History of Mike's reputation

[Sheriff John Stone]

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.

The Doors' policy was that all songs would be credited to "The Doors" and it worked well for them. They made an exception, on The Soft Parade album, and it didn't work out too well. They eventually went back to the group credit.

[TdHabib]

Just as an aside I was listening to a Pet Sounds sessions bootleg today where Brian first directs Mike and then Al through the leads "Hang Onto Your Ego/I know There's an Answer," it may even be seperate sessions...but the way the acts speaks volumes...Brian makes Al go through probably twenty or more takes of just one line ("they isolate their heads..." or "they trip through the day") and Al is so humble, Brian is totally in charge and Al is very willing to do exactly what Bri tells him...to the point of even questioning Brian accepting one of the takes ("are you sure is wasn't shitty?"). Mike on the other hand is much harder to convince and complains at Brian's suggestions sometimes. Therein lies the difference.

Continue with the swordfights, laddies.

[Surfer Joe]

"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.

Sheriff, this is a pretty outrageous example of hysterical one-sided spin that just makes my point yet again. 

So, now, Mike asks Brian for some compensation - financial and label credit - and Brian basically tells Mike to go fu-- himself.

Raise your hand, anyone else, if you really think Brian Wilson told Mike, basically or otherwise,  to "go fu-- himself." 

It's not even a question of character, it's a question of the guy's mental state.  He had been drugged silly for years and was (by even Mike's account) not making his own decisions.  So which is it?  Whichever's convenient?

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?

My guess would be sitting home watching reruns of "Flipper", while being severely mentally ill, brain-damaged, drug-addled by an irresponsible professional care-giver who was eventually brought to account, or waiting for his handler of the moment to tell him what to do or what to sign next.  Or maybe he was in Hawaii with his nurse.  Or passed out in an airport and missing from a flight he walked off.  Or maybe he was in a San Diego gay bar playing piano for beers.  There are some books on Brian- you should check 'em out. 

Then again, his masterful performance in court belies the whole mental illness/incompetence theory. Maybe Brian is actually this evil mastermind who evilly went to court with Mike rather than settle, thereby basically telling him to "go f___ himself", and then agreed with everything Mike's lawyers said, thus weaving a plot so dense and insidious that we still haven't unraveled it.

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...

That is a truly wonderful mini-biography of Mike. He's kind of made it his life's work, hasn't he?

Adam, great stuff- I have gotten a lot of insight from all your posts.

Cam, this is just my read on it, but I think the only thing really in serious question here is the issue of over-claiming.  I can't imagine anyone thinks Mike was out of line to sue, but the question over something like the "Wouldn't It Be Nice" claims is a reasonable discussion from either side.

[Amy B.]

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.

I don't think you're being fair to Brian. I really don't detect any malicious intent on his part. We know it was hard for him to stand up to Murry. Murry also screwed over Tony Asher, who only got, what, 25% to Brian's 75% ? I believe that was Murry's doing, and Brian didn't stand up for Tony. Then, with Smile, Brian apparently put his foot down and insisted that VDP get 50%. Which VDP evidently thought was too much for a lyricist to get (witness his shock at, in his words, Brian's "generosity"). So with California Girls, I don't think it was Brian saying, "Screw you, Mike." I think it was Brian saying, "I can't deal with this, so I won't." The guy had just had a breakdown the previous year, so it makes sense that he would avoid situations like that. As for the court case, I don't think it was Brian daring Mike to sue him. I think it was him just following his lawyers' advice. And as others have said, he wasn't exactly in his right mind 100 percent of the time. To be clear, I'm not saying Brian is above blame. You could argue that his failure to stand up to Murry and stand up to his lawyers is a terrible flaw that cost his cousin Mike dearly. Or you could argue that Mike should have let the issue go out of respect for Brian's condition. Either way, I think you're making a valid case.

[Surfer Joe]

...he had too much on his plate trying to keep his own merda together let alone trying to watch out for someone else.  

Interesting side point: "too much on his plate"/"trying to keep his own ____together" would normally be a mixed metaphor. But in this case it's not, because we know that at this time, Brian, in relation to Murry, did indeed have his own ____ on his plate.

[Surfer Joe]

To be clear, I'm not saying Brian is above blame.

Me neither, Amy.

You could argue that his failure to stand up to Murry and stand up to his lawyers is a terrible flaw that cost his cousin Mike dearly.

Agreed.  Good post.

[Wilsonista]

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.

REM is a great example. Buck, Mills and Berry are multi-intrumentalists who compose and Stipe wrote the melodies and lyrics, so your point about all members being equal is spot on.

[Wilsonista]

To be clear, I'm not saying Brian is above blame.

Me neither, Amy.

You could argue that his failure to stand up to Murry and stand up to his lawyers is a terrible flaw that cost his cousin Mike dearly.

Agreed.  Good post.

I can accept that and I can forgive that. I think is Mike was more mature, he might have too.

[Surfer Joe]

Rob, Genesis during the Gabriel era is another example of this, and if you listen to tapes that are circulating of them composing the songs for Selling England By The Pound, the validity of those credits (including the drummer!) is verified. You can hear different things being thrown out, and Gabriel is humming and scat-singing things that would become the lyrics, and sometimes adding to the main melodies.  But everybody is in there and the songs are resulting from that chemistry.

[Andrew G. Doe]

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...."

No, he didn't - his management team did. I seriously doubt Brian knew anything of the whole farrago until someone told him he'd have to take the witness stand. Brian could care less about this stuff. Unfortunately.

[Surfer Joe]

Bingo, Andrew.

[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.

Sheriff, this is a pretty outrageous example of hysterical one-sided spin that just makes my point yet again. 

Aw, come on, I thought that was one of my better posts. And, with the weekend board usually being slow....

Hey, I was being serious, though. I guess I give/gave Brian more credit than others do. You asked what Brian was doing around that time? Oh, getting married, sleeping in, getting fat, writing Pet Sounds, nothing too insane...yet. Hey, hammer me if you want, but I'm not excusing Brian in this. If I do, I have to admit that he was even more pathetic a human being than Tony Asher said he was.

And, regarding Brian's mental state during the lawsuit years in the 1990's....Yeah, he was mentally ill, but do you think he knew right from wrong? Did a judge think that Brian knew right from wrong, allowing him to testify?

And, Amy B., I'm gonna take a page out of David Leaf's book (see, Surfer Joe, I did read some books!)....I think that sometimes Brian liked to play the meek, helpless victim. You obviously think that this was one of those cases, him not standing up to Murry. You can excuse Brian for not being fair with Mike, I just choose not to.

[Wilsonista]

I thought it was a good thing for a rock artist to not care about the business side.

[Sheriff John Stone]

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...."

No, he didn't - his management team did. I seriously doubt Brian knew anything of the whole farrago until someone told him he'd have to take the witness stand. Brian could care less about this stuff. Unfortunately.

It's a good thing that didn't get out, because, for an attorney to not disclose certain facts to his client - like he is being sued, why he is being sued, and how he could prevent the lawsuit - well, those are grounds for an attorney to be disbarred. And, if the attorney's argument is that the client didn't need to be told because he was too ill, well, the fact that Brian was found competent enough to testifiy would disprove that.

[Sheriff John Stone]

To be clear, I'm not saying Brian is above blame.

Me neither, Amy.

But, most are. Well, not above it, just not accountable.

[Andrew G. Doe]

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...."

No, he didn't - his management team did. I seriously doubt Brian knew anything of the whole farrago until someone told him he'd have to take the witness stand. Brian could care less about this stuff. Unfortunately.

It's a good thing that didn't get out, because, for an attorney to not disclose certain facts to his client - like he is being sued, why he is being sued, and how he could prevent the lawsuit - well, those are grounds for an attorney to be disbarred. And, if the attorney's argument is that the client didn't need to be told because he was too ill, well, the fact that Brian was found competent enough to testifiy would disprove that.

You misunderstand me - Brian did not, himself, tell Mike to go jump and sue him: Mike's lawyers contacted Brian's lawyers and so on, and so on. At some point they would have told Brian and I'm willing to bet his response was along the lines of "whatever", just as I'm sure his people presented the situation to be a win-win proposition. Those lawyers and 'managers' cost Brian $10,000,000. They damn well should have been disbarred.

[Surfer Joe]

SJS, fair enough.

And, regarding Brian's mental state during the lawsuit years in the 1990's....Yeah, he was mentally ill, but do you think he knew right from wrong? Did a judge think that Brian knew right from wrong, allowing him to testify?

Not a question of distinguishing right and wrong- that's actually the definition of criminal insanity.  Brian's views were acquired by compulsion on the witness stand. Was he competent to testify? Some would say "no"; I honestly don't have an opinion.  But he sure made no attempt to screw Mike once he was finally heard from in a meaningful venue. The right question would not be about his ability to distinguish right from wrong, but about his ability to manage his own business and legal affairs, which I would liken to those of a very average ten year old. That's why other people do that stuff for him.

I think Brian's great failing here was in 1963-66, when he was responsible and an adult mentally, and that was a failure to confront his abusive father.  He confronted him about three times that we know of- a studio meltdown when he fired him, a minor meltdown caught on tape during the "Rhonda" vocal session, and of course through the press with the Rolling Stone interview.  I'm sure there were others.  But it wasn't the norm in their relationship.  I think if he was still mentally healthy and functional he'd probably still have that avoidance of conflict, a personality trait common to many people I know. In the state he's been in for four decades, though, he avoids nearly everything.

On the other point, when a guy has a court-appointed conservator- because he is regarded as legally incompetent or irresponsible on some level, I would guess- wouldn't someone else have his power of attorney?  I don't think they'd be disbarred for exercising it.  But that sounds like a Dr. Tim question.

[Surfer Joe]

To be clear, I'm not saying Brian is above blame.

Me neither, Amy.

But, most are. Well, not above it, just not accountable.

Agreed- not accountable after some point between about 1970-75. He hasn't even been trusted with many important decisions since then, and was often drugged almost into a stupor during business meetings, etc. during many periods, well covered in court testimony. If you think Mike has been taken advantage of and exploited...

[Sheriff John Stone]

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...."

No, he didn't - his management team did. I seriously doubt Brian knew anything of the whole farrago until someone told him he'd have to take the witness stand. Brian could care less about this stuff. Unfortunately.

It's a good thing that didn't get out, because, for an attorney to not disclose certain facts to his client - like he is being sued, why he is being sued, and how he could prevent the lawsuit - well, those are grounds for an attorney to be disbarred. And, if the attorney's argument is that the client didn't need to be told because he was too ill, well, the fact that Brian was found competent enough to testifiy would disprove that.

You misunderstand me - Brian did not, himself, tell Mike to go jump and sue him: Mike's lawyers contacted Brian's lawyers and so on, and so on. At some point they would have told Brian and I'm willing to bet his response was along the lines of "whatever", just as I'm sure his people presented the situation to be a win-win proposition. Those lawyers and 'managers' cost Brian $10,000,000. They damn well should have been disbarred.

You know, Andrew, I can see that situation playing out the way you describe it. But...

You've seen and heard those interviews with Brian, and his propensity for profanity. And, the way that Brian will blurt out things in that high, loud voice of his. Seriously, I can envision Brian's attorneys meeting with him, and telling Brian that Mike wants $750,000 to settle, and Brian screaming, "What the fu--, is Mike crazy? He wants what?"

[Andrew G. Doe]

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...."

No, he didn't - his management team did. I seriously doubt Brian knew anything of the whole farrago until someone told him he'd have to take the witness stand. Brian could care less about this stuff. Unfortunately.

It's a good thing that didn't get out, because, for an attorney to not disclose certain facts to his client - like he is being sued, why he is being sued, and how he could prevent the lawsuit - well, those are grounds for an attorney to be disbarred. And, if the attorney's argument is that the client didn't need to be told because he was too ill, well, the fact that Brian was found competent enough to testifiy would disprove that.

You misunderstand me - Brian did not, himself, tell Mike to go jump and sue him: Mike's lawyers contacted Brian's lawyers and so on, and so on. At some point they would have told Brian and I'm willing to bet his response was along the lines of "whatever", just as I'm sure his people presented the situation to be a win-win proposition. Those lawyers and 'managers' cost Brian $10,000,000. They damn well should have been disbarred.

You know, Andrew, I can see that situation playing out the way you describe it. But...

You've seen and heard those interviews with Brian, and his propensity for profanity. And, the way that Brian will blurt out things in that high, loud voice of his. Seriously, I can envision Brian's attorneys meeting with him, and telling Brian that Mike wants $750,000 to settle, and Brian screaming, "What the fu--, is Mike crazy? He wants what?"

Or... he could have said "yeah, give it to him", whereupon said legal eagles, seeing a fat paycheck vanishing, would persuade Brian that he would win in court. "Sure, OK, whatever... what's for lunch ?"

[Sheriff John Stone]

Or... he could have said "yeah, give it to him"....

And Surfer Joe, AGD, and Amy B., I'm gonna leave it there - for now.

That's basically all I wished for, was that Brian would've said - in 1964 and 1994 - "yeah, just give it to him...."

Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I personally don't think he did. But if he would've, well, all this debate about Mike's lawsuit would've been a mute point. Then we could argue Mike's OTHER lawsuits!

[Surfer Joe]

And then we'd have World Peace.

Points taken and understood. I'm also going to give the board a well-deserved break from my verbosity.

"My woody's outside, covered in snow!"

[Cam Mott]

What was Brian doing while Mike was being cheated: writing, arranging,  producing some of the best Pop music so far and managing an international act, co-running a corporation, co-running a publishing company, unilaterally deciding he would quit touring, and firing his dad. I don't know how things get so twisted up.

If some want Mike to be guilty of over-credit, even though we know he didn't set his own credit for WIBN, then have away if you must.  This does not change the circumstances or discredit the rest of the claims.

Once again, I think we are overlooking the point that Brian agreed that Mike deserved the credit he got in the suit. This does not deify or vilify either one of them. This does not take away from Brian and it does not take away from Mike, it is to both their credit.

[mtaber]

Mike would sue his own kids - of course, that presumes that Mike knows which kids are his...

[TdHabib]

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...."

No, he didn't - his management team did. I seriously doubt Brian knew anything of the whole farrago until someone told him he'd have to take the witness stand. Brian could care less about this stuff. Unfortunately.

It's a good thing that didn't get out, because, for an attorney to not disclose certain facts to his client - like he is being sued, why he is being sued, and how he could prevent the lawsuit - well, those are grounds for an attorney to be disbarred. And, if the attorney's argument is that the client didn't need to be told because he was too ill, well, the fact that Brian was found competent enough to testifiy would disprove that.

You misunderstand me - Brian did not, himself, tell Mike to go jump and sue him: Mike's lawyers contacted Brian's lawyers and so on, and so on. At some point they would have told Brian and I'm willing to bet his response was along the lines of "whatever", just as I'm sure his people presented the situation to be a win-win proposition. Those lawyers and 'managers' cost Brian $10,000,000. They damn well should have been disbarred.

You know, Andrew, I can see that situation playing out the way you describe it. But...

You've seen and heard those interviews with Brian, and his propensity for profanity. And, the way that Brian will blurt out things in that high, loud voice of his. Seriously, I can envision Brian's attorneys meeting with him, and telling Brian that Mike wants $750,000 to settle, and Brian screaming, "What the fu--, is Mike crazy? He wants what?"

Or... he could have said "yeah, give it to him", whereupon said legal eagles, seeing a fat paycheck vanishing, would persuade Brian that he would win in court. "Sure, OK, whatever... what's for lunch ?"

Two things: I remember Larry King asked Brian if there were any lawsuits after Landy left, and Brian said "no." After that Melinda told him there were no less than 10 lawsuits going around at one time, and then Brian added "oh, I forgot about that."

Also, it's significant that Melinda said Brian could care less about lawsuits, right after the Love lawsuit Brian was back writing new songs with him...