The Smiley Smile Message Board

Does anyone know exactly what was said/happened between Bruce and Jack Reiley to cause Bruce to leave the band in the early 70's?

I hate to give a boring answer, but I believe it's a simple as Brice gave a 3rd vote to the Mike/Al vote that was going on at the time and Jack thought of the band as the Brothers Wilson followed by Mike/Al. nothing gets done in Stale mates and who else could be given the boot?

It's pretty evident Bruce was one for very soft/smooth pop and it was believed the Boys should go a more rock style as Carl and Dennis took.

Short answer: just about everything.

It's because Bruce believed his name was being stolen by the gay community as evidenced years later in this Simpsons clip - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSuNzCgWpL4

Wasn't it more that he wanted to embark on a solo career?

Is that true? He couldn't have a solo career and a BB's career?

I'm not sure what went on between Jack and Bruce. But iirc there were also some tensions between Bruce and the Boys even before Jack came along. It's been a couple of years since I read about it but I think that already in '69 Billy Hinsche was asked if he wanted to replace Bruce.
And I also remember reading about loud arguments happening backstage at one show when Bruce wanted to play one of his songs solo.

I don't know why but that makes me feel sorry for Bruce (which rarely, if ever, happens.). When were the arguments? If it was later 70's surely that wouldn't hurt there set considering they'd hit the nostalgia circuit. Before then, did Bruce have solo stuff apart from Going Public, Bruce and Terry and his Surfing Down Under stuff?

Nether Dennis nor Mike seemed keen to rush to his defence when he left, but the only studio album he isn't on after he joined is MIU; he's on all the Rieley albums but the live one, he's the only other BB credited on POB and he was back with the band in 79 and he's Mike's road buddy. You'll notice he doesn't feature in the groups photo on Ten Years of Harmony, allegedly at Carl's request because he hadn't been a member of the band for much of the decade, yet he's on three albums as a BB at the start of the decade and two at the end, as well as the others he appeared on. Seems a tad harsh, but now I think of it, I seem to remember Carl's name being attached to the attempt to replace him with Billy, but who knows. Strange, dysfunctional group of people...

No, it was in the late 60s/early 70s if I'm not mistaken. The song in question probably was something from a Beach Boys album.

Yes it is. Upon leaving the Beach Boys he wrote what was to become Barry Manilow's hit "I Write the Songs" while solo.  Bruce returned to the BB in '78 at Brian's request.

Once of Bruce's claims was that Jack was making it look like Brian was more involved than he was

Where can Bruce be heard on the Holland album?

I don't quite understand this response... I know Bruce HAD a solo career but was asking if he was told he couldn't be in the Beach Boys if he wanted to make solo music too.

Strange for Carl of all people to be so petty

Jack didn't want the sound to turn to "ten Years Of Harmony" Sound https://youtu.be/9qKEiQ5VLBk

Where can Bruce be heard on the Holland album?
[/quote]

He is singing on California Saga

I was recently reading through the excellent Rusten/Stebbins “In Concert” book, and if I recall correctly, there are some contemporary quotes from the band around the time of Bruce’s departure, and they certainly don’t seem to be particularly sad about it as it’s happening. I don’t think the Rieley issue was the only issue at play.

I don’t disagree that the group and its members could be strange and dysfunctional, but I don’t think a personnel decision regarding whether they felt Bruce fit in at the time (or whether Bruce felt he fit in) would be a good example of that. That’s actually one of the more normal things that went on with the band at the time, in light of things going on with other bands. I’d also say that, whereas later personnel issues (and “licensing” the name to tour, etc.) in later decades were imbued with a lot of politics and dysfunctionality, back in 1972 with Bruce it seemed to actually be motivated more by normal personal/musical band “differences”, as opposed to trying to make political/business moves to edge people out, etc.

To be sure, there were *always* inner-group politics at play, going all the way back to 1961/62. But, while things like Al’s 1998 departure or the C50 breakdown was more ambiguous, Bruce’s 1972 departure seemed somewhat clear-cut at least in terms of both sides seeming to be okay with what went down. Bruce wasn’t saying he had been forced out, and wasn’t suing the band or trying to get back in. Meanwhile, the band didn’t seem to be all broken up about losing him.

He may not have been being petty. Who knows what went on. Billy was his brother in law at them time too.Who knows? Maybe they just had a falling out that week.

I read an interview in the British press with Mike Love and he was specifically asked about Bruce leaving - the impression Mike gave was that Bruce was not a team player, he was off doing stuff on his own, he wrote his stuff on his own - by implication I think Bruce didn't want to collaborate with Jack on songs, didn't like the musical/lyrical direction Jack was pushing them towards.  I can get some direct quotes later today.

The story of how Carl decided on the "Ten Years..." artwork actually makes it sound like he put a lot of thought into it. It's worth remembering that in 1981, Bruce's position within the band probably wasn't crystal clear. He was "in" the band certainly, but I don't know if any of them knew or anticipated how long he'd be back in the band. At that point, the band had been going for 20 years and Bruce had been a member for about half that time.

It's also worth noting that that particular story may not be wholly accurate, or may lack some detail. Are there any first-hand reports or quotes, or is it just another one of those "rumored/alleged" stories?

I think the fact that he sang on "I'll Bet He's Nice" and "End of the Show" and came to the "Love You" release party (and took photos smiling with the Wilson brothers) shows there was never truly bad blood in the separation.

Well, I read it on here! Remember that the album only contained stuff from 1970 - 1980 (or the albums released in that period, because some of the songs were recorded earlier). I still think it's odd, but then they're an odd bunch.

I wonder about the politics, as far as Jack and Bruce are concerned. I can't imagine they saw eye to eye.

didn't Reilley claim that Bruce disagreed with and talked sh*t about the Wilsons?

not surprising, since he continues doing it to this day.

Where has he continued doing it to this day, he seems very complimentary of all three Wilson brothers in interviews and shows I've been to.

Here is the paragraph from my book about this subject:
Bruce told the BBC in early 1974 that on “the last tour I was on, I kind of felt strange because the group had gotten kind of clubby again.  You had two guys, Mike and Al, who were deeply involved in meditation, you had Carl and Ricky that were kind of tight, you had Blondie who was kind of alone and Dennis (who) wasn’t quite sure of his role because he had an accident with his hand and he couldn’t play drums for a long time and he was trying to get used to the role of finally singing.  And so the group kind of felt a little uncomfortable with each other and we just kind of decided that it would be better to not play together and feel comfortable.” The Beach Boys had their own take on Bruce’s departure.  Brian told Record World in June 1973 that Bruce “got into a horrible fight with Jack Rieley. Some dispute and they got into a horrible fight and the next day he was gone.” Mike opined to Val Mabbs of Record Mirror that Bruce “left because he wasn’t too happy about things.  It was decided that because of a couple of feelings harbored by different members of the group and the way things went with Bruce developing a solo career it made it more or less an uncompromising situation.” Dennis told Martin Lewis of NME that “musically we didn’t click…appreciate each other, so one day we both said OK, that’s it.  He’s a good guy but he was writing stuff for a solo artist…we’re a band.” Chip Rachlin noted, “Bruce didn’t really have a buddy in the group and he was sort of the odd man out.  He didn’t get along with Jack Rieley and he could be a little meddlesome.”

Very interesting, its still hard for me to imagine the guy that had just written Disney Girls getting into a horrible fight  :lol thanks for the resource much appreciated!

It's interesting how Bruce "going solo" might have been a contributing factor to him leaving and/or feuding with Jack. Not that the going solo thing being a cause of tension would be a unique case to this band, but there may be possible parallels to the strife Denny encountered from within the band (not sure if it was coming from more than just Mike) when Denny himself wanted to do a solo tour.

I wonder if it was discussed if Bruce would potentially have a solo career in tandem to being in the band at the same time. I can also see how the political mindset of a guy writing Disney Girls (which I love, by the way) could be at complete odds with someone pushing the band in a vastly more left-leaning political direction.

Do you think Bruce has always been a country-club "Obama is an asshole" bring back the 50's kind of guy? Seems so strange that he could be enveloped by the culture going on around him and not alter those opinions at all  :o

Bruce is a loose cannon. perhaps a bipolar or split personality with a lifelong sense of entitlement. some fans and interviewers have pleasant interactions with him, while others report some of the rudest most awkward encounters of their lives. one fan describes a possibly inebriated Bruce in a hotel after a show, declaring the Beach Boys were a better band without Carl. and he's most certainly made disparaging remarks about Brian in recent years. here's just one example:

http://www.tcpalm.com/entertainment/beach-boy-bruce-johnston-you-cant-tell-me-aging-kills-your-spirit-ep-404001882-332209772.html

What's the hotel story? Also I'm not sure that that article shows Bruce disparaging Brian but rather just not thinking too clearly about his wording, he has been a big supporter of Brian in interviews before...

There's quotes from him in the '50 sides of the Beach Boys' books about being a conservative guy and writing Disney Girls as a response to seeing kids smoking spliffs at their shows.  I suppose that's about drugs and lifestyle, rather than strictly politics, but it seems he wasn't much into the counterculture of the time.

Other than that, wasn't the plan to replace Bruce with Billy Hinsche from 1969?

   Every now and then one can sense some genuine warmth between Dennis and Bruce, maybe Brian and Bruce. But Carl and Bruce? Never. When was the last time you heard Bruce mention Carl Wilson in an interview?

There's a quote from Bruce - in the Granata book, I think - in which he pines for the days of turning up to the recording studio in a nice sweater...

I get this, too

While Bruce was a team player, in the first stint with the bbs he did write basically tunes for him to perform with minimum involvement from the other bbs-nearest faraway place, tears in the morning, etc. perhaps the bbs sensed this. There is that 1970 concert review where the reviewer suggests the other bbs were grumbling when Bruce shooed them offstage so he could do his solo spot

I seem to remember a quote or interview from Bruce were he said he had issues with Jack's truthiness, let's say.  I seem to remember him giving Jack's resume as an example and saying something like he checked and the Peabody Award people (or whoever) never heard of the guy or something.  Anybody else remember something like that?

I can see something like that causing tension within any band, especially as it played out in front of a paying audience.

I've read a myriad of "fan encounter" stories, in addition to of course interviewer/journalist encounters, and by leaps and bounds most of the weird/tense/awkward/terse moments come out of stories involving Bruce.

Mike is pretty uniformly excellent with fans. Brian might sometimes not offer a lot of energy (sometimes he does), but I haven't ever heard of him actually being mean to fans or expressing anything negative *towards* fans. Al is much like Mike in being good with fans, and if anything will sometimes offer an even more personalized, less scripted interaction.

Bruce is only consistent in that he is inconsistent. In addition to very wide-ranging attitudes in fan interactions, the same seems to hold true in interviews and online discussions. He'll be almost fawningly over-effusive in praising Brian, and then say something more catty. There are some interesting (and funny) stories in the Jon Stebbins/David Marks book about Dave's interaction with Bruce in 1971, and Dave's description of Bruce back then is eerily very similar to stories you still hear about Bruce now as far as his personality.

So to sort of get towards answering the question raised in a previous post about whether Bruce was more liberal or more willing to soak in some of the ideas of that late 60s/early 70s era, it seems as though his personality was pretty similar back then. I'm guessing he skewed pretty conservative back then even (Bruce may admit that "Disney Girls" is a very idealized concept, but even having *that* as your ideal throwback might speak to one's outlook), and certainly in more recent decades from the 80s onward, there has been plenty of room to grow more conservative.

Sense of entitlement is a good way to put it, if in no other area than his place in the band. I remember reading an interview with Bruce back in 2012 where he kind of lightly poked at Brian's "guys" in the reunion band, suggesting they weren't used to such a rigorous touring scheduled like those done by Mike's band, and I remember thinking that was kind of rich coming from the guy who was probably pulling the least weight in that entire huge band. I guess he doesn't often have this experience in relation to his place in the live touring band:

(http://www.fasthorseinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/what-exactly-would-you-say-you-do-here.jpg)

Let me be very clear that I don't doubt Bruce had and has the musical and vocal ability to play a larger role in the band. I recall thinking all the way back in the early 80s that Bruce weirdly didn't seem to even be interested in a lead vocal turn all the time. He has even sometimes expressed some reasons for taking a backseat at the live shows. Perhaps there's some validity to his strategy in this regard, but it also means whenever he criticizes someone else, or espouses various political or economical ideals, his job description might come to mind for some observers.

But seriously, Bruce is if nothing else a more fascinating, weird character than perhaps a lot of fans thought back in the day. I'm quite curious to know more about his deal, however much I agree or disagree with it.

Yep, the Politzer Prize incident and other past (alleged) employment experiences  - Also I believe (don't know where I read it, sorry if i'm off the mark) Bruce questioned Jack's sexuality

I find the "Sultan of Syrup" to be a boring goldbricker much like his notorious other half. Yeah, the money's good, but doing the same thing night after night, year after year shows me nothing but an embarrassing stage presence who has little to do beyond showing up.

Not pointing my finger at Bruce (or anyone specifically), but wasn't there some weird stuff that went on where some BB member(s) were not thrilled when they got wind of Jack's sexuality? I know I recall reading something to this effect, without a lot of details. I could see a relationship could be adversely affected if a given band member (or multiple ones) had a less than tolerant reaction. And yes, I'm mindful of this being 4+ decades ago.

It would not be difficult to understand that Jack's sexuality was most likely questioned by right winger, good ol' boys Br00th and myKe. One's an Obama basher and the other's a Trump luHver.

OSD - it was later discovered that he had an "inflated resume."  It shows a tendency towards falsehood.  He "faked it to make it" and ultimately it was found out. 

That does not translate to homophobic. 

Whether any of the accusations are true or worth dredging up here, the issue with Rieley's "inflated resume" versus any other prejudice on the part of any members have been presented as two *separate* issues in this discussion.

Nobody is conflating the two in this thread as far as I can tell.

It's totally possible a band member (or members) could have taken issue with an "inflated resume" and also separately had some other non-business-related prejudice. It's totally possible an observer could find the former a valid gripe with Rieley and find the latter disagreeable, lamentable, and not a valid gripe or issue whatsoever. 

Aren't most resumes "inflated"? ???

I have not heard that one Rob, do you (or anyone) remember the source by any chance.  Not that the opinion would be shocking for back in that day.

I agree that any political differences that Bruce (or any of the Boys) may have had with Jack do not necessarily in any way, shape, or form automatically translate to homophobia. I'm certainly not quick to make that judgment based on current political affiliations, and OSD shouldn't be either. That said, I do recall reading something that alluded to potential homophobia from within the band, which of course, in theory could even have come from a band member(s) who was in all other ways politically liberal. Homophobia and political leanings are not mutually exclusive. I sincerely hope the homophobia that I recall reading about is a completely baseless and false statement, though if it is true, none of us can simply will it not to be true.

For whatever it's worth (and perhaps it completely says nothing), I was surprised that Mike didn't post a peep about Jack's passing on social media, compared with Brian (who did)... especially considering how much Jack was a big part of turning around the band's fortunes, and especially considering that many non BB-related people, like Muhammad Ali, get long, detailed posts by Mike when they passed. I took that to mean that there was some very irreparably bad blood between Mike and Jack.

True, though Bruce worked with Curt Becher too.

1 + 1 =2, right? Of course there was bad blood. Jack and Brian wrote music *together*, presumably not with myKe. Carl and Jack did the same w/o myKe. mYke's limitless ego had to endure yet another *attack* from another competitor who was not a blood relative. What a pathetic, small man.

Reilly was a Wilson brothers guy through and through, hence the renewed Wilson leadership under Carl and Dennis in the early 1970s.

I can certainly conceive of resentment over being replaced yet again as a lyricist, but I'm willing to accept a more nuanced or complex version of events if such facts support them. I mean, Mike still tries to slip occasional compliments to Van Dyke Parks, even if it's at this point partly brown-nosing and not any kind of reciprocal thing. I figure there had to be some *really* bad stuff between Mike and Jack for Jack's passing to get no public mention by eager-to-mention-every-celebrity's-passing Mike, but who knows if it was about lyrics, about other stuff too, or what. Jack's non-mention seemed really conspicuous to me, and sad too.

I wonder if Mike or Bruce ever tried to write a song with Jack. Maybe ultimately, Jack was just perceived as a threat to those guys.

If Mike had a problem with Van Dyke's Smile lyrics as not being clear, I figure he'd have a bigger problem with Rieley's lyrics, especially on something like Feel Flows.

Hmmm. At that time, no. At a time when lots of legal rights are at stake - not so sure.
Now we resume your interrupted program.

Agreed.

Tbh, even when I was an adolescent and young adult, which was well after this time, there was a lot of little homophobia just about everywhere, even in the gay community. It's changed a lot in the last 30 years. Awareness and familiarity have increased so that now, people can recognize little homophobic reactions within themselves for what they are and reject them or embrace them as they will; I don't think that was the case back then. The Beach Boys would have had to be unusually enlightened to not have been homophobic to a degree.

I believe they (Mike and Jack)  share credits on a few songs, though.

True. Remember Bobby Brown Goes Down? Hardly the product of a fiercely Conservative (with a capital C) creative mind.

Hey everybody.

Even though I know Bruce is a conservative douchebag for the most part I'm nearly positive he's not only NOT homophobic, but instead actually seemed a bit peeved with what he perceived as the homophobic reaction to the disco scene. I remember reading something like that in an interview with him. I truthfully can't remember which era the interview is from, but it definitely made it seem like, for all of his conservatism, he definitely thought homophobia was f***ed up. Also, while I'm not saying he's gay, he does have a slightly fey mannerism about him.

So yeah. That's me standing up for Bruce for a change. And by the way, Surfer's Pajama Party is one of my favorite live albums! And "Don't Run Away" is a beautiful song and it's a Johnston/Love co-write!

Well all of that is good to hear.

And I second the love for "Don't Run Away", which has my vote for the single most underrated and underappreciated BB-related track in perhaps the entire catalog.

Good point, although Funky Pretty's middle section probably would be 'Exhibit A'

sorry, there's no positive way to spin this comment about Brian's 21st century output:



it's the most backhanded f***ed up thing to say about a man you supposedly admire. screw you BJ, you sicken me.

Maybe that's the type of tactless remark that came out when the only BB member that Bruce had spent any significant time around for ages was Mike. I can't see Bruce saying that type of comment about Brian if Carl were still alive and still in The BBs with Bruce.

Dust him off and roll him back out?! That is jacked up and out of line. I hope both people who bought Going Public destroyed their copies in shame.

Bruce has been all over the map about Brian (and other topics, in particular hardcore fans) for years. Again, see Bruce's interactions with David Marks back in 1971 as described in the Stebbins/Marks book. In my opinion, it's the same pattern. Overly-fawning (to the point of almost seeming sarcastic or back-handed) and negative at other times. On the BB Britain board years ago, he told everybody to go see Brian's show because it was so great (had Bruce ever seen Brian's show?; the 1998 gig doesn't count), and then later turned quite negative on the subject. He'll go on and on and on about the old days on that board, about uber-obscure music trivia, and then call people connected to BB archival releases "bottom feeders."

There are other quotes from Bruce that are vaguely along these lines. He hasn't been afraid to be blunt about Brian from time to time. Here's one from Bruce to Howie Edelson, discussing his and band's work on the Brian/Paley material:

"That was a courtesy to Brian for us to be there. Brian certainly wasn't at any kind of peak in those days, but we respected his history and achievements for us to go and record with him and see what it might sound like. We were just trying to support someone who had been successful and good for us. I think if you use your ears, you'll hear that those tapes don't really lift off. It's fine -- but not fine enough."

Again, I appreciate the honesty, but I would strain to even call comments like this back-handed. This from the guy who hasn't released any of his own material in decades and seems to have no interest in it, and who by the time of this quote was contributing little to BB (non-existent) albums or live shows.

To be fair, most if not all of the guys (Dennis might the one exception) went through periods, especially in the 70s/80s/90s, when they had more anger or resentment towards Brian, didn't like the David Leafs writing books minimizing the other guys, etc. They understandably had moments when they weren't as humble about Brian's contributions, and felt like they had been schlepping around on stage and in the studio and putting more elbow grease into it than Brian had. Those things are understandable to some degree. But it's telling that Al has gotten over that and is humbled, whereas even Bruce will vacillate between blindly praising Brian (and Mike), and then being blunt and entitled when it comes to Brian.

Again - this seems all about allegiances. Regardless of the quality of the material, would Bruce have *ever* said those things about the Wilson/Paley material if Mike was writing the lyrics, and Andy wasn't in the picture (it's easy to just deflect blame to an outsider if the end result isn't stellar)? I just don't get when people like Bruce or Mike, who themselves are nowhere near the top of their artistic game, have the unmitigated gall to start putting down their bandmates' (or former bandmates') current material. You only "get" to do that if you are at the top of your own game and your sh*t don't stink - and even then, it's not in the best taste. Yeah, I can appreciate Bruce's honesty all the same, but it just seems very politically motivated.

It's almost as if Bruce made some pact with Mike to do and say enough passive-aggressive things in the media to eventually nudge Brian into getting back together with Mike, and/or to do/say anything that would boost Mike's reputation. Or lest this "conspiracy" theory gets mocked, maybe it was an unspoken thing.   I'm sure Bruce, Mike, and the rest of the band must have spoken amongst themselves about what they could do to get Brian back in the fold. Reverse psychology wouldn't be unprecedented - in 1982, the band collectively "fired" Brian and told him that he was no longer part of The BBs, because in reality they wanted this to lead toward something else they wanted to happen (Landy II). For the longest time (perhaps not anymore), it seemed that all Mike wanted to do was write songs with Brian, and maybe Mike and Bruce thought that with enough subtle put-downs in the media, that maybe Brian would himself realize that his Mike-less material was "sub-par", and that the only way to be at his peak again was to go back to working with Mike.  It's just so dysfunctional. Bruce's comments wouldn't bug me half as much if he was similarly critical of (and rude to) *all* members of the band.

Has Bruce ever publicly said anything critical of Mike?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1AxIElzRUg

Crazy that I ran into this 5 mins ago by accident! Carl seemed peeved...

Was that the infamous Carl stink-eye? :)

I, for one, very much enjoy most of Bruce's songs that he wrote for The BBs.  I wonder if that video was reflective of some behind-the-scenes creative conflict at the time; maybe Bruce had some songs rejected by The BBs, circa '80? I think Endless Harmony is a standout track on KTSA (granted, not a lot of solid competition on that record!)

Dick Clark sure seemed taken aback by that statement. Maybe that was because Dick knew that Bruce was a recent Grammy winner, and it was unthinkable that the band wouldn't therefore be utilizing his songwriting? I suppose that considering the fact that Bruce won a Grammy, he's kept his own ego relatively in check.

  There was a thread awhile back on the Jan & Dean message board (check it out - things are quiet over there) detailing some unusual fan interactions with Bruce. He went out of his way one to inform one fan he was not a Jan & Dean fan in what was perceived as a snarky fashion.

 I see Bruce as odd but not eccentric if that makes any sense.

  Inflated yes. Fabricated? Maybe not. I love what Jack Rieley did for The Beach Boys but the guy told some whoppers.

Yeah definitely some weird modesty there from Bruce... I agree about Endless Harmony but the production is probably one of the most dated on that album.

I guess he's being modest...but he almost says it in a way that sounds like it's "too good" for the band..."too smooth", as he says.

I have nothing against Bruce. My grandmother and I had a great interaction with him on C50. As we were leaving the "photo shoot" I yelled thank you to everyone and he pulled me back, shook my hand, and said "No...thank YOU." then he yelled "and thanks mom!" to my grandmother, which we still quote to this day.  :lol

I've interacted with him from the audience as well at post-C50 M&B shows. In Lancaster last summer, my girlfriend and I were at the edge of the stage for the encore and Bruce saw my C50 photograph in hand, pointed at me and gestured if I had a pen, he came over to get it and I specifically asked for David's autograph (as I already had M&B thanks to Scott Totten) he went right over to David and brought it back for me.

And one more for laughs...when we saw M&B here in Baltimore in February, we were in the 2nd row behind a delightful pair of tipsy middle aged women...on "Do You Wanna Dance" we were all on our feet and they were clapping their hearts out on beats 1 + 3. We were behind clapping VERY loudly on 2 + 4 at them...Bruce, as we all know is the king of clapping, noticed this and was cracking up!  :lol

I think that Bruce seems a bit bi-polar...  and that's OK.  I have read some shocking stories about his interaction with fans, but also a lot of nice ones.  He's just kind of an unpredictable guy, and you have to ignore him when he's in a weird mood. 

Those are cool stories  :p I think at his heart Bruce is really a nice guy

I witnessed a few of them, and one of them happened to a board member at a show I went to...combined with some of the stories I've heard from the 70s, man, I don't even know.

Is it possible to expand on this? Not tryna be nosy just have seen a lot of people say this but no actual stories, I have no agenda just interested

Besides what I've heard off the record over the years, I remember there being a discussion here but 8 honestly don't remember the details...might have been a few years ago

Billy, your "dodge" here is not nearly as "smooth" as Bruce's music...  :hat

But I think Bruce is right...his songwriting, for the most part, is "too smooth" for the band. Only "Disney Girls" really breaks through, and that's because it's just a better composition--that extended middle-8 is a really nice piece of work, and gives the song a lot of BW-like complexity.

My experience tells me that we all become more ourselves as we get older, and that Bruce has always been a bit of a chameleon--which would mean that these types of incidents would be more frequent now than in the past.

Remember, he was adopted into a wealthy family, which is itself a double-edged sword psychologically. Things are definitely roiling around beneath that smooth, charming facade, and I think ihe probably subscribes to the idea that Brian took advantage of his "psychedelicacy" and has come to harbor a viewpoint that is analogous to Mike's from the standpoint of "how could a guy lay waste to such incredible talent."

I think it's clear that Bruce thought Jack was a fraud, possibly within weeks of becoming acquainted with him. And, as others have written, Jack saw the creative center of the band in the Wilson brothers, and didn't see Bruce adding much of anything to the direction he wanted the band to take.

Which is a long-winded way of saying "just about everything"...  :3d

Well Bruce revealed some opinions in a 200o interview he gave in Illinois- On Smile: "The lyrics just didn't make sense.  I couldn't relate to them-not as a Beach Boy always. Maybe I could on some other level."  On Brian's behavior: "And he got so weird about everything. You know 'We can't go to do the radio station thing today because the signs are not right, the vibe is not right.' Just stupid, immature stuff." On joining the group-when he first joined he felt like "an intruder in the Wilson clan."

Sums it up. Good instincts.  ;)

Jack being a fraud by padding his resume is like Mike wearing a hat.  They may be fooling some of the people, or distracting from an actual issue, but ultimately the issue itself shouldn't matter in the big picture.  In the big picture, Jack was an excellent shot in the arm for the band's public perception of legitimacy music-wise, because there were/are more important things at stake.   And his comment about the band "blowing it" is quite possibly the most accurate, not to mention tragic, big picture comment by any person in the entire history of the band. He knew.

Jack was spot on in nurturing the fact that the Wilsons were the true creative force of the band, especially in that time. Mike's glory days and his solid lyric writing were largely behind him at that point. The real good instincts were Jack's musical ones.  Jack was on the right side of history.

Do I wish Jack didn't have any "crooked" baggage, and have been completely honest 100% of the time with the band? Of course I do. But I think he would still have been pushed out of the band eventually.   The jealous forces within the band would have found a reason. The fact of the matter is that once he left, it wasn't long before the quality control began slipping.  And I say that with all due respect to all of the albums in the mid to late 1970s, which I still like/love.

Regarding "stories" of Bruce, it's not as if they're all apocryphal. There was a rather "interesting" story told by a poster here about an encounter with Bruce during C50:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,13320.msg287553.html#msg287553

Bruce has, in my opinion, exhibited a tendency to very abruptly "go off" on people. The infamous "don't call me BJ" thing over on the BB Britain board years ago was equally weird and hilariously absurd. I also recall a random diatribe on that board when someone posted a link to Bruce performing a song on YouTube. It's like he doesn't have any filter for context sometimes. It's not that there's not a polite way to say "Hey, you know what, I know you're probably just shorthanding my name for the sake of typing it, but I'd rather not be called an acronym for "b**w job", but he doesn't seem to always be able to tell when a fan is really being a fan and not trying to be a d**k.

CD - transference or analogy to Mike is not appropriate.  It is not Mike's credentials in question.  Mike (and BRI) were hiring Jack and not the other way around.  

Jack would not be hired today because it is easy to investigate a person's credentials.  I happen to think that candor on a job application is the most important issue.  

To quote AGD in a post I bumped yesterday:

"He claimed he worked for NBC's Puerto Rican bureau.  They isn't one.  (Wonder how NBC would like that scandal?)

He claimed he won a Peabody Prize.  He didn't.  (Wonder if the committee who award the prize would like that?)

When Ricky was having immigration hassles, Rieley produced a letter of welcome from a well-known politician. A stack of notepaper with said politician's letterhead was later found in his desk draw. (That is probably a federal and state crime, if the political was a state legislator; he could have gone to jail. Wouldn't that be nice for Carl and The Beach Boys to have to deal with while he was dealing with the Federal Court on his CO status, had it become public that Jack was writing "letters of welcome" from legislators on presumably stolen official government letterhead?)

That's not a few lies amongst friends" that's flat out fraudulent."

No, it is a crime.  

Delete

I'm not quite sure what is even being addressed here anymore. Nobody disagrees about Jack Rieley's sketchy attributes, right?

I guess the original question was regarding he and Bruce, and what they disagreed on. Seems there isn't much specific evidence on individual points they disagreed on. It also seems as though Bruce's opinion of Rieley was not the only issue involved in his 1972 departure from the group.

Rieley also by most accounts did some good for the band during his tenure, raising their profile. He also seemed to be in the thick of some good albums. Decades later, Brian seemed to have maintained some sort of fondness for him. Others in the band, not so much.

It seems Mike and Bruce tend to hold on to old grudges and issues (Bruce is still pissed at the goats from the "Pet Sounds" photo shoot; half a century later!  :lol ). Al apparently used to be this way (e.g. the infamous Gary Usher episode), and got over it in the last decade or two. Brian seems to be able to look past all of the bad aspects of Rieley and fondly remember him. Maybe the other guys don't.

If Bruce ever had a beef with Rieley, he probably should have aimed a lot of that blame towards the band itself, not just Rieley. And that may well have been part of what led to his exit in 1972. They didn't always have the best vision when it came to management. There were some other iffy management situations mixed in there over the years. What was the name of the guy who someone (Mike?) brought in and the guy only lasted like six months? I'm trying to remember; the Gaines "Heroes and Villains" book was actually pretty solid in outlining that management end of things in those days.

Fair enough regarding the Ricky matter. I can see why Jack's dealings could potentially have been a liability... but that doesn't negate the fact that he was spot-on about the band's creative direction, which flourished under his tenure, and how things went to sh*t not long after he was booted. For that reason alone, I think he should have been retained, at least in some consultant/collaborator position that might have made him not involved in financial/paperwork matters, if those were a legit concern. While it may have been understandable under the circumstances, they threw out the baby with the bathwater.

CD - had that been discovered it would not have been good for the band, and I don't care what kind of mentor his was. 

He was not above, lying, writing false and illegal documents on government stationery.  There is a word for people who do that. Criminal.   It potentially could have been imputed to the whole band. 

Regarding Mike and Bruce... if Jack had found a way to elevate those guys, to showcase Mike and Bruce's (in particular, Mike's) material in a real way that garnered lots of public critical acclaim (the way Jack did for Carl and Brian's material, for example), I'm not so sure that Jack would have been let go, regardless of a shady resume - especially if Mike and/or Bruce thought that Jack's creative input was needed in order for them to continue that streak. And I'm talking about more than just a one-off song, but if there were a solid group of Mike/Jack songs that the public reacted super well to, and if Mike felt that he would lose that streak without Jack, and there wasn't an alternative way of Mike gaining that sort of respect.

If this happened, Jack could have become what Terry Melcher was to Mike in the 80s and 90s.  An outsider who he didn't want to lose. This of course would be contingent of Mike and Bruce getting along with Jack.  I'm not saying that Jack and Mike were actually in any way compatible whatsoever, I'm just making a point about who stays around in BB world for what reasons.

Bruce is probably less of an issue for this matter, because he didn't need collaborators; he could write tunes on his own. Mike rarely did (though Big Sur rules), and I think that if Mike saw personal benefit (not just BB band benefit, but actual Mike-being-respected-as-an-essential-creative-force benefit) from keeping Jack around, that Jack would have been kept around, even if that would be in a capacity that removed Jack's ability to do any sort of financial shenanigans.  

FDP, I appreciate your panache but I must say I don't like having my conjecture about Bruce turned into a thread hijack.

Jack is one of the most complex characters in BB history, right up there with Brian, Dennis, and AGD. (Just joking--no piling on!) He crossed the line in so many ways, but I still consider his tenure to have been worth it because during his watch the BBs produced some  of their most interesting material--a good bit of which Jack had his hands on in some way or another. In a world that seems to have no end of criminous behavior, I will forgive some amount of victimless white-collar crime to get a song like "Mess of Help to Stand Alone." Call me a moral relativist if you are so inclined...

As others have said, Jack's story has been out in the open in several incarnations and iterations for years now, and while I loved your one-liner, IMO that's where you should have left it. On this board, as so often in life as a whole...less is more.

+1

Jack seemed to come on the scene when they were developing anyway, and I think of him more as a facilitator than anything else.  He is lucky that his shenanigans (criminality) did not become public.  I think that the band members had a leadership void (and I don't mean Murry) and I suppose next to Murry almost anyone looked good.  They had oozing talent that just had to be reduced to composition (music) paper.  Was he a cheerleader?  Maybe.  Could he organize a tour?  Maybe.    

But, the way Jack got there, was based on a lie, and liars tend to do that.  Lie.  Carl was the last person, being under the intense scrutiny he was under at that time, in that high-voltage Vietnam War era, who needed to be around someone who flouted the law.  The Beach Boy could have gotten any number of political people to be helpful if a problem arose with a band member.  Jack's "self-help" could have resulted in deportation for Ricky, jail for Jack, and really bad press for the band.  

Bruce and Terry had their own credentials.   They did not need the likes of a poseur such as Jack, notwithstanding how Holland turned out, but at a huge expense to the band.  Ricky could have hired a great immigration lawyer to get him the proper documents where he might never have to look over his shoulder. Now, there are carveouts for musicians and others of extraordinary talent.  I don't know about the 70's.  Maybe Ricky never knew about the "misappropriated government stationery."  

But, Jack had no problem doing the wrong thing and I find it impossible to rationalize it away, because of the success of that era.  The band was ripe for their creativity.  It would not have mattered who was the figurehead as they had come into their own.  It was not long after his departure that the war ended, and the 1976 Bicentennial gave the band a new re-surgence with their old fans and their new ones.  

He put the band at legal risk.  That will always be a problem for me, regardless of how great the era was.  

For those who would like to search the list of Peabody Awards winners for yourselves, here's the link:
http://www.peabodyawards.com/stories/story/peabody-awards-book

All of the Wilson brothers put the band at legal risk at various times in the '70s due to just having drugs on their person. I could go and make a list of things of questionable (to say the least) legalality the band members have done at various points in time. It's unfortunate but true. Doesn't mean that those folks needed to be banished forever from the band because of those regrettable actions.

Don - I apologize.  That was not my intention but to quote the section that I agreed with nor hijack the thread.  Rereading the section on the "appropriated government stationery" made my radar go up.    

Yes, Jack is/was complex, and he was involved in interesting things but they had just come out of a nightmare with "Charlie" and the last thing they needed was someone else in the mix, who could involve them in anything untoward, and not through band actions but by a manager who insinuated himself into the company with false credentials.  

In this context,  "I (meaning me) can get myself into trouble - I don't need anyone to help me get into trouble." I don't see it as "victimless crime." And, that is why white collar crime has become almost worse than the some of the kinds of crime that results in punishment.  (the Bernie Madoff kind for example) Guess I look at it with another lens.  

Again, I apologize for pulling out that sentence.  Mea culpa.   ;)

Was Jack Rieley ever convicted of a crime? Was he ever convicted of a crime related to the Beach Boys?

And is there any strong evidence that, had any of his alleged crimes been discovered and prosecuted, that any of the actual Beach Boys were at great *legal* risk? Not PR risk, but actual legal risk? Carl's CO case maybe would have been more difficult due to PR problems, as well as the Ricky issue mentioned.

I mean, every time any of the Beach Boys did drugs they were putting the entire band at legal risk, right? Even Mike has said he "stuffed his pipe" now and then, so a bunch of them had put the band at "legal" risk of a big drug bust, right?

It's funny how some folks will try to put topics in a "it was years ago, why does it matter anymore?" and "it's none of our business" category, but seem to still seethe at the thought of what *could* have happened regarding the 40-plus year old alleged activities of a now-deceased guy.

If we really started looking at all of the things that *could* have happened as a result of the actions of any number of band members or associates, it would be a very, very long list.

Further discussion here if interested...

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,3019.0.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,3019.0.html)

Multiple Bruce/Jack posts, including, reply #8 Bruce quote about Surfs Up and departure.

That was the show I went to!

CD - here is the difference for me.  Yes, certain of the band members may have put the group at risk, but who needs someone else, a hanger-on to add to, and put them at risk as well?  And someone who lied to get there?   ;)

I get it. Jack wasn't family. There wasn't decades of loyalty to him that kept him around. I understand why they wouldn't want to be associated with a guy who wasn't a Beach Boy who did some shady stuff. That doesn't mean that sacking him was a smart decision when solely talking in terms of creative direction.

Yeah, I had remembered the story and it took a bit of time to track it down via search. What I had forgotten is that the fan in question was actually a seemingly big Bruce fan, had been grateful for Bruce having given a bunch of time for interviews back in 1979 and 1981, and so on. And *that's* the guy that Bruce chose to s**t on in person, in front of a bunch of people?

Seriously, it doesn't even appear that following the "sometimes you should just back off and not talk to him" advice, because some of these stories of him going off seem to happen very, very abruptly like a switch flipping on.

I get it, fans aren't likely to get in the grill of one of the members of a band they love, but I'm surprised after all of these years, Bruce hasn't had one person tell him to go f**k off after getting a reply like that.

The Rieley situation was likely untenable. I don't think they could have made him work as a manager for like another decade or something, for a bunch of reasons.

I think Don Malcolm's comments make sense; it's really just a bit of moral/ethical relativism in this case. I think what we *did* get out of the Rieley era, coupled with the *43 YEARS* or so since it all happened, in addition to Rieley's death, means some folks find it easier to find the good in what came out of the Rieley era and not dwell too much on what *could* have happened.

Hey Jude - a wise old friend once told me, "Show me your friends, and I will tell you what you are." It is of no consequence to me that Jack was not convicted.  He maybe didn't get caught.  Being in the company of a liar and a cheat is bad enough.  If they did not discover it, so much the worse.

Bernie Madoff was not caught for years.  His was a white collar criminal who wiped out people's retirement and investment savings.  Did he use a gun?  No, but, did he "kill people?"  Bet he gave plenty of his investors heart attacks and strokes.  Evil has many faces.  

"Some folks?" You talking to me?  Say it.  There are things that I still consider none of my business.  But I do seethe at the thought that my favorite band was put in legal jeopardy by someone who turned out to be a liar and a cheat.  

It might not have recognized by me as a big deal until I have looked at things from a legal lens.  I am looking at it as "not so innocent."

And, it doesn't make me love the In Concert (73-4) album or that era's work any less, because I love the way they sing.  And that happened before and after dear old Jack.  ;)  

I met Bruce in 2012 at the Grammy museum. This was in a hallway where it was briefly just me and him, then there were a few other people flocking around soon after. I told Bruce I was a fan of "Don't Run Away" and he was friendly enough and sang a few notes of it. He seemed to not really want to talk to me much, but I can understand that without taking much offense.

Then within moments of that, he started a seemingly unprompted rant against Obama. Not a giant tirade, but it just sorta slipped out of him, like it was bubbling under the surface. I don't recall if someone else first brought up Obama (as I recall, another guy there said conversed with Bruce about having a similar anti-Obama mindset, so perhaps him and Bruce were just eager to pat each other on their backs for their views). But it was a bit odd and seemingly out of nowhere. I didn't expect a random anti-Obama tirade at the Grammy museum - it felt so out of left field in context.

Thanks, Emdeeh - I just scrolled as far as scribd would let me, into around 1977. 

Wow what a list!  Morley Safer, Chet Huntley, Imogene Coca, Martin Ogronsky, Pauline Frederick...

Jack falsely placed himself among those greats.  Wow.

Thanks again!  ;)

43 years... And studio-wise most of it in a downhill direction

Absolutely. This undeniable fact is ignored by some posters.

So you're looking at it through "a legal lens", but the fact that he wasn't convicted (or charged?) with anything is of "no consequence?"

That's all I need to know.  :3d

Hey Jude - why should it matter that he was not caught? Because he tended to do dishonest things.  It matters to me.

If you looked at the Peabody Award list and realize that Jack inserted him among those greats, it might matter how dishonest he was.  Those are giants and well-renowned.  He is not of the calibre of those greats.  Sorry.

Think that Jack did not learn anything from the BB members about songwriting?  I just took a little listen to Western Justice (the song) which had a feel of POB. I have not listened to the whole album.  So, while his contribution is repeated here, and it is well in the right of those who think that way, I think he learned much from the band members about songwriting and composition, and perhaps had songwriter aspirations on his agenda, alongside where he appeared to have started working for them, which appears to have been as a promotor.  He should have been paying them for songwriting lessons. 

He was a manager and ends up in a songwriter role? Hmm.

Yes, I looked at that "fact pattern" in Andrew's post and saw deeds that could have caused great harm to the band. I have a little problem with that.  Falsifying government documents for immigration purposes would be a big one.  Falsely claiming a stint with NBC would be second, and claiming a Peabody award would be third, just from that post. 

The proof is in the pudding. The songs he co-wrote were rad. Trying to minimize how important his lyrical contributions were is a fruitless effort; you might as well minimize Mike's while you're at it.

The band's output suffered without him.  Do you dispute this?

 

By the end of that era, things were changing all around.  It was the end of an era, and the war, which I think was a convergence of his leaving and the times changing radically to a resurgence of interest in the BB's.

But, I think Jack learned from being with them.  Sounds like Dennis had an influence on what he wrote. 

Do you think the band's output suffered without him? 

Frankly, the Beach Boys hadn't then and didn't for a long time show any interest in hiring an experienced and professional manager. I don't think it's likely that Rieley's resume smudging made a difference in that choice.

If one tends to feel that a "legal lens" view of Jack Rieley doesn't include whether he was ever charged or convicted of anything (and apparently whether the things he supposedly did were *all* even actual crimes), I don't think you're going to get much agreement about Rieley's writing acumen or contribution to the band.

I'm not even sure the fudging of one's resume is even an actual crime at all, and I would certainly imagine it isn't often if ever prosecuted.

I don't get why it's so hard to just admit that Rieley was sketchy when it came to stuff like fudging his resume, but also, not uncommonly in the crazy world of the Beach Boys, also did some good things for the band for a concentrated period of time.

A lot of the stuff people are saying is true. In today's electronic age, he probably wouldn't be hired in the first place. It was a bit of a wild west scenario, but if it resulted in "Holland" and whatnot, and if nobody appears to have actually, in a real-world practical sense, been severely hurt or mamed or killed by anything Rieley did, I think some perspective on the topic is warranted. 

I agree that his fudging wouldn't have flown now; he probably wouldn't have done it now. I don't think that means he wouldn't have been hired. The Beach Boys repeatedly hired managers with no band management experience.

The Beach Boys indeed have a sketchy track record when it comes to managers and "management" in a more general sense. I'd argue their management *now* in present day is a decades-old travesty. After 55 years in the "business" and they still don't seem to get it.

Guercio and Schilling in their capacities seemed to have some pretty strong points. A lot of the other guys, maybe not so much.

I confess to knowing very little about their management now.
But before and after Rieley, they had managers with no band management experience.
And I agree that I like what Rieley did during his tenure.

The poor management presently is definitely of a very different variety. Some would argue it's a very smoothly run machine in some ways. If the idea is to not do much of anything but continue to license Mike's band to tour, then it kind of runs itself. But the shambles that was the end of C50, and everything that has come after, including the inability of management to even get the guys to be united in furthering the BB brand even if they won't work together (e.g. promote each other's projects, release more archival material, etc.) is the problem. They need an Apple Corps-style management set up now.

If they want to become an active band again, they need a Jerry Schilling type. Joe Thomas apparently was able to achieve that for a short amount of time in 2012. They basically need the money and organizational skills of Joe Thomas mixed with Schilling's good will.

The management issues of yesteryear were very different, as they were still an active, contemporary creative unit.

I agree on the Apple sort of thing. It would be really good if they BRI was run based not on the current member's current activities but on how to manage the legacy for the long-term.

Hey Jude - here's why it is important.  When someone is in the US and if they are in a pathway to citizenship, letters of good moral character go into the file of the person.  They usually get checked on.  So, it does matter if someone has a pile of an elected official's stationery in his draw "just in case." I am thinking of the "worst case scenario" or Murphy's Law.

Would you feel the same way if someone had a doctor's prescription pad and were writing prescriptions?   Or giving out college diplomas?  Documents matter.

Documents tell the world who we are and what we have accomplished.  Jack had no problem writing a resume, with high profile credentials that were not his.  

And, I certainly "get" the era.  I was in college and grad school. I went to those college/university shows. I think, looking back, that Jack learned a great deal about songwriting from the band members.  That is just an insult that is unnecessary.  

Most fans would not know or care about management.  All they know is how the band sounds when they step on the stage.  They pull it all together and rise to the occasion.  The band members themselves conduct themselves professionally. 

In a weird way I'm literally so so happy that people are talking about Brucie and his bipolar tendencies.  I have had encounters with him, where he has been nothing but nice and when he gets some "liquid refreshment" he will gladly regale you with some great anecdotes of times past.  But I have also had times with him, where he can just be a complete prick.  However Brucie will gladly take wine anytime some one brings it.

So, my encounters with him over the years have been very consistent. Nothing but friendly and engaging, and on a few occasions has gone way out of his way to show incredible kindness. In hindsight, I'll add that a couple of times I probably was a little intrusive in my approach, but he was still great.

Sorry if this goes off-topic to the original topic...

FDP, you don't seem to want to answer my question directly, but I'll pose it again in that I don't think you could possibly say that Dennis quitting writing and producing music for the band (and quitting making virtually any music for that matter) didn't contribute to the band's output suffering, any more than you could say that Jack's input and influence didn't leave a pretty big gaping hole when he too ceased being involved in writing music being released by the band.

It's not a competition between Jack's and Dennis' contributions, and yes, they both stopped their musical output with The BBs for very different reasons, obviously... but in both cases, the band's output suffered. Period. It's no coincidence. Regardless of any sort of "end of an era" that you want to make this about.

Those analogies are no different with regards to a person (Jack or Dennis) bringing some much-needed progressive creativity to the table suddenly vanishing from the scene... followed directly by output by the band that was subpar by comparison. That's a fact. 

Back to the original topic, would be interesting to think about what Bruce might have brought to the table if he and Jack could have coexisted in the band past Holland.

The band is about more than live performances. The shambolic aftermath of the reunion tour was plenty of evidence to "fans" that the band had AWFUL management. The tour was evidence of 50 years of amazing music. The aftermath was evidence of not having figured out how to run a band and brand after 50 years.

The erroneous, inflammatory trending topic of "Mike Love fires Brian Wilson", with no singular, united, GROUP statement to clarify the situation was ample evidence of horrible management.

And in addition to "fan" perception, the industry saw it too. We've since heard from knowledgeable folks who talk to industry people that the band were the laughing stocks of the industry, and potential promoters with deeper pockets than Joe Thomas dropped the idea of more high profile Beach Boys gigs/tours like a hot potato.

CD - I thought I answered that maybe before you asked to HJ.  I don't think that they suffered when Jack left because the times changed in the US from wartime mode to party mode and the BB music was an integral part of that. The music scene with Saturday Night Fever hit the disco world and falsetto became big again, with The Bee Gees rocketed as well as their work with Chicago (Wishin' You Were Here.)  

HJ - Of course the band is more than live performances but that is was a concert-attending fan is involved with and not the everyday minutiae-speculation. 

What does the trending topic article "title" which I said was deliberately "inflammatory" have to do with anything having to do with Jack?  Or, C50?   

Great Post

I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about, but the discussion has included talk of the band's management, and characterizations of what is good and bad.

If your only bar is "didn't allegedly/supposedly do things that may have possibly, in the right circumstances, led to legal problems", then I can imagine a bland CPA running the band's affairs would be fine too.

The aftermath of C50 reflected poorly on the band and its management, and was in the immediate aftermath a trending topic online. A lot of "casual" fans saw the (again, erroneous) trending topic of "Mike Love fires Brian Wilson." The media did a bad job in reporting that, but the cause for the demise of the reunion, and even *moreso* the lack of clarification from a unified band and manager, spoke to POOR management.

Maybe "casual" fans didn't specifically think to themselves in precise words "Wow, the band has poor management." But it wouldn't have taken an industry expert or a hardcore fan to realize all sectors of the organization, from the band to PR to management, totally f***ed up the ending of C50. Even if the band had decided to end it then and there, better management would have resulted in a better, cleaner, happier, more celebratory ending.

Any manager that lets the end of C50 happen (not *that* it ended, but the fashion in which it ended) isn't doing a good job.

This topic is germane because they have needed different types of managers at different times. I get it, Elliott Lott isn't "managing" the band in the way Rieley or Schilling did. Lott essentially runs a holding company at this stage. But maybe they could have used a Rieley (or Schilling) type in 2012 when they were actually a *band* again, and not just a holding company licensing out a name and signing off on reissues.

But frankly, even just in terms of operating as a holding company, BRI isn't doing a good job there either. Countless missed opportunities for archival projects, and an inability to cross-promote solo projects by getting everybody to play nice. If Jeff Jones can get Paul and Yoko to play nice, then someone can get Brian and Mike (and Al, etc.) to play nice.

HJ- perhaps we are on different wave lengths.  My point is that there is an "arms length" distance between the concert goer and the band.  This is 3 1/2 years post the end of C50, which I never believed to be a permanent BB reunion. 

At no point did I believe it was any more than an "event" to celebrate the 50 years.  This has nothing to do with the Jack/Bruce "whatever" - and those who love to "romanticize" the band back to the 70's and plug in a set of hypotheticals about "what if"- really - who cares? 

As far as the "Mike Fired Brian" scenario, my own kids asked me if that was true, and I told them with my legal hat on that it was not possible with the corporate setup for one member to "fire" another member.   The difference is the "feeling" that you are being fired, is 100% different, because an "impression" or "feeling" is not a fact. It, was also "inflammatory" headlines, calculated to get both internet hits and media coverage and took on a life of it's own. 

This is like telling someone they are a "bad parent" and without being the other parent drawing an inference that BRI is "not doing a good job" and unless you are involved in the inner workings instead of "he-said, she said" is pretty out of bounds in my view.  And, it is totally subjective.  It is not germane and that there is an attempt to contort it as such, I find ridiculous.  And, I was sort of trying to drop a hint that it was interesting that Jack (the promoter) was becoming a songwriter and not square in the role of band manager. 

Was Jack's role that fluid that he is working on songs, as an artist, as opposed to performing management tasks? Some other "dude" insinuated himself into the songwriting role, who was not hired for that job.  Is there an analogy?  I don't know.  What I do know is for someone to keep an elected official's stationery in his possession, (and use it) is a criminal act and I cannot justify squaring or rationalizing it away.

Just a quick story I picked up among all of the Hollywood and music-biz info and trivia I read through the years. Not related to Jack or anyone being discussed here directly, but symbolic of the environment in which all of these things exist, specifically showbiz in general and the agents, managers, PR people, and the like whose job it is to deal in it.

At one very prominent agency (and probably all others in similar ways), the way to get in at the ground floor was to get a job in the mailroom. It helped to have a benefactor too, as in a prominent family member or someone else who could put in a good word for you. Nepotism, in all forms...or sometimes, it was just pure bold initiative to land that gig.

In the days before email, internet, and heightened security measures, correspondence used to be made via mail and inter-office paper memos. It would go through the mailroom and be distributed accordingly.

Specific to this one agency because this was the account I read from the people involved, sometimes a clerk in the mailroom who wanted to get out of the mailroom and into the actual agent and manager business could be taken under the wing of higher-up employees, sort of shown the inside track to climb the ladder.

One of those ways to climb the ladder was shown to the young mailroom guy who wanted to become an agent rep in question as follows:

Show up hours early in the morning before most came into the office. Learn to identify the different pieces of mail that were coming in, and to whom they were being sent to. Separate the daily paperwork from invitations, official letters, personal letters, etc.

Once said "important" mail was identified, steam open the envelopes and intercept whatever was going to be delivered to the agents and managers working upstairs. Make note of the important invitations, make note of clients who were writing with their displeasure of how things were going with their career and representation, make note of any big openings or roles that may be opening up...

...and there would be the inside track for anyone with the initiative to go out and try landing those people as clients. It was the same as getting an insider stock tip, you were getting the info before anyone and therefore had the advantage if you knew what to do with it and how to proceed.

Why bring this up? This was encouraged. It was how people became agents and managers and built up a book. The whole industry has revolved around digging up and using secret info for decades.

It's a federal crime to open and read someone else's mail. Yet this was how some mailroom guys and budding power-brokers in the industry were shown the way in order to scoop the other agents and land clients. It was how the ladder was to be climbed within that corporate structure. Some of the mailroom letter-steamers went on to become major power brokers.

And the issue is honesty among this aspect of the entertainment business?

I dunno where you guys get the energy  :)

For the record, Elliott Lott is no longer "managing" BRI (and hasn't for some time.)

Ah, interesting. Does he still have a position there? I guess such a position would more likely be "President" of BRI, rather than a manager for the band. In that sense, does the *band* have a manager? It seems not in the Jerry Schilling sense.

I'm trying to remember if his name has recently appeared on whatever recent BB releases (where in the past there was something along the lines of "For Brother Records - Elliott Lott."

Did the BBs suffer when Dennis ceased contributing solid original material to the band?  Can you please answer that question, FDP? And can you explain to me how that is a different scenario to when another progressive guy, Jack, ceased contributing to the band? I want to know how you could possibly think this is such a different thing.

Dennis was contributing heartfelt, progressive material to the band even during the "party mode" era you wish to widely paint the later part of the '70s to be. So too could Jack have helped the band continue to focus on progressive music (or at least to better find a balance of progressive material with some less progressive material by others).

With Jack out of the picture, it surely must not have made things *harder* for the Love agenda (which pulled heavily, almost exclusively retro post-Jack) to become stronger and stronger. I'm aware that the band's earlier material was getting more and more popular, and that guys like Carl - grudgingly or not - went along with letting the progressive side of the band take a back seat. I'm not just saying it's all Mike. I'm just saying that minus Jack, it was certainly easier for that to happen... and for the real creative decay of the band to *not coincidentally* also start taking root.

Just because the nation wasn't at war anymore, that doesn't mean that Jack's influence would by definition have meant that every single song was going to have to be some sort of wartime super-political song. He just helped the Boys push boundaries and not get mired in trying to replicate/imitate past glories. His absence was felt.

You wouldn't minimize Jack's contributions if his last name was Love.

BW's good timin, California feeling, had to phone ya, and it's ok were the way to go in 1974. A good balance between the past and present.

  So, Bruce's "Ten Years' Harmony" (later "Endless Harmony") would have been his contribution to Carl and the Passions - So Tough?  Somewhere on side 2, I'd imagine.

 Totally. Add Dennis tunes like "River Song" and you've got a natural progression from the more political Rieley era.

Put barnyard blues and a couple other DW songs from that era and you got the BBs comeback album that was sorely needed. Unfortunately the BBs comeback happened right when BW was at his lowest ebb.

Jack Love. Sounds like a porn actor

If Jack was still with the band, I have a strong hunch that some more Denny songs like "River Song" would have been released as BB tunes, and albums like MIU would never have happened. Same goes for 15BO. Even if some more retro stuff like Good Timin' would have been released, I think there'd have been more of a balance with the progressive stuff not being basically banished.

Who knows how the POB album would have been affected; maybe Jack would have been someone who would have supported and helped organize Denny's plans for a solo tour (such a person was sorely needed at the time).

What was Denny and Jack's relationship like?

I have heard that his brother Parking has taken over  ::)

Where is the name Jack Love coming from?  :lol

This is really all that needs to be said. No effective management to handle any internal squabbles, nobody to look out for Mike's loose mouth. The result was a PR disaster. So uneccessary, so unprofessional.

CD - The last sentence sums up where you were going. Mike is a band member and Jack was not.  And the "leading questions" where you were looking to box me into a yes/no answer.  There is no relationship between the two issues.  Some of Dennis stuff...one, from Dennis, written with Mike (Only With You) probably one of the best ever written in my opinion.  How is this leading to a Mike bash?  How did Jack end up as a writer? I think of So Tough and Holland as one body of work.  Holland did not do that well in the States, not unlike Pet Sounds but grew into a classic.  ST was #50 and Holland was at #36.  Both got good fm coverage as kids were ripping out am radios of their rides and putting in am/fm for the choice of better music.  

What was Dennis' relationship with Jack?  That is not the question in the thread. POB is a classic.  That merits it's own thread.  And while I look at my vinyl - Dennis has a nice note of appreciation for Bruce.      

The nation was not at war and there was a sense of relief, and gone, the need to create dirge-like war protest songs.  Jack was part of that era, no matter how you look at it.  GF's cool post is not lost on me where many people do start out in the mailroom.  I get that.  I am talking about "blurred lines" with job descriptions.  And one in particular who crossed over in a very destructive way over time. Jack was supposed to manage, not insinuate himself in the creative process.

  

Re: Beach Boys management.

Things recently came so very, very, very, very close to being set right -- to be spectacular. To be major.
And it was blown.

I hate to be so vague, because I hate when others do the same -- but it was almost all set right.

So close.
I did my best.

Howie - it is fine to be vague and not vague at the same time.  Discretion is the better part of valor. 

The disconnect with the tour is that some people, even fans, were convinced, or convinced themselves, that C50 was a permanent reunion. 

And, I never got the impression that it was more than an "event."  So, I did not come away disappointed.  It was a magnificent experience.  With luck, and very clear terms, with all involved, maybe it could happen again.   ;)

I would assume that any recent goings-on regarding management would have been about far more than just touring, and would be about far more than anything to do with getting any reunion together.

As for C50, I think it's revisionism to suggest much of anyone was "convinced" the reunion was permanent. In fact, the most common thought and commentary I saw before and during C50 involved it very much being an open question as what would happen in the future, and that was tinged with plenty of pessimism and skepticism from fans who know well how disorganized and unfortunate the BBs sometimes run their affairs.

Hoping for the reunion to continue for another touring season or two, or even hoping they might keep the reunion together as some sort of "main attraction" while keeping their sidebands going, was nothing more than that: A hope.

The actual celebration of the 50th anniversary was obviously a fixed, one-time "event" (although a band could easily "continue" a 50th anniversary tour into the following year; nobody would be bugging them that they would need to change it to "Beach Boys 51", and indeed Brian Wilson had done "40th Anniversary" Pet Sounds dates in 2007 and may well do 50th dates in 2017). But based on pretty much everybody's words and expressed thoughts, the future of the band was open-ended.

Nobody was saying before or during the tour, up until Mike's press release in September, that the reunion was definitively and fully ending with the final UK date in September. Except Bruce, sort of; and his comments as the tour began indeed should have been perhaps more closely heeded. Nobody would so emphatically tell fans that the last gig with all five members was going to be on such-and-such date, unless they had a reason to say so and at least had the appearance of not being bummed in the slightest about the prospect.

HJ - Before and during C50, numerous interviews were conducted by the band, or contained within the band, about the nature of C50.  It is not revisionism.  And it was not "pretty much everybody's words." Those interviews are still on youtube.  

A mini-industry was created (or was partially in place) that fed off the tour. Did it benefit all involved?  Of course.  Are/were they unhappy that the tour ended?  Of course.  

The actual decisions come from the wishes of the individual band members, perhaps, after some preliminary negotiations occur.  It is a small (in number) member group. And the year can always be looked at in numerous ways.  Pet Sounds was released towards the end of fiscal year 1966 which ends in June.  Academic years start in September and run through June/August.  There are any number of ways of looking at things.  When you operate pretty much autonomously you can set your own schedule.  Pet Sounds was still in the racks in 1967, which technically, was within the first half of the fiscal year.  

This thread is about Jack and Bruce. And only they knew/know what went down. And, frankly, my dear... :lol

Whose fiscal year? What fiscal year are you talking about and how does it and Pet Sounds connect to the topic?

So you are of the opinion that the only possible songs that Jack could have contributed to the band, or that Jack could help influence the direction of the band in, had he stayed in the band past Holland, would be dirge-like war protest songs?

I don't care that the "party" era began, as you like to put it. Guess what? Look at 1979 still during this "party" era, with disco BB songs and lots of coke. Dennis fortunately contributed progressive sounding songs to the LA album, and it made the album a lot better and more balanced.

Look what happens when you take out an important guy in the band pushing for a progressive slant:

In 1976, the first post-Jack album = 15 Big Ones. In 1980, the when Denny removes himself from the equation as a songwriter = Keepin' The Summer Alive. In both cases, a pretty significant downgrade. For some reason, it's like pulling teeth for you to actually address a common element in both of these cases: an intentional change of direction, where a progressive-leaning force (whether an official member, or an influential collaborator) is removed. How is it that you fail to see, and fail to address my point of this commonality between these two situations?  

Look, I'll concede that often times, there may be multiple reasons why a band changes direction on any given album. And if that next record sucks, it's not necessarily any one member's "fault". But if a particular progressive-minded person is silenced, it isn't inconsequential. Stop trying to pretend that it's inconsequential. There's going to be some difference to the final product without the influence or input of that progressive-minded person, one way or another. How can you not see this logic?

The only thing my post is leading to is to point out that it's preposterous to conclude that Jack leaving the scene didn't leave a void, and that creative decay didn't occur in the immediate aftermath. Jack was really pushing for quality control, and he was a much-needed support system to the vision of Wilson brothers, when it came to specifically helping bolster the progressive side of their creativity.

"So you are of the opinion that the only possible songs that Jack could have contributed to the band, or that Jack could help influence the direction of the band in, had he stayed in the band past Holland, would be dirge-like war protest songs? "

I'd rather have that than much of the stuff that followed. As fan I can make excuses and see the good in fairly average songs - even going as far as justifying some of those fun in the sun numbers like It's Okay and Woncha Come Out Tonight - but no album - apart from the quirkiness of Love You - can come close to Holland. Look at the potential of LA from the tracks lying around or at least begun around that time, but no, let's pollute the good stuff with considerably lesser stuff (though at least we didn't get Calendar Girl). Love You aside, in terms of albums with genuinely decent new music since Holland, we've had half of LA and half of TWGMTR (plus all of POB and BW88) - that's obviously not to dismiss the genuine worth some great 'new' tracks on weaker albums like Had to Phone Ya and My Diane. I don't think Carl ever wrote as good a song as those he wrote with Jack. That, in itself, is telling.

However, I do think the loss of Murry is surely a huge factor in the kind of implosion that went on.

I think what this all boils down to was timing. Jack Rieley was the perfect person to have in that position at that time. What might've happened with him in the mid and later seventies is pure conjecture. I think most of the time the BB's were their own worst enemies in terms of career moves, they succeeded in spite of themselves. In the long run( no pun intended) I think Irving Azoff would have been a great manager for them.

I have to say after catching a Mike & Bruce show a few weeks ago doing almost half of Pet Sounds, and performing the songs well, and seeing Brian and Al a few times last year, I would say a major opportunity was lost in properly celebrating the 50th anniversay of PS.

Wasn't there a recent Brian interview that mentioned Mike (and I guess Bruce, maybe David as well) was asked to join Brian and Al (and Blondie) for the Pet Sounds anniversary?

CD - Staying relevant in the mid-late 60's, into the 70's was a huge issue.  Do you deny that?  They were condemned for that?  When the winds of war were blowing over, during a time of peace and re-building post Nixon, was anti-war music relevant?  No.  Time to switch it up again. Those bands who never got out of the protest mode are where, now? They needed to pay attention to what is going on and remain relevant.  Yes, disco. How would they fit?  

And I did not fire Jack.  They did.  You are pulling teeth?  You want me to "salute" and agree?  What is the longevity of bands?  Apparently Capitol thought they were done, releasing Best of, Volume I, eight weeks post Pet Sounds.  

In life, I don't expect perfection, because as a teacher, I know that that is not how growth occurs. Growth mostly occurs when your butt is in the dirt, or worse, if your face is in the dirt and you figure out that it is time to rise to the occasion or you will remain in the dirt.  Most success is spurred by failure.  They are no different.  In the big scheme of things, Jack served some purpose working on relevancy, but I have a problem with his b.s.  One of my favorite things about this band, is that despite the odds, they can get up on that stage and belt out their music and still have some passion after all this time.  

When people leave a void, the rest have to figure out how to regroup.  It is life. Guercio... Working with Chicago...Wishin' You Were Here.  Their voices jumped out of the radio. 15 Big Ones? Rock and Roll Music and It's OK at Caribou...not too bad.  I have no huge problem with a lot of this, given the time, the demands of the record company to "turn something out." And Landy in the supervisor's chair? (according to wiki) This is post-Jack?

Staying on the charts was important. And they were getting older.  They were not teens playing for teens, or in their twenty year olds playing for twenty year olds.  The audience was in their thirties, with young kids in tow. It was cool to hear the voices of the BB's on any radio or on a juke box lineup, in the throes of the disco-era.  There was still life.   I guess what I am having a problem with your post is that you seem to be looking at absolutes, and I don't think there are any.   ;)

Happy Friday!  ;)

But still, Rieley claims that Bruce asked him to write the lyric for Disney Girls (which he declined)!?

rasmus skotte - Rieley's claims might be as credible as his resume, and his awards.      ;)

Having successfully guided the band into a place in the early 70's "progressive rock" scene, or whatever you want to call it, could Rieley -- if he had remained -- likewise transition the Beach Boys into the late 70's, early 80's New Wave era?

I think it highly unlikely. Which "dinosaur" acts did make that transition? Paul Simon? Fleetwood Mac, to a minor extent?

Stones and the Who were successful during that time.

If Jack could have continued to have been present, genuinely continuing to nurture the Wilson brothers' progressive creativity during this time, and holding back the Love axis from yielding as much influence as it soon did, I cannot fathom that this would have been a bad thing musically for the end result.

Even with the early part of the band's career being more celebrated as the '70s went on, that didn't by definition mean the band had to experience creative decay in the manner it did. It wasn't unavoidable. Was Jack the cure? Maybe he would have helped. I can't feel he would have hurt the Wilson brothers continuing to explore a progressive creative direction.

Let's take a fantasy scenario of Mike quitting the band for whatever reason after Holland, and also Jack staying onboard. Does anyone think we'd have gotten material in the later part of the 70s that would be *worse* than what we actually got (LA Light Album excepted)? I love Love You to death, but obviously history would be very different, and I don't think in a negative way in which the music quality output suffers.

I don't really think the who transitioned into the 80s that well. Keith moon's death and pete's increasing inability to write for roger's voice basically ended the band in 1978. Face dances in 1979 and it's hard in 1982 were pale imitations

clack - This whole "Rieley" thing, notwithstanding the so-called "image" issues, where, as a "promotor" - it was his job to work on "image" reformation, remains a huge disconnect for me.  This is the band, who in that early first 10 years had switched up themes, styles, and beats while Brian was composing, and the others learning the craft to a lesser extent.  Jack did not come in with a magic wand and turn them into what they already had done into pixie dust, and sprinkle it over college campuses.  Jack had a lot to work with.

Was the band stuck in a stereotype?  Maybe. That was on the record company during the Pet Sounds and post era as I see it.  They had been a progressive groove since 1965 and prior.  Even BB Today was a prefiguration of sorts of the potential.  Jack may have provided "themes" to work around, but the band was at the table with a pretty impressive portfolio.  I think the individual band members had all grown in the job, and each, including and especially Carl and Dennis were coming into their own.  I think Jack "packaged" what was already going on.  But the packaging was his job.       

Hod on. Disco's first and that didn't work out for the boys.

RE: Townshend not being able to write for Daltrey -- I could not disagree more.

Drumming issues aside -- "You Better You Bet," "Cache Cache," "Daily Records," "Another Tricky Day," "I've Known No War, " One Life's Enough," "Cry If You Want" -- all world class/life affirming/as good as all that came before.

I don't personally like their work during that period so much; but they had some success.

I think if you take the best tracks from Face Dance and It's Hard and put them together, you'd have a pretty good album. 

But, quite frankly, I liked The Who's 2006 Endless Wire album better than both. 

Some 60's acts had accumulated enough momentum to carry them on to some early 80's chart success -- the Who, the Stones, the Moody Blues, Stevie Wonder, McCartney. Sort of the equivalent of Elvis, Chuck Berry or Roy Orbison having chart success in 1964/65. Basically, running on fumes.

If the Beach Boys had had a big album in 1977 or '78, and then had followed up with some strong early 80's work, then their career might have had enough impetus to take them into the early MTV era. But even then, would they have been able to compete with Duran Duran? Prince? Michael Jackson? Any residual success would have been short-lived.

Their time was just over. It happens to everyone. Jack Rieley -- or any other manager -- couldn't have re-established their relevance.

clack - that cracked me up - "running on fumes!"  Haven't heard that in a really long time.  :lol

I've noticed other seem to love I've Known No War. IMO, the track is ambitious lyrically, but really doesn't go anywhere great musically.

Not sure why no one is mentioning "Endless Summer" here. That is what basically killed their career, when they thought that they needed the stereotypical "fun in the sun" image with the band just because of how successful that compilation was, and rushing out an album just to capitalize on that (15 big ones) rather than waiting for true inspiration to spark.

I think someone like Rieley could have brought the band to their senses and stopped them from trying to be their old selves and shoehorning things in their music in a contrived manner just to stay relevant (which made them more irrelevant).

I am shocked an album like Love You was released, which is why it is one of my favorites. That's a rare case of them realizing they have some Brian Wilson gold and just working with what they had instead of overcompensating to try to get some hits. Granted maybe that would have kept happening if Brian was capable of producing and writing as much again but then again Adult Child was rejected and discouraged. Thank God for Carl to make Love You what it was.

While I love alternate history and such, these types of things are next to impossible with the BBs, because whether one likes it or not, in the 60s 70s and 80s for sure, no Mike Love=no Beach Boys.  Without Mike there is no band and that is not a judgement on his skills or lack of skills but a judgement on the realities of that band and the times in which they operated. 

Now, if one wants to discuss the merits and potential of the three Wilson brothers branching off into a grand new progressive direction of power trio songwriting with their music, that is another thing, and something I think about sometimes.  Would it have been successful and this huge creative masterpiece?  Maybe.  Quite possibly.  Then again....    ;D

Well, let's be clear. I think most BB fans, even those that loathe Mike Love on a more personal/personality level, would agree he was a key component to the band.

But in the most literal sense, the band *could have* existed without Mike. If Chicago could continue without Peter Cetera, than the Beach Boys could have technically continued without Mike.

Would the thing have fallen apart without Mike there eventually? Possibly, depending on when a theoretical Mike departure would have occurred.

As for a "Wilson Power Trio", I don't think many fans, even very staunch "it's all about the Wilsons" people, have ever specifically argued that the three Wilsons should have or could have broken off and formed a "power trio." That sounds more like a fanfic scenario or something. I'm not even sure the three of them were writing music that was compatible with each other. Supporting each other's music and projects? Sure. Carl singing on POB, etc. totally worked. Both Dennis and Carl working on Brian stuff of course was great. 

But Dennis was doing stuff relatively disparate from what Carl was writing (e.g. "Love Surrounds Me" or POB stuff versus "Full Sail" or "Goin' South" or his '81 solo album stuff), and Brian was doing his own thing at that same time to the degree he was writing and creating.

But I don't think a "power trio" album was ever feasible (and a "Hanson" comparison doesn't make any sense to me either), and if the three of them *had* done an album together, it basically would have been disparate, more like "LA (Light Album)" just without the other BB's songs.

The thing with "Endless Summer" was that it was less about an artistic direction choice, and more about just doing something that got a larger positive reception. I think a lot of "Classic Rock" era bands went through the stage where their new albums didn't sell well, and they were basically looking at doing *whatever it would take* to stay relevant, even if it meant just going "all oldies", or vastly changing their sound to something more "current."

Look at an example like Chicago. Some of the guys in the band clearly weren't big fans of going 80s-power-ballad-heavy in the early-mid 80s (and even going back to the late 70s), but all those Peter Cetera ballads are what kept them relevant at that time. Indeed, for 30 years after Cetera left, they continued to do those songs in concert.

The Hanson thing was meant to be lighthearted.

Interesting no one noticed the post by i believe.. Guitar Fool two pages back.. Or at least commented on it much.. About working in the mail room.. Dreaming of being a manager for a band.. WELL.... Ive read that actual scene in a couple of books about a famous band from America.. The mail room guys initals  are DG.. If that doesnt give it away i dont know what will.. He became very rich and started in the mail room.. LOL..
 ;D  :lol

I always kind of wished that at some point during the seventies, Mike would have been shunted aside to appear  live only during the encore on the early sixties stuff he sang lead on and that the rest of the group had performed more progressive material during the main part of the concert.  Yes, I know this was the strategy early in the seventies, to do mostly recent material during the pre-encore stuff.  But of course that changed rather abruptly.  I guess you would still have needed his voice for the vocal blend even during the more ambitious tunes, but having his bald old head and scraggly old beard out front and hoppin' around like a geriatric Jagger sure didn't help out their hipness quota during this time period.  Al wasn't exactly a fashion plate either...