Cease To Exist: The Saga Of Dennis Wilson & Charles Manson

An aspect of this whole scenario, reminds me of the Keith Raniere NVIXM case - where Charlie outright - was having the now infamous “girls” - “recruit other girls” to the cult. I don’t remember Charlie being referred to as a “sex trafficker” but that is exactly what he was, in the process of adding to his cult group. It seems dwarfed and is diminished, by the horror and shock of the murders. 

The idea of equity - when looking at the monetary value of his music - was small, nil, really, compared to balancing the expensive destruction to Dennis’ property by his followers and the expenses he ran up during that time. Nothing was owed Charlie, particularly after he was given studio time, and told that his work was not market-worthy and behaving in a difficult way in the studio. But, it was reasonably foreseeable that Charlie would go nuts when that track was released without his name.

It was more than even-Steven, where he was not reported to the authorities but, very likely he was still under a kind of supervision of probation or parole, post, his prison release. He would have wanted to appear law-abiding, if he was smart.     

I mean, as said before, they either didn’t know, or didn’t care.
What’s known about Manson today might not have been known about Manson then, we have no idea what Dennis or the other guys were told by him or about his past.
Also, as for the whole feet kissing thing, it’s not like Manson was the first weirdo the guys had been around.
These were The same guys who, just a short seven years later, would employ Landy, One of the most eccentric people I’ve ever heard of, to take care of Brian.
Clearly they didn’t have the best judgment of character.
Even Carl got involved in a cult

It is more like the Landy situation where he insinuated himself into Brian’s business and wanted writing credit. SUSA was already a Berry standard. Manson was no Chuck Berry. 

Manson was a parolee who should have been minding his Ps and Qs rather than building a trafficking network, organizing women to recruit other women for his own cultish purposes. In equity - I doubt when a court added up all the monetary benefits Dennis (and the band) conferred on Charlie - they might have arrived at the same decision not to give him credit and further monetary benefits.    

They gave him studio time in good faith and he acted as though he knew more than those running the studio not professional under any standard. I don’t think he had the band over a barrel for royalties - if anything he would have been in great trouble, behaving in a way that does not harmonize (pun intended) well with good behavior post-release. I’m not sure who was the exact person who did not give him writing credit.  Maybe he got on everyone’s last nerve. It might have been better left off the releases, entirely.

And wasn’t it the last Capitol album anyway? If there was an action for copyright- they would have to look at those issues (music and lyrics) and split hairs over who wrote what, and was it modified to such an extent that his work became a minor part of the song and figure percentages of contribution.

What were Charlie’s quantifiable losses? The song was not a hit. The melody sounds similar, but Charlie’s words may have been judged by Dennis to be inappropriate for their brand and not just denying him credit, out of spite for destroyed cars or whatever.  

More than once the label rejected their work, like a teacher telling you, “Do that homework over.” The band did add something (with arranging it and building on whatever Charlie submitted to Dennis.)   “I gave him (Dennis) a bullet because he changed the words to my song,” Manson told Diane Sawyer in an interview.  Well, Charlie was not in the band, and was not responsible in any way to the label to submit reasonable tracks to them, consistent with their business goals. Dennis was a principal at the time, and he made a business decision - maybe he may have felt the lyrics were not appropriate.

The band thought Dennis wrote the song. That was info that might have been shared before it blew up.  I don’t believe for a minute that the band had anything to do with triggering those events.  If it was not one thing, it would have been another, it was only a matter of time, and he was possessed with this whole “Helter Shelter” thing - not Help Me, Rhonda. Something else would have made this happen, like a ticking time bomb, and no one could have foreseen it unfold with intense planning, cutting phone lines and everything else that went down with his associates. That was on Charlie.   

No one is owed a record contract - especially if you are a marginal talent and you behave poorly at a session and not follow guidance by people who know the business. That sphere of people ended up being in the wrong place, at the wrong time. It could just have easily been some other band or musician that Charlie latched onto, like the slug that he was.  

www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-news/how-a-stolen-beach-boys-song-helped-lead-to-charles-mansons-murderous-path-117577/ 

You can have a door opened for you - but you have to walk through it. And if you have marginal talent - it will soon be discovered, too, not unlike Milli Vanilli lip-syncing their work. When Dennis described Manson killing a guy and throwing him in a well, it appeared that Manson was unrepentant. That is not normal. Charlie could not see that he was given better treatment than most, by getting those sessions, and felt he was owed something. 

Dennis made a grave error in judgment - by not informing Charlie (and the band) that he used some of what Charlie had written but perhaps the musicians did the lion’s share with vocals and arranging. He should have just said that the track did not make the cut and left it at that.  Charlie’s fuse would have been lit over something else and with someone else. 

Was it a work-for-hire (rather than a collaborator) where you get a salary and the boss owns your creative work? One could argue that he was given so much money and even medical services to his followers - that would exceed whatever his contributions were or royalties would have amounted to. 

There is a lot we will probably never know and 50+ years have gone by and it is still so shocking that he could set such carnage in motion. When this came up a couple of years ago I remember reading that a Canadian woman went missing at around that time and there were some indications that Charlie was involved in her disappearance.  The guy was a monster and even in death - it is all still shocking. 

COMMENT:   Over the years I have granted several interviews, some on film, to movie documentation makers doing films on this topic. 

One film I have always thought was an excellent portrayal of the man and his music, with not so much concentration on the crime and calamity that resulted. is MANSON: MUSIC FROM AN UNSOUND MIND.  I am not partial to this documentary because I am in it giving my accounting of the interaction I had with Manson, but generally like the emphases on the musical aspect of that event(s) in which The Beach Boys became involved.  

You can rent the film from Amazon and other sources.  You can view it for free at >>> tubitv.com/movies/574359/manson-music-from-an-unsound-mind

It's a little more than 1 and 1/2 hours long. I think it is well worth the viewing time. I also think the film's perspective is right in-tune with the comments I've been reading here. 

Check it out, you won't be disappointed.   ~Good Viewing,  Stephen W. Desper

P.S.  Dennis did not steal Manson's song as several major sources have reported. Manson gave it to Dennis in exchange for several favors, money, and goods stolen from Dennis' home -- around a hundred grand worth. There is documentation in the corporate files. ~swd

 

COMMENT to barnsy:  This only illustrates Manson's ignorance of Intellectual Property Rights. The right of copyright ownership includes the right of modification to the point of destruction. Once you transfer the copyright, it's yours to do with as you wish.  If you buy a car, you can drive it as is, modify it like change the engine and make it a hot-rod, change the color, or drive it off a cliff. It's your property to do with as you wish. If you buy Windows-10 from Microsoft, you are buying a license to use the software. You cannot modify the software and re-sell it.  

The lyrics were partially altered (the opening lyric "Cease to exist" modified to "Cease to resist"), and the title of the song was changed to Never Learn Not to Love.

Don't get ownership rights confused with license rights. If Manson had sold Dennis a license to use the song's lyrics, the words could not be changed, but such was not the case. At the time, Manson wanted money. So, he sold the song to Dennis, who now as owner of this intellectual property,  properly obtained a copyright. Manson may have said "don't change the words" but such a request rings hollow under copyright law.  ~swd