|
Post by George Faulkner on Jul 8, 2020 15:18:18 GMT -5
Ronnie Barnett (bass player of The Muffs) started a Murry thread on Facebook. He's connected to a lot of LA industry types. A lot of the usual Murry bashing in the comments (and Darian shared the Peter Bagge animated series), but one comment from Bill Inglot stood out to me. Thought I'd share:
Bill Inglot: "I will defend Murry till my dying days for some of his business moves. Selling Sea of Tunes which was the publishing side of their songwriting copyrights to a legitimate company in 1969 was probably the smartest move ever done for the Beach Boys. He didn’t sell them out. He basically guaranteed them income forever because he sold the publishing ( and collection) to a legitimate publishing company that could chase down and collect their writer shares from every cover and every record sale and AirPlay ever made from every corner of the planet earth. Something he could never have done with a rotary phone in Hawthorne California. It’s one of the biggest Myths in rock and roll that it was a bad deal."
note: Bill edited his post, so I edited this one to match it.
|
|
|
Post by Autotune on Jul 8, 2020 15:30:04 GMT -5
Interesting. The Brian (and Mike) side of the story is usually heard, but there had to be a reason for this other than Murry’s lack of trust in the catalogue.
Perhaps Murry’s ailing health and Brian’s recent hospitalization made the issue of royalty collection a daunting task, and he saw a solution in letting others collect and administrate their songwriting credit. The biggest problem here -according to Brian- seems to be that he sold the publishing without Brian’s consent... but then, Brian signed on it.
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Jul 8, 2020 15:33:36 GMT -5
During the publishing lawsuit, it was alleged that Murry forged Brian's signature in the sale documents.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2020 15:57:16 GMT -5
Murry selling the publishing, outright, was a mistake. It showed his lack of confidence in the catalog. He could have struck an administration deal with Peer Southern, Chappell, or one of the big worldwide publishers of that day. Sure, he wouldn't have gotten big cash for a deal like that, but, in the long run, the stakeholders in Sea of Tunes would have been far better off financially. And, they would have have more control over the exploitation of its catalog.
|
|
|
Post by Cam Mott on Jul 8, 2020 16:26:58 GMT -5
Mike's book claims according to some document Brian signed over or gifted his interest in SOT in like 1965.
I probably should have looked that up.
Also that all of publishing or something had been improperly filed.
|
|
|
Post by craigslowinski on Jul 8, 2020 20:55:57 GMT -5
Oddly, I was just thinking of Bill Inglot yesterday (or was it earlier today)? That man has done some verrrrry nice-sounding remasters. I would say his work at Digiprep ranks as my favorite remasters. Always well balanced and well-toned, not brickwalled and ear-bleeding like too many remasters over the past 10 or 12 years.
Sorry to veer off-topic, but thought I'd throw that in!
|
|
|
Post by andrewhickey on Jul 10, 2020 8:06:46 GMT -5
The royalty collection thing is a nonsense. BMI and ASCAP in the US, and the PRS in the UK (and I presume similar organisations in other countries, but I've not looked into them) were already doing the collection of airplay royalties, the MCPS was doing it for mechanical royalties in the UK, and I'm pretty sure the Harry Fox Agency was doing it for mechanical royalties in the US. The chasing down and collection done by most publishing companies consists of registering with the collection agencies and cashing the cheques.
Now there are other things that a major publisher would know about that Murry might not have, like printing sheet music, licensing synch rights for films and TV, that sort of thing, though as sbonilla says it would have been easy enough to get a major company to do the administration for a percentage. But the bread-and-butter collection of royalties from airplay and recordings is literally a matter of filling in a few forms with one of the big agencies.
|
|
|
Post by George Faulkner on Jul 10, 2020 9:02:16 GMT -5
Fascinating argument. I am not familiar enough with the process at the major label level, but since Inglot does this for a living (his LinkedIn credentials include: Catalog management, music research and production. Due diligence , master rights and valuation consultation) I imagined he had experience and insight that I did not.
|
|
|
Post by Autotune on Jul 20, 2020 8:47:42 GMT -5
What’s the current status of their publishing. I understand all of them own Wilojarston. When did this arrangement take place? Anyone knows?
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jul 20, 2020 9:01:59 GMT -5
Ronnie Barnett (bass player of The Muffs) started a Murry thread on Facebook. He's connected to a lot of LA industry types. A lot of the usual Murry bashing in the comments (and Darian shared the Peter Bagge animated series), but one comment from Bill Inglot stood out to me. Thought I'd share: Bill Inglot: "I will defend Murry till my dying days for some of his business moves. Selling Sea of Tunes which was the publishing side of their songwriting copyrights to a legitimate company in 1969 was probably the smartest move ever done for the Beach Boys. He didn’t sell them out. He basically guaranteed them income forever because he sold the publishing ( and collection) to a legitimate publishing company that could chase down and collect their writer shares from every cover and every record sale and AirPlay ever made from every corner of the planet earth. Something he could never have done with a rotary phone in Hawthorne California. It’s one of the biggest Myths in rock and roll that it was a bad deal." note: Bill edited his post, so I edited this one to match it. Not sure I understand the rationale behind this - is it because the Capitol contract had run out? Was Sea of Tunes secondary to Capitol in authority? Not sure I get this one - unless it some odd/rare industry practice. It is the whole "behind their backs" when they were all adults at the time, that seems problematic. It would seem as though Brother would have been required to be on express (written) or (at least constructive to be told or have the message relayed in some fashion) notice to consent to the deal because there were ownership rights being sold/transferred.
|
|
|
Post by Mikie on Jul 20, 2020 10:52:50 GMT -5
Supposedly, after Murry sold the publishing to Irving Almo, Brian was 'devastated'. It sounds to me like Brian wasn't a willing participant in signing the papers or didn't read the papers first and didn't know what he was signing, or was too incapacitated to know what he was signing. I think what AGD says is true - Murry forged Brian's signature.
Ironically, this was on the heels of Murry participating on the Breakaway single, which flopped. Maybe after that, Murry thought that was the end of the line for the band and decided to take the opportunity to cash in. I have a hard time believing that he was doing what was in the best interests of the band and their future/careers. Hopefully I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jul 20, 2020 11:11:23 GMT -5
Supposedly, after Murry sold the publishing to Irving Almo, Brian was 'devastated'. It sounds to me like Brian wasn't a willing participant in signing the papers or didn't read the papers first and didn't know what he was signing, or was too incapacitated to know what he was signing. I think what AGD says is true - Murry forged Brian's signature. Ironically, this was on the heels of Murry participating on the Breakaway single, which flopped. Maybe after that, Murry thought that was the end of the line for the band and decided to take the opportunity to cash in. I have a hard time believing that he was doing what was in the best interests of the band and their future/careers. Hopefully I'm wrong. There is an LA Times article from that time that Brian alleged forgery in his lawsuit. Murry had no right to substitute his judgment for the copyright owners of that work. There was a place to discuss that - BRI.
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Jul 20, 2020 12:43:56 GMT -5
"He basically guaranteed them income forever because he sold the publishing ( and collection) to a legitimate publishing company that could chase down and collect their writer shares from every cover and every record sale and AirPlay ever made from every corner of the planet earth."
This is complete nonsense: once the publishing rights are sold, that's it - the new owners, in this case Irving/Almo - get 100% of the publishing income, with exactly none going to the artists, which is exactly what happened with Sea Of Tunes.
|
|
|
Post by leedempsey on Jul 20, 2020 13:16:03 GMT -5
"He basically guaranteed them income forever because he sold the publishing ( and collection) to a legitimate publishing company that could chase down and collect their writer shares from every cover and every record sale and AirPlay ever made from every corner of the planet earth." This is complete nonsense: once the publishing rights are sold, that's it - the new owners, in this case Irving/Almo - get 100% of the publishing income, with exactly none going to the artists, which is exactly what happened with Sea Of Tunes. “Performance royalties are split into two equal halves: writer's share (50%) and publisher's share (50%). These are two separate revenue streams that collection societies keep separate and account for separately.” What Inglot is saying is that while Irving-Almo was leveraging their deep pockets to perform the due diligence to track down their publishing interests, Brian’s writer’s share also benefited. Lee
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jul 20, 2020 13:50:40 GMT -5
"He basically guaranteed them income forever because he sold the publishing ( and collection) to a legitimate publishing company that could chase down and collect their writer shares from every cover and every record sale and AirPlay ever made from every corner of the planet earth." This is complete nonsense: once the publishing rights are sold, that's it - the new owners, in this case Irving/Almo - get 100% of the publishing income, with exactly none going to the artists, which is exactly what happened with Sea Of Tunes. “Performance royalties are split into two equal halves: writer's share (50%) and publisher's share (50%). These are two separate revenue streams that collection societies keep separate and account for separately.” What Inglot is saying is that while Irving-Almo was leveraging their deep pockets to perform the due diligence to track down their publishing interests, Brian’s writer’s share also benefited. Lee But the inference this guy Inglot is making, is that there was no, or had not been "due diligence to track down publishing interests" and there were other writers. That makes no sense. It sounds more like Murry's sour grapes, as a result of the Brother label. When you (Brian/band members) have a reaction of surprise and betrayal at the news of the sale - it means you did not know and would suggest the papers were subject to some chicanery.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2020 15:49:39 GMT -5
“Performance royalties are split into two equal halves: writer's share (50%) and publisher's share (50%). These are two separate revenue streams that collection societies keep separate and account for separately.” What Inglot is saying is that while Irving-Almo was leveraging their deep pockets to perform the due diligence to track down their publishing interests, Brian’s writer’s share also benefited. Lee "But the inference this guy Inglot is making, is that there was no, or had not been "due diligence to track down publishing interests" and there were other writers. That makes no sense. It sounds more like Murry's sour grapes, as a result of the Brother label."The Publisher (Sea of Tunes) did not have to track down anyone. They owned what they owned. The Composers would have had no say-so in the matter." The publisher (Sea of Tunes), did not have to track anyone down. They owned what they owned. They held the right to sell or transfer the company to anyone they they chose.
|
|
|
Post by Cam Mott on Jul 21, 2020 5:58:53 GMT -5
Doesn't Mike's book claim Murry sort of sold SOT out from under the BBs' plans for it at the time with Filmways or something. (trying to remember where my copy is)
|
|
rjm
Kahuna
Posts: 212
Likes: 221
|
Post by rjm on Jul 21, 2020 16:20:28 GMT -5
Selling SOT was the worst decision Murry ever made. The Wilsons, especially Brian, would have been set for life without having the need to work(read: tour).
|
|
|
Publishing
Jul 21, 2020 20:07:18 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by leedempsey on Jul 21, 2020 20:07:18 GMT -5
“Performance royalties are split into two equal halves: writer's share (50%) and publisher's share (50%). These are two separate revenue streams that collection societies keep separate and account for separately.” What Inglot is saying is that while Irving-Almo was leveraging their deep pockets to perform the due diligence to track down their publishing interests, Brian’s writer’s share also benefited. Lee But the inference this guy Inglot is making, is that there was no, or had not been "due diligence to track down publishing interests" and there were other writers. That makes no sense. It sounds more like Murry's sour grapes, as a result of the Brother label. When you (Brian/band members) have a reaction of surprise and betrayal at the news of the sale - it means you did not know and would suggest the papers were subject to some chicanery. I think you misunderstood what I wrote... I was speaking of Irving-Almo’s actions AFTER the acquisition of Sea of Tunes. As a large publishing company, Irving-Almo had the resources to track down unpaid royalties in the form of cover versions recorded, radio plays, compilation usage, etc. And they had the legal representation required to act upon it and recover the revenue due them. As a by-product of Irving-Almo recovering their unpaid publishing royalties, the songwriters — Brian, Mike, and whoever else wrote the songs formerly owned by Sea of Tunes, and now owned by Irving-Almo — were able to recover the royalties on the writer’s share they still owned. Lee
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jul 22, 2020 8:03:46 GMT -5
But the inference this guy Inglot is making, is that there was no, or had not been "due diligence to track down publishing interests" and there were other writers. That makes no sense. It sounds more like Murry's sour grapes, as a result of the Brother label. When you (Brian/band members) have a reaction of surprise and betrayal at the news of the sale - it means you did not know and would suggest the papers were subject to some chicanery. I think you misunderstood what I wrote... I was speaking of Irving-Almo’s actions AFTER the acquisition of Sea of Tunes. As a large publishing company, Irving-Almo had the resources to track down unpaid royalties in the form of cover versions recorded, radio plays, compilation usage, etc. And they had the legal representation required to act upon it and recover the revenue due them. As a by-product of Irving-Almo recovering their unpaid publishing royalties, the songwriters — Brian, Mike, and whoever else wrote the songs formerly owned by Sea of Tunes, and now owned by Irving-Almo — were able to recover the royalties on the writer’s share they still owned. Lee Maybe I misunderstood - when I read it - it looked like a comparison as between royalties pre and post transfer of ownership and that the successor group enabled payment or a better/more efficient system of payment. The SOT sale - still appears not to have been done with any type of transparency, otherwise those lawsuits would not have proceeded, notwithstanding who the parties were, original or added parties. That is what I meant.
|
|
|
Post by jds on Jul 23, 2020 2:21:08 GMT -5
I don't see why people still go in for the Brian camp's various "holy idiot victimized by everyone around him" claims. The more likely scenario than Murry committing rank fraud (and hoping no one would raise a stink) is that Brian signed off on the SOT sale -- with convincing on Murry's part and against Brian's better judgment -- and regretted it.
Also, don't know the status of late '60s California contract law, but wouldn't the signature have had to have been witnessed? If so, we have to expand the criminal conspiracy to another party. Nah, Brian signed off on it.
|
|
|
Post by Cam Mott on Jul 23, 2020 6:52:01 GMT -5
It is always something unexpected and plain as mud it seems to me. Something like discover all of their copyrights are possibly void due to unintentionally botched paperwork and they are lucky to end up with anything even after considerable maneuvering.
Not it probably but some sort of complacency and bungling and desperation involving a publisher father and a published son possibly?
No one is usually the villain supposed (except Landy) and Brian isn't usually the victim imagined.
|
|
|
Post by jds on Jul 23, 2020 7:59:00 GMT -5
I'll pretty much give primacy to any theory that doesn't involve Murry waking up one morning and deciding to carry out million-dollar fraud against his son and publishing investors, then getting away with it. Brian having a moment of weakness seems the more likely scenario.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jul 23, 2020 8:58:31 GMT -5
I'll pretty much give primacy to any theory that doesn't involve Murry waking up one morning and deciding to carry out million-dollar fraud against his son and publishing investors, then getting away with it. Brian having a moment of weakness seems the more likely scenario. Murry might have been sour grapes and yakking about his interest in the catalog which may have precipitated an offer or some kind of negotiations that sound shady. There was no "nationwide advertised search" to effectuate a sale. Getting fired is something people don't not take lightly. After all - he went out and assembled a BB clone band. That shows some indicia of revenge motive. If the BB's were not in the room when the transfer of ownership happened or had some discussion at BRI, a group that is supposed to meet, keep records of regular meetings or send reps to - then just ask yourself - did they know? Anyone think that any topic of such importance as the SOT catalog would not compel an appearance at a board meeting? Seriously? I doubt Brian or any of them did. It sounds more like Murry on a "frolic of his own."
|
|
|
Post by Joshilyn Hoisington on Jul 23, 2020 9:58:09 GMT -5
I don't see why people still go in for the Brian camp's various "holy idiot victimized by everyone around him" claims. The more likely scenario than Murry committing rank fraud (and hoping no one would raise a stink) is that Brian signed off on the SOT sale -- with convincing on Murry's part and against Brian's better judgment -- and regretted it. Also, don't know the status of late '60s California contract law, but wouldn't the signature have had to have been witnessed? If so, we have to expand the criminal conspiracy to another party. Nah, Brian signed off on it. I feel like state contract law in the 60s would have been closely following the common law without a lot of statutory superseding; but in any case, contracts generally don't require witnesses to the signatures, though it is not a terrible idea to included them for evidentiary purposes. Contracts don't even need to be written down in many cases.
|
|