The Smiley Smile Message Board

It seems that Al was incredibly under-utilized as a lead vocalist in the early days, especially considering how solid his voice was.

The fact that there were very few lead vocals spread around to the members other than Mike and Brian in the first few years of the band, I would think, would seem to be a symptom of Denny being young and lacking vocal confidence/chops, while Carl's lack of leads might possibly have been due to him being shy? I've always wondered if Carl was offered and declined lead vocals pre-All Dressed Up For School (not counting Summertime Blues, which was sung in unison with Dave, and was probably thought of as a throwaway filler track anyway)... and perhaps Brian wasn't fully confident of Dave's voice at the young age that he was at the time.

But what about Al? While we don't seem to have recorded BB evidence of his solo voice in a pre-Christmas Day context, it would seem that Al would have brought quite a lot to the table if he'd been a lead vocalist for at least some songs on the first few albums. I tend to think that if Al had never quit, Brian would have spread some leads more to Al, and perhaps Mike would have been less of "THE" lead singer of that era. I still think Mike would have had the most leads by a large margin, but maybe the chops of the other members would have been better known.

And perhaps the fact that even after rejoining, Al still got quite few leads, might be due to the fact that he was still thought of as an outsider/for-hire type of member for a time, and even less of a member of the "club" than he would have been thought of for reasons of not being related - now he was not only the only non-relative, but a guy who was playing catch-up in terms of leverage and how many bones might have been thrown his way due to him being thought of as a quitter too.

What does everyone think?

I honestly don't think Al wouldn't received any additional leads. 

In seemed like the Boys were pretty happy to have Mike and Brian take the leads on the early albums, with a token lead from Dennis. 

I think so. Gotta be in it to win it.

My original question I posed in this thread popped into my head when, last night, I was playing a BB greatest hits comp for my girlfriend, and she asked why Al was chosen for the lead vocal duties on Help Me, Rhonda. Al sounds fantastic on that song, no doubt... and when you hear Al on that tune, it does beg the questions - why was that guy utilized so little up until that time, as well as what was the reasoning that went into Brian choosing Al to sing that particular track?

I just think that there had to be some politics involved, at least to a point, of who got to sing what. Obviously, Brian was ultimately gonna choose who he was gonna choose, but it would seem odd that a talent like Al would just be sitting there unused for so long, and then suddenly when Rhonda comes along, Brian all of a sudden gets the idea that it might be a good idea to have this guy sing one of Brian's better songs. Not sure how that quite makes sense. I think all sorts of stuff was at play that played into the decision making process of who sang what.

Al was by far the lowest on the totem pole in terms of leverage, which IMO had to both be a result of being non-related *as well as* being a quitter who was now for-hire.

One might ask the opposite question... would Mike have gotten as many leads in the early days if he was the one guy who wasn't related and had also quit the band earlier?  Despite how much Mike was often needed as an essential element during that era, I still think the answer to those questions is fairly obvious.

The interpersonal dynamics at that time are pretty unclear to me. I'd always assumed that Carl's lack of leads was due to his youth, as well.

I think an impression of Al lacking commitment at that time may have contributed. It also might be that they considered it important to limit the number of lead vocalists for the sake of a recognizable image.

Also, I've never understood the idea of Mike being the lead singer. Pre-Pet Sounds, I think he and Brian had the exact same number of leads (42 each) on studio albums.

Hell, Carl was in the group the whole time, so why was he under utilized through 1966? It wasn't until Smiley Smile or really Wild Honey that he came into his own as a lead singer.

Mike was also the lead singer because he didn't play an instrument and was the MC at their shows. 

This is something that I've always wondered too. Especially since Carl totally kicks and sounds absolutely awesome as early as 1964 on All Dressed Up For School (which of course the public never heard until decades later), it wouldn't have been a secret internally within the band how rad Carl sounded on a solo lead vocal. I wonder if Carl was simply self-conscious about it, and also if it had something to do with his weight.

but... neither of those are related. Are you saying that he was accorded the title 'lead singer' to sort of make up for feeling belittled because he didn't play an instrument? Or are you saying not playing an instrument makes him the lead singer? I don't really get it.

I think your answer can be found in the infamous Rhonda session where Murray instructs Al to "syncopate".  I guess they didn't think much of Al's singing at that time.

In a way it worked out for the better, because the sound of the Beach Boys...to me...has always been about Carl and Al singing harmony.

 

I had never considered this, but that sounds like it could have been a plausible mindset at the time. Or at least that it sounds like an idea that Mike could have said to Brian.

However, I think that if Denny in the early days had been a more confident lead singer, or someone who Brian thought sounded more "commercial" as a lead vocalist, that he'd have had a few more leads (and on better material) than what actually played out - especially because of Denny's unparalleled popularity... of course, I imagine that scenario would surely have caused even more internal jealousy from Mike.

I'm not 100% sure of the dynamic, but I think he was also the only one who really had the persona of being a lead singer when they cut Surfin. 

Personally, I think it may have been just a structure thing. Brian & Mike were the lead singers. Occasionally, Dennis the drummer gets a lead, while Carl & Al were the harmony singers. Once Brian went off the road, everything had to change for the live show and so to with the studio leads. These would be the guys who would be singing the songs live here on out.

How does Murry = "they"? Murry was one guy, and not a member of the band at that. Not sure how Murry's thoughts would have meant that Brian or the other Boys would have felt the same way.

And Murry would have been picking on any/all of them if he could just to serve Murry's own ego and desperate need for feeling like a guy who contributed important ideas, most especially aimed at a guy who wouldn't be able to stand up to Murry if only due to how low-ranking Al was in the organization at the time.

I don't think the berating aimed at Al by Murry at the Rhonda session really means jack squat when it comes to how good Al actually was at the time, or how the other band members thought of Al's capabilities at the time either.

Makes sense as a 'persona' thing.

Some people have a lot of trouble singing while drumming. When Dennis did leads live, didn't someone else usually take over the drums? Also, it's my impression that a lot of people, including Brian, thought that Dennis was pretty uncooperative and difficult in the early years.

The Beatles had John and Paul doing most of the leads; the Beach Boys had Mike and Brian. Carl was probably more focused on his guitar playing in the early days than worrying about whether he got to sing some leads or not; Al was probably happy being a harmony singer. I always wondered why Phil Everly didn't get an occasional lead vocal, but I guess the attitude of the Everlys was, Don is the lead singer, Phil is the harmony singer.

That's a fair assumption to make too, and as I've previously mentioned in another thread, I'll restate that I've often wondered if All Dressed Up For School was some sort of experiment pertaining to the changing dynamic of the live band. Specifically, how the band could record a studio version of a song without leaning on Brian for the falsetto, since Al sings falsetto (perhaps his only studio falsetto of the era?) that they could then replicate more accurately with the same touring group members as a live song.

Initially the BBs were a Brian/Mike-led group. Hence, they took most leads.

Not being a family member may be a factor.

Another one is that Al took some time to develop his own lead-singing style. There is nothing special about his lead on Christmas Day-- other than it's a pleasant lead that could have been sung by any of the guys. It probably took some time for Al to develop confidence and sound as a lead singer.

That still leaves the question of why Brian turned to Al for a vocal on Help Me Rhonda. Was the decision, in part, a matter of throwing Al a bone?

But which is the cart and which the horse?

Sure, it could've been. Originally, it was just an album cut on Today. Brian must of liked what he heard, because he gave the lead back to him for the single version.

Not sure what you mean here, but it was pretty much Mike on the fast stuff and Brian on the ballads.

Or, before that, why was Al given the lead on Christmas Day? 

It seemed odd that Al would be handed his first lead vocal on a Christmas album. 

I just think that if Al's Rhonda lead was partly Brian throwing Al a bone, that there would have been some more bones thrown Al's way (maybe not a ton more, but at least some) if Al had been around during those early days. Much in the same way that I'd imagine if Dave had stayed in the band for a few more years, that he'd eventually have had a couple pre-Pet Sounds lead vocals.

What I mean is - was it a Brian/Mike-led group because they took most leads, or did they take most leads because it was a Brian/Mike-led group.
I mean, musically, it was always Brian's project, primarily, so the Brian-leading of the group was inevitable, so I guess I'm really referring to Mike. Was he a leader of the group because he had the leads or did he have the leads because he was a leader of the group?

Just a thought, probably not a coincidence that they started doling out more leads to the other guys about the time Brian left the road (or at least was planning to).

Of course it makes sense. It was an odd duality, touring band vs studio band, that I think's pretty rare and awkward. There have really been two "Beach Boys" since '64 I guess.

Brian was the overall leader just by virtue of his overall duties in the band. How could he not be, right? Mike was the on-stage leader. He was the MC, and the lead singer on most songs. From the very beginning this Brian/Mike leader thing is very apparent on the albums, as well as with the live shows.

Oh, I don't disagree with you! What I'm wondering is, did he become the MC and lead singer on half of the songs because he was, from the beginning, a group leader by force of personality or age or some other reason, or did he become a group leader because he was the MC and lead singer on half of the songs?

I would have to say yes to both. Being the lead singer puts you out in front of the band. Also, Mike is an alpha male and the oldest member of the band. His personality lent itself to a leadership type role. Thankfully, Brian earned his leadership role and did a fine job of it for the most part.

I still await the day that an indie band asks Al to write and record with them with Al as the lead singer.  His voice is incredible.

EoL

I second that emotion.

It would be much more in the "indie spirit" to get Al than Mike or Brian, really, and his voice is probably in the best shape of the three of them.  Don't get me wrong, I will buy everything Brian puts out, but Brian has given us more than we could ever hope for while Al has remains under utilized.  I'm not even arguing Brian should have used him more, Brian is a master of choosing which instruments to use and how to use them, including and especially the human voice.  But I would love to hear Al belt out some leads in a completely different context.

If I had enough material I would ask him myself.  :)

EoL

If it's still up on YouTube, check out Al singing the co-lead on "If I Had a Hammer"; recorded in the last few years. Al sounds awesome on that. No autotune, just Al's voice.

*That* voice needs to be put on something while we all still have a chance. Raid Al's vaults and cobble together another solo album. Or yeah, having him sing leads for someone else on new material could turn out great as well.

It seems Mike was quite a virtuoso.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flhaZZszgoc

I don't think Al would have had many more leads had he never quit. Unknowable, but that's my guess. I agree with Autotune and some others that it appears Brian and Mike were the alphas in the band, the latter for his personality and the former for his obvious musical leadership. In those earliest days, Al was certainly more credible as a lead vocalist than Carl (who sounded tentative early on to me) and Dennis (just--ducking from tomatoes and such being thrown--not much of a lead singer, especially then), he wasn't a necessary one: Mike had his range, Brian had, well, everyone's range.

I love Al's voice and would have loved for him to take some of Mike's leads, frankly. But I don't think it would have happened.

Great idea! He's already recorded with Flea, so he has some indy bonafides to start with.

It's interesting, to me anyway, that when Brian was singing fewer leads post-SMiLe, Carl started doing more. Smiley Smile and Wild Honey mostly have Mike, Brian or Carl doing the leads. Does Al have any leads on those albums? Dennis?

The early albums were churned out at such a fast rate, Brian didn't have (or prioritise) the time to give Al the heavy guidance/training he needed to be able to lay down a quality lead vocal. Lead's by Mike or Brian himself could be recorded comparatively quickly due to their confidence and experience.
 
Al has said before that he needed to be taught step-by-step by Brian when recording the "Rhonda" lead, and that was the time when Brian was able/keen to take that extra time.

Maybe it's a case of what the band wanted to project at a particular time.  Mike sounded cockier, more of a punk, so was well suited to the car stuff etc.  It's a personality they had to put out there on the records.  It depends whether Al could've projected that to the same extent.

Also, Mike simply had more of a recognisable sound to his voice.  Al has a great, solid voice, but for shoving it into the public consciousness and getting the world to listen, it's kind of so-so.

Emily, three or four things:

On the very first album, Mike had eight leads, and no-one else had more than one. On the follow-up and breakthrough album, Surfin' U.S.A., Mike had four leads, compared to Brian's three (the rest being instrumentals). Mike also was the lead singer on eleven out of sixteen U.S. single A-sides pre-Pet Sounds, including the first four, and no-one else had more than one, if we don't count shared leads (based on info from Wikipedia).

Of the group's two main lead singers pre-Pet Sounds, Mike remained the only one touring after Brian quit the road.

Mike is the guy with the hand-held microphone, like lead singers tend to be (even though he has it on a stand much of the time). How many pictures can you find of another member singing in a hand-held mic ?

To be fair, Dennis in his injured-hand phase notwithstanding, everyone else was always playing an instrument.

The very first point alone - that he sang lead on the vast majority of songs on the first album and the majority of the next few - quite changed my thinking. Thank you.  So, he clearly did start out as the lead singer, but it dwindled very rapidly; why is an interesting question in itself.
The singles vs album cuts matter to the general image so might make a general impression that Mike's the lead singer but if he's not, he's not and if he is, he is, regardless of public image.
Regarding touring vs. recording: with the Beach Boys, there have long been two dynamics with two set ups. By Today, Mike was no longer the lead singer in the studio. Perhaps he was on the road; I don't know the stats.
The last point is the least pertinent: lots of lead singers play an instrument so don't hold a mike. And on lots of songs, Mike isn't singing lead, and having a hand-held mike doesn't make him the lead singer on those songs. To me, a lead singer is a person who sings lead, without regard to their MCing, or mike-holding or instrument-playing status.
But, thanks for the eye-opening first point.

Beach Boys Today:

Mike: 4 leads, 1 co-lead, 41% of album, 2 leads on hits
Brian: 3 leads, 1 co-lead, 32% of album
Dennis: 2 leads,  18% of album 1 lead on hit
Al: 1 lead, 9% of album

Percentage based on 11 songs.

I should've said Party, not Today, but my point was not any individual album but that on all the albums combined before, and not including, Pet Sounds, Mike had fewer than half of the leads and he tied with Brian for the most. So, while it seems he started out very strongly as the lead, with time he was not only not the sole lead, but for the gap to close and for Brian to have an equal number by Pet Sounds, there must have been spurts before Pet Sounds when Brian was singing more leads.
I don't have the data in front of me right now to be more specific.

I think you need to look at this from Surfin' Safari to All Summer Long (the last regular album before Brian is off the road). After that barring Pet Sounds, the others (Al & Carl) begin to take a more active role. This band had potentially 6 lead singers. This was bound to happen as the guys became more comfortable in their roles and then wanting to branch out a bit.

Agreed that everyone was a good enough vocalist to be a lead singer. And everyone was, on one song or another, THE lead singer, including Bruce and Blondie (and Jack Reiley!)
So, examples through All Summer Long in which it would be hard to argue that Mike was the lead singer would be Surfer Girl (4 clear Brian leads, 1 clear Mike lead and 4 duets with Mike a bit more prominent) and Shut Down vol. II (3 clear Brian leads, 2 clear Mike leads and 1 duet with Brian a bit more prominent). Not sure why the Christmas album doesn't count, but that's fine.
So, it's clear that Mike was absolutely THE lead on Surfin' Safari but from then on, it's too ambiguous to call anyone THE lead. I suppose if someone was a fan from the very beginning, it might have gotten stuck in their head from the first album that Mike was THE lead singer and the pigeon-holes didn't change in their minds, though they did in reality. As someone who has heard the '60s stuff retroactively (I started in the '70s), it's always been strange to me to hear Mike called THE lead singer. I don't argue at all that he's not A lead singer, but he was THE lead singer for the first year of their existence and not for the remaining 53 years.

edit to add -  this is all referring to studio work. Live appearances may be a different story. The ones I'm most familiar with (for obvious reasons the two official album releases) - Mike's the clear lead singer on the earlier one, but not on the later one. Though the early concert films I've seen, I think my impression would have been that Mike is slightly more prominent than Brian, but not enough to make him the official lead singer the way, say, Mick Jagger was. The Beach Boys always seemed to me more Beatle-like in that there was no lead singer, rather than Stones-like in which there was a lead singer.

Emily,

I would say that Mike is the "primary" lead singer for a good portion of The Beach Boys career.  He didn't do as many leads from Pet Sounds to Holland, but on the albums prior to PS, and the albums that came after Holland, there's a lot of Mike. 

I think Mike is also referred to as "the" lead singer because, in concert, he's the frontman, and for the most part, the face of The Beach Boys. 

Well, again, the numbers don't really add up to him being the primary lead pre-Pet Sounds. One can argue about leads on a number of songs in which leads are shared, so one could edge either him or Brian into technically a higher number, but that would be ridiculous. If the numbers are that close, then there is no lead.
I agree people may think of him as the lead singer because of the MCing and chatty stage presence, but that's an impression, not a reality.
I haven't really looked at the latter 70s and 80s (and 90s) because I don't care so much about that and it may well be that he is the lead singer during that time.
It just seems to me that for a lot of people who talk about wanting to eliminate the mythology and recognize the reality, there's a lot of twisting to accord Mike a role that he didn't actually have. I didn't realize until I saw it on this board that anyone considered Mike the lead singer. I always assumed people thought of it like the Beatles - a lead singerless band. Which is what it was.
To say otherwise, to me, is either mythologizing or politics. Because it's counterfactual.

I think KDS answered the question nicely. I didn't say not to include the Christmas Album. It is the first album made after Brian leaves the road. I always looked at Brian & Mike as the two lead singers. Mike just had a bit more prominence because he sang the majority of hit records. We bought the 45's before we bought the albums. :)

This is pretty much how I've looked at it, too.

Mike himself also largely contributes to the oft-repeated, but not entirely factual, ideology that Mike is the lead singer, because Mike himself will typically state such in M&B press releases, etc (which I imagine the verbiage is Mike-directed). He seems to really, really wants people to think he's THE lead singer of the band even if the facts don't always quite support that. If Mike himself were more humble and didn't actively repeatedly push that ideology for decades, I'm not sure it would be quite as widespread. I imagine Mike feels if Brian has the "genius" tag, that Mike must latch onto something that puffs up his own role as much as possible, and the "lead singer" tag can sorta kinda be stated without much argument, until one looks at the numbers and sees that it's not quite clear cut.

The fact that a large number of early hits have Mike leads surely helps further that line of thinking. I wouldn't say it's a ridiculous statement to make, just not quite accurate.

Yeah, that Mike, he sure is a sinister mofo. ;) Even if he is a co-lead singer, he can still claim to be a lead singer and not be stating something incorrect. All one has to do is listen. Even David can claim it once. All nine Beach Boys can claim to be lead singers. :)

Am I imagining things, or has a thread on the subject of Al Jardine regressed to trying to diminish Mike Love's contributions to The Beach Boys? 

I think the answer of whether or not Al would've gotten more lead vocals is already there, in the albums on which he's absent.  How many Dave vocals?  One co-vocal with Carl on Summertime Blues.  That probably would've been Al singing with Carl there. 

You haven't figured that out, yet? Of course, all threads here eventually devolve into that. ;)

 ::)
Really? Are you policing so hard for Mike Love that when people say something false, you find it inappropriate to question it? How is trying to be accurate equal to "trying to diminish?"

People have really lost objectivity on both sides of the Mike Love thing. It's absurd.

I lost my head. My apologies to you, Emily.

:) Maybe we're all touchy today. Sorry for the sarcasm.

A conversation is gonna go where it goes; there's not some vast conspiracy to diminish Mike's contributions, any more than there's a vast conspiracy to puff up Mike's contributions. People's mileage will just vary, but the subject of lead vocals in the early days seems to be at least partially intertwined with the personalities and talent of the members.

I wouldn't doubt that Al would have sang Dave's parts on Summertime Blues - that's a likely scenario - but I'm also not convinced that there wouldn't have also been at least a few additional Al leads in the early days had Al stuck around. And depending on if one of those had been a hit, perhaps a few more.

How soon after Al rejoined the band did he get his first lead (Christmas Day)? I'm not sure what dates that song was recorded on (summer '64 I think?), but it was less than a year after Al rejoined the band that Brian saw fit to start utilizing Al as a lead vocalist. Would Dave have gotten his first solo lead by that point (had Dave stayed in the band)? Not so sure that would have happened (and I don't mean that as a dig against Dave, only that he was still quite young and perhaps Brian would have deemed Dave as not quite ready yet).

I would imagine Brian began to see soon after Al rejoined that Al was a secret weapon to the group vocally, but I think it's fair to consider the possibility that politics within the band - possibly related to Al's non-blood relation, to Al now being a second tier, salaried BB member, to other members perhaps being reluctant to relinquish lead vocal duties more often - might have affected Al's standing and utilization (or lack thereof) as a lead vocalist. Hard to say, and I certainly make no concrete assumptions (nobody can)... just stuff to ponder as a fan.

Apologies if this is too much of a tangent, but it is relevant: were there many/any rock bands in the early '60s that had anything resembling the mid-60s and later BBs model of numerous lead singers? In those earliest years, did any rock band have more than a lead singer? And might that have played into how leads were handed out at all, possibly thinking that for purposes of publicity, recognition, a band needed a singer (not a band of singers)? The Beatles obviously split, probably in something like a 40-40 split between the primary writers and most of what's left going to George.

But otherwise? Like, pre-64, 63? I honestly have no idea, I don't listen to all that much pop from that era.

You may be on to something there. Most bands had one lead singer.

Yeah. That's what I said way at the beginning of the thread about Al; they may have wanted to limit the number of lead vocalists for the sake of a consistent marketable image.

Damnit, I copied? "I'm a genius, too, [Emily]!" Can we agree it's an inadvertent copy? We're both geniuses...  ;D

Nah - you made the point better.

Everything's comin' up Luther!

In the early days, Mike sang lead on the faster songs, Brian on the ballads.  At least that's the image.  I never thought one person could be called "the" lead singer of the Beach Boys.  Everyone got a turn sooner or later.

If Al had never quit in '62, the BBs may have developed differently from what we have now.  Maybe they would have gotten a recording contract later than they did, giving them a chance to become more sure of themselves as musicians.  As it is, Brian and his writing partners had to scramble to get enough songs written in time for the BBs' first album.

Al had been a big fan of Kingston Trio-style folk music, and maybe there would have been more songs with this influence.  If so, he would have been the first choice as lead singer on those.  Of course, we'll never know for sure.

I'd like to know why the best song on TWGMTR, To There and Back Again, which has Al on lead, was left off Made in California.  Was that Mike's decision?

Good cut-to-the-chase point about lead singing and about the "What if" aspect. Of course, if Al had not quit there would have been a many-rippled butterfly effect. We can't say "maybe Al would have sung this or that song instead of whomever" because we can't even know what songs they would have recorded had he not quit. Each member has some effect on what they ended up doing, even if it wasn't explicit.

According to Wikipedia (which is never wrong) it's pretty close but by studio album Mike is the career lead singer at 140 with Brian close behind at 132 and Carl at a distant 3rd with 91. You know allowing for me losing track and adding wrong and such.

Which means that Mike sang lead (if you throw in Dennis Al, Bruce & Blondie) about 1/3 of the songs. He is not THE lead singer, but a lead singer. And IMO, there are very few songs where his lead vocals are the most interesting facet of the song. 

It may not be the most interesting facet, but as soon as he starts to sing, you know who you are listening to. So, distinct may be a better description. Really ashame that he became so nasal after the Holland album. The album where he sounds almost like his pre-73 self is Love You, except for Airplane where the nasalness comes back.

Help Me, Ronda is one strange album cut. Brian took pains to cut a great backing track, and I think Al's lead vocal was as stunning as the one he turned in on the single. But then Brian mucked things up with a truly weird background vocal arrangement and used the fading in-and-out effect to no good effect. It's almost as if he were trying to sabotage Al's first lead vocal on a "mainstream" album.

Of course on Help Me, Rhonda, Mike is given a much more prominent role vocally. His intrusive "geeet her outta my heart" is simultaneously grating and iconic.  But of course his other vocal work on the single is terrific and really an integral part of the record. 

Mike is the lead singer in the lead.

I like your posts and most of the threads you start, but I think you tend to read and guess too much into Mike's mind and intentions, and you become judgemental without probably intending to. I recall Mike downplaying his lead-singing role during C50 interviews, and other fairly recent interviews, while stressing that he mostly enjoys and sees himself as a bass harmony singer. He did this whie praising his bandmates' vocal contributions, including Al's.

The BB had 4 # 1 hits and they all had a different combo of lead singers, another example of how the group is so gifted with singers.
IGA- Mike with Brian
Rhonda- Al
Good Vibes Carl ( and Brian) with Mike
Kokomo Mike with Carl

That's an awesome point.

Well, folks, this is actually a question that--if phrased properly--could be answered by Brian. Clearly he waited awhile to give lead vocals to Carl and Al. He may have had a reason, and he might actually remember what it was.

If Brian does another Q&A here, someone should just go ahead and ask the question...maybe he will answer it. Not saying we shouldn't speculate about it--that's what we are here for, of course--but maybe we can get more info by going to the source...

After Davy Jones died, I saw many reports calling him "the lead singer of the made for tv band, the Monkees". Micky Dolenz actually sang more of the hits; on the first album, Micky sang most of the songs; Davy sang 3, Mike Nesmith sang 2. On the second album, it was more evenly balanced between Micky and Davy. And Davy did sing lead on 3 of the biggest hits: Daydream Believer, Valleri, and A Little Bit You, A Little Bit Me. So if he's not described as the lead singer of the Monkees, what do we can him? Lead tambourine player? "Non-instrumentalist Davy Jones?" I think writers tend to simplify things for the general public, so "Mike Love, lead singer of the Beach Boys" is probably shorthand for "the guy that stands out front without an instrument, and sings a lot of the songs". I can't imagine even a casual fan sitting down with a GH comp and thinking the lead voice on Surfin' USA, God Only Knows and In My Room is the same guy.

So what do we call the singer who sang the most leads in a band's career including the most leads on their #1 hits?

(Yes, I realize the set up I've just handed some of you. You're welcome. Here, I'll start it for you: "Baldy"?)

Primary lead singer. 

Leadiest singer?

Ha.  That's pretty good. 

It's easy to get mired in semantics, especially since the Beach Boys had multiple singers who sang lead vocals.  But, it cannot be argued that Mike was the "frontman."

And even though Gene, Ace, and Peter all sang, I still hear Paul Stanley referred to as "the" lead singer of KISS.  He sang most of the hits & is the emcee at the live shows (often with cringeworthy banter). 

You call him one of the lead singers, if there were a couple who sang way more than others, or one of the singers, or a singer, if everyone had a substantial number of leads. Do Beatles fans count the number of leads by John and Paul and say that if one had 3% more than the other he was "the" lead singer and the other wasn't? I should hope not, because it would be stupid and unnecessarily aggressive.

"Occasional lead singer" or "Sometimes lead singer" would be both more accurate and humble titles. Or perhaps "often lead singer" if the early days is the context.

In particular, with an album like Pet Sounds being far and away, by a large margin, the band's most famous and highly regarded work, it makes less sense to label Mike as THE lead singer.

If "more leads" were the premise I suppose they would.

I don't think "more leads" is the premise. I think "more leads to the degree that one is the lead singer rather than a lead singer" is the premise. Obviously, the likelihood is that McCartney and Lennon did not have exactly the same number of leads. But the likelihood of being (virtually) torn to a billion pieces on a Beatle board for arguing that either McCartney or Lennon was The lead singer of the Beatles because he sang 8 more songs over the course of their career is pretty high. And it's very analogous.

Those Beatle boards sound awful.

Someone has most leads, unless there is that unlikely tie.  In the BBs it is Mike, I don't think that is an opinion, I think it is a fact.  Is my count wrong? It might be.  Opinions about what is a lead singer will vary I'm sure.

Emily, I don't think anyone here is claiming that Mike is the lead singer of the Beach Boys or that he should be recognized as such. You said:


but you can understand an idea, or try to, without holding it yourself, and I think most of the responses, including mine, have been trying to do that.

And to understand an idea you have to look at those holding it, which I think mainly have been journalists writing half-assed write-ups. Which probably is due to the "what do we call him?" problem, as mentioned by Lonely Summer above.

🙂 OK.

OK. It's not important enough to me to go further. I've just seen it a lot, on this board and other places, and it always struck me as odd, at first because I never thought of it that way, and then when I looked more closely at it, because it seems to technically be incorrect, but if people are married to the idea for their own reasons, so be it. It's not a life-changing issue.
I do have trouble letting things go when people are persisting in something that goes against evidence and fact.

I will add that the topic of Mike Love in particular seems like a Beach Boys topic that is particularly vulnerable to manipulation for or against, which seems to make it an area particularly ripe for trying to establish what's actually true. What is he wrongly maligned for by the antis and what is he wrongly celebrated for by the pros? My opinion is that it's manipulated on both ends and it bugs me.

So much of it is because it's harder to give Mike the benefit of the doubt when he overreaches for crediting and publicly pats himself on the back so often. If, for example, there were numerous instances of Dennis trying to claim co-writing credit on songs (but these crediting instances were disputed), coupled with Dennis publicly stating that Dennis himself needs to be recognized for this, that, etc., I think people might have a harder time being sympathetic to believing an unacknowledged co-writing credit like "You Are So Beautiful".

If it was in Mike's personality to have publicly downplayed his own role in the group, or came off as humble, it would be a no-brainer that many, many more people would be celebrating his contributions, and calling him underrated, etc.

I realize, of course, that his personality has almost certainly been shaped/warped by how unfairly he felt he was treated about songwriting credits. But that doesn't excuse overreaching, nor does it negate the fact that he is oblivious to how he rubs people the wrong way, and how that hurts his chances for gaining respect in a huge way.

Getting back to the subject of Al, I could see how if Mike was pushing the "don't f*ck with the formula" mindset to Brian, how this could have influenced Brian's decision to give Mike a larger share of lead vocals for singles, and less for people like Al. Yet I can't shake the notion that if Al hadn't left the band, a few more leads would have been thrown his way (both during '62-'63, as well as a few more post '63) - just perhaps not a sizeable amount, especially during a time when the formula idea was being pushed by the record company too, besides the internal influence within the band (to focus on the status quo when it came to lead singers) that I imagine was present.

What I do wonder, is how many times, throughout the group's history, did a given band member get upset or take issue with Brian's choice of lead singer on a song? I'm sure it must have happened a number of times.

I'm not saying Mike doesn't have his faults.  And he does bring a lot of grief onto himself.  He has a case of LSD (Lead Singer Disease), which is pretty common. 

But, you have to admit, that there are many in the Beach Boys fan community that exert a lot of effort to shine a big bright spotlight on his faults while, at the same time, dismissing his positive contributions. 

This is true, and much like Mike overreaches, so do many people overreach to dismiss his positive contributions. I think the two phenomenons are intrinsically related, and it is quite unfortunate since there are many undeniably awesome contributions that Mike has made to the band. It bugs me that there are people on this board who literally won't ever say anything about his positive contributions.

I'm with you 100% here. 

So Mike is the most lead singer at 140, Brian is right behind at 132, Carl at 91, then Al is 4th at 49, Dennis 29, Bruce 13, and David 1. So far. Subject to inaccuracy.

You could certainly argue that Al (and Dennis and Bruce and Dave) got less than his fair share of leads if that was the way bands worked.

And Blondie had, what, four?  If my maths are correct. 

How about Jack Rieley and Dean Torrence and Jasper Dailey?

Are unreleased songs ("My Solution", "Sweet and Bitter", etc.) also being counted?

I wouldn't and didn't, but why not?

It's easy to label Mike as the lead singer because he never played an instrument whereas everyone else in the band did. But it's a little more complicated than that. Mike was certainly the lead singer from 61 until Pet Sounds. Then it is pretty split during concerts ( in fact Mike only had a few leads in many early 70s shows and those were the oldies pretty much. Until the post 15 Big Ones era when Mike started to get most of the leads again.  This was even more so as the 80s and 90s wore on.  By the late 90s Carl and Al were singing less than they ever did.  Overall, you'd have to say he was the lead singer...but that doesn't mean as much to the BB as other bands because there are such other great vocalists.

When describing the Beatles, people often refer to the prolific songwriting team (ahem...) of Lennon/McCartney. I don't know that I have ever seen either described as "the lead singer of the Beatles". Of course, both also played instruments. If Mike had actually learned to play that sax, maybe this issue wouldn't have come up.
Edit: oops, my bad! I just watched some of those MTV-era BB's videos. I'd forgotten about Mike playing sax on Kokomo and Summer in Paradise! ::)

As you can see, people here are claiming that Mike is or was the lead singer. It's not only "journalists writing half-assed write-ups."
As I've said, I'd seen him called the lead singer on this board. There continue to be people on this board asserting it, right in this thread alongside the counter-evidence. So, if I look at journalists holding that opinion, then not playing an instrument, holding the mike, etc. might make sense. But I was wondering about people on this board and why they have that opinion. Given that no sound reason has been offered, I conclude that it's political.

Sometimes I wonder if Mike would have gotten more respect (and would have more respect today) if he properly learned a musical instrument beyond just dabbling a tiny bit, and then abandoning the sax. No, he doesn't have to, no he can stick with singing and being an emcee if that's all he *wants* to do... not a conversation about what he should or shouldn't do... just the fact that perhaps if he had become an essential instrumental part of the band, maybe people would pick on him just a little bit less.

The problems that people have with Mike are not related to his lack of proficiency on an instrument.

That's true. But it is nevertheless something that people dog him about, even if they are irked about other stuff.

I concede, you're right.