What did Bruce and Jack disagree over?

[HeyJude]

The Rieley situation was likely untenable. I don't think they could have made him work as a manager for like another decade or something, for a bunch of reasons.

I think Don Malcolm's comments make sense; it's really just a bit of moral/ethical relativism in this case. I think what we *did* get out of the Rieley era, coupled with the *43 YEARS* or so since it all happened, in addition to Rieley's death, means some folks find it easier to find the good in what came out of the Rieley era and not dwell too much on what *could* have happened.

[filledeplage]

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.

Hey Jude - a wise old friend once told me, "Show me your friends, and I will tell you what you are." It is of no consequence to me that Jack was not convicted.  He maybe didn't get caught.  Being in the company of a liar and a cheat is bad enough.  If they did not discover it, so much the worse.

Bernie Madoff was not caught for years.  His was a white collar criminal who wiped out people's retirement and investment savings.  Did he use a gun?  No, but, did he "kill people?"  Bet he gave plenty of his investors heart attacks and strokes.  Evil has many faces.  

"Some folks?" You talking to me?  Say it.  There are things that I still consider none of my business.  But I do seethe at the thought that my favorite band was put in legal jeopardy by someone who turned out to be a liar and a cheat.  

It might not have recognized by me as a big deal until I have looked at things from a legal lens.  I am looking at it as "not so innocent."

And, it doesn't make me love the In Concert (73-4) album or that era's work any less, because I love the way they sing.  And that happened before and after dear old Jack.    

[CenturyDeprived]

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.

I met Bruce in 2012 at the Grammy museum. This was in a hallway where it was briefly just me and him, then there were a few other people flocking around soon after. I told Bruce I was a fan of "Don't Run Away" and he was friendly enough and sang a few notes of it. He seemed to not really want to talk to me much, but I can understand that without taking much offense.

Then within moments of that, he started a seemingly unprompted rant against Obama. Not a giant tirade, but it just sorta slipped out of him, like it was bubbling under the surface. I don't recall if someone else first brought up Obama (as I recall, another guy there said conversed with Bruce about having a similar anti-Obama mindset, so perhaps him and Bruce were just eager to pat each other on their backs for their views). But it was a bit odd and seemingly out of nowhere. I didn't expect a random anti-Obama tirade at the Grammy museum - it felt so out of left field in context.

[filledeplage]

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

Thanks, Emdeeh - I just scrolled as far as scribd would let me, into around 1977. 

Wow what a list!  Morley Safer, Chet Huntley, Imogene Coca, Martin Ogronsky, Pauline Frederick...

Jack falsely placed himself among those greats.  Wow.

Thanks again! 

[Smilin Ed H]

I think what we *did* get out of the Rieley era, coupled with the *43 YEARS* or so since it all happened, in addition to Rieley's death, means some folks find it easier to find the good in what came out of the Rieley era and not dwell too much on what *could* have happened.

43 years... And studio-wise most of it in a downhill direction

[CenturyDeprived]

I think what we *did* get out of the Rieley era, coupled with the *43 YEARS* or so since it all happened, in addition to Rieley's death, means some folks find it easier to find the good in what came out of the Rieley era and not dwell too much on what *could* have happened.

43 years... And studio-wise most of it in a downhill direction

Absolutely. This undeniable fact is ignored by some posters.

[HeyJude]

It is of no consequence to me that Jack was not convicted.  

It might not have recognized by me as a big deal until I have looked at things from a legal lens.  I am looking at it as "not so innocent."
 

So you're looking at it through "a legal lens", but the fact that he wasn't convicted (or charged?) with anything is of "no consequence?"

That's all I need to know. 

[filledeplage]

It is of no consequence to me that Jack was not convicted.  

It might not have recognized by me as a big deal until I have looked at things from a legal lens.  I am looking at it as "not so innocent."
 

So you're looking at it through "a legal lens", but the fact that he wasn't convicted (or charged?) with anything is of "no consequence?"

That's all I need to know. 

Hey Jude - why should it matter that he was not caught? Because he tended to do dishonest things.  It matters to me.

If you looked at the Peabody Award list and realize that Jack inserted him among those greats, it might matter how dishonest he was.  Those are giants and well-renowned.  He is not of the calibre of those greats.  Sorry.

Think that Jack did not learn anything from the BB members about songwriting?  I just took a little listen to Western Justice (the song) which had a feel of POB. I have not listened to the whole album.  So, while his contribution is repeated here, and it is well in the right of those who think that way, I think he learned much from the band members about songwriting and composition, and perhaps had songwriter aspirations on his agenda, alongside where he appeared to have started working for them, which appears to have been as a promotor.  He should have been paying them for songwriting lessons. 

He was a manager and ends up in a songwriter role? Hmm.

Yes, I looked at that "fact pattern" in Andrew's post and saw deeds that could have caused great harm to the band. I have a little problem with that.  Falsifying government documents for immigration purposes would be a big one.  Falsely claiming a stint with NBC would be second, and claiming a Peabody award would be third, just from that post. 

[CenturyDeprived]

He was a manager and ends up in a songwriter role? Hmm.
 

The proof is in the pudding. The songs he co-wrote were rad. Trying to minimize how important his lyrical contributions were is a fruitless effort; you might as well minimize Mike's while you're at it.

The band's output suffered without him.  Do you dispute this?

[filledeplage]

He was a manager and ends up in a songwriter role? Hmm.
 

The proof is in the pudding. The songs he co-wrote were rad. Trying to minimize how important his lyrical contributions were is a fruitless effort; you might as well minimize Mike's while you're at it.

The band's output suffered without him.  Do you dispute this?  

 

By the end of that era, things were changing all around.  It was the end of an era, and the war, which I think was a convergence of his leaving and the times changing radically to a resurgence of interest in the BB's.

But, I think Jack learned from being with them.  Sounds like Dennis had an influence on what he wrote. 

[CenturyDeprived]

He was a manager and ends up in a songwriter role? Hmm.
 

The proof is in the pudding. The songs he co-wrote were rad. Trying to minimize how important his lyrical contributions were is a fruitless effort; you might as well minimize Mike's while you're at it.

The band's output suffered without him.  Do you dispute this?  

 

By the end of that era, things were changing all around.  It was the end of an era, and the war, which I think was a convergence of his leaving and the times changing radically to a resurgence of interest in the BB's.

But, I think Jack learned from being with them.  Sounds like Dennis had an influence on what he wrote. 

Do you think the band's output suffered without him? 

[Emily]

Frankly, the Beach Boys hadn't then and didn't for a long time show any interest in hiring an experienced and professional manager. I don't think it's likely that Rieley's resume smudging made a difference in that choice.

[HeyJude]

If one tends to feel that a "legal lens" view of Jack Rieley doesn't include whether he was ever charged or convicted of anything (and apparently whether the things he supposedly did were *all* even actual crimes), I don't think you're going to get much agreement about Rieley's writing acumen or contribution to the band.

[HeyJude]

Frankly, the Beach Boys hadn't then and didn't for a long time show any interest in hiring an experienced and professional manager. I don't think it's likely that Rieley's resume smudging made a difference in that choice.

I'm not even sure the fudging of one's resume is even an actual crime at all, and I would certainly imagine it isn't often if ever prosecuted.

I don't get why it's so hard to just admit that Rieley was sketchy when it came to stuff like fudging his resume, but also, not uncommonly in the crazy world of the Beach Boys, also did some good things for the band for a concentrated period of time.

A lot of the stuff people are saying is true. In today's electronic age, he probably wouldn't be hired in the first place. It was a bit of a wild west scenario, but if it resulted in "Holland" and whatnot, and if nobody appears to have actually, in a real-world practical sense, been severely hurt or mamed or killed by anything Rieley did, I think some perspective on the topic is warranted. 

[Emily]

Frankly, the Beach Boys hadn't then and didn't for a long time show any interest in hiring an experienced and professional manager. I don't think it's likely that Rieley's resume smudging made a difference in that choice.

I'm not even sure the fudging of one's resume is even an actual crime at all, and I would certainly imagine it isn't often if ever prosecuted.

I don't get why it's so hard to just admit that Rieley was sketchy when it came to stuff like fudging his resume, but also, not uncommonly in the crazy world of the Beach Boys, also did some good things for the band for a concentrated period of time.

A lot of the stuff people are saying is true. In today's electronic age, he probably wouldn't be hired in the first place. It was a bit of a wild west scenario, but if it resulted in "Holland" and whatnot, and if nobody appears to have actually, in a real-world practical sense, been severely hurt or mamed or killed by anything Rieley did, I think some perspective on the topic is warranted. 

I agree that his fudging wouldn't have flown now; he probably wouldn't have done it now. I don't think that means he wouldn't have been hired. The Beach Boys repeatedly hired managers with no band management experience.

[HeyJude]

Frankly, the Beach Boys hadn't then and didn't for a long time show any interest in hiring an experienced and professional manager. I don't think it's likely that Rieley's resume smudging made a difference in that choice.

I'm not even sure the fudging of one's resume is even an actual crime at all, and I would certainly imagine it isn't often if ever prosecuted.

I don't get why it's so hard to just admit that Rieley was sketchy when it came to stuff like fudging his resume, but also, not uncommonly in the crazy world of the Beach Boys, also did some good things for the band for a concentrated period of time.

A lot of the stuff people are saying is true. In today's electronic age, he probably wouldn't be hired in the first place. It was a bit of a wild west scenario, but if it resulted in "Holland" and whatnot, and if nobody appears to have actually, in a real-world practical sense, been severely hurt or mamed or killed by anything Rieley did, I think some perspective on the topic is warranted. 

I agree that his fudging wouldn't have flown now; he probably wouldn't have done it now. I don't think that means he wouldn't have been hired. The Beach Boys repeatedly hired managers with no band management experience.

The Beach Boys indeed have a sketchy track record when it comes to managers and "management" in a more general sense. I'd argue their management *now* in present day is a decades-old travesty. After 55 years in the "business" and they still don't seem to get it.

Guercio and Schilling in their capacities seemed to have some pretty strong points. A lot of the other guys, maybe not so much.

[Emily]

I confess to knowing very little about their management now.
But before and after Rieley, they had managers with no band management experience.
And I agree that I like what Rieley did during his tenure.

[HeyJude]

I confess to knowing very little about their management now.
But before and after Rieley, they had managers with no band management experience.
And I agree that I like what Rieley did during his tenure.

The poor management presently is definitely of a very different variety. Some would argue it's a very smoothly run machine in some ways. If the idea is to not do much of anything but continue to license Mike's band to tour, then it kind of runs itself. But the shambles that was the end of C50, and everything that has come after, including the inability of management to even get the guys to be united in furthering the BB brand even if they won't work together (e.g. promote each other's projects, release more archival material, etc.) is the problem. They need an Apple Corps-style management set up now.

If they want to become an active band again, they need a Jerry Schilling type. Joe Thomas apparently was able to achieve that for a short amount of time in 2012. They basically need the money and organizational skills of Joe Thomas mixed with Schilling's good will.

The management issues of yesteryear were very different, as they were still an active, contemporary creative unit.

[Emily]

I agree on the Apple sort of thing. It would be really good if they BRI was run based not on the current member's current activities but on how to manage the legacy for the long-term.

[filledeplage]

If one tends to feel that a "legal lens" view of Jack Rieley doesn't include whether he was ever charged or convicted of anything (and apparently whether the things he supposedly did were *all* even actual crimes), I don't think you're going to get much agreement about Rieley's writing acumen or contribution to the band.

Hey Jude - here's why it is important.  When someone is in the US and if they are in a pathway to citizenship, letters of good moral character go into the file of the person.  They usually get checked on.  So, it does matter if someone has a pile of an elected official's stationery in his draw "just in case." I am thinking of the "worst case scenario" or Murphy's Law.

Would you feel the same way if someone had a doctor's prescription pad and were writing prescriptions?   Or giving out college diplomas?  Documents matter.

Documents tell the world who we are and what we have accomplished.  Jack had no problem writing a resume, with high profile credentials that were not his.  

And, I certainly "get" the era.  I was in college and grad school. I went to those college/university shows. I think, looking back, that Jack learned a great deal about songwriting from the band members.  That is just an insult that is unnecessary.  

[filledeplage]

I confess to knowing very little about their management now.
But before and after Rieley, they had managers with no band management experience.
And I agree that I like what Rieley did during his tenure.

The poor management presently is definitely of a very different variety. Some would argue it's a very smoothly run machine in some ways. If the idea is to not do much of anything but continue to license Mike's band to tour, then it kind of runs itself. But the shambles that was the end of C50, and everything that has come after, including the inability of management to even get the guys to be united in furthering the BB brand even if they won't work together (e.g. promote each other's projects, release more archival material, etc.) is the problem. They need an Apple Corps-style management set up now.

If they want to become an active band again, they need a Jerry Schilling type. Joe Thomas apparently was able to achieve that for a short amount of time in 2012. They basically need the money and organizational skills of Joe Thomas mixed with Schilling's good will.

The management issues of yesteryear were very different, as they were still an active, contemporary creative unit.

Most fans would not know or care about management.  All they know is how the band sounds when they step on the stage.  They pull it all together and rise to the occasion.  The band members themselves conduct themselves professionally. 

[lastofmykind]

In a weird way I'm literally so so happy that people are talking about Brucie and his bipolar tendencies.  I have had encounters with him, where he has been nothing but nice and when he gets some "liquid refreshment" he will gladly regale you with some great anecdotes of times past.  But I have also had times with him, where he can just be a complete prick.  However Brucie will gladly take wine anytime some one brings it.

[Juice Brohnston]

In a weird way I'm literally so so happy that people are talking about Brucie and his bipolar tendencies.  I have had encounters with him, where he has been nothing but nice and when he gets some "liquid refreshment" he will gladly regale you with some great anecdotes of times past.  But I have also had times with him, where he can just be a complete prick.  However Brucie will gladly take wine anytime some one brings it.

So, my encounters with him over the years have been very consistent. Nothing but friendly and engaging, and on a few occasions has gone way out of his way to show incredible kindness. In hindsight, I'll add that a couple of times I probably was a little intrusive in my approach, but he was still great.

[CenturyDeprived]

He was a manager and ends up in a songwriter role? Hmm.
 

The proof is in the pudding. The songs he co-wrote were rad. Trying to minimize how important his lyrical contributions were is a fruitless effort; you might as well minimize Mike's while you're at it.

The band's output suffered without him.  Do you dispute this?  

 

By the end of that era, things were changing all around.  It was the end of an era, and the war, which I think was a convergence of his leaving and the times changing radically to a resurgence of interest in the BB's.

But, I think Jack learned from being with them.  Sounds like Dennis had an influence on what he wrote.  

Do you think the band's output suffered without him?  

Sorry if this goes off-topic to the original topic...

FDP, you don't seem to want to answer my question directly, but I'll pose it again in that I don't think you could possibly say that Dennis quitting writing and producing music for the band (and quitting making virtually any music for that matter) didn't contribute to the band's output suffering, any more than you could say that Jack's input and influence didn't leave a pretty big gaping hole when he too ceased being involved in writing music being released by the band.

It's not a competition between Jack's and Dennis' contributions, and yes, they both stopped their musical output with The BBs for very different reasons, obviously... but in both cases, the band's output suffered. Period. It's no coincidence. Regardless of any sort of "end of an era" that you want to make this about.

Those analogies are no different with regards to a person (Jack or Dennis) bringing some much-needed progressive creativity to the table suddenly vanishing from the scene... followed directly by output by the band that was subpar by comparison. That's a fact. 

Back to the original topic, would be interesting to think about what Bruce might have brought to the table if he and Jack could have coexisted in the band past Holland.

[HeyJude]

Most fans would not know or care about management.  All they know is how the band sounds when they step on the stage.  They pull it all together and rise to the occasion.  The band members themselves conduct themselves professionally.  

The band is about more than live performances. The shambolic aftermath of the reunion tour was plenty of evidence to "fans" that the band had AWFUL management. The tour was evidence of 50 years of amazing music. The aftermath was evidence of not having figured out how to run a band and brand after 50 years.

The erroneous, inflammatory trending topic of "Mike Love fires Brian Wilson", with no singular, united, GROUP statement to clarify the situation was ample evidence of horrible management.

And in addition to "fan" perception, the industry saw it too. We've since heard from knowledgeable folks who talk to industry people that the band were the laughing stocks of the industry, and potential promoters with deeper pockets than Joe Thomas dropped the idea of more high profile Beach Boys gigs/tours like a hot potato.