What did Mike + the other Boys think of Jack Rieley's lyrics?

[Stephen W. Desper]

RE: the lyrics and their acceptance, Stephen Desper would probably know. He tracked 'em.

One of the revelations of the SOT studio boots is all the dialogue between takes. Gave a great birds eye view in how the guys worked. When they were all wood shedding at Bellagio, I'm sure there was some tomfoolery goin' on. Whether that ever turned into rebellion towards Jack's approach, we can only conjecture. Bruce maybe. Hell, he split the scene man.

COMMENT:  It's not about the lyrics. Anyone can write lyrics. JR worked with Carl on lyrics most of the time, but some with everyone else, except Bruce who didn't buy into the JR approach.  But the main point is that it's not about the lyrics, it's about who could communicate with Brian and bring him into civil behavior and thinking. If JR was able to shift Brian's attention back to music creation and into the studio, and if the vehicle for that is lyric writing, then everyone will work with JR, to some extent, to achieve normality of Brian. So what you need to realize is that this was a time of some desperation. Brian, the founder of the group and its driving force, was in trouble. Now we know it all turned out for the better of everyone, but then we didn't have the advantage of that hindsight. So in the atmosphere of 45 years ago JR was getting Brian back into production, so his lyrics were allowed, tolerated, and massaged with enough Beach Boy influence to gain acceptance into the production. In short, Brian came with Jack's lyrics. Jack was an excellent writer and quite capable of good lyric writing, but that is not the question, more to the question is, was it worth it. Was having Jack's lyrics worth it to get Brian's involvement?   
I would suggest that comments you wish to make should be made in light of the above.
~swd
 

[CenturyDeprived]

RE: the lyrics and their acceptance, Stephen Desper would probably know. He tracked 'em.

One of the revelations of the SOT studio boots is all the dialogue between takes. Gave a great birds eye view in how the guys worked. When they were all wood shedding at Bellagio, I'm sure there was some tomfoolery goin' on. Whether that ever turned into rebellion towards Jack's approach, we can only conjecture. Bruce maybe. Hell, he split the scene man.

COMMENT:  It's not about the lyrics. Anyone can write lyrics. JR worked with Carl on lyrics most of the time, but some with everyone else, except Bruce who didn't buy into the JR approach.  But the main point is that it's not about the lyrics, it's about who could communicate with Brian and bring him into civil behavior and thinking. If JR was able to shift Brian's attention back to music creation and into the studio, and if the vehicle for that is lyric writing, then everyone will work with JR, to some extent, to achieve normality of Brian. So what you need to realize is that this was a time of some desperation. Brian, the founder of the group and its driving force, was in trouble. Now we know it all turned out for the better of everyone, but then we didn't have the advantage of that hindsight. So in the atmosphere of 45 years ago JR was getting Brian back into production, so his lyrics were allowed, tolerated, and massaged with enough Beach Boy influence to gain acceptance into the production. In short, Brian came with Jack's lyrics. Jack was an excellent writer and quite capable of good lyric writing, but that is not the question, more to the question is, was it worth it. Was having Jack's lyrics worth it to get Brian's involvement?   
I would suggest that comments you wish to make should be made in light of the above.
~swd
 

Thanks as always for your insight, Stephen. Makes sense.

[drbeachboy]

I have long believed that Jack Rieley's collaborations with band members constituted a conflict of interest. With the band members fighting to get their songs on the group's albums, wouldn't  a good manager have kept himself in as objective a position as possible? It's telling to me that "A Day in the Life of a Tree" made it onto Surf's Up and "Wouldn't It be Nice (To Live Again)" didn't.

We already know that is incorrect. Dennis pulled his tracks of his own volition, due to track sequencing issues between himself and Carl.

[CenturyDeprived]

I have long believed that Jack Rieley's collaborations with band members constituted a conflict of interest. With the band members fighting to get their songs on the group's albums, wouldn't  a good manager have kept himself in as objective a position as possible? It's telling to me that "A Day in the Life of a Tree" made it onto Surf's Up and "Wouldn't It be Nice (To Live Again)" didn't.

We already know that is incorrect. Dennis pulled his tracks of his own volition, due to track sequencing issues between himself and Carl.

Conflict of interest or not, the tracks he co-wrote are killer and we are mighty lucky to have them.

[Sheriff John Stone]

RE: the lyrics and their acceptance, Stephen Desper would probably know. He tracked 'em.

One of the revelations of the SOT studio boots is all the dialogue between takes. Gave a great birds eye view in how the guys worked. When they were all wood shedding at Bellagio, I'm sure there was some tomfoolery goin' on. Whether that ever turned into rebellion towards Jack's approach, we can only conjecture. Bruce maybe. Hell, he split the scene man.

COMMENT:  It's not about the lyrics. Anyone can write lyrics. JR worked with Carl on lyrics most of the time, but some with everyone else, except Bruce who didn't buy into the JR approach.  But the main point is that it's not about the lyrics, it's about who could communicate with Brian and bring him into civil behavior and thinking. If JR was able to shift Brian's attention back to music creation and into the studio, and if the vehicle for that is lyric writing, then everyone will work with JR, to some extent, to achieve normality of Brian. So what you need to realize is that this was a time of some desperation. Brian, the founder of the group and its driving force, was in trouble. Now we know it all turned out for the better of everyone, but then we didn't have the advantage of that hindsight. So in the atmosphere of 45 years ago JR was getting Brian back into production, so his lyrics were allowed, tolerated, and massaged with enough Beach Boy influence to gain acceptance into the production. In short, Brian came with Jack's lyrics. Jack was an excellent writer and quite capable of good lyric writing, but that is not the question, more to the question is, was it worth it. Was having Jack's lyrics worth it to get Brian's involvement?  
I would suggest that comments you wish to make should be made in light of the above.
~swd
 

Thanks as always for your insight, Stephen. Makes sense.

It makes little sense to me.

Anyone can write lyrics? How would that explain Brian Wilson seeking out Mike Love, Roger Christian, Tony Asher, Van Dyke Parks, Stephen Kalinich, and the various collaborators who provided lyrics in his solo career? Why didn't Brian just write his own lyrics? Because he used different lyricists for different songs/projects.

Was having Jack's lyrics worth it to get Brian's involvement? Well, let's see. "A Day In The Life Of A Tree", "Marcella", "You Need A Mess Of Help To Stand Alone", "Sail On Sailor", "Funky Pretty", and "Mount Vernon And Fairway". I vote "yes".

[Don Malcolm]

Some real misunderstandings of the early 70's era going on here.

This was the era of glam rock, when stars like David Bowie and Lou Reed proclaimed their homosexuality in interviews, when Bowie mimed performing fellatio on his guitarist as a routine part of his stage act,when even straight rockers implied that they were gay and wore mascara and dresses. And yes when even Mike Love, in imitation of Jagger, queened his way across the stage. Homosexuality was hip.

1973, maybe. But not 1971. The term bandied about in the rock press was "adrogyny." Not "homosexuality." Bowie's quote in 1972 referred to bisexuality, but the only thing we can really infer from all that is he was making provocative statements in an effort to boost album sales for Hunky Dory. Reed didn't transform himself into a glam androgyne until late 1972, despite the many "lower depths" references in earlier songs.

Glam rock came from Europe and Britain, its influence in the US was not particularly widespread. It pushed various poses of decadence into the conversation, but it was short-lived. You can see bands that began with those trappings (Roxy Music) abandoning the adrogyny and moving quickly into a fin de siecle world-weariness. Jagger's appeal, such as it was, stemmed from sexual swagger for all, which was not directly solely for an emerging group of closeted folks.

It's an open question whether glam rock was a catalyst for gay rights activists, who were quick to abandon public hyper-flamboyance when it came time to generate a viable political strategy.

At the time that Jack Reiley joined forces with the BBs, it's accurate to say that homosexuality was not quite so hip or accepted across the social spectrum, even in the world of rock.

As for Mike's Jaggerisms, methinks this is really 1975 territory, when the band is reestablished as a headlining act and Mr. Love was having his own wacky kind of "fun fun fun" on-stage. I will leave it to others to ask Mike if he was "queening" it like Mick or not, or whether any such connotations should be taken seriously or tongue-in-cheek.

[clack]

Rieley's lines were frequently clunky, and overall his lyrics were too on-the-nose and journalistic -- but they weren't generic. I liked them, found them to be entertaining.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

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

Some insightful info in the 2006 Jack Reilly thread.

[clack]

Some real misunderstandings of the early 70's era going on here.

This was the era of glam rock, when stars like David Bowie and Lou Reed proclaimed their homosexuality in interviews, when Bowie mimed performing fellatio on his guitarist as a routine part of his stage act,when even straight rockers implied that they were gay and wore mascara and dresses. And yes when even Mike Love, in imitation of Jagger, queened his way across the stage. Homosexuality was hip.

1973, maybe. But not 1971. The term bandied about in the rock press was "adrogyny." Not "homosexuality." Bowie's quote in 1972 referred to bisexuality, but the only thing we can really infer from all that is he was making provocative statements in an effort to boost album sales for Hunky Dory. Reed didn't transform himself into a glam androgyne until late 1972, despite the many "lower depths" references in earlier songs.

Glam rock came from Europe and Britain, its influence in the US was not particularly widespread. It pushed various poses of decadence into the conversation, but it was short-lived. You can see bands that began with those trappings (Roxy Music) abandoning the adrogyny and moving quickly into a fin de siecle world-weariness. Jagger's appeal, such as it was, stemmed from sexual swagger for all, which was not directly solely for an emerging group of closeted folks.

It's an open question whether glam rock was a catalyst for gay rights activists, who were quick to abandon public hyper-flamboyance when it came time to generate a viable political strategy.

At the time that Jack Reiley joined forces with the BBs, it's accurate to say that homosexuality was not quite so hip or accepted across the social spectrum, even in the world of rock.

As for Mike's Jaggerisms, methinks this is really 1975 territory, when the band is reestablished as a headlining act and Mr. Love was having his own wacky kind of "fun fun fun" on-stage. I will leave it to others to ask Mike if he was "queening" it like Mick or not, or whether any such connotations should be taken seriously or tongue-in-cheek.

I mostly agree with all that, but Rieley was still fired not in '71 but in '73, in the midst of homosexuality's ephemeral moment of rock music hipness. If Rieley's homosexuality figured as one of the reasons for his being fired, the spirit of the times should not be used as an excuse -- as some, not you, did -- since, at least in rock music circles, the times were relatively sympathetic to homosexuality.

Personally, I find the whole music scene of the early 70's to be the most fascinating in rock history.

[Andrew G. Doe]

As far as the stuff in Gaines goes, having interviewed many beach boys insiders for my book, I've come to believe that everything in that book is basically true and that gaines actually showed restraint! Reliable sources have told me even crazier stories but I can't share them!

So Mike really did tell Brian "don't f*** with the formula"? That's in the book. There were posters here not long ago saying that never happened.

The financial and managerial information, and the details of the various contracts, are indeed extremely accurate, as is to be expected given the source. Said source also inevitably informs other aspects of the book.

[Smilin Ed H]

I'd be seriously surprised if the Biys hadn't come across and worked with (to coin a phrase) gay people in the music industry before this time. A few years down the line and they're working with Curt Boettcher (or however he was spelling his name at the time).

[rasmus skotte]

For all the good and bad things that Rieley did, he still deserves an online epitaph like the following!:


        John Frank Rieley III

'Are you sleeping Brother John?'

        Jack of many trades

[Cam Mott]

As far as the stuff in Gaines goes, having interviewed many beach boys insiders for my book, I've come to believe that everything in that book is basically true and that gaines actually showed restraint! Reliable sources have told me even crazier stories but I can't share them!

So Mike really did tell Brian "don't f*** with the formula"? That's in the book. There were posters here not long ago saying that never happened.

The financial and managerial information, and the details of the various contracts, are indeed extremely accurate, as is to be expected given the source. Said source also inevitably informs other aspects of the book.

What does Gaines say about F*ing With The F*ula?

I wonder what others who are mentioned in the book think/thought about it's accuracy or lack there of as far their experiences? (shooting a glance toward Stephen "Despar")

[Alan Smith]

As far as the stuff in Gaines goes, having interviewed many beach boys insiders for my book, I've come to believe that everything in that book is basically true and that gaines actually showed restraint! Reliable sources have told me even crazier stories but I can't share them!

So Mike really did tell Brian "don't f*** with the formula"? That's in the book. There were posters here not long ago saying that never happened.

The financial and managerial information, and the details of the various contracts, are indeed extremely accurate, as is to be expected given the source. Said source also inevitably informs other aspects of the book.

What does Gaines say about F*ing With The F*ula?

I wonder what others who are mentioned in the book think/thought about it's accuracy or lack there of as far their experiences? (shooting a glance toward Stephen "Despar")

Chapter 8, section 6 - Mike Love was the most vocal and vehement. "You're going to blow it, Brian," he said.  "Stick to the old stuff. Don't f*** with the formula."

Context is the BBs returning to California post tour for Smile vox sessions, then flipping out on purveying "the scene" and hearing the tracks.  The quote immediately follows on from the recollections of David Anderle.

[Cam Mott]

As far as the stuff in Gaines goes, having interviewed many beach boys insiders for my book, I've come to believe that everything in that book is basically true and that gaines actually showed restraint! Reliable sources have told me even crazier stories but I can't share them!

So Mike really did tell Brian "don't f*** with the formula"? That's in the book. There were posters here not long ago saying that never happened.

 
The financial and managerial information, and the details of the various contracts, are indeed extremely accurate, as is to be expected given the source. Said source also inevitably informs other aspects of the book.

What does Gaines say about F*ing With The F*ula?

I wonder what others who are mentioned in the book think/thought about it's accuracy or lack there of as far their experiences? (shooting a glance toward Stephen "Despar")

Chapter 8, section 6 - Mike Love was the most vocal and vehement. "You're going to blow it, Brian," he said.  "Stick to the old stuff. Don't f*** with the formula."

Context is the BBs returning to California post tour for Smile vox sessions, then flipping out on purveying "the scene" and hearing the tracks.  The quote immediately follows on from the recollections of David Anderle.

Yes. It isn't attributed to Anderle but is in the context of his recollections.

[filledeplage]

Could a Beach Boys' manager be fired - or a new one hired - without a vote by the Beach Boys themselves? Was it a majority or unanimous vote? Does anybody know how the vote went?

My understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that it was indeed unanimous.

Several tomes say stuff like "the group" was dissatisfied or infuriated with Rieley's decision to run the shop from Amsterdam, but there's no indication of any support for Jack.

Carl got executioner duty, which he performed in Holland in the spring of '73.

Would be interesting to know just who "the group" represented at the time. I can only imagine. While the Holland project substantially drained the coffers, under his direction the boys had their best shot at regaining their relevancy. And they did, indeed recapture the magic. But with all the factions and infighting going on they let Jack slip through their fingers. They lost not only their manager, but one of their most creative, interesting and refreshing lyricists. My favorite period in the band's history-unfortunately, it somehow wasn't meant to survive or thrive for a more extended period of time.  

OSD - looking back (always 20/20) this "move," under Jack, makes me wonder exactly how "self-serving" (as it related to Jack) in terms of his personal lifestyle tendencies as well as the then, rare and relatively lax standards with regards drugs.
And notwithstanding his fudging his resume, whether there was any real investigation as to his bona fide credentials.

We know the Holland era is outstanding, but, I'm thinking Jack was more a "facilitator" rather than a true teacher. He certainly appears to have been crafty in surveying the scene and "dividing the band members, to conquer." I have little doubt that the creative stuff was flowing with each band member, and their capabilities were evident with Wild Honey, and Jack just "assembled" or "packaged" their work.

[Stephen W. Desper]

COMMENT:  It's not about the lyrics. Anyone can write lyrics. JR worked with Carl on lyrics most of the time, but some with everyone else, except Bruce who didn't buy into the JR approach.  .
~swd
 

Thanks as always for your insight, Stephen. Makes sense.

It makes little sense to me.

Anyone can write lyrics? How would that explain Brian Wilson seeking out Mike Love, Roger Christian, Tony Asher, Van Dyke Parks, Stephen Kalinich, and the various collaborators who provided lyrics in his solo career? Why didn't Brian just write his own lyrics? Because he used different lyricists for different songs/projects.

Was having Jack's lyrics worth it to get Brian's involvement? Well, let's see. "A Day In The Life Of A Tree", "Marcella", "You Need A Mess Of Help To Stand Alone", "Sail On Sailor", "Funky Pretty", and "Mount Vernon And Fairway". I vote "yes".

COMMENT:
What makes little sense to you?  That anyone can write lyrics? Let me expand on that statement.  "Anyone can write lyrics" means that it is easy for any writer to put words to music. I didn't say anyone can write successful or commercial lyrics, I said anyone can put words to music. Try it yourself. You may discover a hidden talent. So JR's attempt to help Brian overcome the many fears within his everyday thinking was to reach out to him through his music. Jack did not write music, but he was a successful author. He took tone fragments, musical snippets that Brian had left dormant and applied some reasonable words to the notes. This enabled him to work on a common project, common to both men. This was a long and patient process requiring more understanding than Brian's band members had a talent for. Jack's reserve and commitment lead to Brian becoming more creative and into the studio and so forth.

Why didn't Brian write his own lyrics, you ask. Why didn't Brian fix his own car or cook his own meals or sew his own clothes?  The answer is the same as to why he didn't write many of his own lyrics. He was not as good at doing that as were others and he wished to collaborate with them to marry his melodies to their words. Now don't think for one minute that JR was writing all these lyrics by himself -- somehow bringing them to the studio in a finished form ready to be sung. Jack worked with everyone (except Bruce) on lyric composition. The main thing wasn't the lyric it was getting Brian stimulated. You have the songs you listed, not because of Jack's lyrics, but because of Jack's ability to get Brian interested in his own talent.

I recall the day Brian came to me to discuss a song he was working on (with Jack) about the health and welfare of trees. We went for a walk in Brian's back yard, he was reflecting on some of the trees growing there…some young, some old….strong oaks and one that was dead from a lightning strike. We were discussing how to get the message of the song to come across in a sound picture (or tone poem) and not just a melody with a story attached. Brian would tell me sonic concepts and I'd throw ideas back at him about how to realize the picture from a sound engineering point of view. What is the sound a healthy tree makes? Or a sick and dying tree. How do you tell the story in sonic concept? It wasn’t until I suggested using a pipe organ to represent the majesty of a tree (wood pipes) and a reed organ made of oak, for other sounds that things took off.  ‘Tree didn’t just magically come into being. It was a collaboration of creativity from Brian working with Jack, the group and myself. The words of ‘Tree have gone through many stages of development. Some of the ideas are from Jack, others from the group – I even think I said a thing or two during one of those many lyric discussions. ‘Tree was a very complex song to both create and to execute, but it was the lyric that got Brian out of his bedroom and into the backyard where he returned to his creative self. (‘Tree’s creation is covered in Part Three of Recording The Beach Boys.) ~swd

[Stephen W. Desper]

Some real misunderstandings of the early 70's era going on here.

This was the era of glam rock, when stars like David Bowie and Lou Reed proclaimed their homosexuality in interviews, when Bowie mimed performing fellatio on his guitarist as a routine part of his stage act,when even straight rockers implied that they were gay and wore mascara and dresses. And yes when even Mike Love, in imitation of Jagger, queened his way across the stage. Homosexuality was hip.

1973, maybe. But not 1971. The term bandied about in the rock press was "adrogyny." Not "homosexuality." Bowie's quote in 1972 referred to bisexuality, but the only thing we can really infer from all that is he was making provocative statements in an effort to boost album sales for Hunky Dory. Reed didn't transform himself into a glam androgyne until late 1972, despite the many "lower depths" references in earlier songs.

Glam rock came from Europe and Britain, its influence in the US was not particularly widespread. It pushed various poses of decadence into the conversation, but it was short-lived. You can see bands that began with those trappings (Roxy Music) abandoning the adrogyny and moving quickly into a fin de siecle world-weariness. Jagger's appeal, such as it was, stemmed from sexual swagger for all, which was not directly solely for an emerging group of closeted folks.

It's an open question whether glam rock was a catalyst for gay rights activists, who were quick to abandon public hyper-flamboyance when it came time to generate a viable political strategy.

At the time that Jack Reiley joined forces with the BBs, it's accurate to say that homosexuality was not quite so hip or accepted across the social spectrum, even in the world of rock.

As for Mike's Jaggerisms, methinks this is really 1975 territory, when the band is reestablished as a headlining act and Mr. Love was having his own wacky kind of "fun fun fun" on-stage. I will leave it to others to ask Mike if he was "queening" it like Mick or not, or whether any such connotations should be taken seriously or tongue-in-cheek.

I mostly agree with all that, but Rieley was still fired not in '71 but in '73, in the midst of homosexuality's ephemeral moment of rock music hipness. If Rieley's homosexuality figured as one of the reasons for his being fired, the spirit of the times should not be used as an excuse -- as some, not you, did -- since, at least in rock music circles, the times were relatively sympathetic to homosexuality.

Personally, I find the whole music scene of the early 70's to be the most fascinating in rock history.

COMMENT:  Jack's sexual identity was never a factor. Remember everyone lived and worked in Hollywood, California, Sexual Revolution, Liberal Thinking, Creative Atmosphere, etc.  In other words, not your average life-style, rather a life-style that tolerated any creative behavior that eventually lead to making a dollar.  The Business of Music -- don't you know!    ~swd

[rab2591]

I recall the day Brian came to me to discuss a song he was working on (with Jack) about the health and welfare of trees. We went for a walk in Brian's back yard, he was reflecting on some of the trees growing there…some young, some old….strong oaks and one that was dead from a lightning strike. We were discussing how to get the message of the song to come across in a sound picture (or tone poem) and not just a melody with a story attached. Brian would tell me sonic concepts and I'd throw ideas back at him about how to realize the picture from a sound engineering point of view. What is the sound a healthy tree makes? Or a sick and dying tree. How do you tell the story in sonic concept? It wasn’t until I suggested using a pipe organ to represent the majesty of a tree (wood pipes) and a reed organ made of oak, for other sounds that things took off.  ‘Tree didn’t just magically come into being. It was a collaboration of creativity from Brian working with Jack, the group and myself. The words of ‘Tree have gone through many stages of development. Some of the ideas are from Jack, others from the group – I even think I said a thing or two during one of those many lyric discussions. ‘Tree was a very complex song to both create and to execute, but it was the lyric that got Brian out of his bedroom and into the backyard where he returned to his creative self. (‘Tree’s creation is covered in Part Three of Recording The Beach Boys.) ~swd

This being one of my favorite Beach Boys songs I'm so glad I read this. Thank you for not only your insight but for your work on the actual song itself!

[Sjöman]

-

[clack]

I find the word "pollution" jarring in the context of a song. It feels too journalistic, too abstract, a violation of diction. I don't know, maybe it's just me.

Anyway, I love the song -- even the lyrics -- nonetheless, and I also love the arrangement and Rieley's croaking, weathered vocals. It all just somehow works.

[Smilin Ed H]

I recall the day Brian came to me to discuss a song he was working on (with Jack) about the health and welfare of trees. We went for a walk in Brian's back yard, he was reflecting on some of the trees growing there…some young, some old….strong oaks and one that was dead from a lightning strike. We were discussing how to get the message of the song to come across in a sound picture (or tone poem) and not just a melody with a story attached. Brian would tell me sonic concepts and I'd throw ideas back at him about how to realize the picture from a sound engineering point of view. What is the sound a healthy tree makes? Or a sick and dying tree. How do you tell the story in sonic concept? It wasn’t until I suggested using a pipe organ to represent the majesty of a tree (wood pipes) and a reed organ made of oak, for other sounds that things took off.  ‘Tree didn’t just magically come into being. It was a collaboration of creativity from Brian working with Jack, the group and myself. The words of ‘Tree have gone through many stages of development. Some of the ideas are from Jack, others from the group – I even think I said a thing or two during one of those many lyric discussions. ‘Tree was a very complex song to both create and to execute, but it was the lyric that got Brian out of his bedroom and into the backyard where he returned to his creative self. (‘Tree’s creation is covered in Part Three of Recording The Beach Boys.) ~swd

Sheer fucking genius. Thanks for sharing, This sort of stuff is priceless.

[Don Malcolm]

Thanks, Stephen, for bringing some first-hand information into this topic. It reminds us just how creative things were during the time frame when you were masterminding the Beach Boys' sound. I think it would be terrific if a special edition of the songs recorded at that time was released with special sub-mixes of the songs that would permit us to hear the vocal and instrumental arrangements as separate entities. The building blocks of this type of creativity are often as fascinating as the finished product.

Regarding Jack and his sexual preferences--I wonder if you would clarify if those were known to the band in the early going of their association with him? Recalling that anecdotal evidence tends to paint Mike as someone less comfortable with/ tolerant of leftist politics (the oft-quoted concern about appearing with Joan Baez at Big Sur because he was worried that she was a Communist...), I think many might find it plausible that differences in sexual orientation might have been another source of concern--particularly since Jack himself characterized the band as having two factions in '71 (Brian-Carl-Dennis and Mike-Al-Bruce). If I have the time frame correct, the Holland adventure and the severance of Jack's service to the band post-date your own departure, so you may not be privy to the details involved with those events...but it would be interesting to know if members of the band were aware of Jack's preferences during the time you were still working with them.

[Stephen W. Desper]

Thanks, Stephen, for bringing some first-hand information into this topic. It reminds us just how creative things were during the time frame when you were masterminding the Beach Boys' sound. I think it would be terrific if a special edition of the songs recorded at that time was released with special sub-mixes of the songs that would permit us to hear the vocal and instrumental arrangements as separate entities. The building blocks of this type of creativity are often as fascinating as the finished product.

Regarding Jack and his sexual preferences--I wonder if you would clarify if those were known to the band in the early going of their association with him? Recalling that anecdotal evidence tends to paint Mike as someone less comfortable with/ tolerant of leftist politics (the oft-quoted concern about appearing with Joan Baez at Big Sur because he was worried that she was a Communist...), I think many might find it plausible that differences in sexual orientation might have been another source of concern--particularly since Jack himself characterized the band as having two factions in '71 (Brian-Carl-Dennis and Mike-Al-Bruce). If I have the time frame correct, the Holland adventure and the severance of Jack's service to the band post-date your own departure, so you may not be privy to the details involved with those events...but it would be interesting to know if members of the band were aware of Jack's preferences during the time you were still working with them.

COMMENT:
The special edition you request is in the form of the study-video "Recording The Beach Boys - part two."  I'm not Privé to sub-mixes from the multi-track. This is inside BRI, of which I am no longer involved. However you will not be disappointed with part two (about Surf's Up) and the music thereof.

On being gay:  They were aware; it didn't matter. Talent is what matters. The Beach Boys were quite secure in their sexual identities. It's not about how you make love, not anything near. It's about the business of music. Follow the money. Even Quincy Jones was bi-. So what?  What matters is that he knew how to make money for everyone involved with him. It's the business of music. ~swd

[Alan Smith]

As far as the stuff in Gaines goes, having interviewed many beach boys insiders for my book, I've come to believe that everything in that book is basically true and that gaines actually showed restraint! Reliable sources have told me even crazier stories but I can't share them!

So Mike really did tell Brian "don't f*** with the formula"? That's in the book. There were posters here not long ago saying that never happened.

 
The financial and managerial information, and the details of the various contracts, are indeed extremely accurate, as is to be expected given the source. Said source also inevitably informs other aspects of the book.

What does Gaines say about F*ing With The F*ula?

I wonder what others who are mentioned in the book think/thought about it's accuracy or lack there of as far their experiences? (shooting a glance toward Stephen "Despar")

Chapter 8, section 6 - Mike Love was the most vocal and vehement. "You're going to blow it, Brian," he said.  "Stick to the old stuff. Don't f*** with the formula."

Context is the BBs returning to California post tour for Smile vox sessions, then flipping out on purveying "the scene" and hearing the tracks.  The quote immediately follows on from the recollections of David Anderle.

Yes. It isn't attributed to Anderle but is in the context of his recollections.

And similarly so in the Tom Nolan RS article.