New Jack Rieley Interview!

[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.

I'm not your guy, buddy.

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

[drbeachboy]

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.

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

[TimmyC]

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.

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

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

[ontor pertawst]

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

Peabody Award-winning research!

Statistics that seem awfully made up: 90%

[drbeachboy]

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?

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

[drbeachboy]

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.

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

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

Stiffly in the wind, I might add.

[Bean Bag]

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

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

[Steve Mayo]

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.

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

[Jim V.]

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

[drbeachboy]

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

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

[Magic Transistor Radio]

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

[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.

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

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

[SurfRiderHawaii]

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

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

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

[Disney Boy (1985)]

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.  

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

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

[Disney Boy (1985)]

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.

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

[Micha]

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

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

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

[Micha]

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

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

[drbeachboy]

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

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

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

OK.

[Smilin Ed H]

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

[Bean Bag]

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

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

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

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

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

[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.

I'm not your guy, buddy.

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

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

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

[Micha]

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.

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

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

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

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

[pixletwin]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

[TimmyC]

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

[anazgnos]

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