Recent thoughts on Jack Rieley by the Beach Boys?

[guitarfool2002]

I think it may be overblown. As I said before, find me any major rock act whose concerts did not have the same kind of reaction from their fans to "new material", no less fans shouting requests of their favorite songs to the band on stage. It's a non-story, as the Captain said above, because it is par for the course at rock shows and has been for 50-plus years.

What blows it out of proportion is when a few bootlegs or singled-out concerts are taken as the way it WAS, as in the crowds simply did not dig the new stuff the Beach Boys were playing on stage, while heckling them to play the smash hits.

What struck me was reading the reports posted just this week, on this thread, that it simply wasn't the case for several long-time fans' experiences when they personally saw shows in this same era. It's hardly a case of a few reports from the Leaf book, Mike's book, etc being definitively right in describing fan reactions if fans who were actually at numerous shows didn't witness anything on the level of some of the previous published histories.


And as others have asked, what exactly were the scars Mike suffered, and how was he scarred (or what scarred him?) by these fans shouting requests or reacting a certain way to the new material in the Rieley era?

I seriously want to know, and again it may be helpful to post the quotes direct from Mike's book to see what this scarring is and was, and what Mike is trying to convey by saying that in a book.



PS...There are the usual politics involved with even mentioning Jack Rieley's name. Unless it "goes there", it's impossible to list all of the backstories, but it is worth noting that Jack was 110% supportive of and a champion for the Wilson brothers in terms of moving the band forward, musically and otherwise, and his comments as posted online and in interviews years later did not sit well with - as Jack might have said - the "Non-Wilson" members of the band. This may be why just a few years ago there were certain posters trying to sh*t-can Jack and trash his reputation (never mind what he actually said and witnessed with the band members firsthand) when certain topics came up, but we'll leave it at that for now. Usually the dogs are let loose on someone with less favorable versions of events toward certain band members for a reason, and Jack just happened to be one of them that the dogs came out growling against.

[guitarfool2002]

And courtesy this board's archives of the old mailing list archives when Jack would drop in 22 years ago to talk, here is one collection of Jack's posts touching on all kinds of topics...Essential reading.

Click to go directly to the archived posts from Jack:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,9651.msg168258.html#msg168258

[Lee Marshall]

That's about as clear a read and as unbiased an inside look as we are likely to ever have access to.  And you know...when you check what it is that Jack had to say about the 'workings' of the 'group'...all one has to do is to look at how it's all unfolded and BOOM!!!...There it is.

I initially came to the various message boards to celebrate the Beach Boys and much of their music in spite of what I knew.  I was willing to let it go...thinking that eventually it would somehow finally mellow out.  But no.  It's only gotten worse.  And I really have to point out that it's not been so much as one of the Wilson's who contributed any further negativity,

Wonderful to see Al walk across the aisle.  Nice to see Blondie back him up.  Too bad to see David caught in the middle of something he had no control over.

Ultimately it leaves me cold.  For some of the participants...good vibrations is merely a song title and a royalty cheque.  I can't celebrate that line of thinking.  I never could.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

That's about as clear a read and as unbiased an inside look as we are likely to ever have access to.  And you know...when you check what it is that Jack had to say about the 'workings' of the 'group'...all one has to do is to look at how it's all unfolded and BOOM!!!...There it is.

I initially came to the various message boards to celebrate the Beach Boys and much of their music in spite of what I knew.  I was willing to let it go...thinking that eventually it would somehow finally mellow out.  But no.  It's only gotten worse.  And I really have to point out that it's not been so much as one of the Wilson's who contributed any further negativity,

Wonderful to see Al walk across the aisle.  Nice to see Blondie back him up.  Too bad to see David caught in the middle of something he had no control over.

Ultimately it leaves me cold.  For some of the participants...good vibrations is merely a song title and a royalty cheque.  I can't celebrate that line of thinking.  I never could.

Thoughtful, well said thoughts, Lee. And as you might expect from me, so redeeming to be able to hear dialogue from someone who was so tightly associated with the group, namely the Wilson brothers, at what I consider one of the most pivoting times in the band's long history. Incredible to hear him describe his experiences with them and at the same time express his distaste for Love and Johnston (and, yes, Al at that time). I would certainly put a hefty amount of trust in how Jack portrays Love as opposed to what what Love says in his book which is laced with how unfair being a Beach Boy has been for him. What a greedy insidious schmuck he turned out to be being able to work with one of the, if not THE, greatest composers of our time. And it's all wasted because the only things that mean anything to him is the bucks and telling everyone over and over about what HE did. 

[SMiLE Brian]

If it is ever to be completed, then it must be finished by Brian- Jack Rielly on SMiLE

[guitarfool2002]

That's about as clear a read and as unbiased an inside look as we are likely to ever have access to.  And you know...when you check what it is that Jack had to say about the 'workings' of the 'group'...all one has to do is to look at how it's all unfolded and BOOM!!!...There it is.

I initially came to the various message boards to celebrate the Beach Boys and much of their music in spite of what I knew.  I was willing to let it go...thinking that eventually it would somehow finally mellow out.  But no.  It's only gotten worse.  And I really have to point out that it's not been so much as one of the Wilson's who contributed any further negativity,

Wonderful to see Al walk across the aisle.  Nice to see Blondie back him up.  Too bad to see David caught in the middle of something he had no control over.

Ultimately it leaves me cold.  For some of the participants...good vibrations is merely a song title and a royalty cheque.  I can't celebrate that line of thinking.  I never could.

Thoughtful, well said thoughts, Lee. And as you might expect from me, so redeeming to be able to hear dialogue from someone who was so tightly associated with the group, namely the Wilson brothers, at what I consider one of the most pivoting times in the band's long history. Incredible to hear him describe his experiences with them and at the same time express his distaste for Love and Johnston (and, yes, Al at that time). I would certainly put a hefty amount of trust in how Jack portrays Love as opposed to what what Love says in his book which is laced with how unfair being a Beach Boy has been for him. What a greedy insidious schmuck he turned out to be being able to work with one of the, if not THE, greatest composers of our time. And it's all wasted because the only things that mean anything to him is the bucks and telling everyone over and over about what HE did. 

Well said on many levels. And again I'll point out how refreshing it was to hear both of you who attended multiple concerts during this - for lack of a better term - "Jack Rieley era" in the band's history describe your own firsthand experiences at those shows. It gives more perspective than what I think has been the accepted narrative for too long, how the band doing this new material was met with heckling and calls for the oldies. Yet at the shows you attended, it was not quite as cut and dry as has been reported previously. Great to get firsthand perspective especially on these live shows.


What is great is how we still have Jack in his own words relating what he experienced as part of the band's innermost circle during this time. Thanks to those who saved Jack's posts from 22 years ago on the mailing list, and who reposted them here.

Let readers here and elsewhere and new fans who came into all this after Jack was posting read his words for themselves, and make up their own minds from there, free of any attempts to discredit Jack or lessen the weight of his commentary. The words are there for all to read, and I hope more do choose to take a few minutes to click on that link and read what he said.

What you read isn't quite the narrative that some would rather promote, in terms of what happened at that time. There are several comments that should stand out in terms of the history and the telling of that history in subsequent years.

Fact - Jack's words have been available for over 20 years, from this and other sources where he spoke. Some of us read those words and might just think something doesn't quite jive when other narratives appear...but I'll leave it at that.

Lee - You nailed it. It is all laid out right there. Combine Jack's comments with other "managers" and their eventual fates (including Mike's own brother who got thrown under the bus and is still estranged), along with how the band's career ended up playing out after Jack, and you'll see the connections. It's not the only case of the past being part of the same roadmap as what would happen in the future with this band and these characters in the drama.

It can be revelatory to read jack describing Mike waving his finger in the air at a meeting then declaring "I AM the Beach Boys!", and realizing that's been the mindset driving a lot of things since the early 70's. And it's a mindset which Jack for one spotted and thought it would be more helpful to the band to get the Wilsons more actively writing and more up-front within the band to move things forward. They were doing it, but unfortunately the power plays within the band and families didn't allow it to come full circle. At least we got solo material from the Wilsons as part of the deal...

And I'd point out again how Jack was a target for some circles of fandom and pseudo-historians who focused more on trashing him than they did what he actually said. Add Jack to the list that includes Vosse, Anderle, Jules Seigel, et al...people who saw and reported what they saw firsthand, but whose reputations were attacked and diminished perhaps because some didn't want *what they were saying* to be accepted into the history of the band. In favor of other narratives of course. And then add the attempts to assign the word "toxic" to others who are still alive if they too report things that don't jive with the chosen narrative and telling of the history.

When this whole f***ed up mess of a fandom and ersatz "insiders" and the whole lot gets to be too much, just put on the music and read some of the firsthand descriptions and commentary from those like Jack free of any attempts to harangue people into believing the messenger is flawed, therefore the message is invalid. You'll get a more full version of the history that way, and hear some great tunes in the process.

[Jon Stebbins]

I'd say that anyone who believes that the fact that The Beach Boys were not constantly bombarded  by requests for the oldies, or that large elements of their audiences were not indifferent to their newer material needs to sit down and read The Beach Boys In Concert book where this is all spelled out meticulously in real time. The views are not anecdotal or from a random bootleg. They are the descriptions and views of writers and fans and musicians who were there, and who logged these impressions not in retrospect but at the time. I had to actually edit down that element of the book because Ian had gathered so many reviews stating this phenomena that it became redundant. The Beach Boys were a unique case in that they had struggled to shed themselves of the squareness of their early image, which they steadily and incrementally did. But what happened was much of their audience pivoted back to re-falling in love with the oldies before the group had really sold the world that the new stuff was just as important as the old stuff. The Stones and other groups had no such problems. People weren't screaming for Get Off My Cloud and Not Fade Away at '73 Stones shows. They were wanting to hear the material from the last few LPs. The Beach Boys got bombarded, blindsided even. They woke up to a growing oldies demanding audience that dwarfed the modest one they had built who loved their newer songs. I don't think you can minimize the problem that created for those in the band that wanted to grow creatively.

[guitarfool2002]

I'd say that anyone who believes that the fact that The Beach Boys were not constantly bombarded  by requests for the oldies, or that large elements of their audiences were not indifferent to their newer material needs to sit down and read The Beach Boys In Concert book where this is all spelled out meticulously in real time. The views are not anecdotal or from a random bootleg. They are the descriptions and views of writers and fans and musicians who were there, and who logged these impressions not in retrospect but at the time. I had to actually edit down that element of the book because Ian had gathered so many reviews stating this phenomena that it became redundant. The Beach Boys were a unique case in that they had struggled to shed themselves of the squareness of their early image, which they steadily and incrementally did. But what happened was much of their audience pivoted back to re-falling in love with the oldies before the group had really sold the world that the new stuff was just as important as the old stuff. The Stones and other groups had no such problems. People weren't screaming for Get Off My Cloud and Not Fade Away at '73 Stones shows. They were wanting to hear the material from the last few LPs. The Beach Boys got bombarded, blindsided even. They woke up to a growing oldies demanding audience that dwarfed the modest one they had built who loved their newer songs. I don't think you can minimize the problem that created for those in the band that wanted to grow creatively.

I understand and respect what you're saying Jon, as you literally wrote the book on the subject - and I'm not trying to counter or minimize what you say either. It was just surprising to hear what other fans who attended these shows at this time had to say about their own experiences, and recollections about the crowd behaviors which were not as blatant as I think some have suggested. I also think there were regional sensibilities at play, where perhaps some areas the band played had more receptive and respectful crowds overall than others. But the recollections do add a wider perspective to the topic, as in people relating that what they experienced was not what others experienced.

I will go back to saying that this issue of fans calling out for old material or "hits" at shows was in no way exclusive to the Beach Boys, understanding they had to shoulder their fair share of it.

I gave just two (more recent) examples of major artists who had the same thing happen in the modern era, "legacy artists" at that whose fans were outright hostile toward them when they got restless hearing the newer or experimental stuff instead of what classic rock radio spins in heavy rotation. I also recall some in the audience getting antsy if not calling out hits when the Stones were playing cuts from Steel Wheels, or McCartney was playing tunes from "Flowers In The Dirt" when fans wanted to hear the old hits.

And it slipped my mind until now that a pretty big hit from the early 70's was written specifically to address this issue of fans wanting the hits. "Garden Party" by Rick Nelson. An entire song about an artist changing direction or image as he wanted to, yet being met with hostility from his fans who only wanted to hear the hits.

Basically the same era and time frame as the Rieley era, 1972. And the clincher in the lyrics was Nelson's last line:

"If you gotta play at garden parties, I wish you a lotta luck. But if memories were all I sang, I rather drive a truck.
And it's all right now, learned my lesson well. You see, ya can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself"

[Jon Stebbins]

I'd say that anyone who believes that the fact that The Beach Boys were not constantly bombarded  by requests for the oldies, or that large elements of their audiences were not indifferent to their newer material needs to sit down and read The Beach Boys In Concert book where this is all spelled out meticulously in real time. The views are not anecdotal or from a random bootleg. They are the descriptions and views of writers and fans and musicians who were there, and who logged these impressions not in retrospect but at the time. I had to actually edit down that element of the book because Ian had gathered so many reviews stating this phenomena that it became redundant. The Beach Boys were a unique case in that they had struggled to shed themselves of the squareness of their early image, which they steadily and incrementally did. But what happened was much of their audience pivoted back to re-falling in love with the oldies before the group had really sold the world that the new stuff was just as important as the old stuff. The Stones and other groups had no such problems. People weren't screaming for Get Off My Cloud and Not Fade Away at '73 Stones shows. They were wanting to hear the material from the last few LPs. The Beach Boys got bombarded, blindsided even. They woke up to a growing oldies demanding audience that dwarfed the modest one they had built who loved their newer songs. I don't think you can minimize the problem that created for those in the band that wanted to grow creatively.

I understand and respect what you're saying Jon, as you literally wrote the book on the subject - and I'm not trying to counter or minimize what you say either. It was just surprising to hear what other fans who attended these shows at this time had to say about their own experiences, and recollections about the crowd behaviors which were not as blatant as I think some have suggested. I also think there were regional sensibilities at play, where perhaps some areas the band played had more receptive and respectful crowds overall than others. But the recollections do add a wider perspective to the topic, as in people relating that what they experienced was not what others experienced.

I will go back to saying that this issue of fans calling out for old material or "hits" at shows was in no way exclusive to the Beach Boys, understanding they had to shoulder their fair share of it.

I gave just two (more recent) examples of major artists who had the same thing happen in the modern era, "legacy artists" at that whose fans were outright hostile toward them when they got restless hearing the newer or experimental stuff instead of what classic rock radio spins in heavy rotation. I also recall some in the audience getting antsy if not calling out hits when the Stones were playing cuts from Steel Wheels, or McCartney was playing tunes from "Flowers In The Dirt" when fans wanted to hear the old hits.

And it slipped my mind until now that a pretty big hit from the early 70's was written specifically to address this issue of fans wanting the hits. "Garden Party" by Rick Nelson. An entire song about an artist changing direction or image as he wanted to, yet being met with hostility from his fans who only wanted to hear the hits.

Basically the same era and time frame as the Rieley era, 1972. And the clincher in the lyrics was Nelson's last line:

"If you gotta play at garden parties, I wish you a lotta luck. But if memories were all I sang, I rather drive a truck.
And it's all right now, learned my lesson well. You see, ya can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself"

I agree that this is a syndrome that has permeated the music business forever, I'm sure Sinatra and Elvis and so many others had to fend off constant requests and people's tendency to want what they know. However, I'd suggest that the Beach Boys in particular had to deal with the syndrome on steroids due to a number of elements. Timing for one. The clean cut nostalgia wave hit America just as Carl's beard was getting really good, and just as Mike's meditation robe was draped perfectly, just as Brian was hitting about 250lbs...I jest, but in a way it caught them off guard as they were moving away from clean cut, and America suddenly wanted it back. The Beach Boys (as in the "Surfin  USA" Beach Boys) were the perfect vehicle, a sunny, harmonizing, bikini loving, fossil fuel toasting entity that in it's most surface perception were simple, clean and fun. Of course the only part of that is really true was the fun. They were not very clean, and the exact opposite of simple. But the music of 62-65 somehow represented exactly what America wanted, and funnily, other that the paychecks, the Beach Boys themselves really didn't want that anymore. they'd been working hard to move on from all of that. And then they couldn't anymore because the landscape shifted.And they ended up trying to go back, over and over and over, and it got ugly, at least to me it did. I think for Carl it did too, for Dennis it definitely did, and Brian...well Brian has the biggest burden to carry around because it's his articulation of the sun/fun era that changed the world and still is worshipped, so how could he divest himself from it. By slowly killing himself, or by just rolling with it all in a typically weird Brian way.

I'm in agreement with most all the info and thoughts in the posts here that are pro-Rieley, and call Mike out on his tendency to spin history to his advantage. The real truth is always nuanced and multi-leveled and multi-shaded. I like the idea that the Beach Boys were really celebrated and loved in the Rieley era, and I'm sure there was a solid audience that were with them, the numbers show that, they were growing. We just didn't get a chance to see how much they would grow because, as i said, the landscape shifted and they were overtaken by it. To me the real gravestone is 15 Big Ones. And I know there are people that love it. I loved It's OK in it's time for sure. But to me it represents the white flag. We give in. POB was a glorious counter to that, Love You was an unhittable curveball to that , but really they never got back to the Holland momentum or artistic maturity as a group. To me it's very sad, and people who have read the In Concert book often say that to me, they love the book, but damn it's a sad story when told in real time.

[guitarfool2002]

I'd say that anyone who believes that the fact that The Beach Boys were not constantly bombarded  by requests for the oldies, or that large elements of their audiences were not indifferent to their newer material needs to sit down and read The Beach Boys In Concert book where this is all spelled out meticulously in real time. The views are not anecdotal or from a random bootleg. They are the descriptions and views of writers and fans and musicians who were there, and who logged these impressions not in retrospect but at the time. I had to actually edit down that element of the book because Ian had gathered so many reviews stating this phenomena that it became redundant. The Beach Boys were a unique case in that they had struggled to shed themselves of the squareness of their early image, which they steadily and incrementally did. But what happened was much of their audience pivoted back to re-falling in love with the oldies before the group had really sold the world that the new stuff was just as important as the old stuff. The Stones and other groups had no such problems. People weren't screaming for Get Off My Cloud and Not Fade Away at '73 Stones shows. They were wanting to hear the material from the last few LPs. The Beach Boys got bombarded, blindsided even. They woke up to a growing oldies demanding audience that dwarfed the modest one they had built who loved their newer songs. I don't think you can minimize the problem that created for those in the band that wanted to grow creatively.

I understand and respect what you're saying Jon, as you literally wrote the book on the subject - and I'm not trying to counter or minimize what you say either. It was just surprising to hear what other fans who attended these shows at this time had to say about their own experiences, and recollections about the crowd behaviors which were not as blatant as I think some have suggested. I also think there were regional sensibilities at play, where perhaps some areas the band played had more receptive and respectful crowds overall than others. But the recollections do add a wider perspective to the topic, as in people relating that what they experienced was not what others experienced.

I will go back to saying that this issue of fans calling out for old material or "hits" at shows was in no way exclusive to the Beach Boys, understanding they had to shoulder their fair share of it.

I gave just two (more recent) examples of major artists who had the same thing happen in the modern era, "legacy artists" at that whose fans were outright hostile toward them when they got restless hearing the newer or experimental stuff instead of what classic rock radio spins in heavy rotation. I also recall some in the audience getting antsy if not calling out hits when the Stones were playing cuts from Steel Wheels, or McCartney was playing tunes from "Flowers In The Dirt" when fans wanted to hear the old hits.

And it slipped my mind until now that a pretty big hit from the early 70's was written specifically to address this issue of fans wanting the hits. "Garden Party" by Rick Nelson. An entire song about an artist changing direction or image as he wanted to, yet being met with hostility from his fans who only wanted to hear the hits.

Basically the same era and time frame as the Rieley era, 1972. And the clincher in the lyrics was Nelson's last line:

"If you gotta play at garden parties, I wish you a lotta luck. But if memories were all I sang, I rather drive a truck.
And it's all right now, learned my lesson well. You see, ya can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself"

I agree that this is a syndrome that has permeated the music business forever, I'm sure Sinatra and Elvis and so many others had to fend off constant requests and people's tendency to want what they know. However, I'd suggest that the Beach Boys in particular had to deal with the syndrome on steroids due to a number of elements. Timing for one. The clean cut nostalgia wave hit America just as Carl's beard was getting really good, and just as Mike's meditation robe was draped perfectly, just as Brian was hitting about 250lbs...I jest, but in a way it caught them off guard as they were moving away from clean cut, and America suddenly wanted it back. The Beach Boys (as in the "Surfin  USA" Beach Boys) were the perfect vehicle, a sunny, harmonizing, bikini loving, fossil fuel toasting entity that in it's most surface perception were simple, clean and fun. Of course the only part of that is really true was the fun. They were not very clean, and the exact opposite of simple. But the music of 62-65 somehow represented exactly what America wanted, and funnily, other that the paychecks, the Beach Boys themselves really didn't want that anymore. they'd been working hard to move on from all of that. And then they couldn't anymore because the landscape shifted.And they ended up trying to go back, over and over and over, and it got ugly, at least to me it did. I think for Carl it did too, for Dennis it definitely did, and Brian...well Brian has the biggest burden to carry around because it's his articulation of the sun/fun era that changed the world and still is worshipped, so how could he divest himself from it. By slowly killing himself, or by just rolling with it all in a typically weird Brian way.

I'm in agreement with most all the info and thoughts in the posts here that are pro-Rieley, and call Mike out on his tendency to spin history to his advantage. The real truth is always nuanced and multi-leveled and multi-shaded. I like the idea that the Beach Boys were really celebrated and loved in the Rieley era, and I'm sure there was a solid audience that were with them, the numbers show that, they were growing. We just didn't get a chance to see how much they would grow because, as i said, the landscape shifted and they were overtaken by it. To me the real gravestone is 15 Big Ones. And I know there are people that love it. I loved It's OK in it's time for sure. But to me it represents the white flag. We give in. POB was a glorious counter to that, Love You was an unhittable curveball to that , but really they never got back to the Holland momentum or artistic maturity as a group. To me it's very sad, and people who have read the In Concert book often say that to me, they love the book, but damn it's a sad story when told in real time.

Very well said, and hitting on the cultural context is also key to getting that big picture element into a lot of these points. Blame George Lucas? Haha, just kidding. But there was a shift back to the "good old days" and golden oldies and "Happy Days" and all of that. A nice veneer to brush over the actual foundation. I guess that happens in cycles with pop culture, but yes the early 70's nostalgia wave definitely complicated it for the Beach Boys. I'd even go so far as to include Lennon's "Rock And Roll" project into this. As much as the sessions were a bacchanale and a chance to get blitzed and play oldies, there was a reason why even Lennon chose to eschew original tunes and record 50's covers when he did.

I would say that Rieley was onto something big. For one, getting the Wilsons in the forefront of the band's original music was *huge* and needed. There was so much they could offer, but as seen in Rieley's comments, there was also some resistance from within the band.

But I think Rieley's biggest coup could have been tapping into the audience that was looking for something else. I compare it to the mindset that Lorne Michaels and his inner circle were running on when they were developing SNL. There was an audience who wanted what was not being offered on TV. It was a demographic that was ignored by network TV, but which flourished at underground theaters, late-night movie houses, in more progressive areas and college towns, and especially within those crowds that would go to rock concerts. And yes, the drug culture was a component of that.

So when Lorne did get the green light for a late night comedy/variety show for the kids who were buying George Carlin albums, the National Lampoon, and going to rock concerts that lasted 2-3 hours or more at places like the Fillmore where you could get a contact high simply by walking past an open door, it was directed at the same audience that I think Jack Rieley was envisioning for the Beach Boys. It took time...much like SNL as innovative as it was in 75-76 took at least 2 years to really hit its stride and find a groove. Ironically, of course, when the Loves and Landy got into the mix, SNL tapped only Brian Wilson to appear as a musical guest.

I think Rieley had a vision, perhaps or perhaps not shared by at least Carl and Dennis, that the Beach Boys would have been pursued as a musical guest on a show like SNL, as soon as a show like SNL actually went on the air to tap into that ignored audience.

I believe Rieley saw a band that would be embraced by the same crowds as were watching the early SNL when people like Carlin and Richard Pryor hosted, a band who should have been getting more respect for their music but who was going to keep playing great shows and making new music (a lot on the strength of allowing Carl and Dennis to really grow as writers) and building up that audience who also wanted to see a long rock show with experimentation and top musicianship rather than a 45 minute set of hits and car medleys. And a band who would go back to making solid *albums* of original music, helmed by the talents of the Wilsons.

I guess it's the potential that got stopped short for various reasons that is one of the sadder parts to consider. Another in a long list of "what if?" moments that plague this band's history. Who knows what would have happened if the internal power plays that saw Mike's brothers take control didn't happen, and Rieley's plans to earn a new audience and earn back respect from rock fans not into nostalgia could have developed over a few more years. It could have crashed and burned, yes - But it also could have been a terrific ride for all involved.

Reading Jack's old posts, it's still the story of Mike saying "I AM the Beach Boys" in the early 70's that stands out for me as a key factor in so much of the band's history up to the present day. Once that mindset which has existed for at least 45 years is connected to other events from the decisions to fire and hire managers, to the musical decisions being made, up to anything else related, it all starts adding up. But it's that lost potential that turned into 15 Big Ones and nostalgia shows rather than new, creative musical directions that I think is the clincher. At least we got POB out of the deal.

[SMiLE Brian]

Great post GF and Jon!

Another unsung part of this story is Al Jardine. Al has had quite the transformation from "non-Wilson" faction to BW's musical partner in the 21st century. Was it Mike's power grab and Carl's resurgence as "band leader" that changed things?

The Carlin book's description of the 2005 Hawthorne statue dedication and Al's (paraphrased) quote of "we have to stop the fighting" to BW was most revealing...   

[CenturyDeprived]

Reading Jack's old posts, it's still the story of Mike saying "I AM the Beach Boys" in the early 70's that stands out for me as a key factor in so much of the band's history up to the present day. Once that mindset which has existed for at least 45 years is connected to other events from the decisions to fire and hire managers, to the musical decisions being made, up to anything else related, it all starts adding up. But it's that lost potential that turned into 15 Big Ones and nostalgia shows rather than new, creative musical directions that I think is the clincher. At least we got POB out of the deal.

Other than actual, literal tragedies involving the Wilson brothers' lives, Mike's extreme egomania is the worst thing that ever happened to the band. Everyone knows it, whether they want to publicly admit it or not. It's the big white elephant in the room that has never been outright said or examined in any official documentary, book, etc (and entire book or doc could be made on just this sole subject).

Even though it hasn't been outright publicly said verbatim by insiders, people like Jack - who had guts - certainly implied it, IMHO. That Mike (who always mentions the deaths of BBs associates) conspicuously omitted Jack from any public mention/mourning at the time of Jack's death cannot be some random coincidence.

Of course, this doesn't have any negative bearing on the many *actual* great artistic and vocal contributions Mike also inarguably brought to the band. Mike's real talent and the tragedy of his egomania are not mutually exclusive.

Mike's comment is just like Jock Ewing on Dallas "Who do you think Ewing Oil is? It's MEEEE!!!":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGdfPtW56fo&t=1m25s

[the captain]

Mike's real talent and the tragedy of his egomania are not mutually exclusive.

Yes.

[B.E.]

I would say that Rieley was onto something big. For one, getting the Wilsons in the forefront of the band's original music was *huge* and needed. There was so much they could offer, but as seen in Rieley's comments, there was also some resistance from within the band.

Brian seems anything but in the forefront of the band's music during the Rieley era. I don't blame Jack. I'm sure he would have liked Brian to contribute more, but all Brian really contributed to the cause was ADITLOAT, Funky Pretty, and Mt Vernon (which ironically would have included oldies if Brian had completed his vision). I just find it a little weird when I read about Jack and his support of the Wilsons (which I don't doubt) and then listen to the records and hear less Brian and Dennis.

[JakeH]

Touchy issue... in my opinion the Rieley-era (whatever you want to call it) is susceptible to overstatement in terms of significance.  First of all, I doubt that the politics of the group at that time could be reduced to a simple Jack & Wilson Bros. vs. the non-artists/non-creative faction, because I doubt that the three brothers were ever really united.  They came from a severely dysfunctional situation, the kind in which siblings are divided, or have trouble relating to one another or communicating with one another (Brian alluded to this issue on the song, "Southern California" (the "...supporting each other" part)).   Personally, I believe that the Beach Boys was never set up, from the inception to be a Wilson Bros.' band, and it certainly was not set up, or conceived to be Brian Wilson's band (Brian made the mistake circa Pet Sounds and Smile in behaving as if the Beach Boys was his own solo vehicle).  It was set up to be Murry's band ("Murry's puppets") and what you see happening in, say, '63 - '66 is an effort (led by Brian and perhaps supported by others, perhaps not) to violently wrest control from the miserable human being Murry and everything that he represented.  Just because Murry, as an individual, was somewhat marginalized as of, say, Pet Sounds, doesn't mean that Brian, or a "Wilson Bros." concept was ascendant. It was like a loose ball fumble in football or basketball. Nobody had control.  Brian was in the catbird seat in '66 and tried (in his strange, passive way) to do something in '66 and '67, and it didn't pan out.  Then the "identity crisis" phase begins, which lasts until Endless Summer and 15 Big Ones, at which point, as Jon Stebbins says, it's finally over.

Which leads us to Jack. Jack's big idea, basically was basically to be a good music group.  What a concept; this was Brian's "concept" starting with the songs on Side 2 of Today, and then, of course Pet Sounds and Smile. That concept was forget the marketing, let's put out the best music - musically, conceptually, lyrically - that we can (sadly, Brian has to essentially do this outside the group, with outsiders like Asher, Parks and the Wrecking Crew).  Brian didn't need a Jack Rieley to "advise" him on what to do. He was already doing it in the 1960s, and it didn't work.  By the time Jack popped up, Brian was effectively done with the Beach Boys, notwithstanding some good songs here and there, his Beach Boy career was basically over, and no way Jack could have changed that.

Anyway it comes as no surprise, then that the big draw in '71, is the song  "Surf's Up" and an album of the same name. That is, under Jack's guidance, the group goes back to what Brian (with Van Dyke Parks's help) was doing way back 5 years before.  In that sense there's was nothing really new about Jack's notions.  But if it couldn't work in '66-'67, why would it work in '71-'72? My main point (I think...) is that as usual with this group, everything turns back to 1966 and 1967.  The Jack-era was merely a recapitulation of the same interpersonal dynamics; new events in form, but not in substance.

In defense of Mike-Bruce-Al, they shouldn't be forced to be something that they're not. 


 

[Custom Machine]

I don't think Mike's mi-remembering anything...David Leaf (while also mentioning that some of that era's audiences were great in terms of appreciating the newer material) reported the exact same thing in respect to some audiences, in his book back in '78, and even related that there were "some depressing nights when their cries for 'Help Me Rhonda' drowned out the applause for 'Caroline No'", and "On the nights when the rowdies disrupted the show, the band would shorten the program, leave out some of the slower songs, play the hits, and get out of town." (page 143 of the original edition). To the point of this thread, though, he goes on to write, "It was probably at Jack Riley's insistence that the program stayed in its long form".

I'd say that anyone who believes that the fact that The Beach Boys were not constantly bombarded  by requests for the oldies, or that large elements of their audiences were not indifferent to their newer material needs to sit down and read The Beach Boys In Concert book where this is all spelled out meticulously in real time. The views are not anecdotal or from a random bootleg. They are the descriptions and views of writers and fans and musicians who were there, and who logged these impressions not in retrospect but at the time. I had to actually edit down that element of the book because Ian had gathered so many reviews stating this phenomena that it became redundant. The Beach Boys were a unique case in that they had struggled to shed themselves of the squareness of their early image, which they steadily and incrementally did. But what happened was much of their audience pivoted back to re-falling in love with the oldies before the group had really sold the world that the new stuff was just as important as the old stuff. The Stones and other groups had no such problems. People weren't screaming for Get Off My Cloud and Not Fade Away at '73 Stones shows. They were wanting to hear the material from the last few LPs. The Beach Boys got bombarded, blindsided even. They woke up to a growing oldies demanding audience that dwarfed the modest one they had built who loved their newer songs. I don't think you can minimize the problem that created for those in the band that wanted to grow creatively.

I attended many concerts during this era, and I would like to thank c-man and Jon for setting the record straight, despite Guitarfool's unfortunate attempts to minimize what the band was experiencing.

[guitarfool2002]

I don't think Mike's mi-remembering anything...David Leaf (while also mentioning that some of that era's audiences were great in terms of appreciating the newer material) reported the exact same thing in respect to some audiences, in his book back in '78, and even related that there were "some depressing nights when their cries for 'Help Me Rhonda' drowned out the applause for 'Caroline No'", and "On the nights when the rowdies disrupted the show, the band would shorten the program, leave out some of the slower songs, play the hits, and get out of town." (page 143 of the original edition). To the point of this thread, though, he goes on to write, "It was probably at Jack Riley's insistence that the program stayed in its long form".

I'd say that anyone who believes that the fact that The Beach Boys were not constantly bombarded  by requests for the oldies, or that large elements of their audiences were not indifferent to their newer material needs to sit down and read The Beach Boys In Concert book where this is all spelled out meticulously in real time. The views are not anecdotal or from a random bootleg. They are the descriptions and views of writers and fans and musicians who were there, and who logged these impressions not in retrospect but at the time. I had to actually edit down that element of the book because Ian had gathered so many reviews stating this phenomena that it became redundant. The Beach Boys were a unique case in that they had struggled to shed themselves of the squareness of their early image, which they steadily and incrementally did. But what happened was much of their audience pivoted back to re-falling in love with the oldies before the group had really sold the world that the new stuff was just as important as the old stuff. The Stones and other groups had no such problems. People weren't screaming for Get Off My Cloud and Not Fade Away at '73 Stones shows. They were wanting to hear the material from the last few LPs. The Beach Boys got bombarded, blindsided even. They woke up to a growing oldies demanding audience that dwarfed the modest one they had built who loved their newer songs. I don't think you can minimize the problem that created for those in the band that wanted to grow creatively.

I attended many concerts during this era, and I would like to thank c-man and Jon for setting the record straight, despite Guitarfool's unfortunate attempts to minimize what the band was experiencing.

My unfortunate attempts? I was going on what two fellow posters who saw multiple shows remembered from their own experiences, which were different than yours. That's my fault for pointing that out?

Please.

Oh, and did you read anything else I wrote in this thread and care to discuss the topic at hand or is this just an unfortunate attempt to distract from the good discussion happening here?

[guitarfool2002]

I would say that Rieley was onto something big. For one, getting the Wilsons in the forefront of the band's original music was *huge* and needed. There was so much they could offer, but as seen in Rieley's comments, there was also some resistance from within the band.

Brian seems anything but in the forefront of the band's music during the Rieley era. I don't blame Jack. I'm sure he would have liked Brian to contribute more, but all Brian really contributed to the cause was ADITLOAT, Funky Pretty, and Mt Vernon (which ironically would have included oldies if Brian had completed his vision). I just find it a little weird when I read about Jack and his support of the Wilsons (which I don't doubt) and then listen to the records and hear less Brian and Dennis.

If you read through Jack's posts at the link above, he addresses some of this specifically. See what he said about Student Demonstration Time making it onto the album and how Carl wanted to sequence it.

[Custom Machine]

In defense of Mike-Bruce-Al, they shouldn't be forced to be something that they're not. 

Jack Rieley's perspective in his 1996 posts on the old Pet Sounds mailing list are essential reading in order to best understand Beach Boys history during that era. It's also important to understand that one aspect of the dynamic was those who were into drugs (perceived as "the hipsters") - Jack and the Wilsons, vs those who were against them (perceived as "the squares") - Mike, Al, and Bruce.

Mike's real talent and the tragedy of his egomania are not mutually exclusive.

Well said.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

I don't think Mike's mi-remembering anything...David Leaf (while also mentioning that some of that era's audiences were great in terms of appreciating the newer material) reported the exact same thing in respect to some audiences, in his book back in '78, and even related that there were "some depressing nights when their cries for 'Help Me Rhonda' drowned out the applause for 'Caroline No'", and "On the nights when the rowdies disrupted the show, the band would shorten the program, leave out some of the slower songs, play the hits, and get out of town." (page 143 of the original edition). To the point of this thread, though, he goes on to write, "It was probably at Jack Riley's insistence that the program stayed in its long form".

I'd say that anyone who believes that the fact that The Beach Boys were not constantly bombarded  by requests for the oldies, or that large elements of their audiences were not indifferent to their newer material needs to sit down and read The Beach Boys In Concert book where this is all spelled out meticulously in real time. The views are not anecdotal or from a random bootleg. They are the descriptions and views of writers and fans and musicians who were there, and who logged these impressions not in retrospect but at the time. I had to actually edit down that element of the book because Ian had gathered so many reviews stating this phenomena that it became redundant. The Beach Boys were a unique case in that they had struggled to shed themselves of the squareness of their early image, which they steadily and incrementally did. But what happened was much of their audience pivoted back to re-falling in love with the oldies before the group had really sold the world that the new stuff was just as important as the old stuff. The Stones and other groups had no such problems. People weren't screaming for Get Off My Cloud and Not Fade Away at '73 Stones shows. They were wanting to hear the material from the last few LPs. The Beach Boys got bombarded, blindsided even. They woke up to a growing oldies demanding audience that dwarfed the modest one they had built who loved their newer songs. I don't think you can minimize the problem that created for those in the band that wanted to grow creatively.

I attended many concerts during this era, and I would like to thank c-man and Jon for setting the record straight, despite Guitarfool's unfortunate attempts to minimize what the band was experiencing.

My unfortunate attempts? I was going on what two fellow posters who saw multiple shows remembered from their own experiences, which were different than yours. That's my fault for pointing that out?

Please.

Oh, and did you read anything else I wrote in this thread and care to discuss the topic at hand or is this just an unfortunate attempt to distract from the good discussion happening here?

GF, DLTBGYD!! As if it would. Not that you need any back up but I had the same thoughts about his post which seemed he was hell bent on making you look like you had no idea what you were talking about when in reality you've most likely forgotten more than he's ever known. 

[guitarfool2002]

I've seen it before. Heck, I even hinted at it in one of my posts above. Jack Rieley is a lightening rod in some circles because some circles don't like what he had to say, and don't wish to have his version of events on the table especially if they contradict whatever narrative is being promoted elsewhere. So Jack gets trashed and sometimes those who may have read what he said and put more stock in that than other versions end up in the firing line too. When it starts cutting too close to the bone, it's happened before where distractions are attempted to derail from the discussion.

Whether or not that was the case here, it was an unnecessary cheap shot to take and it won't stand. Especially since I've been posting a lot in this topic and having good discussions with others.

Let's get down to brass tacks. If what Jack said did not cast doubts on Mike's narratives, and show Mike in what some would call an unfavorable light, these distractions would not show up.

Whatever issues Jack had, if we are talking about the music and moving the band forward to get them the respect they deserved, Jack had the Wilsons'  back. And he wanted to see their best interests protected, even when their bandmates were talking sh*t about them.

[guitarfool2002]

>>>>Subject: 'Til I Die
From: Jack Rieley 
To: Beach Boys list (pet-sounds@lists.primenet.com)
Date: Oct 13 1996 - 9:52am

Mike,

Near the end of recording of the Surfs Up album, in a parking lot off 
Sunset Boulevard where Love, Jardine and Johnston requested that I 
join them at some awful vegetarian restaurant, following a meal that 
they raved about and I detested, after they had complained with 
particularly venomous fervor about the brothers Wilson, Love took me 
aside, stared furiously at me, curled his lip and snorted nastily, 
"Long after you are no longer part of the Beach Boys, I will be 
writing songs with Brian, and don't you ever forget that." He stabbed 
the air to emphasize "don't", "you", "ever" and "forget." That wasn't 
all. I..." he exclaimed, "I AM the Beach Boys!"

Love didn't have much good to say about 'Til I Die, Tree, Long 
Promise Road or Feel Flows. They were depressing. They were downers. 
They were too ethereal. They were trivial. He accepted the importance 
of Surfs Up in a commercial sense, but derided its artistic merit. He 
hated Burlesque more than anything, particularly because its lyric is 
a about a stripper and even more pointedly because of the last line 
of that lyric. Fascinating, I thought, considering the man's own 
private life, that he was so adamant about family values on Beach 
Boys songs.

Burlesque was Brian at his most passionate, most playful, most 
daring, and it would have made a really cool track on the album. But 
Love killed it.<<<<


Worth noting that the songs from this era which are on many if not most fans'  favorite lists are the songs Mike was critical of.

I believe Jack's version of events. But it stands out as one example of what was happening inside this band at this time when songs which are now regarded as among the best in the band's catalog were being criticized by the guy who offered Student Demonstration Time instead.

[CenturyDeprived]

>>>>Subject: 'Til I Die
From: Jack Rieley
To: Beach Boys list (pet-sounds@lists.primenet.com)
Date: Oct 13 1996 - 9:52am

Mike,

Near the end of recording of the Surfs Up album, in a parking lot off
Sunset Boulevard where Love, Jardine and Johnston requested that I
join them at some awful vegetarian restaurant, following a meal that
they raved about and I detested, after they had complained with
particularly venomous fervor about the brothers Wilson, Love took me
aside, stared furiously at me, curled his lip and snorted nastily,
"Long after you are no longer part of the Beach Boys, I will be
writing songs with Brian, and don't you ever forget that." He stabbed
the air to emphasize "don't", "you", "ever" and "forget." That wasn't
all. I..." he exclaimed, "I AM the Beach Boys!"

Love didn't have much good to say about 'Til I Die, Tree, Long
Promise Road or Feel Flows. They were depressing. They were downers.
They were too ethereal. They were trivial. He accepted the importance
of Surfs Up in a commercial sense, but derided its artistic merit. He
hated Burlesque more than anything, particularly because its lyric is
a about a stripper and even more pointedly because of the last line
of that lyric. Fascinating, I thought, considering the man's own
private life, that he was so adamant about family values on Beach
Boys songs.

Burlesque was Brian at his most passionate, most playful, most
daring, and it would have made a really cool track on the album. But
Love killed it.<<<<


Worth noting that the songs from this era which are on many if not most fans'  favorite lists are the songs Mike was critical of.

I believe Jack's version of events. But it stands out as one example of what was happening inside this band at this time when songs which are now regarded as among the best in the band's catalog were being criticized by the guy who offered Student Demonstration Time instead.

Right. And I want to know why Mike's never talked about his attempt to force a "happy" and "uplifting" lyrical theme on "Til I Die"... and why the (supposedly recorded and existing?) alternate version with those crappy happy Mike lyrics has never been released as a bonus track on any compilation.

Probably because the album version of that song has become regarded as one of THE signature artistic statements in the band's catalog, and actually acknowledging those attempts to change (however well-intended) Brian's vision would not fit in neatly with the narrative that Mike has tried to push over the years.

[SMiLE Brian]

Another, point on how Al has changed for the better. Wasn’t he the champion for deep cuts on the c50 and 1993 tour? Guy raves about 1970s BBS these days...

[Lee Marshall]

I have to admit that I was catching the Beach Boys in TORONTO ['71-'76] where they have always been popular and where Brian remains ever-so.  CHUM FM was playing l.p. tracks from Surf's Up, Carl and the Passions/So Tough and Holland...so the NEW music was getting righteous exposure.  Maybe out in the hinterland shows the folks were clamoring for the oldies but Torontonians were perhaps a tad more sophisticated.  Sorry Jon...but I stand behind my reporting.

Of course by the early 80s I was MC'ing many of the shows I attended.  By then they were under the influence of 'love'.