How do fans view Jack Rieley and his influence?

[phirnis]

Probably still the most underrated of Brian's collaborators. Absolutely love the lyrics he penned for "Tree" and "Mess of Help".

[Andrew G. Doe]

Interesting guy. Tells a good story. Some of them were even true.

[Kurosawa]

He had a good influence I think, but mostly his importance was just another sign of how the Beach Boys have always had weak leadership as a band, and that's ultimately what ended up hurting them.

[DonnyL]

Though I prefer the post-Pet Sounds, pre-Surf's Up period, I like Reiley and the Reiley-era.

Perhaps ironic, but I think that maybe without him, the group could not have built up the momentum that lead to the 'Endless Summer' revival.

Worth noting is the Rieley period was the only time when Carl was the true leader of the group.

Creatively, I think his influence was sort of emphasizing the arty weirdness, and making it seem more accessible.

[Jim V.]

He definitely influenced a lot of the lyrics, as if he helped the group graduate from mostly love songs to more sophisticated, and in some cases, interesting topics. It depends on whether you liked those "relevant" topics, but I do think they (the lyrics) sound slightly forced, and the guys never really returned to those subjects again.

Not true at all. Brian, Al, and Mike still all sing about the environment ("Live Let Live", "Don't Fight the Sea" and "Summer In Paradise" all come to mind),

[Sheriff John Stone]

He definitely influenced a lot of the lyrics, as if he helped the group graduate from mostly love songs to more sophisticated, and in some cases, interesting topics. It depends on whether you liked those "relevant" topics, but I do think they (the lyrics) sound slightly forced, and the guys never really returned to those subjects again.

Not true at all. Brian, Al, and Mike still all sing about the environment ("Live Let Live", "Don't Fight the Sea" and "Summer In Paradise" all come to mind),

I knew I should've typed "rarely" instead of "never really".

[Mooger Fooger]

All this discussion is good and fair, but is Jack Reiley really superman?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

[Don Malcolm]

All this discussion is good and fair, but is Jack Reiley really superman?

It would be great if someone photographed Jack in a "Superman" outfit--it would probably crack Brian up....

I probably missed this point being made in one of the previous posts, but here goes anyway: Jack's influence on Carl's creativity--particularly his songwriting--might well have been his most valuable contribution.

[Mike's Beard]

A great collaborater for sure but hardly a great manger. Bruce hated him.

[wantsomecorn]

Has "Is Jack Reiley Really Superman" ever been booted?  If not, then could someone, (perhaps AGD if he is in a charitable mood  ) describe what it is like?

[Smilin Ed H]

"A great collaborater for sure but hardly a great manger. Bruce hated him"

If you read the interviews with Mike and Dennis at the time, Bruce wasn't exactly missed - even though they worked with him during this period and on and off afterwards until he came back fuul time. It was also in this period that he contributed his standout BB song. Remember, as well, that there had been attempts to replace Bruce with Billy Hinsche (at Carl's instigation?)...

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Interesting guy. Tells a good story. Some of them were even true.

So what if he lied? Honestly, what does that matter? Who doesn't tell a few fibs on their CV?

Had he lied and then been an absolute disaster then yes, I would see the problem - but he wasn't a disaster: he was a success! He succeeded in pretty much everything he set out to do with the group; and it's largely thanks to him that we've got Surf's Up, CATP, Holland and In Concert. Surely that completely over-rides any concerns about whether or not he told a few porkies back in the day.... doesn't it?? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain Mike, Dennis and Brian did things back then far worse than tell a few fibs...

[Nicko1234]

Had he lied and then been an absolute disaster then yes, I would see the problem - but he wasn't a disaster: he was a success! He succeeded in pretty much everything he set out to do with the group; and it's largely thanks to him that we've got Surf's Up, CATP, Holland and In Concert. Surely that completely over-rides any concerns about whether or not he told a few porkies back in the day.... doesn't it?? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain Mike, Dennis and Brian did things back then far worse than tell a few fibs...

Not sure about that. The trip to Holland was farcical for the band members wasn't it? And CATP wasn't a success...

[Steve Mayo]

carl always stated that even tho the trip to holland did not make sense in a dollars and cents sorta way, he personally thought it was well worth it for him and glad it happened.

[filledeplage]

Interesting guy. Tells a good story. Some of them were even true.

So what if he lied? Honestly, what does that matter? Who doesn't tell a few fibs on their CV?

Had he lied and then been an absolute disaster then yes, I would see the problem - but he wasn't a disaster: he was a success! He succeeded in pretty much everything he set out to do with the group; and it's largely thanks to him that we've got Surf's Up, CATP, Holland and In Concert. Surely that completely over-rides any concerns about whether or not he told a few porkies back in the day.... doesn't it?? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain Mike, Dennis and Brian did things back then far worse than tell a few fibs...

Disney Boy (1985) - I'm a fan, sort of a bystander. Although I like the "Rieley era" - I'd have to qualify that, and, I would analogize his involvement to Landy, in terms of "exceeding the job description." Landy was bought in for medical treatment.  He went beyond that scope.  Rieley, it seems was brought in as a "manager" if I understand correctly.  It seems he is getting songwriting credit.  Does that "exceed the scope?"

Second, "lying matters." People who inflate their "credentials" often are not straightforward in other areas.  And, it is a "given" that a new chief, always targets the most knowledgeable in the organization to "broom them out." Johnston appears to have had "industry credentials" that were "bonafide." That would make him a threat to a new boss, with "inflated credentials." No boss wants an employee or worker smarter than he. If during his,"sabbatical" he wrote a Grammy winning song, guess who the smart one was? And, it appears that he was still doing "under the radar" work for the Band.

Third, was the Band operating from a position of strength?  Carl was under the eye of the Draft Board, still. Was Rieley fair to Al and his work? Was it fair for Brian? Or, did he take a sharp look at the "power base" and "move" accordingly? It looks like classic business organizational behavior to me.  And a very clever "schmoozer."  It's nice to have a "junior year abroad" (I'm still waiting for mine   ) but, at the expense of whom?

Some of that released stuff was already recorded long before Rieley appeared on the scene. Surf's Up was performed solo and live by Brian Wilson in 1967.  Everyone was waiting for its' release.  (For some, more than SMiLE.) The 73/74 live show was and still is tops in my book. Maybe, for some of the Band, the move gave "perspective" in a market  that was friendlier, but, eventually they returned home.  

[EthanJames]

Remember, as well, that there had been attempts to replace Bruce with Billy Hinsche (at Carl's instigation?)...

Ive always wondered why Carl always wanted Billy Hinsce for everything (Besides the fact they were in-laws)
I herd Carl wanted Billy to take Bruces place since '67 i belive.

[Doo Dah]

Interesting guy. Tells a good story. Some of them were even true.

So what if he lied? Honestly, what does that matter? Who doesn't tell a few fibs on their CV?

Had he lied and then been an absolute disaster then yes, I would see the problem - but he wasn't a disaster: he was a success! He succeeded in pretty much everything he set out to do with the group; and it's largely thanks to him that we've got Surf's Up, CATP, Holland and In Concert. Surely that completely over-rides any concerns about whether or not he told a few porkies back in the day.... doesn't it?? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain Mike, Dennis and Brian did things back then far worse than tell a few fibs...

Disney Boy (1985) - I'm a fan, sort of a bystander. Although I like the "Rieley era" - I'd have to qualify that, and, I would analogize his involvement to Landy, in terms of "exceeding the job description." Landy was bought in for medical treatment.  He went beyond that scope.  Rieley, it seems was brought in as a "manager" if I understand correctly.  It seems he is getting songwriting credit.  Does that "exceed the scope?"

Second, "lying matters." People who inflate their "credentials" often are not straightforward in other areas.  And, it is a "given" that a new chief, always targets the most knowledgeable in the organization to "broom them out." Johnston appears to have had "industry credentials" that were "bonafide." That would make him a threat to a new boss, with "inflated credentials." No boss wants an employee or worker smarter than he. If during his,"sabbatical" he wrote a Grammy winning song, guess who the smart one was? And, it appears that he was still doing "under the radar" work for the Band.

Third, was the Band operating from a position of strength?  Carl was under the eye of the Draft Board, still. Was Rieley fair to Al and his work? Was it fair for Brian? Or, did he take a sharp look at the "power base" and "move" accordingly? It looks like classic business organizational behavior to me.  And a very clever "schmoozer."  It's nice to have a "junior year abroad" (I'm still waiting for mine  ) but, at the expense of whom?

Some of that released stuff was already recorded long before Rieley appeared on the scene. Surf's Up was performed solo and live by Brian Wilson in 1967.  Everyone was waiting for its' release.  (For some, more than SMiLE.) The 73/74 live show was and still is tops in my book. Maybe, for some of the Band, the move gave "perspective" in a market  that was friendlier, but, eventually they returned home.   

Wow. Couldn't disagree more. Of course, I wasn't there at the time and I never met the man - but from what I've read, he had a perspective and a motivation that singlehandedly SAVED this band. If he had silent ulterior motives or he embellished the truth, SO WHAT. It's called sales. Everyone tweaks the truth. Everyone lies. Or in the words of Tony Montana - 'I always tell the truth...even when I lie'

Seriously though, I think you're giving way waaaay too much credence to Bruce. A glorified sideman...no more. Attributing some type of industry stature, or 'wisdom' to the likes of Bruce is a joke. Seriously. Come on...

[The 4th Wilson Bro.]

For me, probably the most interesting, creative period in their history. With all the beach and car material well behind them, they could stretch out a bit with "Feel Flows" being a perfect example of where they were headed. Rieley's "thinking man's" lyrics were a most welcome change as we were moving along with our lives. Yeah, yeah, yeah, the surfin' stuff was fun and all that but it was time to go forward in new directions. Of course he wouldn't be around long because someone else had different ideas about just what the band should be doing. Shame.

Yeah, someone else being the entire band - the decision to fire him was unanimous.

You're correct, RBB. And I agree with you that Mike gets villainized to an extent sometimes that he doesn't deserve. But on the other hand, I think you push back a little too hard. I mean, the facts are it is Mike Love, more than anybody, that turned the group into a somewhat farcial "oldies" group, a la the Four Seasons or The Coasters, rather than a rock institution like The Who or the Rolling Stones (whatever your opinions of those groups, they obviously are taken much more seriously, although that's been changing since the '90s).

I'm not exactly sure why so many see the Rolling Stones as a "rock institution," especially in comparison to a group like the Beach Boys.  Heck, I've even got doubts about anyone who would elevate The Who to a loftier standing than America's Band.  On the other hand, perhaps my lack of musical sophistication is showing and I'd be money ahead by keeping my ignorance under wraps.  

[JohnMill]

For me, probably the most interesting, creative period in their history. With all the beach and car material well behind them, they could stretch out a bit with "Feel Flows" being a perfect example of where they were headed. Rieley's "thinking man's" lyrics were a most welcome change as we were moving along with our lives. Yeah, yeah, yeah, the surfin' stuff was fun and all that but it was time to go forward in new directions. Of course he wouldn't be around long because someone else had different ideas about just what the band should be doing. Shame.

Yeah, someone else being the entire band - the decision to fire him was unanimous.

You're correct, RBB. And I agree with you that Mike gets villainized to an extent sometimes that he doesn't deserve. But on the other hand, I think you push back a little too hard. I mean, the facts are it is Mike Love, more than anybody, that turned the group into a somewhat farcial "oldies" group, a la the Four Seasons or The Coasters, rather than a rock institution like The Who or the Rolling Stones (whatever your opinions of those groups, they obviously are taken much more seriously, although that's been changing since the '90s).

I'm not exactly sure why so many see the Rolling Stones as a "rock institution," especially in comparison to a group like the Beach Boys.  Heck, I've even got doubts about anyone who would elevate The Who to a loftier standing than America's Band.  On the other hand, perhaps my lack of musical sophistication is showing and I'd be money ahead by keeping my ignorance under wraps.  

The reason is at least from my vantage point because they influenced a lot of other bands particularly bands from the "second wave" (or third wave depending on how you look at it) of rockers to come out of the decade of the seventies.  Bruce Springsteen, Tom Petty, John Mellencamp, Joe Cocker and others all I believe have cited The Rolling Stones as being major influences on their development as musicians growing up in the sixties.  One of the common threads I tend to pick up on in some of the stories of these artists being fans of The Rolling Stones is that they preferred The Rolling Stones because their music was much more adaptable in concert and in some cases just plain easier to learn than say the music of The Beatles or The Beach Boys.  Lets face it there are not many groups out there than can even adequately replicate Brian Wilson's harmonies on stage or otherwise and I believe both Springsteen and Petty have both stated that as youngsters while they were Beatlemaniacs, they tended to shy away from performing their songs in concert as teenagers or young adults because they found The Beatles' vocals too hard to replicate on stage. 

I think The Rolling Stones basically made rock music more accessible to the layman learning how to become a musician.  You could learn "Satisfaction" or "Paint It Black" and sing those songs without much trouble because at least in my opinion Jagger was never the greatest vocalist to begin with.  So that is where I believe their following started from and also in the early seventies before the "second wave" hit, The Rolling Stones may have been the best live act in the world at that time although some would say The Allmans could've given them a run for their money as there was obviously a period there where everyone for a short while anyhow made that shift trying to sound like The Allmans. 

[filledeplage]

Interesting guy. Tells a good story. Some of them were even true.

So what if he lied? Honestly, what does that matter? Who doesn't tell a few fibs on their CV?

Had he lied and then been an absolute disaster then yes, I would see the problem - but he wasn't a disaster: he was a success! He succeeded in pretty much everything he set out to do with the group; and it's largely thanks to him that we've got Surf's Up, CATP, Holland and In Concert. Surely that completely over-rides any concerns about whether or not he told a few porkies back in the day.... doesn't it?? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain Mike, Dennis and Brian did things back then far worse than tell a few fibs...

Disney Boy (1985) - I'm a fan, sort of a bystander. Although I like the "Rieley era" - I'd have to qualify that, and, I would analogize his involvement to Landy, in terms of "exceeding the job description." Landy was bought in for medical treatment.  He went beyond that scope.  Rieley, it seems was brought in as a "manager" if I understand correctly.  It seems he is getting songwriting credit.  Does that "exceed the scope?"

Second, "lying matters." People who inflate their "credentials" often are not straightforward in other areas.  And, it is a "given" that a new chief, always targets the most knowledgeable in the organization to "broom them out." Johnston appears to have had "industry credentials" that were "bonafide." That would make him a threat to a new boss, with "inflated credentials." No boss wants an employee or worker smarter than he. If during his,"sabbatical" he wrote a Grammy winning song, guess who the smart one was? And, it appears that he was still doing "under the radar" work for the Band.

Third, was the Band operating from a position of strength?  Carl was under the eye of the Draft Board, still. Was Rieley fair to Al and his work? Was it fair for Brian? Or, did he take a sharp look at the "power base" and "move" accordingly? It looks like classic business organizational behavior to me.  And a very clever "schmoozer."  It's nice to have a "junior year abroad" (I'm still waiting for mine   ) but, at the expense of whom?

Some of that released stuff was already recorded long before Rieley appeared on the scene. Surf's Up was performed solo and live by Brian Wilson in 1967.  Everyone was waiting for its' release.  (For some, more than SMiLE.) The 73/74 live show was and still is tops in my book. Maybe, for some of the Band, the move gave "perspective" in a market  that was friendlier, but, eventually they returned home.  

Wow. Couldn't disagree more. Of course, I wasn't there at the time and I never met the man - but from what I've read, he had a perspective and a motivation that single singlehandedly SAVED this band. If he had silent ulterior motives or he embellished the truth, SO WHAT. It's called sales. Everyone tweaks the truth. Everyone lies. Or in the words of Tony Montana - 'I always tell the truth...even when I lie'

Seriously though, I think you're giving way waaaay too much credence to Bruce. A glorified sideman...no more. Attributing some type of industry stature, or 'wisdom' to the likes of Bruce is a joke. Seriously. Come on...

We don't have to agree.  That is fine. And, I've always felt that "the truth is stranger than fiction, but always more amusing."  I'm trying to be objective with the timeline.  If you've read or seen any of Billy's stuff (Hinsche) you might see that his parents were adamant that he finish college. I suspect he was Draft Material for Uncle Sam, as well.  I think he got out of college in 1974.  And, he has great credentials as well, having been a teen rock star in Dino, Desi and Billy.  

So, I'm not getting the "revisionist" Rieley adoration.  I suspect that he was in the right place at the right time.  And, a move to Holland for Brian was not a good one.  The shows were certainly "big-time" but they were already on the college circuit for some time.  And, his business "model" was not "sustainable over time," especially as the Vietnam War had been winding down, and the "exile" was coming to a close around the bicentennial celebration and realization that the BB's were America's Band.  I also think that Carl was in his "growth spurt" musically, apart from Brian, being on another continent. Each of the brothers was/is a gifted composer.  It was an individual peak in his mid 20's  and out of his brother's shadow. He was the "baby brother" until he wasn't, in Europe.

Falsehood always a strange way of catching up with people, whether it is a politician or movie star or a friend.  They say that "honesty is the best policy." 

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Interesting guy. Tells a good story. Some of them were even true.

So what if he lied? Honestly, what does that matter? Who doesn't tell a few fibs on their CV?

Had he lied and then been an absolute disaster then yes, I would see the problem - but he wasn't a disaster: he was a success! He succeeded in pretty much everything he set out to do with the group; and it's largely thanks to him that we've got Surf's Up, CATP, Holland and In Concert. Surely that completely over-rides any concerns about whether or not he told a few porkies back in the day.... doesn't it?? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain Mike, Dennis and Brian did things back then far worse than tell a few fibs...

Disney Boy (1985) - I'm a fan, sort of a bystander. Although I like the "Rieley era" - I'd have to qualify that, and, I would analogize his involvement to Landy, in terms of "exceeding the job description." Landy was bought in for medical treatment.  He went beyond that scope.  Rieley, it seems was brought in as a "manager" if I understand correctly.  It seems he is getting songwriting credit.  Does that "exceed the scope?"

Second, "lying matters." People who inflate their "credentials" often are not straightforward in other areas.  And, it is a "given" that a new chief, always targets the most knowledgeable in the organization to "broom them out." Johnston appears to have had "industry credentials" that were "bonafide." That would make him a threat to a new boss, with "inflated credentials." No boss wants an employee or worker smarter than he. If during his,"sabbatical" he wrote a Grammy winning song, guess who the smart one was? And, it appears that he was still doing "under the radar" work for the Band.

Third, was the Band operating from a position of strength?  Carl was under the eye of the Draft Board, still. Was Rieley fair to Al and his work? Was it fair for Brian? Or, did he take a sharp look at the "power base" and "move" accordingly? It looks like classic business organizational behavior to me.  And a very clever "schmoozer."  It's nice to have a "junior year abroad" (I'm still waiting for mine   ) but, at the expense of whom?

Some of that released stuff was already recorded long before Rieley appeared on the scene. Surf's Up was performed solo and live by Brian Wilson in 1967.  Everyone was waiting for its' release.  (For some, more than SMiLE.) The 73/74 live show was and still is tops in my book. Maybe, for some of the Band, the move gave "perspective" in a market  that was friendlier, but, eventually they returned home.  

I completely disagree with pretty much everything single thing you've just said.

Firstly: you say 'Rieley, it seems was brought in as a "manager" if I understand correctly.  It seems he is getting songwriting credit.  Does that "exceed the scope?" - er, well yes, it does, but... so what? The songs he co-wrote were almost all absolutely brilliant, so where's the problem? Landy 'exceeded his scope' and the results were disastrous, Rieley 'exceeded his scope' and the results were great - exceeding scope is not in and of itself bad. It all depends on the results. Also, he didn't force Carl to co-write with him at gun point you know.
(Oh, and you only use double apostrophes when you're quoting something that someone's said. Just saying...)

Anyway: secondly, I much, much prefer the songs Rieley co-wrote to Bruce's sappy originals, and I don't think Bruce leaving the group was a bad thing at all (and neither did several members of the band at the time either). Yes Bruce won a Grammy for I Write The Songs - that doesn't change the fact that it's a load of gooey sentimental slime, and I'm very pleased indeed it never graced a Beach Boys album. Barry Manilow was welcome to it!
As far as lying goes, I stand by exactly what I said previously: Rieley was directly responsible for spurring the band onto creative and commercial success. Whether or not he told a few porkies to get into a position in which he could achieve this for the band - honestly, who cares...? Unless you're some kind of holier-than-thou Samaritan I fail to see why it's an issue whether someone did or didn't embellish the truth forty years ago.

Thirdly, Rieley - quite rightly - thought the Wilson's were the main creative talent in the Beach Boys and acted accordingly. 'Was he fair to Al?' What, you mean the same Al who produced arguably his finest song-writing moments on Rieley's watch (Lookin' At Tomorrow, California, All This Is That) - that Al do you mean?
The Beach Boys were clearly a very tricky band to handle - all that political infighting, rivalry and power-playing! Rieley did what needed to be done, and he did it well. After he left, it all slowly and surely fell apart.

'It's nice to have a "junior year abroad" (I'm still waiting for mine   ) but, at the expense of whom?'
Well, at the expense of the record company - but, again, who cares? From the article I read in Mojo magazine the band all certainly enjoyed themselves in Holland, in particular Carl, Blondie and Ricky (ok, not Brian admittedly, but he wasn't exactly enjoying himself in California either, or anywhere else for that matter...) The trip to Holland resulted in a brilliant album, one that many fans feel is the groups last real masterpiece. In fact, perhaps if they'd been taken out of their comfort zone a bit more often we might've had a few more Holland's rather than the likes of MIU and KTSA.

So yeah, I don't really understand any of your points at all, sorry (or rather: I don't ''really understand'' any of your ''points'' at all, ''sorry''  )  

 

[filledeplage]

Interesting guy. Tells a good story. Some of them were even true.

So what if he lied? Honestly, what does that matter? Who doesn't tell a few fibs on their CV?
Had he lied and then been an absolute disaster then yes, I would see the problem - but he wasn't a disaster: he was a success! He succeeded in pretty much everything he set out to do with the group; and it's largely thanks to him that we've got Surf's Up, CATP, Holland and In Concert. Surely that completely over-rides any concerns about whether or not he told a few porkies back in the day.... doesn't it?? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain Mike, Dennis and Brian did things back then far worse than tell a few fibs...

Disney Boy (1985) - I'm a fan, sort of a bystander. Although I like the "Rieley era" - I'd have to qualify that, and, I would analogize his involvement to Landy, in terms of "exceeding the job description." Landy was bought in for medical treatment.  He went beyond that scope.  Rieley, it seems was brought in as a "manager" if I understand correctly.  It seems he is getting songwriting credit.  Does that "exceed the scope?"

Second, "lying matters." People who inflate their "credentials" often are not straightforward in other areas.  And, it is a "given" that a new chief, always targets the most knowledgeable in the organization to "broom them out." Johnston appears to have had "industry credentials" that were "bonafide." That would make him a threat to a new boss, with "inflated credentials." No boss wants an employee or worker smarter than he. If during his,"sabbatical" he wrote a Grammy winning song, guess who the smart one was? And, it appears that he was still doing "under the radar" work for the Band.

Third, was the Band operating from a position of strength?  Carl was under the eye of the Draft Board, still. Was Rieley fair to Al and his work? Was it fair for Brian? Or, did he take a sharp look at the "power base" and "move" accordingly? It looks like classic business organizational behavior to me.  And a very clever "schmoozer."  It's nice to have a "junior year abroad" (I'm still waiting for mine   ) but, at the expense of whom?

Some of that released stuff was already recorded long before Rieley appeared on the scene. Surf's Up was performed solo and live by Brian Wilson in 1967.  Everyone was waiting for its' release.  (For some, more than SMiLE.) The 73/74 live show was and still is tops in my book. Maybe, for some of the Band, the move gave "perspective" in a market  that was friendlier, but, eventually they returned home.  

I completely disagree with pretty much everything single thing you've just said.

Firstly: you say 'Rieley, it seems was brought in as a "manager" if I understand correctly.  It seems he is getting songwriting credit.  Does that "exceed the scope?" - er, well yes, it does, but... so what? The songs he co-wrote were almost all absolutely brilliant, so where's the problem? Landy 'exceeded his scope' and the results were disastrous, Rieley 'exceeded his scope' and the results were great - exceeding scope is not in and of itself bad. It all depends on the results. Also, he didn't force Carl to co-write with him at gun point you know.
(Oh, and you only use double apostrophes when you're quoting something that someone's said. Just saying...)

Anyway: secondly, I much, much prefer the songs Rieley co-wrote to Bruce's sappy originals, and I don't think Bruce leaving the group was a bad thing at all (and neither did several members of the band at the time either). Yes Bruce won a Grammy for I Write The Songs - that doesn't change the fact that it's a load of gooey sentimental slime, and I'm very pleased indeed it never graced a Beach Boys album. Barry Manilow was welcome to it!
As far as lying goes, I stand by exactly what I said previously: Rieley was directly responsible for spurring the band onto creative and commercial success. Whether or not he told a few porkies to get into a position in which he could achieve this for the band - honestly, who cares...? Unless you're some kind of holier-than-thou Samaritan I fail to see why it's an issue whether someone did or didn't embellish the truth forty years ago.

Thirdly, Rieley - quite rightly - thought the Wilson's were the main creative talent in the Beach Boys and acted accordingly. 'Was he fair to Al?' What, you mean the same Al who produced arguably his finest song-writing moments on Rieley's watch (Lookin' At Tomorrow, California, All This Is That) - that Al do you mean?
The Beach Boys were clearly a very tricky band to handle - all that political infighting, rivalry and power-playing! Rieley did what needed to be done, and he did it well. After he left, it all slowly and surely fell apart.

'It's nice to have a "junior year abroad" (I'm still waiting for mine   ) but, at the expense of whom?'
Well, at the expense of the record company - but, again, who cares? From the article I read in Mojo magazine the band all certainly enjoyed themselves in Holland, in particular Carl, Blondie and Ricky (ok, not Brian admittedly, but he wasn't exactly enjoying himself in California either, or anywhere else for that matter...) The trip to Holland resulted in a brilliant album, one that many fans feel is the groups last real masterpiece. In fact, perhaps if they'd been taken out of their comfort zone a bit more often we might've had a few more Holland's rather than the likes of MIU and KTSA.

So yeah, I don't really understand any of your points at all, sorry (or rather: I don't ''really understand'' any of your ''points'' at all, ''sorry''  )  

That is fine to disagree.  As an American, I understand the position of being once part of a "colonial empire."  Europe was the seat of power when it came to "expansion" as it were, and power was once measured in terms of how much land, natural resources, and "evangelization" of religious systems.  I get (and love) The Trader, and a lot of that era's and look at it as "Carl's era" (within the Rieley years) more than that of Rieley.  I like that an activism of sorts was transparent, as well as Leaving This Town (Fataar/Chaplin/C.Wilson/MLove). Rieley is listed on around five songs.

Carl always gravitated towards the Soul, R&B, Blues influences, so that The Flame inclusion in the BB's band was absolutely no surprise.  Carl was so young when the Band started that, he spent years on the road (before he finished high school ) and that is a tremendous teacher.  He didn't read in a book the Germany had a "wall." He had the opportunity to see it. 

And as for the Grammy - that is an objective fact, and I find Manilow's work brilliant, some of which, was classically inspired, such as "Could it be Magic" was Chopin's Prelude in C minor, Opus 28, Number 2.  I Write the Songs was his biggest hit. Can't argue objectively with that, either. Whether there is a "value judgment" of sappiness, is irrelevant.  Whether Brian was "happy" or not, is not for a non-medical person.  I'm no doctor. But he did go home to CA. Home base for the BB's is not Holland. It is CA. Holland was a "field trip."

There is a lot of Jardine work on Holland as well. (California Saga, The Beaks of Eagles, California) but, I've read that Loop-de-loop ( incredible vocals) was nixed by Rieley.  On his watch? Al is a great songwriter in his own right. And it isn't confined to Rieley's watch. 

And, I still don't like liars.  CV "fibs" are a great way to get fired. 

[Sheriff John Stone]

But, the big question to me, and one I've pondered for over 38 years is - Why did the Beach Boys abandon what they were doing with Reiley, rarely returning to that type of music/lyrics, and go in almost an entirely different direction? It had to be more complex than Endless Summer.

How long were they with Jack Reley, maybe three or four years? After Reiley was fired, could they not have taken what they learned and continued to follow that path? They didn't need Reiley's tutelage anymore. Reiley's "philosophy" wasn't that complex. However, almost overnight it was if they abandoned everything that were doing since 1970 - musically and lyrically. Why?

Brian went from writing things like "Til I Die", "A Day In The Life Of A Tree", and "You Need A Mess Of Help To Stand Alone" to reverting to themes that he had moved on from in 1965. Obviously it was the same with Mike Love. Carl almost stopped writing. And look at Al Jardine. Al's contribution on 15 Big Ones was "Susie Cincinnati" (was that Brian's choice?), his subject matter on MIU was relatively lightweight, he recorded "Lady Lynda" for L.A. (Light Album), I guess "Santa Ana Winds was Reiley-like, but then on Beach Boys 1985 he was back with "Crack At Your Love" and "California Calling". Dennis was the only Beach Boy who stayed progressive.

I wrote in an above post that some of the Reiley material sounded forced, especially the lyrics and themes. Was it forced? I agree that a lot of it was good; did The Beach Boys think it was good? I suppose those Reiley albums had some moderate critical and commercial success. Were The Beach Boys happy with that? Were they satisfied? Why weren't they happy ENOUGH with the musical direction during the Reiley period that they would go down the path to 15 Big Ones, MIU, Keepin' The Summer Alive, and The Beach Boys 1985?

Whenever I think of that transition from the Reiley Era to 15 Big Ones, I can't help but think of that line from "That's Not Me" - I went through all kind of changes, took a look at myself, and said "That's Not Me". Is that what the guys thought about themselves? "I miss my pad and the places I've known". Is that why they went back... 

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Interesting guy. Tells a good story. Some of them were even true.

So what if he lied? Honestly, what does that matter? Who doesn't tell a few fibs on their CV?
Had he lied and then been an absolute disaster then yes, I would see the problem - but he wasn't a disaster: he was a success! He succeeded in pretty much everything he set out to do with the group; and it's largely thanks to him that we've got Surf's Up, CATP, Holland and In Concert. Surely that completely over-rides any concerns about whether or not he told a few porkies back in the day.... doesn't it?? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain Mike, Dennis and Brian did things back then far worse than tell a few fibs...

Disney Boy (1985) - I'm a fan, sort of a bystander. Although I like the "Rieley era" - I'd have to qualify that, and, I would analogize his involvement to Landy, in terms of "exceeding the job description." Landy was bought in for medical treatment.  He went beyond that scope.  Rieley, it seems was brought in as a "manager" if I understand correctly.  It seems he is getting songwriting credit.  Does that "exceed the scope?"

Second, "lying matters." People who inflate their "credentials" often are not straightforward in other areas.  And, it is a "given" that a new chief, always targets the most knowledgeable in the organization to "broom them out." Johnston appears to have had "industry credentials" that were "bonafide." That would make him a threat to a new boss, with "inflated credentials." No boss wants an employee or worker smarter than he. If during his,"sabbatical" he wrote a Grammy winning song, guess who the smart one was? And, it appears that he was still doing "under the radar" work for the Band.

Third, was the Band operating from a position of strength?  Carl was under the eye of the Draft Board, still. Was Rieley fair to Al and his work? Was it fair for Brian? Or, did he take a sharp look at the "power base" and "move" accordingly? It looks like classic business organizational behavior to me.  And a very clever "schmoozer."  It's nice to have a "junior year abroad" (I'm still waiting for mine   ) but, at the expense of whom?

Some of that released stuff was already recorded long before Rieley appeared on the scene. Surf's Up was performed solo and live by Brian Wilson in 1967.  Everyone was waiting for its' release.  (For some, more than SMiLE.) The 73/74 live show was and still is tops in my book. Maybe, for some of the Band, the move gave "perspective" in a market  that was friendlier, but, eventually they returned home.  

I completely disagree with pretty much everything single thing you've just said.

Firstly: you say 'Rieley, it seems was brought in as a "manager" if I understand correctly.  It seems he is getting songwriting credit.  Does that "exceed the scope?" - er, well yes, it does, but... so what? The songs he co-wrote were almost all absolutely brilliant, so where's the problem? Landy 'exceeded his scope' and the results were disastrous, Rieley 'exceeded his scope' and the results were great - exceeding scope is not in and of itself bad. It all depends on the results. Also, he didn't force Carl to co-write with him at gun point you know.
(Oh, and you only use double apostrophes when you're quoting something that someone's said. Just saying...)

Anyway: secondly, I much, much prefer the songs Rieley co-wrote to Bruce's sappy originals, and I don't think Bruce leaving the group was a bad thing at all (and neither did several members of the band at the time either). Yes Bruce won a Grammy for I Write The Songs - that doesn't change the fact that it's a load of gooey sentimental slime, and I'm very pleased indeed it never graced a Beach Boys album. Barry Manilow was welcome to it!
As far as lying goes, I stand by exactly what I said previously: Rieley was directly responsible for spurring the band onto creative and commercial success. Whether or not he told a few porkies to get into a position in which he could achieve this for the band - honestly, who cares...? Unless you're some kind of holier-than-thou Samaritan I fail to see why it's an issue whether someone did or didn't embellish the truth forty years ago.

Thirdly, Rieley - quite rightly - thought the Wilson's were the main creative talent in the Beach Boys and acted accordingly. 'Was he fair to Al?' What, you mean the same Al who produced arguably his finest song-writing moments on Rieley's watch (Lookin' At Tomorrow, California, All This Is That) - that Al do you mean?
The Beach Boys were clearly a very tricky band to handle - all that political infighting, rivalry and power-playing! Rieley did what needed to be done, and he did it well. After he left, it all slowly and surely fell apart.

'It's nice to have a "junior year abroad" (I'm still waiting for mine   ) but, at the expense of whom?'
Well, at the expense of the record company - but, again, who cares? From the article I read in Mojo magazine the band all certainly enjoyed themselves in Holland, in particular Carl, Blondie and Ricky (ok, not Brian admittedly, but he wasn't exactly enjoying himself in California either, or anywhere else for that matter...) The trip to Holland resulted in a brilliant album, one that many fans feel is the groups last real masterpiece. In fact, perhaps if they'd been taken out of their comfort zone a bit more often we might've had a few more Holland's rather than the likes of MIU and KTSA.

So yeah, I don't really understand any of your points at all, sorry (or rather: I don't ''really understand'' any of your ''points'' at all, ''sorry''  )  

That is fine to disagree.  As an American, I understand the position of being once part of a "colonial empire."  Europe was the seat of power when it came to "expansion" as it were, and power was once measured in terms of how much land, natural resources, and "evangelization" of religious systems.  I get (and love) The Trader, and a lot of that era's and look at it as "Carl's era" (within the Rieley years) more than that of Rieley.  I like that an activism of sorts was transparent, as well as Leaving This Town (Fataar/Chaplin/C.Wilson/MLove). Rieley is listed on around five songs.

Carl always gravitated towards the Soul, R&B, Blues influences, so that The Flame inclusion in the BB's band was absolutely no surprise.  Carl was so young when the Band started that, he spent years on the road (before he finished high school ) and that is a tremendous teacher.  He didn't read in a book the Germany had a "wall." He had the opportunity to see it.  

And as for the Grammy - that is an objective fact, and I find Manilow's work brilliant, some of which, was classically inspired, such as "Could it be Magic" was Chopin's Prelude in C minor, Opus 28, Number 2.  I Write the Songs was his biggest hit. Can't argue objectively with that, either. Whether there is a "value judgment" of sappiness, is irrelevant.  Whether Brian was "happy" or not, is not for a non-medical person.  I'm no doctor. But he did go home to CA. Home base for the BB's is not Holland. It is CA. Holland was a "field trip."

There is a lot of Jardine work on Holland as well. (California Saga, The Beaks of Eagles, California) but, I've read that Loop-de-loop ( incredible vocals) was nixed by Rieley.  On his watch? Al is a great songwriter in his own right. And it isn't confined to Rieley's watch.  

And, I still don't like liars.  CV "fibs" are a great way to get fired.  

Rieley was absolutely 100% right to scrap Loop De Loop. The idea that the band - following the commercial catastrophe of Sunflower - would have returned to prominence by releasing a lightweight, throwaway ditty called Loop De Loop is farcical. Yeah it's a fun song, nothing more. They might as well have released Games Two Can Play as a comeback single.
And I'm not saying Rieley was behind Al's finest song-writing moments - however I am saying the pressure Rieley put on the group to think outside the box and up their game directly resulted in Al producing his best work in an effort to compete. Nothing else Al has done since comes close to matching his work during this period. Susie Cincinnati? Lady Lynda? Yeah they're ok, but no 'California'.

You say: 'I Write the Songs was his biggest hit. Can't argue objectively with that, either. Whether there is a "value judgment" of sappiness, is irrelevant'.

NO IT ISN'T! It's completely and utterly relevant. 'I Believe I Can Fly' is R Kelly's biggest hit - it sold millions and millions worldwide! That does not stop it from being absolutely bloody awful and vomit-inducingly cheesy. I wouldn't want my favourite band in the world going anywhere near it. Likewise 'I Write The Songs'. I mean, what exactly are you saying? That you'd rather the Beach Boys had released songs like I Write The Songs rather than songs like Feel Flows?

Quote: 'Home base for the BB's is not Holland. It is CA. Holland was a "field trip."

Yes it was. SO WHAT? Why is that even remotely a problem? Why is it an issue that the Beach Boys didn't record an album in CA? What is so wrong with Holland as a country exactly? The Stones recorded some of their best albums abroad - should they have actually stayed put in London and never ventured overseas either?
I'll say it again: the trip to Holland resulted in a great album, which sold decently at the time, and is now widely considered a classic - so what's your problem?