The Smiley Smile Message Board

There's a great interview with Jack Rieley in the latest Record Collector magazine, which reinforces my own personal belief that he was a fantastically positive influence on the group.

The opening section begins: "[Rieley] penned extraordinary songs with all three Wilson brothers; his dense, evocative and poetic lyricism fuelled their robust creativity via a raft of the band's most impressive songs".

Of CATP Rieley says: "It didn't sell, but it's a triumph artistically. Dennis came up with two really good songs; Cuddle Up is wonderful".

Feel Flows: "There's a point in the song, you hear a synth and then there's a "swoosh" sound.... a number of girls told Carl and I that was the closet they'd heard to the sound that would go with an orgasm".

You Need A Mess Of Help: "That's my favourite".

On Bruce Johnston: "...the Wilsons made it clear that they didn't feel comfortable with Bruce Johnston and asked me to let him go. Bruce is a fabulous composer and an outstanding singer but, back then, he didn't fit in with the layered wonder The Beach Boys were becoming". 

exactly. that's a great way to place the album.


erm... which point? [time wise]  :angel:

I don't know. If only I had a girl around to help me figure out which bit he means...

Well, the brittle guitar and noodling flute solo does something to me, not sure what though.  ;D

if you're not feeling truly amazing, it wasn't an orgasm

What's the other really good song Dennis came up with?

(Yes, I went there.)

Oh no you didn't! Well you did actually.

Disney Boy 1985 - Jack went from radio DJ, who appears to have interviewed Brian, Mike and Bruce in 1970, (from bellagio) and ends up doing PR, then Manager (songwriter?)  Sound familiar?  

And, I'd be hard pressed to believe one who "inflated" his résume.  I find it a character flaw. Sorry, if that is harsh.

While I enjoyed his obvious affectionate regard for Dennis on the flasher interview for the movie, Forever, I'm not sure that there is credibility with the "firing" scenario. (Johnston) Carl and Dennis aren't here to support that comment.  If there were factions among the band, Jack may have used the discord to his advantage, to create a new power balance. It is the old "new broom sweeps clean" business model.

And, I'm not impressed that it was not a matter of "too many chefs in the kitchen."  Or, that during that era, the Boys were not going in a more progressive direction, anyway, and that he was in the "right place at the right time." They had to have been influenced by witnessing Prague Spring, in 1968, or  with Carl's Conscientious Objector status, and were growing intellectually, as I think nothing "schools" a person as much as travel.  It gives one, what a book or professor, never can.  JMHO

Even though Jack admits that CATP didn't do well charting, it IS a true treasure, I agree with him, that has grown with appreciation for it's artfulness.  (I just lump it with Holland, anyway, as a sort of double LP - always have! )  I do also agree that even stuff that doesn't chart can grow inexorably into greatness.

Oh you 'Make It Good'-doubters. It's a poetic gem!

 Is this new issue the one with the Mike Love wannabe on the cover?

I suggest you read the interview first, then comment. Although exactly what is wrong with going from being a radio DJ to a manager, as long as the results are positive (which they were)? You got something against DJ's? Are they forbidden from career advancement?

"And, I'd be hard pressed to believe one who "inflated" his résume.  I find it a character flaw. Sorry, if that is harsh." What on earth is that a response too? And why would I care if you thought Rieley "inflated" his resume?

Furthermore, assuming you're right and the band were so wimpy Rieley could do whatever he liked - including sack members of the band - and thus it was Rieley who was solely behind Johnston being booted out, with the aim being to balance the group in favour of the Wilson brothers... erm, well: GOOD! That's a good thing. He saw that the Wilson brothers were by far the most talented members of the group and acted accordingly. How is that a bad thing? I find it so odd that Rieley's detractors always site as negative things which are actually positives...

But again, read the interview (in which he's nice about Mike and Al btw) and then comment.

Disney Boy 1985 - I stood back and looked at the whole picture, not picking a faction, but just looking at the situation. I think. You seem to have chosen, by saying that it was a "good thing" - and I've read many places where it was discovered that the resume was inflated ( which is easily discoverable these days online.)  Neither of us was there, (I wasn't for sure.) In the end, Johnston got a Grammy, and sang on most of the album work anyway.  It seemed to work for him, and they asked him to return. It is common in business for a new boss, to get rid of anyone more knowledgeable than them.  Johnston had produced stuff since he was in his teens.  Bosses always want to be the smartest. Sometimes, they aren't.

No one suggested a "glass ceiling" for DJ's.  

But, I feel that what happened to the Boys, was less about Jack, and more about the band members, growing from their collective work and other influences.  Having seen them, in concert, throughout that era, in college and grad school, and listening to all of their work, and seeing their personal growth, makes me think that growing into the job, around 10 years into their careers gave them new creative confidence.  

I'd only fault him if he hadn't gotten good results. He did, so who cares if he was full of sh*t in terms of credentials? I don't see what it really has to do with the music, anyway.

The question really is, would you really want to hire someone who lies about their credentials? While things certainly turned out OK in the short term, had he been inept, it could have been an entirely different story. Had I been Carl and found that out, I would have fired him on the spot.

In terms of Bruce, Jon and I discussed this in the Beach Boys In Concert book.  His leaving in 1972 is a thorny issue.  We presented quotes from all the interested parties in the intro to that year and you can see that there was clearly some strong feelings at the time-for example Dennis commented that Bruce was writing solo material and they were a band.  I also included an excerpt from a very telling NME interview in the 1967 chapter-where Bruce explains (in June 67) that he never socializes with the group and despite being in the band for two years didn't really have much of a relationship with them-so it is clear that he was never really chummy with anyone in the band (even in the early days), whereas Carl was really tight (at least for a while) with Blondie and Ricky.

Most people who are highly successful will lie, cheat and steal to attain their position, and, as noted, once in his position he did a pretty good job. He saw what needed fixing, and fixed it.
They were directionless, throwing every style and genre against the wall. It took Reilly to come and channel all of this into something marketable and relevant.

And if there's one band who really need(ed) a strong, decisive manager, it's this one.

Cometh the hour, cometh the man with the fake resume.

(Stephen Newcombe) - many can "fake it till they make it." 

Many get away with it. 

I'd rather not be under the scalpel of a "poser" surgeon.   ;)

 How many people that fall under your definition of "highly successful" do you actually know?  Not know of, but know? Now, do many highly successful people cheat and lie?  Yes, as do many woefully unsuccessful people. But most?  No, they don't, or they are not successful for any length of time.

As someone who who actually hires attorneys for my law firm based upon their resumes, if one of my candidates included an entry that they had won the Pulitzer Prize while at NBC News when they did not (in fact, the truth was apparently that Rieley never even worked at NBC News), they would in fact be terminated, no matter how "successful" the liar turned out to be for my firm. Believe it or not, the credibility of our highly successful firm is the bottom line. That is how we have stayed successful for nearly 100 years.

Thing is, the successful liars sound just like you do up there --  complete with decelerations of experience and appeals to authority!

I can say this because I have a Peabody Award. Alright, some of my friends do. That just goes to show you how discerning the Peabody people are.

This town apparently runs on bullshit. Obviously a gifted gabber will do well in showbiz -- perhaps not at Wilford Brimley's law firm.

well, I have no idea what you're trying to say in this post--but you're absolutely hilarious in the Mike Love thread.

That world class liars without degrees do well in showbiz as opposed to law firms?

That liars present credentials to appeal to authority like you did to paper over any cracks?

Ruthless bastards can do quite well for themselves. Let's not pretend they only exist in movies.
Anyway! I'm not THAT interested in comparing first hand knowledge of success or bastardry.

Just one bastard interests me here! Rieley. An amusing character, I can see why he got on for a time with some of them. And why he had to go. But the work he helped coax them into doing doesn't seem too shabby in 2013, does it?

So what sort of business did he get into in the ensuing decades? Does the interview go into any of that...

" He  opened  a  sex  shop  in  Yokohama, pushed  junk in
Beirut,  pimped  in  Panama.  During   World  War   II  he
shifted into high, took over a dairy  in Holland  and cut
the  butter  with  used  axle  grease, cornered  the K.Y.
market in North Africa, and finally hit the  jackpot with
slunks.  He  prospered  and  proliferated,   flooding  the
world  with  cut  medicines  and cheap  counterfeit goods
of every variety. Adulterated  shark repellent,  cut anti-
biotics,  condemned  parachutes,  stale   anti-venom,  in-
active serums and vaccines, leaking lifeboats."
- Naked Lunch

Whatever, this is starting to derail and it shouldn't get personal with another good poster.  The point is Rieley told a whopper and when found out he had to go (or that is the excuse they used, which was a valid one). And you were still hilarious in the Mike Love thread.

estimating how many successful liars there are out there in ANY field based upon how many get caught would be questionable logic.....

We need to compile a big list of PEOPLE THE BEACH BOYS FIRED. It would be epic. Filled with footnotes. Cousins, brothers, fathers, neighbors, strangers, friends, family... you! You're OUT!

Paging Steve Gains!!!!!

Now that would be a book I would read over and over and over......

In fact, when the Peabody lie (and it wasn't the only one) was uncovered and presented to the band, Jack managed to bluff out the situation and the person who got fired was the Brother employee who was asked to look into his background. Nice, huh ?

The guys had already offered Bruce's spot to Billy Hinsche and one of The Cowsills prior to Jack joining. Clearly Bruce being pushed out was not solely down to Rieley's doing.

And BTW, the quote from Dennis criticizing Bruce for writing solo based material over more band orientated stuff is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Those who tell whoppers on a resume, tend to act in conformity with that character trait.  And, Southbay is correct that it should not get personal.  None of this discussion should ever get personal. 

Poser McBluff! 

Here's to Friday  :beer

Whatever, I like Rieley. He was heavily involved in getting Brian to agree to release "Surf's Up" and that is good enough for me. I think we can all agree that he should be thanked for that.

And for "Feel Flows" and "The Trader" and "Sail On, Sailor" and "Funky Pretty" and helping them figure out that they could be looked at as artists. It's not a coincidence that their first album after his hiring, Surf's Up, was their most popular in years.

Fantastic lyricist, that's all that really needs to be said.

As for Bruce, he never fit in with The Beach Boys, it's a damn shame he ever returned.

Con men, raconteurs, glad-handers as Rock and Roll band managers?  Perish the thought!

The dude deserves his props.  Personally even at the time I thought the "Student Demonstration Time" kind of  stuff was a little over the top, but there is no question he helped direct the guys towards relevance and being noticed after the commercial disaster of "Sunflower" (an overall much better album than "Surf's Up" but nowhere near in terms of press and sales).  No way to know, but it's not hard to imagine the BBs ceasing to be without him.

As for Bruce, not being able to fit into "the layered wonder" sounds like grounds for dismissal to me.

I completely lied to get what has been the best and most valuable job i’ve ever had (this is “entertainment” related, not something like law, or, Jesus, medicine). I made up credentials, i had a friend pose as a former boss, etc. I did it because i was positive i would be great for the job and that the only way i could prove to the small company that i could be great was by getting a foot in, which was only possible with the illusion that i was “qualified.” And i was right. I kept moving up and eventually became my boss’ “right hand man.” He loved and valued the work i did and appreciated me as an employee. It was very evident. And i learned a great deal at that job, invaluable experience. It was kind of like going to college free. And years later, while still at the job, i told my boss about lying to get the job. He laughed and said “well, i guess i’m glad you did.”

Yeah, I don't see what's wrong with stretching the truth to get a job, as long as you're not hiding criminal activity and nobody gets hurt because of it, I don't see how that's much of a problem. 

Managing one of the most famous bands in the world could not have been an easy job to get but it seems like Jack did everything he could to get it and from what I can tell, he did a pretty good job.  He was probably at least Brian's best asset during the '71-73 period.

Disney Boy (1985), thanks for the heads up; I'll try to get a hold of the interview.

I thought I read years ago in some book, and correct me if I'm mis-remembering, but I thought Rieley was fired after Holland ultimately turned into a financial debacle. Eventually, Carl was made aware of the outrageous costs in recording Holland with the traveling expenses, the rent paid for houses they lived in, the assembling and dissembling of the studio, and after all of that, the album had to be finished back in the states. Firing Rieley because of that - $$$$$$$$$ - is more in line with The Beach Boys' practices than the character issue. I mean, take a close look at the character(s) in The Beach Boys.... :o.

Hite Morgan: Nice singing boys, but do you guys have any original material?

Dennis: Yes, we've got a song about surfing

Yes, Dennis should have been kicked out of the band on the spot the lying little sh*t.

And then you'd have deprived us of CATP, Holland, Mt Vernon & Fairway, In Concert, Ricky and Blondie and the groups most satisfying period as a live band. Fortunately, Carl and the Boys weren't so nauseatingly noble and were presumably prepared to overlook Rieley's alleged flaws. Or perhaps they didn't give a sh*t, and rightly so, because he got incredible results for the band and drastically improved their critical and commercial standing.
 

Beach Boys Logic:

Jack Reiley is a fraud? Get rid of him!
proceeds to hire Mike Love's brother

Whatever the outcome, the "flaws" are not "alleged", they are very real: JFR claimed to have worked in the Puerto Rico bureau of NBC. They didn't have one back then, nor do the company have any record of him working for them in any capacity whatsoever. He claimed to have won a Peabody Award. He didn't. Them's not allegations, them,s facts.

No, I think you're wrong - Rieley clearly played a big part in their early-'70's creative turnabout and to try to claim otherwise is just bizarre.

Re Johnston's Grammy: "In the end, Johnston got a Grammy". Yes he did, correct. He won it for an appalling lump of Barry Manilow schmaltz. Seriously, you rate I Write The Songs above Long Promised Road, Feel Flows, Trader and Funky Pretty just because it won a Grammy? If so, Jesus Wept... If not, what exactly is your point?

If your point is that Johnston had talent and therefore shouldn't have gone, well yes he did have talent, as Rieley himself clearly says in the new interview. But did that talent fit in with the group's evolving image at the time? Rieley thought not, and clearly key sections of the group felt the same. For a hack former-DJ he sure must have damn good persuasive talents if he convinced the group to boot out Bruce against their wishes! Still, I personally am glad he/they did - CATP with Endless Harmony on it?? No thanks!

The problem with these arguments people give against Rieley is that they always seem to rest on the Beach Boys (a band containing Dennis Wilson and Mike Love) being a bunch of frightened kittens who did anything and everything Rileey told them too. Of course this is nonsense! Johnston left the group because members of the band wanted him out. Blondie and Ricky joined the group because members of the band wanted them in. They made an album in Holland because members of the group wanted to do so. Did Rieley play a part in all of the above? Of course, and the creative results were wonderful.

Do I think CATP is better than Sunflower? No. But another Sunflower would've almost certainly killed the group off. Seriously, you think the record company would have put up with another album missing the Top 150? Rieley was a Godsend and it just plain baffles me the resentment some fans feel towards him because... because what? Because he told fibs on his CV 40 years ago? Gee, what a monster!

In fact, hey, you know what, actually I'm sold! I wish Marcella, Steamboat, Trader, etc. never existed just so we and the group could all have been spared this hateful creature's rotten influence... I'm going to burn my vinyl copy of Holland right now!    

But so what? This is Rock and Roll, not HSBC. Lying about a Peabody Award? It ain't exactly Alan Klein is it.

Personally I don't give a sh*t if he told him he'd shagged Marilyn Monroe and been to the moon - honestly, what does it matter? At least three of the people he told these lies too regularly took illegal drugs (the production and distribution of which caused/causes untold misery and death across the globe)  - which do you think the authorities would say was the lesser crime?

I just do not understand why, when faced with Surf's Up, CATP, Holland, In Concert and a complete career/reputation turnaround, we're supposed to give two shits about a dishonest CV....????

WHO CARES? WHY DO YOU CARE?

I care because I have a degree of integrity: call me old-fashioned, but I'm not sure I'd warm to the idea of a proven liar directing my day-to-day affairs and guiding my long-term prospects.

And... looking at it dispassionately, the career turnaround wasn't that great, was it ? Albums that hit #29, #50, #36 and #25... nothing even close to a Top 40 single...  a financial black hole called Holland. And what kind of hip and happening manager agrees to have the new album - crucial in maintaining and increasing the momentum generated by Surf's Up - released in tandem with a six-year-old catalog item ?

It's time for you to meditate...

Why? For successfully arguing my point?

There's a fine line between arguing and ranting...

So would you rather the group had never hired him at all?

It's called being passionate about what I believe in, in particular when it comes to my favourite band. If you disagree with anything I've said, argue back. Don't just be flippant, that's pointless, lazy and lame.

Publicist, yes... lyricist, yes... manager, no.

Rieley was a godsend in turning their image around and a valued collaborator and I would have kept him on in that capacity reguardless, but there's no way I would have allowed him to handle my finances once his lies came out.*





*Yeah, Steve Love, I know.

I think your arguments about Rieley are lacking in nuance, and you are being too quick to dismiss anything that might complicate your view of him as false allegations, or, when you can no longer argue this, irrelevant.

Even though I think that the Rieley era albums are weaker on the whole than any of their studio albums betweenSurfet Girl and Sunflower.  Is that Rieley's fault?  No, I think it's pretty clearly because of Brian's declining involvement in the band, which was starting well before Rieley's arrival.  Indeed, the fact that the albums are as good as they are is kind of remarkable.  But I don't think Rieley deserves full credit either for this or for their change in sales.  Remember, it was VDP who suggested adding "Surf's Up" to that album and who came to the rescue with "Sail On, Sailor" when Warner didn't want to release Holland.  That's not to say that Rieley deserves no credit, but that there is more going on at this time than Rieley just coming to the band's rescue.

Regarding his inflated CV, I cannot agree with you that it doesn't matter.  Even if I shared the view that Rieley's presence did great things for the band artistically, the fact that his lying on the CV and later bluffing that got another (honest) employee fired is unethical, plain and simple.  The fact that he has been so loose with facts in the past also means we should perhaps take his account of things with a grain of salt.

Very good answer. However, as we can't rewrite history and as he was their publicist/lyricist/manager, would you say that the creative and commercial results of his being their publicist and lyricist/co-songwriter compensated for his failings as a manager? Was it worth it, in terms of what we have as a result of his period with the band?

Viewed overall... no, because his actions made it impossible for him to stay and complete his gameplan (if indeed he had one). Hoist by his own petard.

Tell you what, read the interview, then see what you think. If you've already decided anything he says cannot be trusted then the interview probably won't change your mind - but then of course you'd just be being as stubborn in your opinion as you say I am, only with the opposite viewpoint.

Personally, I don't think the Rieley-era albums are weak, I certainly don't think they're considerably weaker than previous albums. Perhaps that's really what it comes down too: those who really love the early '70's albums are generally going to be more favorable towards Rieley than those who don't particularly rate them. Certainly looking back through the previous posts and posters on this thread that theory holds water.

I don't want to bash Bruce or his output, but there are quotes from Dennis and Mike around the time Bruce left that imply they weren't too upset. Of course, he does still appear on Holland. And you're right, there had been an attempt to replace him with Billy Hinsche earlier (at Carl's instigation?).

Whatever the commerciality of the Rieley era, I treasure the albums as the last time the band created solidly good music, as opposed to the Brian-led Love You and the piecemeal stuff of LA.

Wow, well I guess I don't agree with you there Andrew. Short of Rieley murdering someone, I value his songwriting contributions to the band too highly to think his other actions - no matter how questionable - weren't worth the results. He may well have been hoist by his own petard - he also co-wrote Trader. And hell, within a few years we'd have Steve Love and Eugene Landy and Brian's Back etc. - the horror! The horror! Whatever the circumstances of Rieley's departure, it was all downhill once he left... Whether that was because of his absence or just a coincidence, I don't really see how it can be denied. 

Billy Hinsche incidentally is credited in Record Collector as having arranged the interview.
 

My take on the guy...

He did a good job with their image and his lyrics (while nonsensical) were ambitious and they suited the music. He was a good influence on them in many ways.

However, as a manager there were definite faults...

CATP is a mess as an album. Now before anyone rushes to write a vitriolic reply, I like several of the songs on this LP. But it's not really an album. It's 2 Brian songs, 2 TM songs (albeit one co-written by Brian), 2 Dennis songs and 2 Flame songs. Blondie has talked about how it was recorded in very piecemeal fashion and it shows on the record. This wasn't a well managed set of sessions.

And Holland was a debacle. The album itself is excellent but if We Got Love had been included ahead of Sail on Sailor then that would apply a lot less. Plus they had to finish it off at home. They were right to fire him after this.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Holland came out at the very beginning of 1973 (January), whereas Rieley was still their manager when In Concert was released later in the year, therefore he wasn't sacked immediately after the Holland trip. If I'm wrong correct me.

Also, while CATP is certainly not a very well-rounded album - Rieley himself calls it a "doorstop" (read the interview!) - Holland is an excellent album. Sail On Sailor is a great song, yes, but so is Trader. And California. And Steamboat. And Funky Pretty. And Leaving This Town. And - if we're going to talk unreleased tracks - Carry Me Home.

I'd say you've somewhat reinforced my earlier argument that those who aren't particularly passionate about the early '70's albums don't value Rieley as highly as those who love 'em.

To get back to that "swoosh" sound that apparently resembles the sound of an orgasm - I don't doubt this point as I was once told it does seem to sound like an overwhelming swooooosh, I mean according to a particular woman... 
Anyway, I'm trailing off here...  The only "swoosh" sound I can hear is the one that actually starts the song itself before the piano starts and then there IS another smaller one (could have at least gone for a multiple here really, don't you think?) beginning around 2:43 and ending at 2:46.
These are the only ones that I would think mister Reiley could be thinking of unless of course he's just making it all up? 

Can those arguing against Jack Rieley explain why you have a negative opinion of him and why you point out  'integrity' when you see this scoundrel Jack Rieley perhaps saved the band yet the utterly incompetant Steve Love got hired through nepotism to occupy the very same shoes only a few years later?

Jack has results to show for and he is by far the best remembered manager, both for his faked credentials and the resulting brilliance of the band under his management.

Steve Love cannot hold a candle to any of this. He was simply Mike's yes man. Look how that turned out.

Integrity has never been the name of this band so arguing for a manager with integrity is a rather futile argument imo.
I respect Jack for what he did to this group. I would probably not be a fan without the 1971-1974 material.

CATP - is sort of an "addendum" to Holland, notwithstanding the release dates.  I find it wholly and inextricably connected to Holland as one work.  But, Jack's tenure needs to be taken "in context" with the block-building which preceded it.  Around the time of the Eye magazine article and cover, fm radio was overtaking the scene in the colleges, and just generally.

People were ripping out the old AM radios in cars, in favor of AM-FM, to get this music.  It was a changing music industry delivery model.  Jack seems to have come on board, however he did, riding that fm wave, that was already in the mix.

To elevate Jack's involvement, and credit him, as is going on, post the losses of Carl and Dennis, not here to enlighten the discussion, diminishes their creative contributions. Jack didn't do it by himself, in isolation.  And, the advent of the 8-track that people could get installed in their cars, made the music delightfully portable.  Holland was my first 8 track for my car.  (it is now in the time capsule of my post-grad school) I loved not being at the mercy and discretion of a DJ for what I listened to.

That era made composers out of Carl and Dennis, even if it was probably not a long term thing for either.  It has a certain endearing roughness and individuality.  Was Jack acting as a Wilson guru? I don't know. But, the era requires a hard look, both at the players, and what was going on on many levels, and not just a snapshot.  The BB's were in a growth spurt, regardless of who was promoting them.  They were in a very late 60-ish, early 70-ish mode.

It would've been fascinating to see how Jack Rieley would've handled Brian's addiction/illness/retreat in 1975-76. Would've he replaced Blondie and Ricky as permanent members and/or who would've been the drummer and guitar player live? Student demonstrations were fleeting, Endless Summer and the bicentennial were right up The Beach Boys' alley, and Dennis Wilson was planning a solo album. It's interesting to speculate how Jack would've handled those situations.

  Better than #126, #153, #68 and #151!

 

Nonsensical?

Exactly. They went from #153 to #29 in the space of one album which is an enormous leap. Sure CATP didn't sell well, but Holland by some accounts outsold Surf's Up and In Concert was their best-selling in years. I'd say that's a pretty solid turnaround.

Anyway, how about we keep the thread on topic and talk about the interview itself.

Disney Boy 1985 - I think it might be important to remember with this era, that Sail on Sailor was released twice, first in 1973, then in 1975, and at a time when Chicago collaboration was becoming more important with Wishin' You Were Here (recorded in 1974) which was a Number One single, in December of 1974. 

There is stuff that is overlapping in terms of time. The BB in Concert handles the live versions of six songs from CATP/Holland work.  Overall I think is still their best live work. It is unhurried, dramatic and artfully superior interpretations of Leaving This Town, The Trader, Funky Pretty, Marcella (the single prior to SOS) and the non-included We Got Love, and of course, Sail on Sailor.  And, the best Don't Worry Baby, ever.

But, reminds me of the way Brian does his live shows; half themed work, half classics.  Except, Brian does the themed work together, and then the classics pre and post "themed work" sets. 

And, as is the combo of 1972 work, the running order isn't done as a live show, but has a very life feel to it.  It never comes out of the old 6-pack. (CD)

In Concert maybe did sell well but its Gold status was more to do with it being a double album and package sold counting as 2 units. In other words it only needed to sell 250,000 units to achieve Gold status while Holland would have needed to sell 500,000.

Let's put it like this, I hate "lies, and the lying liars that tell them", to quote a book title. I don't care what results he was able to attain. You are looking at this in hindsight, so it is fine to say what you posted here. What if he had been a guy like Manson? Also, if he lied about his credentials, what else was he capable of lying about? He could have stole money, etc. 

If you lie, you're no better than Charles Manson.

So you never lie?

Liar!

Speaking of Manson, aren't the writing credits on "Never Learn Not to Love" a lie?  >:D

I kid!  I kid!

 :angel:

I'm honest enough to admit that I lie on a regular basis. To save people's feelings, to save face, to garner pity, to manipulate. We all do.

A completely honest person would be hated and reviled.

I never said that, though, I never lied about my credentials when interviewing for jobs. You people have no scruples if you think what Jack did was OK. No matter the outcome, what he did was dishonest.

It was a dishonest way to get the job, but he did a great job once he had it; I don't see the problem here. As has been similarly said before, it's not like he was a serial killer; he simply inflated his credentials, then ran with it once getting the job.
It happens frewquently, i'm sure; then and now. while it's not "right", the results were good

I do have scruples, but they're different to yours.

Someone tells a lie to get a job in a hospital and people end up dead - not good

Someone lies about not being on the sex offenders list and gets a job with children - doesn't bear thinking about

Someone lies about credentials. Gets job with top rock act, promises results which, are to a great extent achieved - fine by me.

Never Learn Not To LLLLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEE

(http://assets.noisey.com/content-images/contentimage/no-slug/e596d7b468f8c266f0095a85f6eb1fa0.jpg)

LLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEE

That's bullcrap! Why not just tell the truth? Bet he probably thought he couldn't get hired unless he lied. Great premise to start off a working relationship; lie straight off to the people placing their trust in you.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but are you indirectly comparing Jack Rieley to Charles Manson??

Jack lied about his résumé, the Boys lied about being hippies.  I'd say they're even.

Sure. You don't need me to give examples I guess as his talent for Jabberwockian gibberish was unparallelled.  :) But they work well with the songs imo.

I am a big fan of the Jack Rieley era. I believe the best thing about Jack was making Carl the official producer, and his lyrics. Moving the studio to a barn in Holland is a great story, and may have given them some inspiration, but for all practical purposes, not a good financial move unless they decided to move there permanantly. They all seemed to enjoy it at least except for Brian and Dennis.

Western Justice is also worth mentioning. I love it!

As for what Jack would have done in the Brian is Back era, probably would have pushed for songs like California Feelin, Good Timin, Several Dennis songs, etc, over the oldies. And may have come up with better lyrics, or push Mike and Brian to improve lyrics for Love You. Also, Adult Child woudve come out and meditators fired. But nothing gets done after that since Jack joins the Wilsons in drug addiction.

Can you read? What i am saying is that when people have to lie about themselves, they often have something to hide. Just used Manson as an example.

Well, I hope you never hire a somebody like a nanny or something and lies about their credentials, since you think that way. It doesn't matter what type of work you do, you need to be honest about it and not take advantage of someone else's ignorance.

Believe me people, my favorite era is the Jack Reiley era. I have no issues with what he did to bring them back into popularity. My only issue is how went about getting their confidence. Had he been dishonest in other things, he also could have ruined them, financially and otherwise.

I'll call your it's-a-poetic-gem, and raise you a it's-better-than-most-of-POB.

Now we're playing the "what-if" game.
What if he had managed to keep Brian  sober/off drugs, healthy and creatively top-tier, produicing 2 or 3 Billboard #1's year  after year?
What if he had kept Dennis from taking the wrong path, and he was still here, peaking creatively?

Well, you have to admit that it is a lot of what we do here. What I said doesn't have to do with just Jack, it really applies to anyone and anytime.

It's not, it's just a different set of ethics. You're starting to annoy me now. I'm going to have to open a can of BergenWhiteMoustache on your sorry arse.

Yeah I can read, hence I noticed the blatant implication in what you wrote. If you skim back through the posts following your post you'll noticed a few others picked up on it also.

Anyway, here's something which happened to me recently: I was sacked from my job (for something I didn't do). I went to the local employment tribunal service and explained what had happened and they told me it had been an unfair dismissal, no doubt about it. So I'm now taking legal action against my former employers (even if I had done what they said I'd done, it would've still been an unfair sacking because they didn't follow correct employment procedures).  In the meantime, I've had to find another job, and I'm pleased to say I have managed to do so - however, obviously it wouldn't look good if I were to have said I was sacked from my previous job (regardless of whether the sacking was against employment law) and so therefore I lied in my interview and said I'd left of my own accord. Well, I've now been at my new job for a month and it's going great!

So drbeachboy... was that lie not justified? Or should I have told the truth for the sake of being holier than thou even if it'd meant I wouldn't have got the job?

"He could have ruined them..." Could have? You can't judge someone on something they didn't actually do and that didn't actually happen.

Absolutely, and anyone with any sense would do the same.

Would I lie through my teeth to provide more for my family?

Do I have to answer this?

What I would never do though, is lie to hurt or destroy someone else and their career.

If it's not hurting anyone, then it's fine by me, that's my ethical code.

Exactly. And Jack Rieley lied so that he was able to be in a position to contribute considerably towards reviving the Beach Boys career/reputation, as a direct result of which we now have Surf's Up, CATP, Holland and In Concert to enjoy and savor. Quite frankly I think we should all be eternally kissing his arse for what he did, not endlessly berating him over a few porkies... 

Yes.

But I'll miss you so much when you get your sorry ass banned. ;) Also, that is not different ethics, that is no ethics. Remind me never to hire you for a job, but I bet you'd be great selling snake oil. :)

Let's be done with this. I hate arguing over something that happened 40 years ago and like most things that we argue over, means nothing.

So what was this thread originally about?  A new interview in a magazine, you say?  Cool, cool...   ;)

There's a fine line between being 'creative with the truth' and telling outright porkies. Jack was clearly doing the latter. To be honest I don't think he needed to pad his reseme to land the job anyway, the guys were probably impressed enough just by his enthusiasm and ideas. How does working for NBC and winning a Peabody make you more qualified to manage a rock band anyway?

Mike's Beard - I agree that it is a fine line, as between the two.  How many wars have a lie as an underpinning? Or a false representation? It is just too much to find out that Ponzi schemes where people invested their life savings, and have to go back to work at 70, when you find out that the funding was an illusion.  Maybe the Internet demands more truth than the old days of typewriters and carbon paper.  

Maybe he has a gift as a motivator or coach, to people who have confidence issues, to spur them on.  That isn't a bad thing.  But, the entertainment industry had many charlatans/family/spouses who would send the actor or musician to work, and then loot the bank account.  And I'm not suggesting that Jack did that.  But the Wilsons' and the Boys were about 50/50 time wise, having old Murry and other managers, not to mention the whole "attribution" issues.  

So, now people look at the whole career which originated with many unscrupulous people in the music industry, who burned their artists, via lack of promotion (Capitol ) during the Beatles early era, or Pet Sounds being under promoted.  I guess for me, it is just another injustice.  (Thank God they stayed together to weather the storm.)  ;)

And NBC was a major network of the Big Three.  One, CBS had a record division, so cred would be big to be associated with one of the Big Three, which includes ABC/Disney.  And, behind the door, the NBC backers were big, and connected.

So, I guess that people are just sick and tired of a lifetime of liars, whether a politician, or a church, or school.  And, now, have little indulgence for them.  Especially, with our musicians.  And hindsight being 20/20, which BRI member left?  The one who really did work for one of the Big Three.  When you look back, it is a classic business move.  Broom out the guy who knows the real "industry" work.

And that doesn't detract from whatever Jack could evoke, in terms of thinking about social topics (if that was Jack) but, my thinking is that, before Jack, that the whole social consciousness raising thing was already in progress, as a result of their travel and personal experiences.  And it does seem that Parks did work a lot on Sail on Sailor, and the lyrics are more "available" or tangible than his earlier BB work.  (Sorry for the digression.)

But, I'm with Southbay, drbeachboy and the others who take the position of full disclosure.   ;)

No don't leave it here, because you haven't answered the question I directly addressed to you at the end of my last but one post!

What did Jack do to get fired as manager?

Put me in the "who cares if he lied on his resume" camp.  Did anyone actually get hurt as a result?  The Reilly years Beach Boys are awesome! 

We're I you, I'd be holding my breath and hoping my new employers don't contact my previous workplace. If they do, your ass is toast. That they (seemingly) haven't is also a cause for concern as it implies their hiring policies are a mite slapdash.

If it was me, I would have explained the situation, especially if I really felt I was let go unfairly. Sounds like you had a labor board or something backing your claim for your new employer to check. Also, I am not holier than thou, but I was brought to be honest and have integrity. With your issue and with Jack Rieley, I would have handled it differently. Others have agreed with my position while some of you haven't. Either way each will do as they see fit. One thing I like to know though, and that is why he felt he had to lie with such an elaborate story?  

Goebbels allegedly once said something along the lines of "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it". Very likely apocryphal, but the basic premise is valid.

Manson. Goebbels. Rieley.

Think about, won't you? Thank you.

Say, how about someone with the magazine give us another tidbit before I start namechecking the Kaiser?

Indeed! You should think and think very hard, but don't hurt yourself doing so.

Yes, Andrew, and shockingly and successfully employed still by some politicians in government against apathetic, uninformed citizenry. The art of propaganda.

Cue bouncy educational film music.

"YOU are the manager... what would YOU do?"

The really good liars are fairly deluded and seem to semi-believe their own lies. That really seems to help sell a lie! Probably helps keep their stories in order, too.

Goebbels or Jeffrey Archer? :D

Has worked smashingly for Fox News!

To be a really good, successful liar, it's imperative to remember WHAT you said to WHO and WHEN.

I can.  ::)

Be a successful liar or remember what you said?  ;D

On an completely unrelated note, I find it odd there is so little discussion of MIC/like WIBNTLA and such. Is the board past the point of no return where nothing makes us jump in the air and click our heels?

 :), of course.

So can we at least agree that people's sense of right and wrong is as subjective as musical taste?

And that your right is no righter than my wrong is wrong?

This thread has taught me a few things:

1. Once someone lies, everything they say is a lie. EVERYTHING. Every single word.
2. Integrity and character are very important to fans of the Beach Boys when it concerns those in the band’s inner circle, but not when it concerns the band members themselves.
3. Lying on a CV is a slippery slope that can lead to embezzlement and potentially even masterminding a murderous cult or genocide. 
4. Sail On Sailor is a great song. 

No, I won't go that far, but if you think lying is the way get through life, then go for it! :)

 3 songs come to mind right now..1) Liar Liar The Castaways  2) Lies The Knickerbockers  3) Lyin Eyes The Eagles.. Can anyone think of any others.?

1. Yes, I will think twice before believing you again.
2. Has nothing to do with The Boys. Parents taught me that.
3. Not all the time, but if you have lie to succeed, then I'd say you don't have the talent to do the job, to begin with. We all lie, no denying that, but the liar and the one being lied to need to figure out its full effect. Two liars lying to one another probably has no effect, except both never fully trusting each other. ;)
4. Indeed! Even the story teller don't like dealing with lying or sighing or dying.

Liar by Three Dog Night

another tuneless racket:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubouVj4rAlI

ooh .! 3 Dog Night thats a good one.

Queen-  Liar 
Killer-  Liar 
Beyonce and Shakira-  Beautiful Liar
Miranda Lambert-  White Liar 
Taking Back Sunday - Liar (It Takes One To Know One)
Profyle - Liar
Hunter Valentine-  Liar Liar 
Henry Rollins-  Liar 
Emilie Autumn-  Liar 
Sturm und Drang-   goshdarn Liar   
Sunnyboys-  Liar 
Adolescents - The Liar
We The Kings-  Don't Speak Liar   
Panic At The Disco-  Lying Is The Most Fun A Girl Can Have Without Taking Her Clothes Off   
Fall Out Boy-  The Patron Saint Of Liars and Fakes 
Escape The Fate-  Liars And Monsters
Never Shout Never-  Liar Liar
Florence And The Machine-   I Never Called You A Liar

PANIC AT THE DISCO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People lie on resumes because interviewers tend to be ridiculously judgmental. Hell, even if you don't lie on your resume, you probably greatly exaggerate/lie about your qualities in the interview.

Actually, I lied about that.  ;)

"When I said that I was lying I might have been lying"
                                  -Elvis Costello


By the way, nobody mentioned "Little Lies" by the Macs of Fleetwood. Woulda thought that'd be one of the first mentioned.

What if...

... the Beach Boys would have called Reilly's bluff, sacked him right away, and had subsequently found a manager who would have directed them to make albums less boring and even more successful than the SU/CATP/Holland mishmash? A manager who even would have known a good therapist that would have saved Brian from Landy? And Dennis from destroying himself?

Ah, the art of dreaming... :3d

Right and wrong are essentially meaningless social constructs, which differ from culture to culture. How on earth can you say that your ethical code is any more valid than anyone elses?

And all primates are deceitful. Natural selection, (the only real yardstick for measuring right and wrong) has deemed lying a success.

On the contrary, the Employment Tribunal contacted my former employers and advised them that it would be unwise of them to provide a negative reference whilst the case was ongoing as if I were then to go on to win my unfair dismissal case (as is likely) my former employers would then have to cough up for lost earnings. If the dismissal was unfair then so too would be the reference. And no, definitely not a slapdash HR system at my new job, it's a v professional company.

Haha yes these points have been most enlightening for me. Reading this board of late is akin to picking up a copy of the Daily Mail...

The Liar Sleeps Tonight – Tight Fit
Wichita Lying Man – Glen Campbell
Lie a Rolling Stone – Bob Dylan
Liela – Derek & The Dominoes
Liela – The Kinks
Behind Blue Lies – The Who
Liar Liar – The Kingsmen
You Make Lyin' Fun – Fleetwood Mac
Lie Lady Lie – Bob Dylan
Lie Down Sally – Eric Clapton
Blinded by the Lie – Bruce Springsteen

La-la-la-lies - The Who

I guess I kind of wrote him off as being a shady guy -- who "infiltrated the band" much like how Gene Landy did.  He did seem to give the band confidence, maybe?  A void that Brian and the band seemed to have which often got filled with various dubious characters over the years.

Logistically -- Holland was a nightmare, right?  Flying the band to Amsterdam and building a studio??  WTF??!!??  I never understood that.  A good manager would have avoided crap like that. 

He did a necessary salvage job on the band's then-floundering career, so props there. But the Amsterdam move was a fundamentally selfish one -- Rieley wanted to go there, so he invented reasons for the band to come along and finance the trip.

The way I see it, if he hadn't come along the band would have stuck with the striped shirts (or white suits… same kinda thing) and 25-minute gigs until they ended up playing the hits at Golden Weddings for $50 a night.

He helped make them relevant in the rock era, for the rock audience, and recognised that their original audience had done some growing up. The Beach Boys dipped into the psychedelia thing but didn't really move on a lot image-wise until Jack came along. I'm sure some of the older guys who post here, who dug the band from the start, would have been relieved that their favourite band was suddenly seen to be moving with the times.

I don't know if Rielly made them relevant again.  He did "believe in them" which, I'm sure helped boost their spirits.  There's certainly a more assured sound to their early Warner's records compared to the last few Capitol ones.

But it sadly didn't amount to much more.  By 1973, they completely crashed and disappeared.  The reality was this -- anyone who could get Brian out of his space ship -- to write/record new stuff -- would have a measure of success.  While we all enjoyed hearing what the other members contributed (especially Dennis) -- Brian Wilson was the secret ingredient and no one else.

How about they just state that you didn't leave of your own accord ? Telling the truth isn't a negative reference, it's being honest - which you have not.

Is any of that post actually accurate? "I don't know if Rieley made them relevant again". Yes he did, as sales for albums/attendance at concerts/critical reception demonstrate.

"By 1973 they completely crashed and disappeared". Is this the same 1973 in which they released a critically acclaimed album to respectable sales and a successful (and brilliant) live album? Oh, and played numerous sell-out gigs and concerts. In fact, by 1974 their concerts were proving so successful they won Band of the Year in Rolling Stone! Hardly crashing and disappearing...

"While we all enjoyed what the other members contributed, Brian Wilson was the secret ingredient and no one else". Pretty unfair, in particular to Carl who was the key driving force behind all their Rieley-era albums (which all sold considerably better than Brian-centric albums such as Friends and Sunflower).

Well, I guess it's simple to me - the man is a lying sack of s--t.

Now, that's an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MATTER from whether he was good or bad for the Beach Boys, or whether he was effective or ineffective, etc. But any person who would not just fudge, but out and out LIE on their resume with huge whoppers is a scumbag of the highest order. Nuff said.

sorry - I deleted this

Blimey! I'd hate to hear what you'd think of a guy who, say, released an autobiography which brutally slagged off and repeatedly lied about his own brother and cousin...

So, has anyone had a chance to read the Rieley interview? I tried reading the entire thread but all I could see was a lot of holier-than-though posturing and dick waving about lying. Everybody lies, every day, big fucking deal. Anyone who claims otherwise please google the liar paradox.

(http://scenelouisiana.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Hugh-Laurie.jpg)

1. The obvious question would be "why was he fired?"  I have never heard an interviewer respond  positively to an interviewee admitting that they were fired from their last (or any) job.  Being in litigation with Disney Boy is not going to make his former bosses al of a sudden admit "you know what? We messed up on that one. Sorry! Our bad!"  He did what he felt he had to do considering his particular situation.

Telling the truth is a good thing, but there are instances where where it may not be wise to do so.  "There are times where it's not a sin to be dishonest to certain people" a relative of mine once said.

OK guy.

Damn straight I'm accurate, Disney Boy.   :angry  I didn't say there WEREN'T improvements during this time.  In fact, my point was there WERE improvements, I specifically said that the Warner records sounded more assured than the last few Capitol records.

But it was nothing substantial enough (aka "relevancy") to warrant, a new sustainable direction.  As demonstrated by...



I'm trying to think of what the Beach Boys did that was relevant between 73 and 76 and... all I can think of is 1974's Endless Summer.   A hits compliation.  Not a new direction.  Well, perhaps a new "old" direction.  One that most fans would pinpoint as the beginning of the end of the group's "relevance" as an innovative trailblazing group.  If Rielly had been SO successful at making the band "relevant" in the preceding years, then why... you know... is this even worth arguing?   :lol


The concept of Brian being the center of the band's relevance is Beach Boys 101.  So, I'm not sure what I said exactly, that was so inaccurate.  He had the most interesting talent.  Life's unfair, but that's not my fault.  I even said "we all enjoyed the other's contributions."  So what did I miss?

The larger point I was making was that "getting Brian back" (as much as possible) would thus be a sensible goal for any Beach Boys manager.  Getting stuff out of the others was also a viable, responsible approach.  Much beyond that is getting a little Landy-esque, in my view.  But Brian was the center of the Beach Boy's universe, not the manager.  Did Rielly succeed in getting Brian back at all?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Tough job to do.

Personally, I'll take Sunflower and Friends over the Rielly-era albums... but I don't know if any of those are Brian-centric either, Mr. Accuracy.   ;D

I'm not your guy, buddy.

Paulos - you're a great poster. I'd hate to see you become alienated and not post.  I think the difference is that lying between two people is one thing (probably not good) but lying that affects a group of high profile global-impact musicians and the directions they take, and the good public perception they enjoy, or not, depends using a good captain (male or female) at the helm.  And that confers a bigger duty of candor, than upon Joe Schmo.  

People are sick and tired of liars in positions of authority, who betray the public trust.  If your friend lies to you, you can refuse to socialize with them. But, when someone is in authority with power over of the themes and "mission or vision" you expect a higher level of honesty and integrity.  

Nope, the obvious question would be "why did you lie to us in your interview ?". Maybe I'm old fashioned, maybe I was brought up too well, but if I found out someone had lied to me in such a situation, I'd think very, very hard about their continuing to work for me. Anyone prepared to lie to gain employment (or any other advantage, as per JFR) is necessarily of questionable integrity.

should have deleted your post before it, also

Personally, tho I'm still reading this thread, I think people are sick to death of this bullshit about JR being a liar and how that's OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH SO BAD. 
He fudged on his resume, he did or didn't aid the BBS in their career( dependng on whether foklks think he lied, it seems) and then he left/was fired.   
Why does EVERY FUCKING thread here have to devolve into crap posts?

By the way, it's hilarious how you wrote "big fucking deal" like a tough guy, and then you accuse everyone else of waving our "dicks". Like I said, ok guy.

I am thoroughly amazed at how many people in here who would lie to achieve their goals. Says a lot to me about the changes in society since when I grew up. Makes me wonder how many here not only lie about their talents, but whether they lie on applications regarding graduating from high school and college and past job experiences?

Get off your high horse and stop waving your dick! God....  ;)

http://www.statisticbrain.com/resume-falsification-statistics/
Percent of resumes and job applications that contain falsifications: 53%

Peabody Award-winning research!

Statistics that seem awfully made up: 90%

We know through hindsight that everything pretty much worked out OK in this instance, but being a manager for The Beach Boys, he could have taken advantage of the position, stole money, or just plain made bad decisions directing their career.  They thought they getting an experienced guy and most likely did not. This thread would be going in a whole different direction had he wound up bankrupting them due to his inexperience. As I stated earlier, this era of Beach Boys history is my favorite and I am very happy that things worked out as they did. Though, it makes you wonder looking how things turned with Steve Love managing the band a few years later.

Stiffly in the wind, I might add. ;)

Not to get off on too-much of a tangent, but this is a good point.  When people think "oh come on, everyone lies, all powerful people lie to get to the top -- they all did, they have to" it makes it ok for them to do it... so it's "fair" in their minds. The business people that actually did lie to get to the top, probably thought the same thing.  Self-fulfilling...

on this I totally agree.....and at the time, before any firings and things popping up, it was great to see the press, the concert reviews, and to buy the new music and watch it chart. totally loved that era, my favorite. so I agree with the points in your post.

How about we move on from the Jack Rieley era and concentrate on Steve Love. That stand up guy. Anybody got anything nice to say about him? I don't.

Though I don't know how much longer he would have stayed, Steve definitely hastened Blondie's departure. Maybe had he stayed, his influence on Carl & Dennis would have helped to get a 1974 album released. It could have changed the way things turned out.

Reading this thread has convicted me to come clean. My name is not really Magic Transistor Radio. And this is not my picture. The photo is actually Crispin Glover. I just thought that his face and this name would give me a better chance to become a member of this incredible board. Now I am going to move to Holland and create a master piece album about world hunger.

Writing big fucking deal makes me a tough guy? Where are you from, Pussyville?

This board, or whatever it is, has Steve Love posting quite regularly (if it is indeed him). Talks about his departure as BB manager and his dislike for his brother Mike, among other things.

http://manvsclown.wordpress.com/2006/07/21/why-i-hate-mike-love/#comment-6429

Re Points 1 and 2: you seem to have just totally ignored a lot of the points I made. Yes, from late '74 onwards things started to go backwards (in credibility if not popularity) but we weren't talking about then - you specifically said in 1973 they crashed and disappeared, which is clearly inaccurate.

Re Point 3: The reason I call Sunflower a Brian-centric album is because whenever anyone on this board dares to suggest Dennis owned Sunflower - as I have been known to do myself - they get shot down with cries of "no, no, no, Brian had the most writing credits, it's Brian's album, etc." And as for Friends, er, well, it is unarguably a Brian-centric album, as his ten (out of twelve) writing credits demonstrate.

Nice post, man. If there's one thing I hate it's self-righteousness, so glad to see at least someone is a little more down to earth and realistic about the realities of life around here...

I'm not a fan of the Blondie/Ricky era (I'm sure they're very nice people), so I don't really miss a 1974 album with them.

"Pussyville" sounds like a nice place to live in for a man. :-D

OK.

So when you say, no, I promise: not in your mouth, you mean it? Really?  :p

True.  In my mind, I've always pegged 73 as the end of that era.  Much like 1967, both years started out ok, but quickly crumbled, bringing another chapter in the saga to a close.  I see 1974 as "the result of."  The problems didn't just magically appear in 74.

Holland, which was released in January (meaning it was really a product of 1972) did OK.  But both singles (Sail On Sailor and Cal Saga) barely cracked the Top 100.  Murray died in June of 73, Rielly was out soon after.  It really all came crashing down in 73.  The In Concert album was released, but sometimes live albums get released to fill a void.  Blondie was gone by the end.

I just block 73 to 76 off as the drought/the void.  But technically it would really only be 74 and 75.

"Pussyville"? haha wow. I'm starting to think you're probably just a young kid. Which would explain why you think it's ok to lie. No problem - you'll grow up some day son!

I'm starting to think you come across as pretty arrogant.

Ditto that, Timmy. Paulo is a pretty well respected poster here.

OK, I apologize for pushing it too far. I actually do have alot of respect for the long time posters and really appreciate all of their wisdom and insight. My bad.

In a world of Allan Kleins and Peter Grants and Albert Grossmans, the Beach Boys had the freaking Captain Kangaroo of slimy managers, but people still manage to freak out about it.

OK, so I'm reading the interview, and the very first response makes the eyebrows go up about a foot. In response to being asked how he "first came to the band's attention", he stated "I did a documentary for radio called The Rise And Fall Of The Beach Boys at the beginning of the 70s". Now, I was the very first person to interview him about the BB in summer 1982, and when I asked pretty much the same question, no mention of any such doc. Has anyone here ever heard about it ? Thought not.

There are further 'problems' with some of his other answers...

In recent years, there's been a lot of 'revisionism' from the major players in the band...

I'm guessing that radio documentary only exists in his head.

The Beach Boys lied to get their career started, though. Dennis told Hite Morgan the BBs had a surfing song when there was nothing in the can! Without Dennis' fib, the BBs might never have gotten a second chance to record. They shoulda kicked Dennis' lying arse outta the band!

With the notable exception of the Holland episode (financially...not musically), I don't have a problem with Rieley's stewardship of the band. If he embellished a bit to gain his entre, so be it. Standard operating procedure in the world of business.

Somewhere's in my resume I state that I was responsible for increasing revenue by 135% in the first half of one year. Was it really 135%? No way to prove it...I only know that we were doing quite well and I was cooking. The main thing is that I needed hard numbers, so I pulled it out of my @$$. An embellishment...no more. And I will look you in the eye, hold my gaze and convince you of that fact. Bidniss.

People do whatever they have to do to get the 'magic ticket'. It's what they do with the ticket that matters.

And by the way Andrew...I also believe Jack played bass on those classic Motown recordings. Carol doesn't know what she's talking about  ;D

JFR claims the band played the Fillmore West and Howard University, DC during his tenure: unless the latter was the venue of the 1971 May Day gig, I have no record of them ever playing either.

Contrary to his claims, Bruce did play in the band alongside Blondie & Ricky: maybe only a handful of gigs, but they did share a stage.

Art director Ed Thrasher would dispute his version of how the sleeve of Surf's Up came to use "The End Of The Trail".

His version of the inclusion of "Sail On, Sailor" is totally at odds with that of Van Dyke, and as the legendary composition cassette proves, Van Dyke had rather more than "heard an early skeletal version".

Staying with VDP, he was the person who told the Reprise suits that if they called the 1971 album Surf's Up and included said track, they'd pre-sell 50,000 copies.

As has been long established, the Landlocked title was initially applied to Surf's Up, not CATP.

For those of us who haven't read or don't have access to the interview, what is his story on "Sail On, Sailor"?

And "Surf's Up" for the matter? And while we're at it, the story of "Surf's Up" getting a release in '71 is a bit convoluted. You have Rieley in the past saying that when he became manager he got Brian to agree that it was a great song that needed to be released or something like that, with Brian vacillating after that between helping out and shying away, while ultimately coming through to get the coda recorded. All Van Dyke is known to have done with it (besides writing it in 1966) was mentioning the "pre-sell 50,000 copies" thing. So I guess both of those things could have happened. Neither really contradict each other.

Briefly, Reprise rang him in Holland when the master was delivered saying it was great but VDP says you're holding back a song he's heard, so he asked Brian and eventually BW remembered and played it down the phone to him.

I was at one of those shows with Bruce, Blondie, and Ricky -- Georgia Tech in Atlanta, GA, March 30, 1972.

the 74 bob harris special has jack interviewed a lot. not sure what to make of his stories though....    :)

I've seen this 50,000 copies quote before but the 1971 tom nolan rolling stone story has van saying 150,000 copies.

You know what's dishonest?  Projecting an arrogant, bully personality on the Internet.  And yes, I don't know any of you personally, but these ridiculous know it alls more often than not do not exist in real life ; the internet affords plenty of anonymonity and makes people feel invulnerable.  Not acknowledging any kind of a slippery slope and passimg judgment on all liars (including questioning decisions other posters have made in their personal life) requires a pretty lengthy defense, and perhaps this is not the appropriate forum (for god sakes this is the beach boys we're talking about).  So much for finding interesting thoughts/info on the interview. 

It's too bad there isn't too much info on JR.  For someone who had such an intimate relationship with the band there's really not a whole lot out there on the guy (maybe I just don't know where to look?)

Wait... Are you implying Andrew doesn't exist?

+40467325127868

Choose the red/blue pill ... 2 + 2 = 5.   :smokin :smokin :smokin ???

I have never been an Internet bully, nor will I ever become one. Now, I'm not sure that this post was pointed at me, but I have an opinion and I was brought up not to lie, especially at the expense of hurting another person. Now, this Jack Reiley sh*t happened 40 plus years ago and no matter how we feel about it, it ain't gonna change what happened. If you think lying your ass off is OK, then lie until your nose grows 12 feet long. Stories like Pinocchio were made so children learn the consequences of lying. Most of us were taught that lying was the worst thing you could do. I was grounded every time that I was caught in one. We grew up in different eras. If being a Liar is your thing, then fine, but for those of us who have grown up with integrity and have known the consequences of lying, I think we have a right to express it in this topic. Thanks for reading.

You're welcome!  Maybe I need to revisit Pimochio.  It may give me the strength to muster up the integrity i will need to reveal to my children that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

I have become part of the problem here, will stop posting.  Apologies

-troll

At the risk of being banned, I will say that you are pushing for a fight. Now you are being the condescending prick. I was bringing up a point that not lying was instilled in me and many others by our parents. Our parents used many methods to get that point across with the story of Pinocchio being one of the first movies that I saw as young child. When you grow up will realize that lying has major consequences, whether it is you lying, your wife or your children. Trust is a very important thing. Never under estimate its importance. Things like children lying to parents saying they don't drink or do drugs and then die in car accidents. Do you think that parent would have let them drive if their trust wasn't violated? People have committed suicide over spouses lying to them. It goes on and on. What Jack Reiley did was nothing compared to what others have done, but with bad intentions, he could have killed their career, bankrupted them or any number of things. We all lie, did my share of it when I was younger too, but the older I get the more I realize that I hurt a few people along the way. In retrospect, I wished I hadn't put them through it. On the whole, I got nothing good from it. You live and learn.

It's not dishonest if the person really is arrogant and bullying.

I'm glad this forum isn't over-moderated, but people really should ask themselves "will anyone else ever want to read this for any reason?" before publicly posting things that NO ONE NEEDS TO READ. Most of us come on here and lurk because we are fans of the group, and we want to relax. It gets exhausting when I have to wade through page upon page of useless BS.

People who snipe back and forth on threads here (I know I have been guilty of it too) are eroding nanoseconds off of the lives of anonymous strangers. Nobody cares!

There's not much about him at all, and he seems to rarely give interviews, which is fine, his prerogative. Snag is, when he does speak, it tends to more than somewhat contradict not only what he's said - or not said - before but also established BB history (and yeah, I know, several folk here have spent considerable time and effort correcting or, more often, debunking that history, but you get my point).

As for the internet affording anonymity, yes, if that's your choice: I tend not to, because aside from my writing style being far too recognisable, I don't want anyone else credited with my shattering insight, pithy commentary and astonishing revelations.  ;D

Well you will certainly be missed.







....who are you?

Jack's recall of historical detail can certainly be questioned (as can Al's - for sure), but the wildcard here is whether interview information is recalled to fit an agenda. And if you want to dovetail that into a questionable resume / hype job some 40+ years ago, well...that's a fair cop. I just reacted the way I did because I feel there's a fair amount of self righteousness going on here. Didn't we have an earlier thread about the very same thing? And like a fish going for a lure, we tugged on that 'credibility' line for all it was worth.

And by the way, if you ever get fired...say you got 'downsized'. Twist that black mark till you have a pretzel!  ;)

Not just Jack and Al.  Mike 'forgets' he wrote Goin' to the Beach...?  Really? Then rediscovers it for release on MIC. The same track he's referred to in various interviews over the years. How many times is Brian straight with an interviewer?

I wish more folk would post under their real names. Gets rid of the anonymity probelm and perhaps makes folk think a little more before they hit the "post" button.

I used to post a ton of crap under the pseudonym Wee Helper; now I post the same ton of crap under my real name, but at least I'm accepting responsibility for that crap.

Moan over…  :D

You're right John. There is a certain irony in folk here moaning about dishonesty whilst hiding behind a pseudonym.

I'm changing my name to Ed Hemingway, John.  No Smilin', though...
Or am I lying?  ;)

I use the same name (handle) everywhere. Easy enough to look me up if the need arises. My real name is Dirk Westerfer. I stand by what I write, and own up when I am wrong.

Deleted

No moan! In a way you're correct, not-so-"wee helper!"  :lol

My only nom de plume issue is that people switch identities so often.  The mods know by the IP addresses, but the readers and posters don't.  If you take a name, then stick to it.  Even if you get some flack (yes, flak!  :lol) and that is OK as long as it isn't mean-spirited.

This is all for fun, anyway, I think. And, a great place for those of us who suffered the slings and arrows of our contemporaries, in our choice of favorite bands, back-in-the-day.  

I've learned a lot from the posters, even if I don't share the same opinions, it is a great opportunity to see young people's viewpoints and even scholarship on our guys. It is why I love to sit in on courses with young people to learn their viewpoints on the world. Fresh ideas are great!

Oregon Rider was very forthright when he changed his name, due to his change in geography.  Cool move.  

You're ok in my book, John Manning, not-so-wee-helper!  

A frostly Smiley brew for you!  :beer

My real name is Iron Horse Apples.

It surely can't be Stephen Newcombe. That's an alias if I ever heard one. ;)

I wasn't so much referring to hiding behind a pseudonym.  I meant the fact that the internet affords us the opportunity to be abrasive and rude since the consequences of acting this way in real life don't exist (and that this can become something of a "lie"). 

But, yup, hypocritical of me seeing as I fell into this very same trap.  Consider this my Smiley Smile coming out party!  A very graceful one indeed. 

Just to "close the loop" on this sub-topic with my brilliant insights  :lol -- I don't think it's fair to equate a pseudonym (or the concept of anonymity, for that matter) that a forum like this provides -- with lying to people's faces in a job interview or on a resume -- which is used to acquire employment, financial gain and setup the initial bridge of trust in a professional relationship.  Padding a resume is one thing... flat-out lying usually ends the contract.

On the Web and elsewhere in print, there's a sense of comfort and poetic licence with all "pen names" -- that is not possible and expected in our face-to-face human interactions.  But regardless, we all still call each other out for opinions that miss important facts.  So my fist of poetic licence ends where it meets someone else's face of anonymous justice.

I agree Bean bag.  

Of course using an anonymous name isn't dishonest.

I just felt in pointing out the slight irony, 'cos I knew it would make drbeachboy smile  :lol

Spread the joy folks, life's all too fleeting.

My real name doesn't sound half as cool as 'Mike's Beard". I think the only solution is to legally change my name to Mike's Beard, then people can't accuse me of hiding behind a pseudonym on the internet.

I'm changing my handle here to A. Grayham Doe.  :old

what the hell...since i'm getting old also..turn 60 later this month...i'll play along for awhile. I will change my profile to my middle name. yes, it really is my middle name. I took hell for it growing up... :)

I'll bet you did! :lol

more than anyone here would ever know... :)

That is true, but, if people are considerate and relatively respectful and tolerant, with a pen name, they will be the same, using their given name.  

Many famous authors used pen names;  Mark Twain was Samuel Clemens, George Sand was Aurore Dupin, Dr. Seuss was Theodore Geissel, Silence Dogood was Benjamin Franklin.  

It is a long list.   ;)

I said I would stop posting in this thread....but.... i... LIED!!!!!!!

Hm... good point.  It does provide some coverage.  But speaking from my own experience, I would like to think that I don't act as irresponsibly towards people in real life as I just have toward people on this message board (regardless if they knew my name).  That's what I was getting at; I was not suggesting that this is an overt, literal passing off of a false identity.  It wasn't that drbeachboy didnt know my name that allowed me to be a jerk.  it was the fact that the this is an impersonal way of communicating, and he wasn't a real person sitting in front of me

I got sucked into the role of the troll, which is a temptation many of us face in this virtual land.  I'm a noob with 19 posts under my belt, so lets hope there's some improvement ahead of me... umm Jack Reilly right?    Has anyone been able to find this interview online?  I'm not having luck

Mildly amusing factoid which many of you won't believe, but t'is true - although I frequently come across as an arrogant, pompous and condescending arse with all the tact and diplomacy of Caligula online, apparently IRL I'm just a cuddly ol' bear. Who knew ?  ::)

If I would use a pseudonym it would be "Stan Dorfall". I'll stick with the first five letters of my first name though. My full name can be found in my profile.

(http://content.artofmanliness.com/uploads//2013/03/Bear-Attack-1.jpg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America)

I was just standing in line at a store and the young guy in front of me had a tattoo on the back of his neck which read "Lying to Live". Kind of apropos after spending so much time in this thread. ;)

To bring things back on track to Jack a little bit here......
I've just watched a 2009 Dutch documentary called The Making of "Holland" and Reiley says this....

"I should mention... I was determined to push them to appear at the Monterey Pop festival, which we did"

WTF?

He's referring to the Big Sur festival in 1970 - in some circles it was referred to as Monterey Pop II