What if the Beach Boys had fired Mike Love?

[Lee Marshall]

Jack Reiley corrected that 'problem' OSD.   [and a problem...for me...it really and truly was]  How?  Way more Carl.  Way less Mike.  THAT worked.  Mike doesn't 'do' that kind of shyte these days...thankfully.

Back in the day...as 'the spokesperson'...Mike had NO CLUE about what NOT to say...and HOW to say it.  GOTTA know that every bit as much as what TO say.  

[filledeplage]

I wonder if Dennis could have replaced Mike as the frontman? He seemed to be the only one with enough onstage personality to handle the duties of MC, engaging with the audience, etc; but he was also notoriously inconsistent, due mostly to his drug and alcohol problems. Carl sure came to appreciate what Mike did onstage after touring solo for most of 1981.

Wouldn't have been necessary to restrict themselves to the existing band members.

That might defeat the purpose.  A band member who was a co-author knows the backstories of the music in a way that an outside person could not possibly know.  And that knowledge bank makes them the most competent person to front the band.  It is not the same as being an MC for a group of speakers, at a dinner, who only needs a list of the persons and a thumbnail sketch of the CV of the individuals.  They know the material cold from the genesis to the recording and editing. It doesn't seem to lend itself to an "outsourced" hire. 

CD mentioned some Mike-less shows.  I've never seen one.  And I cannot imagine anyone able (as well as Mike) to maintain the momentum and be an active participant in the concerts.  Back in the day, when there were no guitar techs, the guys had to fix broken strings themselves, and it could tend to throw off the timing of the show, except Mike could find some thing to keep the attention of the audience, until the repair was made.  He grew in that job.   

Again, it's a matter of personal taste. I've always found Mike Love irritating as a front man and I don't enjoy his vocals or lyrics, so for me, he could be replaced by any number of people and I would find it an improvement. You wouldn't and that's fine with me.

Exactly! myKe luHv always brought an air of having a "carnival barker" in the group which in turn lessened them being taken seriously as a live act.

OSD - Who, among the band members, might have performed that role?  

Given "all" the circumstances, and not " personal" like or dislike...

Please be objective.

[SMiLE Brian]

Dennis Wilson

[filledeplage]

Jack Reiley corrected that 'problem' OSD.   [and a problem...for me...it really and truly was]  How?  Way more Carl.  Way less Mike.  THAT worked.  Mike doesn't 'do' that kind of shyte these days...thankfully.

Back in the day...as 'the spokesperson'...Mike had NO CLUE about what NOT to say...and HOW to say it.  GOTTA know that every bit as much as what TO say.  

Add Some - Carl was approaching his mid-20's during that era. He was closer to the desired "narrative" and new image that Jack was trying to project and achieve, with the anti-war protests, and Carl's CO status.  And, I like to think it was more "Carl coming into his own" working through the legal issues he was up against.  So, as much as the more "protest" orientated music that was emerging, Carl may have "fit" with whatever Reiley's vision was. Carl had a higher profile in the media, and perhaps Jack saw that as an opportunity to exploit that image.  

Maybe Reiley did what Capitol was supposed to do with promotion.  Maybe Jack did their job. They weren't a surf band, anymore, but the back catalog was still essential in any show.  

But, I always keep in mind that Reiley was dishonest in how he "credentialed himself." There was a greater emphasis on a "face" that would work best with a college or university crowd.  Carl was that guy with his name in the headlines.  Students looked to Carl and his issues with the draft board.  So, I think it is less "correcting that problem" and more "using Carl"  for whatever Reiley had for a vision.

There was always mix of the newer with the older stuff in Concert.  

[filledeplage]

Dennis Wilson

Much as he was loved, it was highly unlikely he would have been consistently able to do this.  He was fantastic when he came to the mic for a cameo and the girls went crazy.  Listen to any 1966-7 ish stuff and you will hear the girls screaming "Dennis."

[Lee Marshall]

I don't agree 'Filled'.  I wonder how many were really aware that Carl was a Conscientious Objector?  Even in the early to mid 70s the Beach Boys fan base widened as new fans came on board to join the folks who'd latched on to the sound in the first 1/2 of the 60s.  Carl was COOL.  He was laid back, soft spoken, genuine and MUSICAL.  He could sing, play guitar [like ringin' a bell] and he appeared to direct and lead the orchestra.  That gave Carl credibility.  So did his clothes, his hair and his beard...as it began to appear.  It was Carl's leadership on stage which gave the group the 'cred' to become one of the most successful touring acts in the world.

It was when Mike began to re-insert himself into the equation circa 15 so-called bigguns that that fact began to slowly crumble.

I don't think Dennis could have pulled it off.  I think, in fact, that it might have become openly divisive right there on stage for all to see.  Where Mike and Dennis entered the 70s as brothers in arms...heading out to demonstrate why 'the town' should have locked up the women [and children...cause that's how the saying goes]...things changed.

Al?  Not so much.  Bruce?  He was pretty much gone while Jack was around.  I 'get' that Jack wasn't perfect.  It's true.  BUT he was the BEST manager they group ever had...and by light years.  Why?  He understood talent and what to do with it.  Murry sure as sh*t never did.  And Jack's predecessors?  Not 1 eff-in clue.  IMHO Mike was a KEY to the early foundational success...in spite of his severe shortcomings on stage.  On record he was essential.  Nowadays he also makes it work and work really, REALLY well.  But from about 1966 until maybe 2013 [except for Jack's era] Mike was about equal parts asset and millstone.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2012 was a one-off which the group did wonderfully from all reports.  A pretty decent lp.  Not a bad live album.  Very well received tour.  But then THAT all got pissed into the wind didn't it.  Kind of like 1975 all over again.  Take the good and begin to flush it all away.  I guess, after experiencing how it was done so absolutely well by Brian and HIS crew during year 50, that Mike actually saw and heard value in upping the game.  He did it.  It works.  Credit where, at long friggin' last...credit is due.  For all of those outstanding songs...and Pieces Brother...it's never too late to pay homage and do them well.  We, as fans, deserve nothing less.  It makes sound financial sense.  Brian always knew THAT.

[filledeplage]

I don't agree 'Filled'.  I wonder how many were really aware that Carl was a Conscientious Objector?  Even in the early to mid 70s the Beach Boys fan base widened as new fans came on board to join the folks who'd latched on to the sound in the first 1/2 of the 60s.  Carl was COOL.  He was laid back, soft spoken, genuine and MUSICAL.  He could sing, play guitar [like ringin' a bell] and he appeared to direct and lead the orchestra.  That gave Carl credibility.  So did his clothes, his hair and his beard...as it began to appear.  It was Carl's leadership on stage which gave the group the 'cred' to become one of the most successful touring acts in the world.

It was when Mike began to re-insert himself into the equation circa 15 so-called bigguns that that fact began to slowly crumble.

I don't think Dennis could have pulled it off.  I think, in fact, that it might have become openly divisive right there on stage for all to see.  Where Mike and Dennis entered the 70s as brothers in arms...heading out to demonstrate why 'the town' should have locked up the women [and children...cause that's how the saying goes]...things changed.

Al?  Not so much.  Bruce?  He was pretty much gone while Jack was around.  I 'get' that Jack wasn't perfect.  It's true.  BUT he was the BEST manager they group ever had...and by light years.  Why?  He understood talent and what to do with it.  Murry sure as sh*t never did.  And Jack's predecessors?  Not 1 eff-in clue.  IMHO Mike was a KEY to the early foundational success...in spite of his severe shortcomings in stage.  On record he was essential.  Nowadays he also makes it work and work really, REALLY well.  But from about 1966 until maybe 2013 [except for Jack's era] Mike was about equal parts asset and millstone.

Add Some - there are some youtube with interviews from circa 1967 from Brian, Mike and Bruce, and a little later where the band is totally dismayed going to Europe with a prepackaged "surf band" image coming from Capitol.   This was post-Pet Sounds.  I liken Reiley "tapping into" the "void," in veracity that the record company had created to keep milking the false "oldies machine" they created.  

What Reiley (and Brother establishing itself) did was tapping into the mode that they were actually in, and that Capitol failed to promote, but matching the P.R. with the actual product. I was in college during those years and saw Carl's emergence over a period of maybe six years or so, starting in 1967 when his arrest in the States for draft evasion and subsequent agreements for free performances or community service was in evolution. For Capitol, the perception was not the reality.    

Carl's draft woes were widely covered in the U.S press. There is still plenty on line with a little google or (Duck Duck Go) search.  

Reiley did what Capitol was supposed to have done in 1967 as far as the image went. But, let's not forget that Mike kept the shows going, in a low tech environment when, if stuff went wrong during the performances, he kept the audiences engaged and that is a definite skill.    

But every student at a BB show knew that Carl was a CO.   

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

I wonder if Dennis could have replaced Mike as the frontman? He seemed to be the only one with enough onstage personality to handle the duties of MC, engaging with the audience, etc; but he was also notoriously inconsistent, due mostly to his drug and alcohol problems. Carl sure came to appreciate what Mike did onstage after touring solo for most of 1981.

Wouldn't have been necessary to restrict themselves to the existing band members.

That might defeat the purpose.  A band member who was a co-author knows the backstories of the music in a way that an outside person could not possibly know.  And that knowledge bank makes them the most competent person to front the band.  It is not the same as being an MC for a group of speakers, at a dinner, who only needs a list of the persons and a thumbnail sketch of the CV of the individuals.  They know the material cold from the genesis to the recording and editing. It doesn't seem to lend itself to an "outsourced" hire. 

CD mentioned some Mike-less shows.  I've never seen one.  And I cannot imagine anyone able (as well as Mike) to maintain the momentum and be an active participant in the concerts.  Back in the day, when there were no guitar techs, the guys had to fix broken strings themselves, and it could tend to throw off the timing of the show, except Mike could find some thing to keep the attention of the audience, until the repair was made.  He grew in that job.   

Again, it's a matter of personal taste. I've always found Mike Love irritating as a front man and I don't enjoy his vocals or lyrics, so for me, he could be replaced by any number of people and I would find it an improvement. You wouldn't and that's fine with me.

Exactly! myKe luHv always brought an air of having a "carnival barker" in the group which in turn lessened them being taken seriously as a live act.

OSD - Who, among the band members, might have performed that role?  

Given "all" the circumstances, and not " personal" like or dislike...

Please be objective.

The concept of a "frontman" for the Beach Boys never quite worked for me. And as time went rolling along, it became downright embarrassing with luHv at the helm and you know what I'm talking about, FP, without going into the gory details. I chose not to be deeply in luhv with cornball humor and ludicrous outfits that called for one looking like a pansy or a circus clown.

[filledeplage]

I wonder if Dennis could have replaced Mike as the frontman? He seemed to be the only one with enough onstage personality to handle the duties of MC, engaging with the audience, etc; but he was also notoriously inconsistent, due mostly to his drug and alcohol problems. Carl sure came to appreciate what Mike did onstage after touring solo for most of 1981.

Wouldn't have been necessary to restrict themselves to the existing band members.

That might defeat the purpose.  A band member who was a co-author knows the backstories of the music in a way that an outside person could not possibly know.  And that knowledge bank makes them the most competent person to front the band.  It is not the same as being an MC for a group of speakers, at a dinner, who only needs a list of the persons and a thumbnail sketch of the CV of the individuals.  They know the material cold from the genesis to the recording and editing. It doesn't seem to lend itself to an "outsourced" hire.  

CD mentioned some Mike-less shows.  I've never seen one.  And I cannot imagine anyone able (as well as Mike) to maintain the momentum and be an active participant in the concerts.  Back in the day, when there were no guitar techs, the guys had to fix broken strings themselves, and it could tend to throw off the timing of the show, except Mike could find some thing to keep the attention of the audience, until the repair was made.  He grew in that job.    

Again, it's a matter of personal taste. I've always found Mike Love irritating as a front man and I don't enjoy his vocals or lyrics, so for me, he could be replaced by any number of people and I would find it an improvement. You wouldn't and that's fine with me.

Exactly! myKe luHv always brought an air of having a "carnival barker" in the group which in turn lessened them being taken seriously as a live act.

OSD - Who, among the band members, might have performed that role?  

Given "all" the circumstances, and not " personal" like or dislike...

Please be objective.

The concept of a "frontman" for the Beach Boys never quite worked for me. And as time went rolling along, it became downright embarrassing with luHv at the helm and you know what I'm talking about, FP, without going into the gory details. I chose not to be deeply in luhv with cornball humor and ludicrous outfits that called for one looking like a pansy or a circus clown.

OK - fair. But, I think it is way more complex. And, divided by gender.  

If you go back to the BB's Concert - 1964, for LDC...on youtube...

http://youtu.be/nZqUXkgtNTA

(hope it copies)

First, Mike could easily " transition" and do a lead or co-lead for almost anything.  And maybe in 1964, while Brian was still touring, and Brian and Mike were sharing most of the shared leads, it was different.  Once 1965 hit and there was a huge void, who was still doing half the leads?  Mike.  Carl had barely done leads on the studio end, and Al hadn't even done Rhonda (for the single version) it was a different dynamic.  You know that. And, don't you think the on stage dynamic changed after Brian left? Do you think Brian (who is reported to have suffered from stage fright,) was relieved that Mike took on that role?  It is not easy to get up in front of a crowd, night after night.

Second, I'm looking from a woman's perspective.  Within about three years or so, (for me anyway,) first, seeing them live, they had gone from striped shirts, to the white suits (which Al still can uniquely rock!) to whatever they wanted to wear.  I was looking less at what they wore and focusing more on "how they sounded."  And listening (or rather ignoring) my contemporaries who claimed they were all "washed up."  That was between the spring of 1967 to the summer of 1969.  Three evolutions of clothing including the Carnaby Street rage.  

Cornball?  Maybe.  But, between songs, and broken guitar strings someone had to "fill that space" - to keep the show going...

A turban...I assume you mean...I barely paid attention...It was just part of the show-biz schtick, for me.  If you are listening and watching for substance over form, and comparing the "live version to the studio versions," you don't even see it.  But if you're looking to find fault or focus on the visual instead of the sound, you miss what is important.  Remember, we got about 11-12 songs, in a late 60's show.  Tops.

Guys outnumbered girls as fans about two to one. We look at clothing and styles, differently, I think. And you know that, too.  Not a bad thing.    
  

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

I wonder if Dennis could have replaced Mike as the frontman? He seemed to be the only one with enough onstage personality to handle the duties of MC, engaging with the audience, etc; but he was also notoriously inconsistent, due mostly to his drug and alcohol problems. Carl sure came to appreciate what Mike did onstage after touring solo for most of 1981.

Wouldn't have been necessary to restrict themselves to the existing band members.

That might defeat the purpose.  A band member who was a co-author knows the backstories of the music in a way that an outside person could not possibly know.  And that knowledge bank makes them the most competent person to front the band.  It is not the same as being an MC for a group of speakers, at a dinner, who only needs a list of the persons and a thumbnail sketch of the CV of the individuals.  They know the material cold from the genesis to the recording and editing. It doesn't seem to lend itself to an "outsourced" hire.  

CD mentioned some Mike-less shows.  I've never seen one.  And I cannot imagine anyone able (as well as Mike) to maintain the momentum and be an active participant in the concerts.  Back in the day, when there were no guitar techs, the guys had to fix broken strings themselves, and it could tend to throw off the timing of the show, except Mike could find some thing to keep the attention of the audience, until the repair was made.  He grew in that job.    

Again, it's a matter of personal taste. I've always found Mike Love irritating as a front man and I don't enjoy his vocals or lyrics, so for me, he could be replaced by any number of people and I would find it an improvement. You wouldn't and that's fine with me.

Exactly! myKe luHv always brought an air of having a "carnival barker" in the group which in turn lessened them being taken seriously as a live act.

OSD - Who, among the band members, might have performed that role?  

Given "all" the circumstances, and not " personal" like or dislike...

Please be objective.

The concept of a "frontman" for the Beach Boys never quite worked for me. And as time went rolling along, it became downright embarrassing with luHv at the helm and you know what I'm talking about, FP, without going into the gory details. I chose not to be deeply in luhv with cornball humor and ludicrous outfits that called for one looking like a pansy or a circus clown.

OK - fair. But, I think it is way more complex. And, divided by gender.  

If you go back to the BB's Concert - 1964, for LDC...on youtube...

http://youtu.be/nZqUXkgtNTA

(hope it copies)

First, Mike could easily " transition" and do a lead or co-lead for almost anything.  And maybe in 1964, while Brian was still touring, and Brian and Mike were sharing most of the shared leads, it was different.  Once 1965 hit and there was a huge void, who was still doing half the leads?  Mike.  Carl had barely done leads on the studio end, and Al hadn't even done Rhonda (for the single version) it was a different dynamic.  You know that. And, don't you think the on stage dynamic changed after Brian left? Do you think Brian (who is reported to have suffered from stage fright,) was relieved that Mike took on that role?  It is not easy to get up in front of a crowd, night after night.

Second, I'm looking from a woman's perspective.  Within about three years or so, (for me anyway,) first, seeing them live, they had gone from striped shirts, to the white suits (which Al still can uniquely rock!) to whatever they wanted to wear.  I was looking less at what they wore and focusing more on "how they sounded."  And listening (or rather ignoring) my contemporaries who claimed they were all "washed up."  That was between the spring of 1967 to the summer of 1969.  Three evolutions of clothing including the Carnaby Street rage.  

Cornball?  Maybe.  But, between songs, and broken guitar strings someone had to "fill that space" - to keep the show going...

A turban...I assume you mean...I barely paid attention...It was just part of the show-biz schtick, for me.  If you are listening and watching for substance over form, and comparing the "live version to the studio versions," you don't even see it.  But if you're looking to find fault or focus on the visual instead of the sound, you miss what is important.  Remember, we got about 11-12 songs, in a late 60's show.  Tops.

Guys outnumbered girls as fans about two to one. We look at clothing and styles, differently, I think. And you know that, too.  Not a bad thing.    
  

Not too much to discuss here because, for me, it's not a complex issue like it is for you. I just thought it was amusing watching myKe luHv try, in vain, attempt to compete with Dennis on stage. The turban, the feathers, the tight leotards(showing off his manhood), the rings, sequins, etc, etc. I mean how much attention did this buffoon need anyway. Funny, all Dennis had to do was showup, y'know? "Space between songs"? Who would care? I sure didn't. All I needed was the next song, not some goof rambling on, and on, and on about nothing or trying to land some dumbass, cornball joke. Nope, didn't need some attention starved clown who's day in the sun was long gone over four decades ago.

[SMiLE Brian]

That Syracuse 1971 bootleg shows how bad Mike was as a frontman in the 1970s. Inane banter about random bullshit.

[filledeplage]

I wonder if Dennis could have replaced Mike as the frontman? He seemed to be the only one with enough onstage personality to handle the duties of MC, engaging with the audience, etc; but he was also notoriously inconsistent, due mostly to his drug and alcohol problems. Carl sure came to appreciate what Mike did onstage after touring solo for most of 1981.

Wouldn't have been necessary to restrict themselves to the existing band members.

That might defeat the purpose.  A band member who was a co-author knows the backstories of the music in a way that an outside person could not possibly know.  And that knowledge bank makes them the most competent person to front the band.  It is not the same as being an MC for a group of speakers, at a dinner, who only needs a list of the persons and a thumbnail sketch of the CV of the individuals.  They know the material cold from the genesis to the recording and editing. It doesn't seem to lend itself to an "outsourced" hire.  

CD mentioned some Mike-less shows.  I've never seen one.  And I cannot imagine anyone able (as well as Mike) to maintain the momentum and be an active participant in the concerts.  Back in the day, when there were no guitar techs, the guys had to fix broken strings themselves, and it could tend to throw off the timing of the show, except Mike could find some thing to keep the attention of the audience, until the repair was made.  He grew in that job.    

Again, it's a matter of personal taste. I've always found Mike Love irritating as a front man and I don't enjoy his vocals or lyrics, so for me, he could be replaced by any number of people and I would find it an improvement. You wouldn't and that's fine with me.

Exactly! myKe luHv always brought an air of having a "carnival barker" in the group which in turn lessened them being taken seriously as a live act.

OSD - Who, among the band members, might have performed that role?  

Given "all" the circumstances, and not " personal" like or dislike...

Please be objective.

The concept of a "frontman" for the Beach Boys never quite worked for me. And as time went rolling along, it became downright embarrassing with luHv at the helm and you know what I'm talking about, FP, without going into the gory details. I chose not to be deeply in luhv with cornball humor and ludicrous outfits that called for one looking like a pansy or a circus clown.

OK - fair. But, I think it is way more complex. And, divided by gender.  

If you go back to the BB's Concert - 1964, for LDC...on youtube...

http://youtu.be/nZqUXkgtNTA

(hope it copies)

First, Mike could easily " transition" and do a lead or co-lead for almost anything.  And maybe in 1964, while Brian was still touring, and Brian and Mike were sharing most of the shared leads, it was different.  Once 1965 hit and there was a huge void, who was still doing half the leads?  Mike.  Carl had barely done leads on the studio end, and Al hadn't even done Rhonda (for the single version) it was a different dynamic.  You know that. And, don't you think the on stage dynamic changed after Brian left? Do you think Brian (who is reported to have suffered from stage fright,) was relieved that Mike took on that role?  It is not easy to get up in front of a crowd, night after night.

Second, I'm looking from a woman's perspective.  Within about three years or so, (for me anyway,) first, seeing them live, they had gone from striped shirts, to the white suits (which Al still can uniquely rock!) to whatever they wanted to wear.  I was looking less at what they wore and focusing more on "how they sounded."  And listening (or rather ignoring) my contemporaries who claimed they were all "washed up."  That was between the spring of 1967 to the summer of 1969.  Three evolutions of clothing including the Carnaby Street rage.  

Cornball?  Maybe.  But, between songs, and broken guitar strings someone had to "fill that space" - to keep the show going...

A turban...I assume you mean...I barely paid attention...It was just part of the show-biz schtick, for me.  If you are listening and watching for substance over form, and comparing the "live version to the studio versions," you don't even see it.  But if you're looking to find fault or focus on the visual instead of the sound, you miss what is important.  Remember, we got about 11-12 songs, in a late 60's show.  Tops.

Guys outnumbered girls as fans about two to one. We look at clothing and styles, differently, I think. And you know that, too.  Not a bad thing.    
  

Not too much to discuss here because, for me, it's not a complex issue like it is for you. I just thought it was amusing watching myKe luHv try, in vain, attempt to compete with Dennis on stage. The turban, the feathers, the tight leotards(showing off his manhood), the rings, sequins, etc, etc. I mean how much attention did this buffoon need anyway. Funny, all Dennis had to do was showup, y'know? "Space between songs"? Who would care? I sure didn't. All I needed was the next song, not some goof rambling on, and on, and on about nothing or trying to land some dumbass, cornball joke. Nope, didn't need some attention starved clown who's day in the sun was long gone over four decades ago.

OSD - So, let me get this right...your problem is with the "bling..."

And, a lot of rockers wear bling.  I was nearly blinded by Jeff Beck's diamond (or cubic zirconia) cuff...

[filledeplage]

That Syracuse 1971 bootleg shows how bad Mike was as a frontman in the 1970s. Inane banter about random bullshit.

You had to be there...

And wouldn't it be reasonable if BRI didn't like the way Mike MC'd the show, that he would not have been MC for C50? 

 

[Lee Marshall]

And wouldn't it be reasonable if BRI didn't like the way Mike MC'd the show, that he would not have been MC for C50? 

 

I would suggest that by then Mike had toned down the on stage BS banter and if not he would have been advised to do so.   It really isn't Brian's forte.  Mike does fine NOW.  I have NO problem with his running the show these days whatsoever.  It's WELL done to be honest.  So I'll guess ['cause I wasn't there to see/hear it] that he did it that way in 2012.  It was the OFF stage BS that marred THAT episode in Beach Boys history.  Too much Brian.  Too little control of the juggernaut.  Smaller paydays.  What was a fella to do?

Well...He didi it.   

OH SO VERY doubtful that he'll ever get the chance to 'do it again'.

[Oswald Thatendswald]

Watching cuHsin brYhan half-heartedly mumble the words while awkwardly snapping his fingers shows just how much Mike was needed to be the frontman and keep up the energy.  That's why the current Beach Boys shows are a million times better than brYhan's tribute act shows. 

[Oswald Thatendswald]

Watching cuHsin brYhan half-heartedly mumble the words while awkwardly snapping his fingers shows just how much Mike was needed to be the frontman and keep up the energy.  That's why the current Beach Boys shows are a million times better than brYhan's tribute act shows. 

 

[JK]

[ontor pertawst]

Maybe if he was fired he would have grown more powerful than we could possibly imagine.

[SMiLE Brian]

Ontor!

[Lonely Summer]

That Syracuse 1971 bootleg shows how bad Mike was as a frontman in the 1970s. Inane banter about random bullshit.

You had to be there...

And wouldn't it be reasonable if BRI didn't like the way Mike MC'd the show, that he would not have been MC for C50? 

 

Well, they did cut out almost all of Mike's banter on the cd and dvd from C50.

[CenturyDeprived]

That Syracuse 1971 bootleg shows how bad Mike was as a frontman in the 1970s. Inane banter about random bullshit.

You had to be there...

And wouldn't it be reasonable if BRI didn't like the way Mike MC'd the show, that he would not have been MC for C50?  

 

Well, they did cut out almost all of Mike's banter on the cd and dvd from C50.

Perhaps someone can one day edit together entire vintage BB concerts where only Mike's banter is present, and everything else is edited out - all of the pesky things like songs, and any audible evidence of unnecessary guys like Al and Brian being present can all be nixed.  That should once and for all show the world how important Mike's stage banter is!  

Truth be told, Mike's stage banter is ok. Typically functional, sometimes annoying; stage banter in general by any person in most any given band is just that way. It is what it is. Mike can go way overboard into the corny side. Mike's banter in particular has been known to be considered laughable (not in a good way) and/or be off putting to some people (as I've witnessed firsthand), and I'm talking just ordinary music fans who have no particular preconceived notions of Mike. I think his '60s banter and onstage presence dates more poorly than many other bands of the era. A few years back I saw the BBs' "Lost Concert" (footage from 1964) screened in a movie theater, along with footage of The Beatles from the same era. The crowd reaction was, to put it lightly, quite different when observing the reaction to between-song banter and onstage moves compared between the two bands.

Let's not oversell Mike's banter itself into calling it a precious gift or anything. He's generally competent at it, but I get the feeling that some people think that Mike's stage banter itself is more important and vital a part of a BB show than the presence of actual other, original BB band members being there whatsoever - somehow, the latter has become acceptable as an expendable thing, while corny banter is to be treasured and praised. Meh.

[ontor pertawst]

Havin' Fun with Mike Love on Stage, a free CD with the next ESQ!

[Emily]

That Syracuse 1971 bootleg shows how bad Mike was as a frontman in the 1970s. Inane banter about random bullshit.

You had to be there...

And wouldn't it be reasonable if BRI didn't like the way Mike MC'd the show, that he would not have been MC for C50?  

 

Well, they did cut out almost all of Mike's banter on the cd and dvd from C50.

Perhaps someone can one day edit together entire vintage BB concerts where only Mike's banter is present, and everything else is edited out - all of the pesky things like songs, and any audible evidence of unnecessary guys like Al and Brian being present can all be nixed.  That should once and for all show the world how important Mike's stage banter is!  

Truth be told, Mike's stage banter is ok. Typically functional, sometimes annoying; stage banter in general by any person in most any given band is just that way. It is what it is. Mike can go way overboard into the corny side. Mike's banter in particular has been known to be considered laughable (not in a good way) and/or be off putting to some people (as I've witnessed firsthand), and I'm talking just ordinary music fans who have no particular preconceived notions of Mike. I think his '60s banter and onstage presence dates more poorly than many other bands of the era. A few years back I saw the BBs' "Lost Concert" (footage from 1964) screened in a movie theater, along with footage of The Beatles from the same era. The crowd reaction was, to put it lightly, quite different when observing the reaction to between-song banter and onstage moves compared between the two bands.

Let's not oversell Mike's banter itself into calling it a precious gift or anything. He's generally competent at it, but I get the feeling that some people think that Mike's stage banter itself is more important and vital a part of a BB show than the presence of actual other, original BB band members being there whatsoever - somehow, the latter has become acceptable as an expendable thing, while corny banter is to be treasured and praised. Meh.

This whole "Mike Love's a great frontman" stuff is, frankly, nonsense. The Beach Boys, including Mike Love, were never known for being great showmen. The Beatles' early music was not that remarkable but they had great marketing and amazing amounts of charisma, something none of the Beach Boys, save Dennis, had. Mike Love might have been able to babble incessantly between songs, which is more than any other Beach Boy could manage, but he didn't babble well. John Lennon's babbling and antics, and Paul McCartney's and Ringo Starr's head-bobbing, and George Harrison's ghouly grins won over fans; Mike Love's banter never won a new fan. The Beach Boys' draw is the music not the charisma, cause there is no charisma. (Though since non-SMiLE, the pathos and drama may have won a few).

[filledeplage]

That Syracuse 1971 bootleg shows how bad Mike was as a frontman in the 1970s. Inane banter about random bullshit.

You had to be there...

And wouldn't it be reasonable if BRI didn't like the way Mike MC'd the show, that he would not have been MC for C50? 

 

Well, they did cut out almost all of Mike's banter on the cd and dvd from C50.

Completely appropriate to filter the chatter.  (I enjoy it but there is only so much space on a CD. It has to be edited.)

And for that purpose, they cut out about 10 songs as well. 

Is the C50 CD you are referring to that processed nightmare?

But, I'd prefer the raw live footage.

[bossaroo]

yeah the idea that the Beach Boys needed Mike's emceeing to keep the momentum going while they constantly replaced broken guitar strings is ridiculous. The Grateful Dead are famous for tuning incessantly between songs AND never uttering a word, and they did alright. Mike's banter actually had the opposite effect... he stilted the momentum searching for something clever or witty (but often just kind of awkward) to say. his song intros ramble on and on at times, and i'd tend to think the band and the audience were at least as annoyed as they were amused by the long-winded guy in the turban. in those days especially, people went to concerts to BOOGIE, MAN!!! not hear bad stand-up. despite the beard and the garb, any hope Mike had of being perceived as cool or hip went *poof* as soon as he opened his mouth.