gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
677814 Posts in 27367 Topics by 4046 Members - Latest Member: reecemorgan December 06, 2022, 09:44:51 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3
26  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: BRIAN WILSON JUST BLEW MY MIND LIVE TONIGHT IN CONCERT on: March 29, 2016, 10:12:07 AM
If I start a thread I'll be sure to put it in the right place - sorry!
27  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: BRIAN WILSON JUST BLEW MY MIND LIVE TONIGHT IN CONCERT on: March 29, 2016, 06:42:26 AM

I'm so glad - Al's voice is amazing.  He sounds as good now as he did at 25.
28  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: BRIAN WILSON JUST BLEW MY MIND LIVE TONIGHT IN CONCERT on: March 29, 2016, 02:43:29 AM
Brian has the best group thing going at the moment, but if both camps could just pull it together. damn!
they are even doing a similar setlist these days.  Brian has incorporated the car/surf hits, and Mike has included
deeper and rare cuts.  They are almost on the same plane that it's not even funny.  I wish politics and money
had nothing to do with these groups, because together with Bruce included, these guys could do stellar things again.
Brian with Al and Blondie
Mike with Bruce.
damn guys! 


They do stellar things without Mike and Bruce.  In fact I think that Mike and Bruce's interpretation lowers the quality. 

I have absolutely zero interest in seeing Mike and Bruce ever again.  Even if Brian wanted to and there were no 'political' problems it would reduce my enjoyment, not least of all because you don't know how it would all go wrong again.  Last time there was little sign of them enjoying each other's company - before the show they were waiting in the wings, separate from each other and not talking.  On stage there was a good bit of sniping.  Whereas with Brian's band they make it clear that they feel respect for Brian and show him support.

Sorry but I'm not going to mince my words on this issue any longer.  I want to make it clear to Brian and his management that they shouldn't get together with them on my account.  I hope everyone who feels the same way will make their feelings clear too.  Those in favour have been banging on about it for years so it's time those of us who are not should stand up and be counted.
Honestly, all the hate in here has really rubbed off on me. Anymore, I don't care what they do together or apart. This place has made me sick to death of the entire Beach Boys thing. I have no desire to see any of them anymore. Since the new year, I have hardly played any of their music. If that was effect and affect you guys are going for; it worked! Never in my wildest dreams would I expect a Beach Boys fan board to turn me off to my ex-favorite band. Well done, people.

Please don't let us detain you.  By the way I don't like the 'forgive us our wife and Managers' line in your prayer.

I didn't write it, Hypehat did. Plus, I don't give a sh*t whether you like it or not. See, the hate you send out does return to you or was that a smile?

I didn't notice any of the posts before yours being full of hate. I simply expressed my own opinion that I don't want them to get back together again and the reasons why.  You are entitled to your own opinion.

I didn't suppose for a moment that you cared what I thought - I was just pointing out ever so gently that the prayer you post as a signature every single time you post is a little hateful (if not for that line it could be considered to be teasing).  Sometimes hate, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder - you take exception to some things, I take exception to others.

I heard some of God Only Knows this morning from the Blues-fest and Brian seems in really good voice.  



  
29  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: BRIAN WILSON JUST BLEW MY MIND LIVE TONIGHT IN CONCERT on: March 28, 2016, 10:41:54 AM
Brian has the best group thing going at the moment, but if both camps could just pull it together. damn!
they are even doing a similar setlist these days.  Brian has incorporated the car/surf hits, and Mike has included
deeper and rare cuts.  They are almost on the same plane that it's not even funny.  I wish politics and money
had nothing to do with these groups, because together with Bruce included, these guys could do stellar things again.
Brian with Al and Blondie
Mike with Bruce.
damn guys!  


They do stellar things without Mike and Bruce.  In fact I think that Mike and Bruce's interpretation lowers the quality.  

I have absolutely zero interest in seeing Mike and Bruce ever again.  Even if Brian wanted to and there were no 'political' problems it would reduce my enjoyment, not least of all because you don't know how it would all go wrong again.  Last time there was little sign of them enjoying each other's company - before the show they were waiting in the wings, separate from each other and not talking.  On stage there was a good bit of sniping.  Whereas with Brian's band they make it clear that they feel respect for Brian and show him support.

Sorry but I'm not going to mince my words on this issue any longer.  I want to make it clear to Brian and his management that they shouldn't get together with them on my account.  I hope everyone who feels the same way will make their feelings clear too.  Those in favour have been banging on about it for years so it's time those of us who are not should stand up and be counted.
Honestly, all the hate in here has really rubbed off on me. Anymore, I don't care what they do together or apart. This place has made me sick to death of the entire Beach Boys thing. I have no desire to see any of them anymore. Since the new year, I have hardly played any of their music. If that was effect and affect you guys are going for; it worked! Never in my wildest dreams would I expect a Beach Boys fan board to turn me off to my ex-favorite band. Well done, people.

It wasn't this board that put me off the Beach Boys.  

A bit strange that you find yourself unable to listen to the music but can continue to post here.

Please don't let us detain you.  By the way I don't like the 'forgive us our wife and Managers' line in your prayer.

To keep this on topic and to be positive - to all those who have been and are going to the concerts, I'm really thrilled for you all (and myself).  Lots to look forward to!
30  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: BRIAN WILSON JUST BLEW MY MIND LIVE TONIGHT IN CONCERT on: March 28, 2016, 06:42:43 AM
Brian has the best group thing going at the moment, but if both camps could just pull it together. damn!
they are even doing a similar setlist these days.  Brian has incorporated the car/surf hits, and Mike has included
deeper and rare cuts.  They are almost on the same plane that it's not even funny.  I wish politics and money
had nothing to do with these groups, because together with Bruce included, these guys could do stellar things again.
Brian with Al and Blondie
Mike with Bruce.
damn guys! 

They do stellar things without Mike and Bruce.  In fact I think that Mike and Bruce's interpretation lowers the quality.  

I have absolutely zero interest in seeing Mike and Bruce ever again.  Even if Brian wanted to and there were no 'political' problems it would reduce my enjoyment, not least of all because you don't know how it would all go wrong again.  Last time there was little sign of them enjoying each other's company - before the show they were waiting in the wings, separate from each other and not talking.  On stage there was a good bit of sniping.  Whereas with Brian's band they make it clear that they feel respect for Brian and show him support.

Sorry but I'm not going to mince my words on this issue any longer.  I want to make it clear to Brian and his management that they shouldn't get together with them on my account.  I hope everyone who feels the same way will make their feelings clear too.  Those in favour have been banging on about it for years so it's time those of us who are not should stand up and be counted.
31  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 27, 2016, 09:38:57 AM
Took me the same amount of time to get the record - what I didn't have was the details of the songs Mike had claimed credit for to compare them.

That took ten seconds on Google.

Quote
I can't imagine that anyone could be stupid enough not to realise how important it was and nor can I imagine him not being bitterly disappointed when his name didn't appear in the credits.  CM says that he approached Brian about it and it was going to be rectified, how much time did him give him - 30 years?

Many, many songwriters in those days were ripped off in that way or similar ways, and didn't take legal recourse til decades later. Chuck Berry's publisher added names like Alan Freed, who had nothing to do with the songwriting, to the credits of his records in order to pay off people who were helpful, but at the same time Berry's piano player, Johnny Johnson, who co-wrote most of the music, didn't get any credit at all. The songwriting credits on Buddy Holly's songs usually had little to do with who actually wrote them. Same for anyone who worked with Morris Levy. It was very, very normal in the early days of rock and roll for songwriting credits to go to people other than the writers, and for the writers not to realise there was anything wrong with this until years later.

Solomon Linda, the writer of the South African song Mbube, which with English lyrics became The Lion Sleeps Tonight, didn't get writing credit until 2006. The actual writers of Why Do Fools Fall In Love, Herman Santiago and Jimmy Merchant, didn't get the correct credit until 1992 (and that was later reverted on appeal as the statute of limitations had passed).

So while you can't imagine that anyone would be that stupid, a *lot* of people were (if you want to call it stupidity, rather than receiving bad advice).

Quote
As for Mike's reputation I can honestly say that it didn't change my opinion of him.  The lyrics of California Girls and Help Me Rhonda are not exactly poetry.
It doesn't change my opinion of him either. But it's not unreasonable to think that other people might have different tastes in lyrics from yours or mine, and think better of him for writing them.

As I said earlier - I didn't bother to look. I can keep saying it if it helps in some way.

I think guitar fool has covered the rest of this.

As for respect - as you said who knows but I doubt it as there hasn't been any great adulation since it became common knowledge.
32  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 27, 2016, 07:48:08 AM

I admit - I should have checked all this stuff before I opened by big mouth and again I admit I just couldn't be bothered to spend the hours it would take and which it no doubt took you.
It took approximately two minutes to walk over to my vinyl albums, pull a few out, and look at the labels and see Mike's name not on them.

Quote
 However, you used the words 'if these claims are true'.  I don't really understand how Mike managed to live without doing anything about this from 1961 until 1992.  Imagine, your first album has just been released and you've written lots of stuff for it, it arrives you open it and half the songs you wrote are credited to someone else.  You are so upset and incensed you do nothing until 1992.

Possibly he didn't think it a particularly big deal at the time, and only realised later how important an issue it was to him.

Quote
Quote from Mike Love in the RS article “I wrote every last syllable of the words to ‘California Girls,’ and when the record came out, it said, ‘Brian Wilson’ – there was no ‘Mike Love,’ ” he says. “The only thing I didn’t write was ‘I wish they all could be California girls.’  Quote from Mike Love in Broward Palm Beach New Times, Feb 25th. "I wrote every single syllable of 'California Girls'."  So his claim seems to have changed over the last couple of weeks.  Which reminded me of reply 669 on 23rd February by Empire of Love  "Which brings me back to my prior question: if Mike even permitted these gross misrepresentations of fact in the 2005 lawsuit, does this introduce doubt into the earlier song writing credit lawsuit."

Brian has said himself that Mike wrote the lyrics for that song and others for which he wasn't credited. David Marks has spoken about seeing Mike write lyrics for songs for which he wasn't credited. Dean Torrence has claimed to have co-written the lyrics to Surf City and not got credit. Tony Asher has spoken about Brian taking credit for lyrics that Asher wrote on his own.
There may be individual songs in Mike's claim that are overreaching or where he didn't contribute, and that was what I was referring to when I talked about accepting the list as accurate. But the broad thrust of his claims is correct.

Quote
Brian may have profited from the credits but Mike won more than half the damages awarded to Brian without having done more than half the work so I think that he has been more than amply remunerated.
I suspect actually that financially he still lost out, because Brian was still being paid the songwriting royalties for those songs for thirty years, even though the publishing had been sold.

Quote
Additionally I doubt that the lyrical standard of these songs is greater than the musical standard and so doubt that Mike's reputation would have changed because of them.

It might well not have. But it's not a completely ridiculous position to say that *some* of the success of songs like California Girls or Help Me Rhonda came from their lyrics, and thus Mike would have been thought of somewhat more highly when those songs were hits had he been credited for them. How much that is actually the case, of course, we'll never know.

Took me the same amount of time to get the record - what I didn't have was the details of the songs Mike had claimed credit for to compare them.

I can't imagine that anyone could be stupid enough not to realise how important it was and nor can I imagine him not being bitterly disappointed when his name didn't appear in the credits.  CM says that he approached Brian about it and it was going to be rectified, how much time did him give him - 30 years?

I was comparing 2 different claims from Mike about his authorship. One says that he didn't write the line "I wish they all could be California Girls" in the other he claims that he wrote every syllable of the song.  These are his own words spoken 2 weeks apart.

I don't know how much in royalties Brian got which should have gone to Mike but presumably the court did and took this into consideration.  

As for Mike's reputation I can honestly say that it didn't change my opinion of him.  The lyrics of California Girls and Help Me Rhonda are not exactly poetry.
33  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 27, 2016, 06:15:45 AM
Mike was credited with having written at least some of the lyrics on the albums - I know, I have many which date from the 1960's - so it was common knowledge Mike wrote some of the lyrics.

Some. By the credits on the albums before Pet Sounds, Mike would have been the fourth most prominent lyricist for the band, after Brian, Gary Usher, and Roger Christian. In fact, assuming the revised credits are true, he wrote more than any of them.

Quote
 As I understand it Murry was the publisher for the band and used this position to not credit Mike for some of the songs for which he wrote lyrics.

Not just some. The vast majority. I listed earlier in this thread all the songs for which Mike was credited up to Pet Sounds. I think there were sixteen in total (can't be bothered to go back and check, but it was something like that). There were thirty-four songs in the lawsuit, and Mike's also claimed he wrote most of the lyrics to Surfin' USA (which presumably wasn't in the lawsuit because Chuck Berry won sole credit for the song because it was plagiarised from Sweet Little Sixteen).

(And Mike talks about Good Vibrations a lot, which he *was* credited for, as an example where he didn't get proper credit -- I'm not sure what's going on there...)

Quote
 I very much doubt that the average record buying public or even the music journalists at the time spent much time looking at published music and so were unlikely to know that Mike had not been credited on these documents.  I don't know full chapter and verse on this stuff and can't be bothered to spend hours checking to make sure that Mike was credited on the albums for every single track he says he contributed to (and his claim over California Girls lyrics alone have changed in the last 2 weeks) but surely if Mike had not been credited he would have noticed.

He wasn't credited on those songs on the albums either.

Quote
 However he was credited on the albums for at least some of what he did and as people knew he was the lyricist I think any recognition he was due, he had.  The fact that recognition was not as great as that afforded Brian seems likely to me that it was proportional to his skill.  

He was credited for about a third of what he did, so he got about a third of the recognition he was due -- and the other two thirds, along with the money, went wrongly to Brian.
It's likely he would still be regarded -- entirely correctly -- as a much lesser talent to Brian had he received the credit he was due. But it's also likely he would be held in higher regard than he currently is.

Quote
 A good deal of ill feeling Mike has toward Brian (according to Mike in this very same interview) is due to Brian allowing Murry to get away with this fraud

And Brian profiting from it -- and, if his behaviour towards Tony Asher is any guide (Asher talks about Brian claiming to have co-written lyrics which Asher wrote in full, and claiming to have written all the music on songs where Asher contributed musical ideas), colluding in it. All the songwriting royalties which were rightfully Mike's went to Brian instead.


Andrew

I admit - I should have checked all this stuff before I opened by big mouth and again I admit I just couldn't be bothered to spend the hours it would take and which it no doubt took you.  However, you used the words 'if these claims are true'.  I don't really understand how Mike managed to live without doing anything about this from 1961 until 1992.  Imagine, your first album has just been released and you've written lots of stuff for it, it arrives you open it and half the songs you wrote are credited to someone else.  You are so upset and incensed you do nothing until 1992.

Quote from Mike Love in the RS article “I wrote every last syllable of the words to ‘California Girls,’ and when the record came out, it said, ‘Brian Wilson’ – there was no ‘Mike Love,’ ” he says. “The only thing I didn’t write was ‘I wish they all could be California girls.’  Quote from Mike Love in Broward Palm Beach New Times, Feb 25th. "I wrote every single syllable of 'California Girls'."  So his claim seems to have changed over the last couple of weeks.  Which reminded me of reply 669 on 23rd February by Empire of Love  "Which brings me back to my prior question: if Mike even permitted these gross misrepresentations of fact in the 2005 lawsuit, does this introduce doubt into the earlier song writing credit lawsuit."

Brian may have profited from the credits but Mike won more than half the damages awarded to Brian without having done more than half the work so I think that he has been more than amply remunerated.  Additionally I doubt that the lyrical standard of these songs is greater than the musical standard and so doubt that Mike's reputation would have changed because of them.
34  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 27, 2016, 02:06:27 AM
Brian is a sympathetic character, Mike is unsympathetic. But take the personalities out of it for the moment, and look at who has wronged who.

Brian cheated Mike out of money, and out of the accolades that Mike deserved. It is those lost accolades that pains Mike the most. Think of it as if an Olympian was cheated out of a gold medal, and then 30 years later had the medal restored to him. At that point, who notices? Who cares? The glory train has long left the station.

Brian betrayed Mike over and over, reneged on promises he had made. What black marks are on Mike's record in his dealings with Brian?

Voicing a perfectly valid opinion about a group project that had his name on it? He didn't sabotage Smile. Smile's failure was down to Brian.

The only major black mark on Mike's record is that ill-advised 2005 lawsuit. And a black mark it is, undeniably, both in the fact that it was filed in the first place, and in the statements it contained.

Still, in balance, Mike was more sinned against than sinner.
clack - I think there is one key guy, here;  Murry.  He got a twofer.  Back-in-the-day no one would dream of challenging an "elder" in the family.  Murry, whatever he was, likely played that card very well.  This guy fined them for swearing.  Pretty formidable.  And, timely recognition of your work cannot be undone.  It is like giving accolades for a 40 year old movie that no one remembers.  You get your reward and recognition, in a timely fashion.  It would seem that Murry still exercised control over these matters long after he was technically fired by the band.    

So Murry got the twofer (Brian and Mike) with a contract that was wrong from the outset because of the ages of the band members, who were writing music and lyrics.  And Murry controlled this from the grave for nearly 20 years after he was dead until Brian first sued on the contract. Murray should have faced the music and all his con-conspirators who perpetrated this fraud on the band in front of a judge.  Murry didn't get his justice, for whatever reason.  This is like the original event that keeps on giving.  The wrongdoing of the predatory adult-in-the-room.    

And, I don't think Mike sabotaged Smile, notwithstanding philosophical differences that happen in the artistic context all the time.  Everything I have read recently suggests from their statements in the Spring of 1967, that it was out of the band's control, with whatever happened.  They sung their hearts out.  You don't put your all into vocals, etc. and pull the plug on the work that your company is invested in.   JMHO      

Mike was credited with having written at least some of the lyrics on the albums - I know, I have many which date from the 1960's - so it was common knowledge Mike wrote some of the lyrics.  As I understand it Murry was the publisher for the band and used this position to not credit Mike for some of the songs for which he wrote lyrics.  I very much doubt that the average record buying public or even the music journalists at the time spent much time looking at published music and so were unlikely to know that Mike had not been credited on these documents.  I don't know full chapter and verse on this stuff and can't be bothered to spend hours checking to make sure that Mike was credited on the albums for every single track he says he contributed to (and his claim over California Girls lyrics alone have changed in the last 2 weeks) but surely if Mike had not been credited he would have noticed.  However he was credited on the albums for at least some of what he did and as people knew he was the lyricist I think any recognition he was due, he had.  The fact that recognition was not as great as that afforded Brian seems likely to me that it was proportional to his skill.  

I don't know how Murry could have controlled them from beyond the grave especially as he sold the catalogue in 1969 before his death in 1973.  (You'd have thought that Mike would have noticed then that he didn't get paid enough.)  A good deal of ill feeling Mike has toward Brian (according to Mike in this very same interview) is due to Brian allowing Murry to get away with this fraud but if, as you say, you did not challenge an elder at that time it is not realistic to expect Brian to and consequently seems unlikely to be the reason Mike did nothing.  So Mike's failure to do anything until after Brian was awarded damages in the 1990's, when we are talking about songs written during the period 1961 to 1969,  seems a little puzzling.

FDP you say that 'everything you have read recently suggests from their statements in the Spring of 1967, that it was out of the band's control, with whatever happened'.  It seems then that you didn't read the long debate on this subject here.  Suffice to say that at that time the band was not in control, Brian was the producer and so this could not have been the reason.  The Beach Boys were first attributed producer status on Smiley Smile.

I get really tired of all this.  There is a long discussion where people more intelligent and knowledgeable than me, quote chapter and verse and finally when it appears the reality is in sight, someone posts something which takes us right back to the beginning again. Clack, I suggest that you go back and read the previous 38 pages rather than going through it all again.
35  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 26, 2016, 02:38:03 PM
Brian is a sympathetic character, Mike is unsympathetic. But take the personalities out of it for the moment, and look at who has wronged who.

Brian cheated Mike out of money, and out of the accolades that Mike deserved. It is those lost accolades that pains Mike the most. Think of it as if an Olympian was cheated out of a gold medal, and then 30 years later had the medal restored to him. At that point, who notices? Who cares? The glory train has long left the station.

Brian betrayed Mike over and over, reneged on promises he had made. What black marks are on Mike's record in his dealings with Brian?

Voicing a perfectly valid opinion about a group project that had his name on it? He didn't sabotage Smile. Smile's failure was down to Brian.

The only major black mark on Mike's record is that ill-advised 2005 lawsuit. And a black mark it is, undeniably, both in the fact that it was filed in the first place, and in the statements it contained.

Still, in balance, Mike was more sinned against than sinner.
I think many of these things are a matter of perspective. The credits complaint was legit. But the level of accolades Mike Love would have received had he been credited is very debatable. Certainly he was out money; accolades, more iffy. To me, those aren't Gold Medal Olympian-level lyrics.
The "over and over" betrayal - I don't know of many by Brian. The only promise he reneged on that I know of is one that I don't really feel was reasonable to extract, though I think it was a weakness to make the promise on Brian's part.
I agree that it's likely that no one actually physically forced Brian Wilson to pull the plug on Smile, but I think multiple factors contributed to him making that choice and it sounds to me like Mike Love's responses to it was one of them.
To me, the "black marks" on Mike Love are the 2005 lawsuit and his repeated public criticisms of Brian Wilson. To me, the "black marks" on Brian Wilson are repeated instances of failing to stand up for himself and the credits, though the latter might actually be another instance of the former.


Emily
Brian had problems with an abusive father, a controlling doctor and a mental illness.  I don't think we can really blame him for having difficulties in dealing with confrontation bearing this in mind.
36  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 26, 2016, 02:31:17 PM
Brian is a sympathetic character, Mike is unsympathetic. But take the personalities out of it for the moment, and look at who has wronged who.

Brian cheated Mike out of money, and out of the accolades that Mike deserved. It is those lost accolades that pains Mike the most. Think of it as if an Olympian was cheated out of a gold medal, and then 30 years later had the medal restored to him. At that point, who notices? Who cares? The glory train has long left the station.

Brian betrayed Mike over and over, reneged on promises he had made. What black marks are on Mike's record in his dealings with Brian?

Voicing a perfectly valid opinion about a group project that had his name on it? He didn't sabotage Smile. Smile's failure was down to Brian.

The only major black mark on Mike's record is that ill-advised 2005 lawsuit. And a black mark it is, undeniably, both in the fact that it was filed in the first place, and in the statements it contained.

Still, in balance, Mike was more sinned against than sinner.

Nonsense.  Murry cheated Mike.  It seems likely that Brian perhaps knew this but Brian's relationship with his father meant that he was unlikely to do anything about it if he did.  Further, as I have asked before, why didn't Mike notice he did not received royalties even after the sale of the catalogue?   So Mike had the opportunity to sue Murry but didn't.  He waited until Brian managed to get some compensation for the loss and then sued Brian for more than half even though his contribution was less than half.

i don't know what 'accolades' Brian cheated Mike out of.  He didn't get as many as Brian because he didn't deserve them as much as Brian.  Mike was writing average lyrics, Brian was writing exceptional music.  Mike's name was appearing on the albums as lyricist so people were aware that he was writing the lyrics.

Your statement 'Brian betrayed Mike over and over, reneged on promises he had made' - what promises?  In what other ways did he cheat him?

With regard to Smile, Mikes lack of support and rudeness to VDP seems certain to be a factor in the failing of Smile.  He felt that he had the right to do this as he was part of the group but should have had the great good sense to follow Brian's perception - after all it certainly proved to be correct and Brian's career has continued to this date because of his ability whereas Mike has a failed album and success singing the songs his cousin wrote (some of which use his lyrics) in a touring band.

Apart from the 2005 lawsuit which was thrown out of court and his horrendous claims which could have meant that Brian had no rights to perform Pet Sounds and Smile which Mike is on record as having disapproved of, there is also the acrimonious ending to the C50 and the Rock and Roll Hall of fame where Mike tried his best to upstage Brian and then shamed the whole group by a trade of abuse to virtually everyone in the record business.

37  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 25, 2016, 03:42:59 PM
And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.
It came from Angua's post, to which I was responding.  

But Angua was pulling the comment from Mike's lawsuit (and again, Angua can correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing to do with the L&M movie.

You said in your post "that characterization of the "brand bastardizing"of the BB's in the L + M movie" , and there is no such characterization in the movie and Angua never asserted there was. They were two different points in a post that would be hard missed if actually read through.

So you're just bringing up two disparate pieces of information that have nothing to do with each other, which conveniently avoids addressing the charge that mean-spirited comments in Mike's lawsuit are being ignored.

Purple monkey dishwasher.
(A Simpsons reference for those who want to look it up).
Hey Jude - It was taken from the post.  Sentence 3, paragraph 1.

No. Sentence 3, Paragraph 1 of Angua's post makes no reference to "brand bastardization of the BB's in the L&M movie."

You're either not reading what people are writing, or you're misrepresenting what they're writing. Or both.
"It seems that FDP must sit in a remote corner of the cinema to watch Love and Mercy because she will find it so upsetting but can read words like 'bastardize the Beach Boys name..."

Maybe you can explain it, since, you allege that I did not read it.  

So you *READ* the "Love & Mercy" film? How does that work?

Clearly Angua was referring to a scenario of you WATCHING the film and then, separately, READING a comment (in this case one clearly taken from the 2005 lawsuit which you've claimed you've actually read in full).
But, clearly, an emotionally-rivetng film depicting Brian, does not translate to slogging through pages of allegations or have anything to do with it.  

Allegations are just that.  Allegations in the complaint.  

The law is applied "mechanically" after looking at evidence and discarding what is not going to be adjudicated. At the end, they looked at one issue.  So the rest did not matter to the court.    

Mike Love lost the case.  Yes.  However, in filing the suit he made assertions about Brian that were incredibly demeaning, derogatory and inaccurate.  A person with empathy might understand how hurtful reading these assertions were likely to be to Brian and family.  Yet you, in a previous post, were claiming such empathy with the primary character in the L&M film, that same Brian Wilson, that you needed to seek a special place in the theater to deal with your emotions.  It's a little difficult for us to grasp the disconnect you seem to have between these two subjects.
Debbie KL - I guess the difference for me, is that a movie is not a place to "check your emotions at the door" as is needed in many of the professions, and that includes doctors, lawyers, or accountants.  I certainly don't want to see a surgeon focus on anything else but the task at hand, without any emotion.  

It does not mean you lose your compassion, because that is ridiculous, but only look at what is relevant in terms of facts.  Once you are trained to cut through what is not necessary; it is not something that becomes unlearned.  

Right.  So you would expect Brian and Melinda to read such assertions with the dispassion of a law professor.  I do have a second question.  If you read such a suit, with similarly demeaning assertions, directed at you, would you be so dispassionate?  That would be surprising to me, since you seem to want anyone banned who somehow offends your sensibilities.
 
Debbie - those are two different issues. Most people don't like to read allegations in a suit.  Any suit, whether it is a BB suit or a divorce suit.  They are not pretty and often contain forceful language. 

So, people  hire a lawyer to filter that complaint for them, even if they read a copy themselves.  It means the lawyer has to look for facts and law to apply to them, mechanically. 

The board has rules-of-the-road. 

2)  Debate is fine;  when it crosses into personal attacks, it becomes a different matter. 

And, I think it is safe to say that that line has been crossed in this thread.  I'll leave it at that.

Debbie simply asked you a question, she did not make a personal attack. You just dodged the question. It's as simple as that. Threadcrap, troll, derp, derp, derp.
CD - Yes, and I responded to them. I did not say she made it a personal attack, and your perception of whether or not I "dodged" a question is of no consequence to me.

Being accused of continuously dodging a question is out-of-line, in my opinion.  And I believe that it is a violation of #2 of the rules.

Being accused of continuously dodging a question is not out of line if it is true. 

Opinion is belief, but belief when unfounded is delusion. 

I won't form this as a question as I understand that it isn't your function to answer questions but I am a little unclear about what your function is.  I can't see that you have added anything constructive to the discussion, to the contrary and so it's my opinion that your posts are of no consequence.  To be clear - this is not an insult.

As for Smile having been released - the 2005 lawsuit accused Brian of misappropriating Smile.  Had it not been thrown out perhaps Smile wouldn't have been released.  THIS is one of the reasons why it is important to highlight this issue.  Not so we can just rant about things which happened in the past but to protect the music, the history and the person who could be damaged most - Brian.
38  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 25, 2016, 11:04:46 AM
And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.
It came from Angua's post, to which I was responding.  

But Angua was pulling the comment from Mike's lawsuit (and again, Angua can correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing to do with the L&M movie.

You said in your post "that characterization of the "brand bastardizing"of the BB's in the L + M movie" , and there is no such characterization in the movie and Angua never asserted there was. They were two different points in a post that would be hard missed if actually read through.

So you're just bringing up two disparate pieces of information that have nothing to do with each other, which conveniently avoids addressing the charge that mean-spirited comments in Mike's lawsuit are being ignored.

Purple monkey dishwasher.
(A Simpsons reference for those who want to look it up).
Hey Jude - It was taken from the post.  Sentence 3, paragraph 1.

No. Sentence 3, Paragraph 1 of Angua's post makes no reference to "brand bastardization of the BB's in the L&M movie."

You're either not reading what people are writing, or you're misrepresenting what they're writing. Or both.
"It seems that FDP must sit in a remote corner of the cinema to watch Love and Mercy because she will find it so upsetting but can read words like 'bastardize the Beach Boys name..."

Maybe you can explain it, since, you allege that I did not read it.  



So you *READ* the "Love & Mercy" film? How does that work?

Clearly Angua was referring to a scenario of you WATCHING the film and then, separately, READING a comment (in this case one clearly taken from the 2005 lawsuit which you've claimed you've actually read in full).
But, clearly, an emotionally-rivetng film depicting Brian, does not translate to slogging through pages of allegations or have anything to do with it.  

Allegations are just that.  Allegations in the complaint.  

The law is applied "mechanically" after looking at evidence and discarding what is not going to be adjudicated. At the end, they looked at one issue.  So the rest did not matter to the court.    

It's up to you to decide whether watching a film "translates" to anything else. But you're talking about things nobody brought up. You can't take two different points raised on a thread, conflate them, and then incredulously wonder why people have no clue what you're talking about (at best) or why people are saying you're misrepresenting what others have said (at worst).

Nobody was equating the L&M film to lawsuits. Nobody was translating one to the other. Only you have done that, by implying that a statement pulled from Mike's 2005 lawsuit ("bastardization....") was actually contained within the L&M film.

If you want to start a Beach Boys "Mad Libs" thread for that sort of stuff, maybe someone will join in.

Maybe it's fun to take random lines from Beach Boys-related lawsuits and attribute them to movies. I really loved that scene in “Taxi Driver” where they talk about the revenue BRI gets from the Beach Boys trademark.

Hey Jude - you understood what I meant perfectly.  As usual your post is really good.  Thanks
39  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 25, 2016, 10:58:33 AM
Quote from: Angua

Sorry Emily - my clumsy English must be failing me.  I did not intend to say or imply that lawyers are responsible for all the obfuscation.
If English is not your first language then I am very impressed. You write it better than most people write their primary.
I will chalk up my misunderstanding you to my own lazy thinking.

Thank you Emily - though English is my first language  Smiley  - I was being self effacing.
40  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 25, 2016, 10:55:48 AM
And, no that characterization of the "brand bastardizing" of the BB's in the L + M movie, is utterly incorrect.  It was not a movie about the band, in my view, but more about Brian's struggle (and his wife's) to become extricated from a monster masquerading with quasi-medical credentials.  

The "bastardized the Beach Boys name" phrase comes from comments lodged against Al in Mike's 2005 lawsuit against Brian, right?

What does that have to do with the L&M movie?

I think one of the comments in Angua's post (and Angua can correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is meant to refer to the fact that inflammatory language about Al in Mike's lawsuit (strangely one Al wasn't even a party to) is ignored.
It came from Angua's post, to which I was responding.  

But Angua was pulling the comment from Mike's lawsuit (and again, Angua can correct me if I'm wrong). Nothing to do with the L&M movie.

You said in your post "that characterization of the "brand bastardizing"of the BB's in the L + M movie" , and there is no such characterization in the movie and Angua never asserted there was. They were two different points in a post that would be hard missed if actually read through.

So you're just bringing up two disparate pieces of information that have nothing to do with each other, which conveniently avoids addressing the charge that mean-spirited comments in Mike's lawsuit are being ignored.

Purple monkey dishwasher.
(A Simpsons reference for those who want to look it up).
Hey Jude - It was taken from the post.  Sentence 3, paragraph 1.

No. Sentence 3, Paragraph 1 of Angua's post makes no reference to "brand bastardization of the BB's in the L&M movie."

You're either not reading what people are writing, or you're misrepresenting what they're writing. Or both.

This seems to be to be another detour.   I think it's fairly clear that I did not say that the wording was in the L+M movie.  

I just find it difficult to understand that you are able to turn off your objectivity when watching a film but not at other times.  I know that the wording I gave was in a legal document but nevertheless I find it horrendous.  You say that the lawsuit was just about money.  Actually it's not, it's also about control and could have had really a detrimental affect on the music which even the 'it's all about the music' apologists might have regretted.
41  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 25, 2016, 10:33:39 AM
Whist I understand that everything comes down to the law in the end, this board is a place for opinion and the simple truth is that the wording to the lawsuit and some of the things that Mike has said in interviews over the years and during the 'sacking' at the end of the C50 are rude, nasty and upsetting at best. Even looking at this from an objective point of view it must be possible to see that these things are not 'nice'. It seems that FDP must sit in a remote corner of the cinema to watch Love and Mercy because she will find it so upsetting but can read words like 'bastardise the Beach Boys name,  long and well documented history of mental and emotional problems, failure to perform and abusiveness to other band members, too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, misappropriated Pet Sounds and Smile'  without turning a hair.  Perhaps if she looked at it from the point of view of a defence lawyer for Brian it might help.

I don't think people should ignore certain posters.  They may prove to be trolling but you cannot let certain statements go unchallenged.  I do think that any distractions should be flagged as a distraction - perhaps they could appoint a specific smiley for ease of use.

It seems to me that FDPs reluctance to explain her position comes from years of working in the legal profession where your personal opinion is nothing to do with whatever case you are pleading but in this forum failure to explain your position, whilst it might effect a future argument, actually affects how your argument is viewed.  If you are repeatedly defending a position with no logical reason (all the discussion has taken place and 'evidence' has been presented) it simply looks as though you are invested in some way - hence the question about loyalty to Mike/the group etc and implications of working on behalf of Mike.  Unlike the legal profession but like politicians, we should have to declare any vested interest.  (I declare mine here - I'm a Brian fan of many years.  I have friends who may have contacts, I have none myself and any statement I make is mine.  I will sometimes make mistakes but I don't follow anyone's instructions.)

Mike and his associates (family, lawyers, friends) must be wringing their hands over this thread - I'm not sure that they'd be thanking FDP and CM for prolonging our listing of every mean, nasty thing that Mike has (allegedly) done.  Perhaps the quiet we are hearing from some people is testament to this.  

So far as I'm concerned I think that the discussion is won even if FDP won't concede.




Sorry to disagree, but while there are many lawyers, particularly in the kind of 'family court' stuff that gets reported a lot, who might be successful through obfuscation, the majority of really successful lawyers are successful because they argue a case well with logic and evidence.

Sorry Emily - my clumsy English must be failing me.  I did not intend to say or imply that lawyers are responsible for all the obfuscation.
42  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 25, 2016, 05:33:08 AM
I distrust radical overhauls - sometimes it means political overthrow.
43  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 25, 2016, 03:04:54 AM
Whist I understand that everything comes down to the law in the end, this board is a place for opinion and the simple truth is that the wording to the lawsuit and some of the things that Mike has said in interviews over the years and during the 'sacking' at the end of the C50 are rude, nasty and upsetting at best. Even looking at this from an objective point of view it must be possible to see that these things are not 'nice'. It seems that FDP must sit in a remote corner of the cinema to watch Love and Mercy because she will find it so upsetting but can read words like 'bastardise the Beach Boys name,  long and well documented history of mental and emotional problems, failure to perform and abusiveness to other band members, too ill to do anything but collect his royalties, misappropriated Pet Sounds and Smile'  without turning a hair.  Perhaps if she looked at it from the point of view of a defence lawyer for Brian it might help.

I don't think people should ignore certain posters.  They may prove to be trolling but you cannot let certain statements go unchallenged.  I do think that any distractions should be flagged as a distraction - perhaps they could appoint a specific smiley for ease of use.

It seems to me that FDPs reluctance to explain her position comes from years of working in the legal profession where your personal opinion is nothing to do with whatever case you are pleading but in this forum failure to explain your position, whilst it might effect a future argument, actually affects how your argument is viewed.  If you are repeatedly defending a position with no logical reason (all the discussion has taken place and 'evidence' has been presented) it simply looks as though you are invested in some way - hence the question about loyalty to Mike/the group etc and implications of working on behalf of Mike.  Unlike the legal profession but like politicians, we should have to declare any vested interest.  (I declare mine here - I'm a Brian fan of many years.  I have friends who may have contacts, I have none myself and any statement I make is mine.  I will sometimes make mistakes but I don't follow anyone's instructions.)

Mike and his associates (family, lawyers, friends) must be wringing their hands over this thread - I'm not sure that they'd be thanking FDP and CM for prolonging our listing of every mean, nasty thing that Mike has (allegedly) done.  Perhaps the quiet we are hearing from some people is testament to this.  

So far as I'm concerned I think that the discussion is won even if FDP won't concede.



44  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 24, 2016, 02:09:40 AM
Cam, we've been trying to reach Mike, but he doesn't return our calls.  Razz

What a clown show.

Try Facebook.  Razz

We agree, what a clown show.

Who is 'we'?   Do you have multiple personalities (but all with the same devotion to Mike)  Smiley? Are you collaborating with or working on instruction from someone else - in which case I know I'd like to know who that is?  I could guess but don't want to prejudge anything or we'll go around the block on another little detour.
45  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 23, 2016, 06:25:48 AM
You mean we should respect each other while the pro-Mike lobby are on the back foot and we can go back to not respecting each other when you have thought of something else to defend this indefensible position.

We have real information - the court has ruled on it - the end.
46  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 23, 2016, 03:05:37 AM
Reading the latest posts on this thread show the increasing desperation of those trying to defend Mike against the rightful revulsion felt toward the wording of the lawsuit.  They keep trying to move the argument around to things like punctuation and move blame around to anyone except Mike.  The blame is firmly with Mike -

Scenario 1 – The wording of the lawsuit was done with Mike’s knowledge or permission.  In which case he is to blame.
Scenario 2 – His lawyers are to blame for the wording and concealed it from Mike.  Mike apparently did nothing when he found out about it, didn’t issue an apology or retraction nor did he bring a suit against them and is still using them.   He may not have been aware or responsible initially but his later actions mean he has tacitly absorbed responsibility for the words used.

More to the point Mike isn’t saying that his lawyers are to blame for anything.  The only people he has blamed for wrongdoing are Brian and Al.

So just give up gracefully - even Mike has the great good sense to keep quiet and keep his head down. 

I agree it was a good article - for once it wasn't a press release to promote his tour/book/record and it has taken the lid of the disgusting can of worms for us all to see what is actually happening.  The wonderful thing to me that he did it all himself.
47  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 20, 2016, 05:24:31 AM
When Brian decided to sue is important why?

When Mike decided to sue is important because it is likely that he had been aware that he was being fiddled out of his royalties for years but only sued Brian not Murray.  Brian obviously had some problem suing a relative.  Mike obviously did not.
48  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 18, 2016, 01:18:07 AM
Mike misses Brian, and he knows many angry people would block him from seeing or even calling Brian on the phone. Only the wives can get in contact and arrange for them to speak.




Going on the article, Mike's wife is a lot keener for him to contact Brian than Mike is.

I think Mike's wife was very aware that she was talking to a reporter.   
49  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 18, 2016, 01:06:31 AM
I've been trying do find any information online today about Mike challenging Murry on the credits issue and can come up with nothing.  I was curious why it seemed that his only action was against Brian not Murry?  I'll go through the books later but if any of you know....

For someone who is so incensed about being omitted from the credits it seemed to take a long time for him to do anything about it - even if he didn't notice anything at first surely he would have noticed not receiving his share on the sale of the catalogue and still he did nothing. 




50  Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Awesome New Mike Love Article!! on: February 17, 2016, 10:43:24 AM
I've had a fair bit to do with lawyers...payin' them for their 'expertise' especially.  I was always aware of what I was paying for and particularly of anything that would have put me at risk of paying the other side more than it deserved or vice versa.  To suggest that Mike knew nothing about the 'case' is stupendously weak.  [and oh so wrong.]
Add Some - I think we all have had similar experiences.  I have had some revise in "handwriting," pleadings, right in the courthouse, that I don't agree with. They don't like being challenged.  Most clients don't challenge lawyers, and just go along with what their lawyers draft. 

But if the lawyer does something that costs you over a million dollars, you wouldn't use that lawyer again, as Emily pointed out. Unless you're a fool.
That is true, but once you are in the middle of a trial, you would likely have to petition the court to (or the lawyer would have to petition to withdraw) if things were not going well, so I am just pointing out other alternative scenarios. 

Of course you would not re-hire, for a different matter, but mid-trial you might be stuck staying with that/those lawyer/s, at the direction of the court. 


I wouldn't assume that, if Mike felt this lawyers made a huge blunder in their tactics, he would have, piggybacking on what guitarfool mentioned, dropped the case and/or fired his lawyer (even if it meant prolonging the case to go through the machinations of switching legal counsel; and it certainly is far from unheard of for a plaintiff to retain new legal counsel for an appeal).

The courts called some of the claims "frivolous." The idea I take away from this is that many of the claims were inherently flawed, they should never have been brought. Yet, Mike continued to appeal.

It appears he only used the "advice of counsel" argument to attempt to avoid paying attorneys fees and whatnot, as opposed to a grounds for appealing a specific original claim. I'd have to dig further into the case law cited by both the plaintiff and the appeals court, but it appears that "advice of counsel" argument pertained to not being penalized for a lawyer's tactics. This is different from feeling the claims or the tactics were wrong. It's essentially an argument of "I stand by my lawyers' tactics, and I acknowledge the court disagrees with those tactics to the point of awarding fees to the defendants, but I shouldn't have to be penalized for those tactics." And again, as the court pointed out, if this argument was regularly allowed, then everybody would use it. The court even shot down the one single example of case law Love's legal team used as not being a comparable situation.

The fact that he appealed on claims in a case the court had used some harsh language against, coupled with the fact that Mike apparently (and someone correct us all if we're wrong) retained the same legal counsel throughout, tells me Mike wanted to push forward on this case continually. That doesn't smell to me like poor legal counsel. My guess is that his counsel did exactly what Mike asked them to, and did the best they could with what the court itself characterized as an "overpled" case.
Hey Jude - you can only appeal on the stuff you raised originally.  You cannot bring in new issues.  

Clients don't always agree with an outcome.  And there are cases where one side pays the other side's costs if they lose.

Sometimes the "correct" party loses. We have thousands potentially of innocent people in jail who had bad lawyers or prosecutors who wanted that win.  It is often a crap shoot.  

Or cases where each party bears the cost of legal and other fees.  It depends.  Mike had an absolute right (as do all Americans) to go-the-distance with the case.   Wink
  So Brian may have lost the previous case in error?  Roll Eyes  So what you are saying is Mike has more money than sense?
Pages: 1 [2] 3
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 1.39 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!