New Jack Rieley Interview!

[Micha]

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

Western Justice is also worth mentioning. I love it!

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

What if...

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

Ah, the art of dreaming...

[Iron Horse-Apples]

That's bullcrap!

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

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

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

 , of course.

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

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

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

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

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

[Disney Boy (1985)]

In the meantime, I've had to find another job, and I'm pleased to say I have managed to do so - however, obviously it wouldn't look good if I were to have said I was sacked from my previous job (regardless of whether the sacking was against employment law) and so therefore I lied in my interview and said I'd left of my own accord. Well, I've now been at my new job for a month and it's going great!

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

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

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

[Disney Boy (1985)]

This thread has taught me a few things:

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

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

[The Shift]

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

[Micha]

La-la-la-lies - The Who

[Bean Bag]

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

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

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

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

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

[clack]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Shift]

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

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

[Bean Bag]

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

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

[Andrew G. Doe]

In the meantime, I've had to find another job, and I'm pleased to say I have managed to do so - however, obviously it wouldn't look good if I were to have said I was sacked from my previous job (regardless of whether the sacking was against employment law) and so therefore I lied in my interview and said I'd left of my own accord. Well, I've now been at my new job for a month and it's going great!

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

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

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

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

[Disney Boy (1985)]

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

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

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

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

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

[TimmyC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHO CARES? WHY DO YOU CARE?

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

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

[TimmyC]

sorry - I deleted this

[Disney Boy (1985)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHO CARES? WHY DO YOU CARE?

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

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

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

[Paulos]

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

[Robbie Mac]

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

[Robbie Mac]

In the meantime, I've had to find another job, and I'm pleased to say I have managed to do so - however, obviously it wouldn't look good if I were to have said I was sacked from my previous job (regardless of whether the sacking was against employment law) and so therefore I lied in my interview and said I'd left of my own accord. Well, I've now been at my new job for a month and it's going great!

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TimmyC]

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

OK guy.

[Bean Bag]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paulos]

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

OK guy.

I'm not your guy, buddy.

[filledeplage]

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

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

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

[Andrew G. Doe]

In the meantime, I've had to find another job, and I'm pleased to say I have managed to do so - however, obviously it wouldn't look good if I were to have said I was sacked from my previous job (regardless of whether the sacking was against employment law) and so therefore I lied in my interview and said I'd left of my own accord. Well, I've now been at my new job for a month and it's going great!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bgas]

sorry - I deleted this

should have deleted your post before it, also

[bgas]

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

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

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

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