What did Bruce and Jack disagree over?

[SurferDownUnder]

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

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

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

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

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

[Don Malcolm]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ian]

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

[filledeplage]

I think it's clear that Bruce thought Jack was a fraud, possibly within weeks of becoming acquainted with him.

Sums it up. Good instincts. 

[CenturyDeprived]

I think it's clear that Bruce thought Jack was a fraud, possibly within weeks of becoming acquainted with him.

Sums it up. Good instincts.  

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

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

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

[HeyJude]

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

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

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

[filledeplage]

I think it's clear that Bruce thought Jack was a fraud, possibly within weeks of becoming acquainted with him.

Sums it up. Good instincts.  

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

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

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

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

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

To quote AGD in a post I bumped yesterday:

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

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

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

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

No, it is a crime.  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Delete

[HeyJude]

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

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

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

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

I think it's clear that Bruce thought Jack was a fraud, possibly within weeks of becoming acquainted with him.

Sums it up. Good instincts.  

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

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

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

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

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

To quote AGD in a post I bumped yesterday:

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

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

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

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

No, it is a crime.  

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

[filledeplage]

I think it's clear that Bruce thought Jack was a fraud, possibly within weeks of becoming acquainted with him.

Sums it up. Good instincts.  

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

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

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

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

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

To quote AGD in a post I bumped yesterday:

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

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

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

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

No, it is a crime.  

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

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

I think it's clear that Bruce thought Jack was a fraud, possibly within weeks of becoming acquainted with him.

Sums it up. Good instincts.  

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

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

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

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

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

To quote AGD in a post I bumped yesterday:

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

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

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

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

No, it is a crime.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Don Malcolm]

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

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

+1

[filledeplage]

I think it's clear that Bruce thought Jack was a fraud, possibly within weeks of becoming acquainted with him.

Sums it up. Good instincts.  

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

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

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

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

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

To quote AGD in a post I bumped yesterday:

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

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

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

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

No, it is a crime.  

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

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

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

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

Jack could have become what Terry Melcher was to Mike in the 80s and 90s.  An outsider who he didn't want to lose. This of course would be contingent of Mike and Bruce getting along with Jack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Emdeeh]

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[filledeplage]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HeyJude]

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

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

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

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

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

[B.E.]

Further discussion here if interested...

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

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

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

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

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

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

That was the show I went to!

[filledeplage]

I think it's clear that Bruce thought Jack was a fraud, possibly within weeks of becoming acquainted with him.

Sums it up. Good instincts.  

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

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

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

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

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

To quote AGD in a post I bumped yesterday:

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

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

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

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

No, it is a crime.  

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

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

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

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

Jack could have become what Terry Melcher was to Mike in the 80s and 90s.  An outsider who he didn't want to lose. This of course would be contingent of Mike and Bruce getting along with Jack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

[HeyJude]

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

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

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

That was the show I went to!

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

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

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