How do fans view Jack Rieley and his influence?

[Disney Boy (1985)]

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

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

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

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

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

I think the answer is: MONEY. Something about which Dennis was largely indifferent, hence his continuing progressiveness. I think Carl needed Rieley to spur him on - the evidence speaks for itself. His song-writing rarely, if ever, achieved such heights again, even when he clearly tried. As for Brian, well he deteriorated so badly from 1972 to '76 that who knows what he was thinking. Painful to say, but the lyrics to Love You are clearly those of a disturbed and ill man, and trying to revert to his comfort zone lyrically was probably, well, a comfort.

[PS]

All I can tell you from my perspective as a lifelong Beach Boy fan (I'm 59), who first saw them at Carnegie Hall in September, 1971, was that beginning with Holland and In Concert, I could now take all of my college doper suitemates (who were fans of The Dead, New Riders, Allman Brothers, Floyd, Yes, KC and Genesis, etc.) with me to see the Boys at all of those great concerts in the college circuit in upstate NY (all noted in Jon and Ian's book, no doubt, which i just ordered!) like Buffalo, Syracuse, Oneonta, Rochester, Cortland, etc. Starting the shows with Hippie Jack standing up there introducing the (funky looking, very unslick) group, one by one (with the added cache of having Blondie and Ricky up there, too), in his own inimitable (and very serious, almost demanding respect) style, gave them an aura of a newly hip group, where lighting up a bone was perfectly apt. Even with all the newfound hipness, some of the same sh*t happened with the "fans", who insisted on yelling out requests during Carl's sublime rendition of Surf's Up (one time, Dennis completely lost it and screamed out "SHUT UP!!!" as loud as he could in the middle of the song - shook everyone up.

As everyone here has pointed out, this carried over during those great shows of the early 70's (saw them with The Kinks, etc.). And I'll never forget picking up Holland in the record store and bringing it back to my dorm, staring at that picture of long haired Brian turning around, looking so intense and angry. It was shocking to see him after all this time, and shocking to see him like that. And the album was a favorite on the floor of my dorm (especially Trader, Steamboat, Only With You, and, yes, Leaving This Town). The change in hipster credentials for fans of my age was palpable...

[filledeplage]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO IT ISN'T! It's completely and utterly relevant. 'I Believe I Can Fly' is R Kelly's biggest hit - it sold millions and millions worldwide! That does not stop it from being absolutely bloody awful and vomit-inducingly cheesy. I wouldn't want my favourite band in the world going anywhere near it. Likewise 'I Write The Songs'. I mean, what exactly are you saying? That you'd rather the Beach Boys had released songs like I Write The Songs rather than songs like Feel Flows?
Quote: 'Home base for the BB's is not Holland. It is CA. Holland was a "field trip."
Yes it was. SO WHAT? Why is that even remotely a problem? Why is it an issue that the Beach Boys didn't record an album in CA? What is so wrong with Holland as a country exactly? The Stones recorded some of their best albums abroad - should they have actually stayed put in London and never ventured overseas either?
I'll say it again: the trip to Holland resulted in a great album, which sold decently at the time, and is now widely considered a classic - so what's your problem?

Disney Boy (1985) - taste is personal as to each individual.  "Cheese" as you describe some music is your opinion. It might not be shared.  And if R. Kelly's song sold a gazillion copies, it only means that it was "pleasing" to the buyers. We don't get to decide what people like.

If you're read this board and my posts, you'll see readily that I play 73/74 in some manner every day!  That would not be in line with your post above.  I like it because of that period, and that includes some great stuff such as that long wailing version of Leaving This Town.  And, I think of Carl and the Passions AND Holland as a single corpus. It was done in Brian's studio. (CATP) A few of Holland were done in the States. And without the inclusion of Sail On Sailor, Reprise would not have released it. Cristgau gave it a C. He gave Wild Honey an A. It ranked #12 in Canada, 20 in the UK, and 36 in the US.

Holland made it to #12 in Canada, 20 in the UK, and 36 in the US. And Sunflower, #29 in the UK, and 151 in the US.  It has some pretty decent stuff.  How much of it is promotion, and how much is timing of the release?  This has been discussed ad nauseum.  The live context became more important with this band.  And there is always the question of "diminishing returns."  And, as between CATP and Holland, about 50% seems to have been recorded in each country.

"Healers" unite people and find ways of bringing out the best in everyone.  They don't encourage division and keeping bandmates apart.  And, the Stones are Europeans.  There is a difference.  There isn't a thing wrong with Holland (the country.) They spent thousands moving sound equipment.  That story is on this forum someplace. 

[drbeachboy]

All I can tell you from my perspective as a lifelong Beach Boy fan (I'm 59), who first saw them at Carnegie Hall in September, 1971, was that beginning with Holland and In Concert, I could now take all of my college doper suitemates (who were fans of The Dead, New Riders, Allman Brothers, Floyd, Yes, KC and Genesis, etc.) with me to see the Boys at all of those great concerts in the college circuit in upstate NY (all noted in Jon and Ian's book, no doubt, which i just ordered!) like Buffalo, Syracuse, Oneonta, Rochester, Cortland, etc. Starting the shows with Hippie Jack standing up there introducing the (funky looking, very unslick) group, one by one (with the added cache of having Blondie and Ricky up there, too), in his own inimitable (and very serious, almost demanding respect) style, gave them an aura of a newly hip group, where lighting up a bone was perfectly apt. Even with all the newfound hipness, some of the same sh*t happened with the "fans", who insisted on yelling out requests during Carl's sublime rendition of Surf's Up (one time, Dennis completely lost it and screamed out "SHUT UP!!!" as loud as he could in the middle of the song - shook everyone up.

As everyone here has pointed out, this carried over during those great shows of the early 70's (saw them with The Kinks, etc.). And I'll never forget picking up Holland in the record store and bringing it back to my dorm, staring at that picture of long haired Brian turning around, looking so intense and angry. It was shocking to see him after all this time, and shocking to see him like that. And the album was a favorite on the floor of my dorm (especially Trader, Steamboat, Only With You, and, yes, Leaving This Town). The change in hipster credentials for fans of my age was palpable...

Those were heady times to be a Beach Boys fan. I am 3 years younger than you and remember things quite the same way. It was same for me with my friends.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO IT ISN'T! It's completely and utterly relevant. 'I Believe I Can Fly' is R Kelly's biggest hit - it sold millions and millions worldwide! That does not stop it from being absolutely bloody awful and vomit-inducingly cheesy. I wouldn't want my favourite band in the world going anywhere near it. Likewise 'I Write The Songs'. I mean, what exactly are you saying? That you'd rather the Beach Boys had released songs like I Write The Songs rather than songs like Feel Flows?
Quote: 'Home base for the BB's is not Holland. It is CA. Holland was a "field trip."
Yes it was. SO WHAT? Why is that even remotely a problem? Why is it an issue that the Beach Boys didn't record an album in CA? What is so wrong with Holland as a country exactly? The Stones recorded some of their best albums abroad - should they have actually stayed put in London and never ventured overseas either?
I'll say it again: the trip to Holland resulted in a great album, which sold decently at the time, and is now widely considered a classic - so what's your problem?

Disney Boy (1985) - taste is personal as to each individual.  "Cheese" as you describe some music is your opinion. It might not be shared.  And if R. Kelly's song sold a gazillion copies, it only means that it was "pleasing" to the buyers. We don't get to decide what people like.

If you're read this board and my posts, you'll see readily that I play 73/74 in some manner every day!  That would not be in line with your post above.  I like it because of that period, and that includes some great stuff such as that long wailing version of Leaving This Town.  And, I think of Carl and the Passions AND Holland as a single corpus. It was done in Brian's studio. (CATP) A few of Holland were done in the States. And without the inclusion of Sail On Sailor, Reprise would not have released it. Cristgau gave it a C. He gave Wild Honey an A. It ranked #12 in Canada, 20 in the UK, and 36 in the US.

Holland made it to #12 in Canada, 20 in the UK, and 36 in the US. And Sunflower, #29 in the UK, and 151 in the US.  It has some pretty decent stuff.  How much of it is promotion, and how much is timing of the release?  This has been discussed ad nauseum.  The live context became more important with this band.  And there is always the question of "diminishing returns."  And, as between CATP and Holland, about 50% seems to have been recorded in each country.

"Healers" unite people and find ways of bringing out the best in everyone.  They don't encourage division and keeping bandmates apart.  And, the Stones are Europeans.  There is a difference.  There isn't a thing wrong with Holland (the country.) They spent thousands moving sound equipment.  That story is on this forum someplace. 

''Healers'' unite people and find ways of bringing out the best in everyone' - bloody hell... You must be religious or new age or something right?

Anyway, please read the post by PS above, directly before yours. He hits the nail on the head re what Rieley did for the band, and he has the added advantage of actually having been around at the time to directly witness the results of Rieley's influence.

As for Holland the album: again I'm having difficulty seeing what your exact point is. Holland peaked at #36 in the US. Yes, not exactly stellar, but a vast improvement on Sunflower's #156. Why did it sell so much better? Content and image.
And to say Holland ''has some pretty good stuff on it'' is almost as irritating as when Paul McCartney describes the Beatles as a ''good little band''.

And yes, I know thousands was spent moving equipment to Holland - I just don't understand why you think this is an issue. So what about how much it cost? Look at the results. Look what PS says. It may have been an expensive trip but the results were worth it! Or would you rather the group hadn't gone to Holland in '72, the poor record company had been spared the expense and we didn't have the Holland album, because that genuinely seems to be what you're saying... Otherwise I just can't see what you're actually getting at.
Hey the Beatles trip to India ended in disappointment, but I'm still glad they went as they wrote about half of the White Album there. Would you rather they were spared that subsequent disappointment, even if it meant we were all deprived of Blackbird, Dear Prudence and Back In The USSR? I assume not. The same applies with Steamboat, Trader and Mt Vernon & Fairway. 

Oh, and I Believe I Can Fly is horseshit. Sung by a pervert.

[Jukka]

I really enjoy reading all this, some proper discussion going on! Keep it up.

By the way, do we have any actual information on how Rieley possibly mismanaged the band (like, dollars and cents -wise, and aside from the fact that it was pretty expensive to haul all that equipment to Holland, which I think is justified by the end result).

[Andrew G. Doe]

I think I need to scan the interview I did with JFR3 back in summer 1982 for Stomp (at the time he was managing Kool & The Gang). Dated, of course, but some interesting stuff therein.

Holy sh*t. THIRTY-ONE years ago... 

[filledeplage]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO IT ISN'T! It's completely and utterly relevant. 'I Believe I Can Fly' is R Kelly's biggest hit - it sold millions and millions worldwide! That does not stop it from being absolutely bloody awful and vomit-inducingly cheesy. I wouldn't want my favourite band in the world going anywhere near it. Likewise 'I Write The Songs'. I mean, what exactly are you saying? That you'd rather the Beach Boys had released songs like I Write The Songs rather than songs like Feel Flows?
Quote: 'Home base for the BB's is not Holland. It is CA. Holland was a "field trip."
Yes it was. SO WHAT? Why is that even remotely a problem? Why is it an issue that the Beach Boys didn't record an album in CA? What is so wrong with Holland as a country exactly? The Stones recorded some of their best albums abroad - should they have actually stayed put in London and never ventured overseas either?
I'll say it again: the trip to Holland resulted in a great album, which sold decently at the time, and is now widely considered a classic - so what's your problem?

Disney Boy (1985) - taste is personal as to each individual.  "Cheese" as you describe some music is your opinion. It might not be shared.  And if R. Kelly's song sold a gazillion copies, it only means that it was "pleasing" to the buyers. We don't get to decide what people like.

If you're read this board and my posts, you'll see readily that I play 73/74 in some manner every day!  That would not be in line with your post above.  I like it because of that period, and that includes some great stuff such as that long wailing version of Leaving This Town.  And, I think of Carl and the Passions AND Holland as a single corpus. It was done in Brian's studio. (CATP) A few of Holland were done in the States. And without the inclusion of Sail On Sailor, Reprise would not have released it. Cristgau gave it a C. He gave Wild Honey an A. It ranked #12 in Canada, 20 in the UK, and 36 in the US.

Holland made it to #12 in Canada, 20 in the UK, and 36 in the US. And Sunflower, #29 in the UK, and 151 in the US.  It has some pretty decent stuff.  How much of it is promotion, and how much is timing of the release?  This has been discussed ad nauseum.  The live context became more important with this band.  And there is always the question of "diminishing returns."  And, as between CATP and Holland, about 50% seems to have been recorded in each country.

"Healers" unite people and find ways of bringing out the best in everyone.  They don't encourage division and keeping bandmates apart.  And, the Stones are Europeans.  There is a difference.  There isn't a thing wrong with Holland (the country.) They spent thousands moving sound equipment.  That story is on this forum someplace.  

''Healers'' unite people and find ways of bringing out the best in everyone' - bloody hell... You must be religious or new age or something right?

Anyway, please read the post by PS above, directly before yours. He hits the nail on the head re what Rieley did for the band, and he has the added advantage of actually having been around at the time to directly witness the results of Rieley's influence.

As for Holland the album: again I'm having difficulty seeing what your exact point is. Holland peaked at #36 in the US. Yes, not exactly stellar, but a vast improvement on Sunflower's #156. Why did it sell so much better? Content and image.
And to say Holland ''has some pretty good stuff on it'' is almost as irritating as when Paul McCartney describes the Beatles as a ''good little band''.

And yes, I know thousands was spent moving equipment to Holland - I just don't understand why you think this is an issue. So what about how much it cost? Look at the results. Look what PS says. It may have been an expensive trip but the results were worth it! Or would you rather the group hadn't gone to Holland in '72, the poor record company had been spared the expense and we didn't have the Holland album, because that genuinely seems to be what you're saying... Otherwise I just can't see what you're actually getting at.
Hey the Beatles trip to India ended in disappointment, but I'm still glad they went as they wrote about half of the White Album there. Would you rather they were spared that subsequent disappointment, even if it meant we were all deprived of Blackbird, Dear Prudence and Back In The USSR? I assume not. The same applies with Steamboat, Trader and Mt Vernon & Fairway.  
Oh, and I Believe I Can Fly is horseshit. Sung by a pervert.

Paragraph 3 - sentence 2 reference is to Sunflower, and not Holland.  (good stuff)

"I Believe I can Fly" is your analogy.  

Macca was being modest, in my opinion; He's not a "braggart."

And managers need to not be devisive, in order to motivate a quality product from the team whose leadership they assume. It is where "bully bosses" break things that don't need fixing.  Effective leaders work with people, not against them.  

At the end of the day, he may have been a source of support for Carl, who appears to have blossomed as a writer, there. But, it is Carl's vocals that make those songs.  Another vocalist would not have handled Long Promised Road as well.

(The Real Beach Boy

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

There is plenty of reliable Rieley stuff on this forum under the "search" function.  Some here, really like his ADITLOAT. It's harsh, but, has a message, and I respect that.  Wirestone says Rieley is a "net positive." I could maybe buy some of that. But, only from the standpoint that, they tried some new things, and, earlier with the R&B soul, TM themes, later disco, etc.  He might be a "facilitator." I don't know the man, so I won't add more.  It probably had more to do with the band's raw talent than his "cheerleading."

I'd characterize Rieley's period as sort of "historical narrative" - which helped remove the stereotype "surf" band into a greater acceptance as "a band" who could do more than what the earlier record company tried to pigeon-hole them into.

Point is that they pushed their own boundaries, during different career phases, and for different reasons.  They aren't a "one trick pony" band.
 
What I still don't care for is that the Band brought him "aboard" - "in good faith" (legal term of art - not a religious connotation) and that he had "embellished" his credentials.  That is religiously-neutral.  

[SonicVolcano]

I really hope they will release a box set one day covering the 1970-1974 years. We need more live shows from that period. They even played songs like Hold On Dear Brother and Here She Comes. Give it to me...now!

[Don Malcolm]

Andrew: please do scan that interview for us, it would be much appreciated. Regardless of what anyone's "final word" on him may be, Jack is a great character and an articulate fellow who almost invariably has something interesting to say, whether its the whole truth or not. If he hadn't existed, he would have needed to be invented--the BBs history would not be nearly as remarkable without him.

[drbeachboy]

Say what you will about him, but in the short-term, he accomplished what he was hired to do. He helped make the band relevant again in the eyes of the fans and with the rock press & promoters.

[SufferingFools]

I think that Jack Rieley was a positive influence on The Beach Boys.I actually like his lyrics and I'm not sure why they get branded as twaddle when people fall over themselves to praise Van Dyke Park's lyrics which could also be considered as meaningless nonsense.

In my case, it's mostly because Van Dyke's lyrics never make me wince, gag, or shake my head because they've just clunked like a hobnailed boot dropped into a piano.

[alf wiedersehen]

I think that Jack Rieley was a positive influence on The Beach Boys.I actually like his lyrics and I'm not sure why they get branded as twaddle when people fall over themselves to praise Van Dyke Park's lyrics which could also be considered as meaningless nonsense.

In my case, it's mostly because Van Dyke's lyrics never make me wince, gag, or shake my head because they've just clunked like a hobnailed boot dropped into a piano.

I would say there's truth to this. I'm not the biggest fan of VDP's lyrics, but they're much easier to respect. There is a ton of imagery and word play going on and it's simply impressive. With Rieley, he's a fine lyricist, but a lot of times they can be quite preachy and they get on my nerves.

It's similar to the song "It's About Time," I kinda like the instrumentation going on, but once it gets to that middle eight and Carl starts singing about everyone loving each other and being a huge family because that's what the world needs, it makes me hate the song.

[drbeachboy]

I think that Jack Rieley was a positive influence on The Beach Boys.I actually like his lyrics and I'm not sure why they get branded as twaddle when people fall over themselves to praise Van Dyke Park's lyrics which could also be considered as meaningless nonsense.

In my case, it's mostly because Van Dyke's lyrics never make me wince, gag, or shake my head because they've just clunked like a hobnailed boot dropped into a piano.

I would say there's truth to this. I'm not the biggest fan of VDP's lyrics, but they're much easier to respect. There is a ton of imagery and word play going on and it's simply impressive. With Rieley, he's a fine lyricist, but a lot of times they can be quite preachy and they get on my nerves.

It's similar to the song "It's About Time," I kinda like the instrumentation going on, but once it gets to that middle eight and Carl starts singing about everyone loving each other and being a huge family because that's what the world needs, it makes me hate the song.

Would "It's about time we get together and beat the sh*t out of one another" have worked better for you? Also, are you talking about first listening to it in 1970 or sometime in the not too distant past?

[alf wiedersehen]

I think that Jack Rieley was a positive influence on The Beach Boys.I actually like his lyrics and I'm not sure why they get branded as twaddle when people fall over themselves to praise Van Dyke Park's lyrics which could also be considered as meaningless nonsense.

In my case, it's mostly because Van Dyke's lyrics never make me wince, gag, or shake my head because they've just clunked like a hobnailed boot dropped into a piano.

I would say there's truth to this. I'm not the biggest fan of VDP's lyrics, but they're much easier to respect. There is a ton of imagery and word play going on and it's simply impressive. With Rieley, he's a fine lyricist, but a lot of times they can be quite preachy and they get on my nerves.

It's similar to the song "It's About Time," I kinda like the instrumentation going on, but once it gets to that middle eight and Carl starts singing about everyone loving each other and being a huge family because that's what the world needs, it makes me hate the song.

Would "It's about time we get together and beat the sh*t out of one another" have worked better for you? Also, are you talking about first listening to it in 1970 or sometime in the not too distant past?

I understand the song is a product of its times, but it still aggravates me. It's not even that I necessarily don't agree, if people worked together more often and helped each other out, things would probably be better in a lot of situations. But, still I find it a tad too much. I don't usually mind the songs that have social aspects, but it's so in my face in this certain song that it's just off-putting to me.

Maybe your revision would have made for more of an entertaining song. 

[hypehat]

I think that Jack Rieley was a positive influence on The Beach Boys.I actually like his lyrics and I'm not sure why they get branded as twaddle when people fall over themselves to praise Van Dyke Park's lyrics which could also be considered as meaningless nonsense.

In my case, it's mostly because Van Dyke's lyrics never make me wince, gag, or shake my head because they've just clunked like a hobnailed boot dropped into a piano.

I would say there's truth to this. I'm not the biggest fan of VDP's lyrics, but they're much easier to respect. There is a ton of imagery and word play going on and it's simply impressive. With Rieley, he's a fine lyricist, but a lot of times they can be quite preachy and they get on my nerves.

It's similar to the song "It's About Time," I kinda like the instrumentation going on, but once it gets to that middle eight and Carl starts singing about everyone loving each other and being a huge family because that's what the world needs, it makes me hate the song.

Would "It's about time we get together and beat the sh*t out of one another" have worked better for you?

.....

Just picture Carl softly crooning how he wants to beat the sh*t out of you.

I think it works better.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

A reply to Filledeplage's last post (it was getting tiresome having to scroll through all our endlessly repeated former quotes)...

Ok...

What your last sentence is meant to mean I honestly cannot fathom. ''The Band [your capital B] brought him ''abroad'' - ''in good faith''.
What does that even mean? Let's try it without the double apostrophes: the Band brought him abroad in good faith. Nope. No idea. I think you're making reference to the fact that after 2+ years of Rieley's (highly successful) management the Beach Boys agreed to go to Holland with him to record one of the greatest albums of their career - but yet again, I'm missing what point it is you're trying to establish...

You say: ''At the end of the day, he may have been a source of support for Carl, who appears to have blossomed as a writer, there. But, it is Carl's vocals that make those songs''.
I disagree. Carl's vocals are great  - as always - however it his vocals and the terrific melodies, the superb production and - yes! - the lyrics which make these songs incredible. I mean, really, is the sole saving grace of Feel Flows Carl's vocals? Really? Because I'd say his voice is so heavily processed that almost anyone could be singing it, and that it's the awesome production/instrumentation - courtesy of Carl - and the crazy, cosmic lyrics - courtesy of Rieley - that make the song was it is (a masterpiece).

''And managers need to not be devisive, in order to motivate a quality product from the team whose leadership they assume. It is where "bully bosses" break things that don't need fixing.  Effective leaders work with people, not against them''.

Ok, fair enough. But aside from Bruce leaving - something which (and this is important!) several members of the band welcomed at the time - all of the band seemed to happily go along with Rieley's (and Carl's) direction for the band, and the results were unarguably positive! Strong albums? Yes. Decent sales? Yes. Reputation restored? Yes. Good material? Yes.  And from all members of the band. So... what is this devisiveness of which you speak? It seems to me that the band was perpetually riven with devisiveness, and this was something which Rieley was momentarily able to quell, but which - upon his departure - returned with a vengeance and basically ruined them. Or what, do you think their late '70's work is superior to their early '70's material?

Oh, and I Believe I Can Fly IS sh*t. It is.

[Wirestone]

The lyrics to Feel Flows are beyond godawful. The Trader at least attempts to be about something.

[Andrew G. Doe]

A reply to Filledeplage's last post (it was getting tiresome having to scroll through all our endlessly repeated former quotes)...

Ok...

What your last sentence is meant to mean I honestly cannot fathom. ''The Band [your capital B] brought him ''abroad'' - ''in good faith''.
What does that even mean? Let's try it without the double apostrophes: the Band brought him abroad in good faith. Nope. No idea. I think you're making reference to the fact that after 2+ years of Rieley's (highly successful) management the Beach Boys agreed to go to Holland with him to record one of the greatest albums of their career - but yet again, I'm missing what point it is you're trying to establish...

I'm guessing "abroad" is a typo for "aboard". Should really be "on board", of course.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

The lyrics to Feel Flows are beyond godawful. The Trader at least attempts to be about something.

Ok. So what lyrics should Carl be singing on the (great) chorus and fade of this mystical, psychedelic track? What fits better than 'white hot glistening shadowy flows'? What particular lyrics better fit Carls' heavily processed vocals over this crazy sounding, far-out track? Perhaps he should be singing about girls and cars... The lyrics were written to fit the track - they fit. It works. Name a better psychedelic song?

[Disney Boy (1985)]

A reply to Filledeplage's last post (it was getting tiresome having to scroll through all our endlessly repeated former quotes)...

Ok...

What your last sentence is meant to mean I honestly cannot fathom. ''The Band [your capital B] brought him ''abroad'' - ''in good faith''.
What does that even mean? Let's try it without the double apostrophes: the Band brought him abroad in good faith. Nope. No idea. I think you're making reference to the fact that after 2+ years of Rieley's (highly successful) management the Beach Boys agreed to go to Holland with him to record one of the greatest albums of their career - but yet again, I'm missing what point it is you're trying to establish...

I'm guessing "abroad" is a typo for "aboard". Should really be "on board", of course.

I still fail to see his point either way. They brought him in in good faith and... and what? How did he betray this good faith exactly? He co-wrote some tremendous songs? Ooh, what a fucking bastard! He drastically improved their record sales and reputation? What a scoundrel! Honestly, how dare he! What next? Sell-out concerts? Classic albums? The best live album of their career? I mean what a sod!

It's very easy to say quite specifically what Rieley did right, however it seems whenever anyone tries to say what he did wrong they have to resort to vagueness and half-formed opinions and arguments. This speaks volumes, in Rieley's favour. Poor bloke. I bet he reads posts like this and thinks 'Fucking hell, I wish I hadn't bloody bothered...'

[filledeplage]

A reply to Filledeplage's last post (it was getting tiresome having to scroll through all our endlessly repeated former quotes)...
Ok...
What your last sentence is meant to mean I honestly cannot fathom. ''The Band [your capital B] brought him ''abroad'' - ''in good faith''.
What does that even mean? Let's try it without the double apostrophes: the Band brought him abroad in good faith. Nope. No idea. I think you're making reference to the fact that after 2+ years of Rieley's (highly successful) management the Beach Boys agreed to go to Holland with him to record one of the greatest albums of their career - but yet again, I'm missing what point it is you're trying to establish...

I'm guessing "abroad" is a typo for "aboard". Should really be "on board", of course.

Andrew - "aboard" is sort of a nautical metaphor for "on board." - I did laugh - I certainly did not mean "a broad!" 

Disney Boy - 1985
Within the quote - I think it is correct. I'll blame the iPad with a mind of its' own!

And "good faith" could connote a certain "reliance on his then-expressed credentials." Using "The Band," I mean The Beach Boys.

Reasonable minds can differ.  If we all agreed on everything, we'd have a pretty boring forum!

Happy Fourth of July! 

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Is that really how this discussion is going to conclude? What a cop out! I'm English - i dont even celebrate 4th of July!!!

Well, it seems to me no-one can give a decent well-written non-vague argument as to why exactly Rieley was bad for the group. The merits clearly outweigh any  apparent negatives.

About the best argument i've heard so far is 'Bruce didn't like him'. Well hey, Bruce doesnt like liberals either...

[oldsurferdude]

The lyrics to Feel Flows are beyond godawful. The Trader at least attempts to be about something.

Uh, maybe to you, but to me they were incredible. Songs do not nesessarily always have to be about something-they can embellish the music without always always having to tell a story as is the case with Feel Flows-it was always more of a dreamy sound experience than anything else.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I don't give a sh*t about lyrics for the most part...both songs kick ass.