Untouchably gifted and incapable of malice vs. manipulative and washed up
Melinda Wilson: Guardian angel and love of Brian's life vs. evil shrew who is trying to profit off Brian
Mike Love: Misunderstood and severely underestimated lyric genius vs. phony, bitter and talentless

Can we get some nuance in here?

Yet another person says it better in fifty words than I did in two hundred.

I like Mike a lot.  I respect Mike a lot. I recognize his many achievements.  He also says snarky things sometimes and that annoys some people.  Brian has  his shortcomings, too.  So did Dennis.  So do I. So do you.

[Sheriff John Stone]

"Oh YEAH? Well, What about BRIAN?", shriek the offended.

SJ, I believe much of it IS that. It definitely is for me. At the risk of sounding like Holden Caulfield, it is the continued hypocrisy that is sparking this debate, and the Mike Love criticism in general. I'll speak for myself, but I wouldn't doubt if this hypocrisy is also what is bugging the posters who are defending Mike Love. This is it in a nutshell, and Nicko hinted at it in an above, excellent post:

We are debating songwriting royalties, and Mike Love is being SINGLED out and name called as greedy, selfish, money-hungry, dishonest, and a few more. But, after almost 200 replies on this thread, HOW MANY OF THEM MENTIONED BRIAN WILSON AS THE VILLAIN? There's something definitely wrong with this picture.

Mike Love worked on a number of songs with Brian Wilson. On a couple dozen of them, Mike came up with the CONCEPT for the song, either partially or in full. On those songs, Mike wrote a large portion if not all of the LYRICS. Milke also contributed some VOCAL ARRANGEMENTS, a melody line here or there, and an occasional phrase/hook. When the single or album came out, there was no label credit for Mike. He got none of the publishing, no public recognition, and no money for his contributions.

Who was to blame for that? Mike? No, it was allegedly Murry Wilson, the group's manager. OK, assume that's true; Murry screwed Mike, and gave ALL of the credit to his son, Brian. But, the bigger question is, where was Brian in all of this? I'll ask all of the Mike Love bashers again - where was Brian in all of this?

Did Brian confront his dad and insist that the credits be given fairly? Did Brian contact the publishing company on his own? The record company? That Brian, a prince of a guy...

Now, after three decades of Mike continually praising his cousin Brian as a musical genius, the sage of the age, and the best songwriter in the business, Mike has the opportunity to get what is rightfully due to him. So, now, Mike asks Brian for some compensation - financial and label credit - and Brian basically tells Mike to go fu-- himself. This was the perfect opportunity for Brian Wilson to make things right, but Brian basically said, "Sue me...." Again, Brian Wilson, what a helluva guy. And this was Brian's cousin we're talking about. Brian knew Mike was due compensation, but did he care? Eventually, on the witness stand, Brian told the truth, but, it had to take hauling his ass into a courtroom and sitting him in a witness chair to get him to settle this issue.

[adamghost]

Re: Al's testimony about Mike's songwriting contributions:  Al has also said in a GOLDMINE interview that Mike would go out of his way to change things in the studio that Brian had written that he thought were already working.  So, you know, it cuts both ways.

Guys, look...the point isn't WHERE the change took place.  The point is what warrants a songwriting contribution and what doesn't.  Yes, we like listening to Led Zeppelin records for Bonham's contribution, but whether you like it or not, that's not songwriting.  That's playing, that's arranging.  It doesn't mean it's less important to the appeal of the band but it's not the same thing.  Now, if Scott Bennett or Bruce Johnston WANT to give Brian Wilson credit for minimal songwriting contributions that otherwise wouldn't warrant one, as songwriters, to me that's their choice, it's generosity.  It seems likely that they had their own reasons for doing that.

The reason this has always been such a sore point, besides the basic fundamental tension between non-songwriter musicians and songwriters, is money.  Here's why:  federal law mandates that songwriters have to be paid a certain amount for use of their work, so songwriting royalties have been uniquely difficult for music industry types to whittle down, unlike for recording artists and musicians, who only make money off of royalties from record sales (which are almost always nonexistent because of standard record company practices), and revenue from live shows.  I'm not saying this is right, I'm saying this is just the way it is, and that's where a lot of the tension lies, because musicians generally work harder than songwriters and get paid a lot less.

Look, I'm both a working musician AND a songwriter.  As a songwriter, I know how difficult the process is to conceive and flesh out a song.  As a musician, it's my JOB to come up with little things that improve the song, or else I might as well be a sequencer.   It's also my job to back the game of the songwriter or the band or whatever dynamic I'm in, and to serve the song.  If I'm going to claim a songwriter credit, it needs to be more than a riff or a beat or one line in the song.  Yes, you can stand on principle and say "I wrote that tiny little bit, I deserve a credit," but in my opinion, you're being petty at that point.  Now if you're talking about a riff that becomes a hook and defines the song, that becomes more of a grey area, I agree.  But that's a special situation and even that's open to debate.

Having said that, I'll admit that my own personal history makes me sensitive on this subject:  I had a band member who always wanted to cowrite songs but never actually wanted to sit down with me and do the work, just come in at the end, change something and claim credit.  He was also sensitive about the money issue, so I started kicking down my songwriter's royalties to him, which, when he left the band, he tried to use as a justification for suing me for a share in all future royalties and getting the band dropped from the label because he was a key member.  So yeah, this is a topic I'm a little sensitive about.  But the bottom line is money; federal law protects songwriters, but not musicians, and it creates a natural tension that makes it real tempting to blur the lines about what's songwriting and what isn't.

[Amy B.]

Interesting... And this, I guess, is why bands like R.E.M. decided early on that all songs would be credited to all members of the band, no matter what. That really only works if all members are roughly equal in terms of what they contribute. But I think agreements like that are made to avoid problems like this.

[Wilsonista]

"Oh YEAH? Well, What about BRIAN?", shriek the offended.

Who was to blame for that? Mike? No, it was allegedly Murry Wilson, the group's manager. OK, assume that's true; Murry screwed Mike, and gave ALL of the credit to his son, Brian. But, the bigger question is, where was Brian in all of this? I'll ask all of the Mike Love bashers again - where was Brian in all of this?

Did Brian confront his dad and insist that the credits be given fairly? Did Brian contact the publishing company on his own? The record company? That Brian, a prince of a guy...

The Brian Wilson Is A Selfish Dick argument.. SJS's trademark.

If you read the letter draft from Murry in thge other thread, you'll know why Brian was reluctant to cross Murry.  he had too much on his plate trying to keep his own sh*t together let alone trying to watch out for someone else.  

Plus, you are talking about someone who, in his prime, didnt care about money.