|
Post by jds on Jul 23, 2020 12:00:02 GMT -5
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." You're the first I've read to suggest that Murry sold SOT out of animus and not because (like the rest of the world) he undervalued the publishing rights of 60s pop and thought he was striking while the iron was hot. Murry and Brian seem to have been in a much better place immediately prior to the sale, as Carl suggested that Murry co-produced the Friends album. I think it's telling the accusation that Brian's signature was forged in the SOT sale wasn't brought up before or since the early 90s, when incidentally the attorneys from Brian Inc. were running up billable hours trying to prevent Mike Love from collecting credit and royalties on several songs that no one could seriously dispute he co-wrote. "The Beach Boys" as an entity had no interest in SOT. Murry and (unless a mysterious document that only Mike Love has seen says otherwise) Brian had ownership interest and individual group members had authorship interest in the collections of any compositions published through SOT. Beach Boys taking an interest in the boring aspects of their finances would have been a nice change, but everything I've read suggests this would have been very out of character for them in that era. (I mean, it took Mike Love of all people decades to realize he wasn't getting any money from California Girls.)
|
|
|
Post by jds on Jul 23, 2020 12:04:13 GMT -5
Yeah, I wasn't sure if there was a Statute of Frauds-type deal that would have been tripped somewhere for a sale of that magnitude requiring to be witnessed.
|
|
|
Post by Cam Mott on Jul 23, 2020 12:40:10 GMT -5
Isn't harder to imagine that Murry, knowing for fact their continuing value, would willfully under sell them for spite? He could sell them for spite at full value.
I tells ya it must have,been something about the asset that devalued them, and maybe Mike is giving a pretty good hint as to what in his book. I mean he says they all were forced to sign off on it because of structural problems that threatened all of their royalties as I remember.
Probably.
(gonna look for my copy any day now)
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Jul 23, 2020 12:44:06 GMT -5
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." You're the first I've read to suggest that Murry sold SOT out of animus and not because (like the rest of the world) he undervalued the publishing rights of 60s pop and thought he was striking while the iron was hot. Murry and Brian seem to have been in a much better place immediately prior to the sale, as Carl suggested that Murry co-produced the Friends album. I think it's telling the accusation that Brian's signature was forged in the SOT sale wasn't brought up before or since the early 90s, when incidentally the attorneys from Brian Inc. were running up billable hours trying to prevent Mike Love from collecting credit and royalties on several songs that no one could seriously dispute he co-wrote. "The Beach Boys" as an entity had no interest in SOT. Murry and (unless a mysterious document that only Mike Love has seen says otherwise) Brian had ownership interest and individual group members had authorship interest in the collections of any compositions published through SOT. Beach Boys taking an interest in the boring aspects of their finances would have been a nice change, but everything I've read suggests this would have been very out of character for them in that era. (I mean, it took Mike Love of all people decades to realize he wasn't getting any money from California Girls.) It could be both. I highly doubt that I am the only person thinking of animus. The suit was all about animus if Mike had to (and Brian's (IIRC) court testimony in an LA Times describing, a demonstration with an actual keyboard (in the courtroom) to show the court (or a jury) the work methods (which might be construed as unique to their style and intellectual property rights) that he (Brian) and Mike employed in songwriting. A few years ago there was an American Bar Assn. Journal section dedicated to The Beatles and those types of rights. Very interesting. It was not Murry's property to sell if he knew (or should have known) that other authors were contributors and not compensated. Murry had to have observed and was privy to, a particular (to them) style of working together at least on the road when he was their road manager and they were working on music. It is hard without actual cases (if they have been sealed) to know what went on. Statute of Frauds has to be generally raised in a timely fashion to be effective. Murry was dead in 1973. Contract law is usually 6 years for Statute of Limitations purposes. BRI (members or reps) would/should have a close enough relationship to need to be on notice about any major transactions.
|
|
|
Post by Autotune on Jul 23, 2020 13:33:43 GMT -5
When was it that Brian said the Beach Boys were broke? Wasn’t that exactly prior to this transaction?
Murry was co-writing and recording music late into the 60s and -seemingly- into the early 70s. No reason to believe he lost faith in that musical genre and its appeal.
|
|
|
Post by andrewhickey on Aug 5, 2020 6:39:02 GMT -5
When was it that Brian said the Beach Boys were broke? Wasn’t that exactly prior to this transaction? Murry was co-writing and recording music late into the 60s and -seemingly- into the early 70s. No reason to believe he lost faith in that musical genre and its appeal. He wouldn't have had to have lost faith in it to think that the earning potential for the older songs was mostly in the past and want a cash windfall. As an example, Colonel Parker in 1973 made a deal with RCA records that they would buy out all future royalties on Elvis' recordings up to that point for a lump sum of (IIRC) about ten million dollars. From that point on, Elvis and his heirs never earned another penny from "Hound Dog" or "Don't Be Cruel" or the film soundtracks or any of the rest (at least until his estate started licensing his name and likeness and so on). That didn't mean Parker had no faith in Elvis' continued success -- he just thought that that success would come from new recordings and tours, and that those oldies wouldn't be the main source of income, so ten million dollars seemed like a good deal. Quite possibly Murry was making a similar calculation.
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Aug 5, 2020 8:06:04 GMT -5
When was it that Brian said the Beach Boys were broke? Wasn’t that exactly prior to this transaction? Murry was co-writing and recording music late into the 60s and -seemingly- into the early 70s. No reason to believe he lost faith in that musical genre and its appeal. He wouldn't have had to have lost faith in it to think that the earning potential for the older songs was mostly in the past and want a cash windfall. As an example, Colonel Parker in 1973 made a deal with RCA records that they would buy out all future royalties on Elvis' recordings up to that point for a lump sum of (IIRC) about ten million dollars. From that point on, Elvis and his heirs never earned another penny from "Hound Dog" or "Don't Be Cruel" or the film soundtracks or any of the rest (at least until his estate started licensing his name and likeness and so on). That didn't mean Parker had no faith in Elvis' continued success -- he just thought that that success would come from new recordings and tours, and that those oldies wouldn't be the main source of income, so ten million dollars seemed like a good deal. Quite possibly Murry was making a similar calculation. Good analogy. I never thought of it that way. There appeared to be such a problem over this - that one would have to question whether Murry had the actual authority to convey that interest to another party. Even apparent authority. If Brian's signature was an issue in question, then Murry may not have had consent/authority. And perhaps no real grapho-analyst to determine the veracity of the purported signature. We may never know but at trial the other kind of intellectual property was laid bare before the court - almost like a (their particular/unique) patented scientific method - the way Brian and Mike worked together to get a song going - change the tempo - lyrics, etc. Then, there is the issue of being paid for work done, that would mean any unpaid person (band member or not) who was de-frauded without being on notice of the imminent sale. One issue is that there was a group in place where there should have been an open discussion and decision - BRI.
|
|