The Smiley Smile Message Board

Smiley Smile Stuff => General On Topic Discussions => Topic started by: bonnevillemariner on September 15, 2021, 07:28:25 AM



Title: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: bonnevillemariner on September 15, 2021, 07:28:25 AM
Sorry, it had to be said.

With all the focus on the Beach Boys' middle era lately (Feel Flows Box Set), I decided it's high time I start at the beginning and retrace everything from the early days up to Sunflower/Surf's Up. Naturally, I started with Jan & Dean.

I think everyone agrees that J&D were pivotal in the development and popularization of the surf rock sound, but they. simply. can't. sing.

That said... I absolutely love them. I've immersed myself in their music for the last few days, and I can't wipe the smile off my face.

Were J&D aware they can't sing? I can't help but wonder if this was more of a feature than a bug. Thoughts?


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: 37!ws on September 15, 2021, 07:44:04 AM
Okay, good; I'm not the only one. Can't stand Dean's whiny falsetto, and Jan was off-key A LOT.

Years ago I once posted in another forum about how I just don't get the attraction with Jan and Dean. A couple of people said yes, they were not good singers, but they were a good *act*, especially if you saw them in concert in their hitmaking days; they were more of a comedy act than anything else, really, from what several people told me.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: Joshilyn Hoisington on September 15, 2021, 08:54:16 AM
Were J&D aware they can't sing? I can't help but wonder if this was more of a feature than a bug. Thoughts?


I absolutely love Jan & Dean as well, and while I think it's hyperbolic to say they "can't sing" -- clearly they can -- I can see what you're getting at.  Jan was a spirit who just loved to make music, and I think it's probably patent that he's not one of those people that's a born lead-singer.  He gets the job done, for me, though.

On the other hand, the Dean question is interesting because of course so often it's not actually Dean (who certainly never developed a commanding head voice) -- it's your PF Sloans and your Matadors who are singing on those records.  And again, those people all get the job done for me, but it is true that none of them are quite as polished as Beach Boys became -- and I can imagine that's because they didn't spend as many grueling hours in the studio learning the craft.

I also don't think it's fair to call them a comedy act, even if they were a very good live show that made a lot of people laugh.  I think Jan would be the first to happily call some of what he did "Schtick" -- in fact if I recall correctly, he would write that in guitar players parts to indicate that they should do what he normally asked for.  But schtick aside, Jan was very very serious about making music and doing it well.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: guitarfool2002 on September 15, 2021, 09:12:22 AM
And the topic of Jan & Dean is where my opinions part ways dramatically with what seems to be a lot of the Beach Boys' fanbase. When I listen to Jan & Dean at their best, I enjoy the music and what's in the grooves. When I watch that unsold TV pilot or TV movie from '66 where they have the full Wrecking Crew on stage with them and Hal Blaine playing a comedic foil to the cast, I really enjoy it. They cut a few really good singles, no doubt. The studio guys "played up" for Jan and turned in some classic performances.

But...(in no particular order, and just my opinions for discussion)

1. The off-key singing is one of the main elements that seems to be in direct contradiction with the notion that Jan Berry was going for a superior outcome in the art of studio recording and crafting records.

It's as if you spent hours baking the finest wedding cake you could bake, with premium ingredients and the skills of a superior baker in the kitchen, and when you deliver the cake the icing is all messed up, the groom's name is spelled wrong, and the whole cake leans to one side.

*Most* people who are non-musicians listen to the words first when hearing a record, and the words come through the vocalist(s). If it's as out of tune as some of those J&D records are, the whole impact is lost, much like the wedding cake which had the finest ingredients but the finishing touches which everyone sees first are all f**ked up and sloppy.

Why didn't Jan spend more time getting in-tune vocals that were delivered with confidence and that passion that marks a classic vocal recording? Who knows.

And if the "well, they were a comedy act" answer is offered as a reason why the vocals fell short, I'd counter with the examples of Spike Jones, Allan Sherman, Weird Al Yankovic, etc. All of them were comedy acts too, that was their entire "schtick" (as in, Spike Jones didn't cut serious records), but their bands always played in tune and their vocals were in tune and well delivered, whether on the parody recordings or on their originals.

If anyone needs proof, listen to Jan & Dean's "Folk And Roll" album. The vocals are literally bad, and I'm not being biased, they are literally out of tune more than they're in. That record should never have come out if the vocals were rushed or done half-assed.

And that's why J&D are not the legends or as well remembered as some of their peers from the 60's. They fell just that much short on critical elements like the vocals.

Just my opinions, and I have more but most have already been expressed on this forum in past years. And I'll repeat, I also enjoy listening to them at their best, but the attempts to elevate J&D to the levels of their peers is not justified by actually listening to their releases from the 60's. They were very raw and proto-punk/garage in the 50's, and I dig that energy and vibe, but the rest falls short.

In my opinion.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: bonnevillemariner on September 15, 2021, 11:59:37 AM

Why didn't Jan spend more time getting in-tune vocals that were delivered with confidence and that passion that marks a classic vocal recording? Who knows.

I'm stumped, too. Listening to their entire catalog, it's clear that they never made any serious effort to improve their singing.

Joshilyn, one reason I think they "get the job done" for me, too, is their amateur singing has the air of youth and carefree innocence-- like a couple of buddies singing about their life with little concern for what someone might think.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: Pretty Funky on September 15, 2021, 12:28:11 PM
Bob Dylan and Neil Young aren’t great either, but the songs, lyrics etc are the highlight.
The business needs average singers. It appeals to us who are just as average and only sing in the shower. 😅


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: FreakySmiley on September 15, 2021, 02:10:02 PM
As someone who has been a fan of The Beach Boys for most of his life, and got into Jan & Dean only within the last few years, there is certainly no question that even at their most ragged The Boys could sing circles around Jan & Dean (and many of their other contemporary sound-alikes as well) but I would argue that Jan & Dean have plenty of passionate vocals (some of the more passionate ones are sometimes also the more out-of-tune ones) and would agree that for me, these qualities that are detractors for some are more of a personal flavor that makes their songs all the more unique. I'd say in my (unprofessional) opinion they are better-than-average singers, but maybe just didn't really care all that much. As a wise man once said, "It's just a ride..."


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on September 15, 2021, 04:37:24 PM
Okay, good; I'm not the only one. Can't stand Dean's whiny falsetto, and Jan was off-key A LOT.

Years ago I once posted in another forum about how I just don't get the attraction with Jan and Dean. A couple of people said yes, they were not good singers, but they were a good *act*, especially if you saw them in concert in their hitmaking days; they were more of a comedy act than anything else, really, from what several people told me.


I’ve never been able to get into Jan and Dean. Before I became a fan 26 years ago (!) I thought The Beach Boys were lame mainly because I thought they were just like Jan and Dean, too middle of the road WASPy with no kind of edge at all.

In all fairness it WAS the 90s


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: c-man on September 15, 2021, 05:27:56 PM
Bob Dylan and Neil Young aren’t great either, but the songs, lyrics etc are the highlight.
The business needs average singers. It appeals to us who are just as average and only sing in the shower. 😅

I agree on the first point. Also: George Harrison. And mind you, I ADORE George Harrison...but listen to his lead vocals, even as late as Abbey Road and All Things Must Pass, and you'll hear some flatting of notes, and the like. No Roger Daltrey or even Paul McCartney here. But that's OK.

I also agree on the second point. People like George, Ray Davies, even John Lennon half the time were not what is generally thought of as "exceptional" singers. But that's OK - they get the job done (especially on their own songs), and justify people like me singing my own songs!  :)


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: guitarfool2002 on September 15, 2021, 05:44:25 PM
As someone who has been a fan of The Beach Boys for most of his life, and got into Jan & Dean only within the last few years, there is certainly no question that even at their most ragged The Boys could sing circles around Jan & Dean (and many of their other contemporary sound-alikes as well) but I would argue that Jan & Dean have plenty of passionate vocals (some of the more passionate ones are sometimes also the more out-of-tune ones) and would agree that for me, these qualities that are detractors for some are more of a personal flavor that makes their songs all the more unique. I'd say in my (unprofessional) opinion they are better-than-average singers, but maybe just didn't really care all that much. As a wise man once said, "It's just a ride..."

The point in bold is probably the key issue I have in this discussion and with Jan & Dean in general. There are people telling us how much care and attention Jan Berry gave to his studio productions, writing out each and every part for the musicians to play and mixing everything with such meticulous attention to detail, really taking the craft of recording and arranging pop or teen music into an art form.

Then you hear the out of tune vocals, and vocal tracks which sound like they really didn't care all that much, and it almost immediately destroys the other point by example.

Again the question becomes why would such care and attention be given to the instrumental tracks only to put vocals on those tracks that too often sound like they were half-assed?



Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: guitarfool2002 on September 15, 2021, 05:54:46 PM
I also agree on the second point. People like George, Ray Davies, even John Lennon half the time were not what is generally thought of as "exceptional" singers. But that's OK - they get the job done (especially on their own songs), and justify people like me singing my own songs!  :)

John Lennon, really? He's universally regarded as one of the best singers in rock history, and I have to agree. Even for studio recording, which he didn't care for, Lennon's pitch, phrasing, and diction in terms of singing rock and roll was almost perfect, and his singing voice in general was pretty much considered exceptional by most.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: Lonely Summer on September 15, 2021, 08:20:03 PM
I also agree on the second point. People like George, Ray Davies, even John Lennon half the time were not what is generally thought of as "exceptional" singers. But that's OK - they get the job done (especially on their own songs), and justify people like me singing my own songs!  :)

John Lennon, really? He's universally regarded as one of the best singers in rock history, and I have to agree. Even for studio recording, which he didn't care for, Lennon's pitch, phrasing, and diction in terms of singing rock and roll was almost perfect, and his singing voice in general was pretty much considered exceptional by most.
IMO, John Lennon is the best singer of flat out rock and roll not named Little Richard or Elvis Presley.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: FreakySmiley on September 15, 2021, 08:23:31 PM
As someone who has been a fan of The Beach Boys for most of his life, and got into Jan & Dean only within the last few years, there is certainly no question that even at their most ragged The Boys could sing circles around Jan & Dean (and many of their other contemporary sound-alikes as well) but I would argue that Jan & Dean have plenty of passionate vocals (some of the more passionate ones are sometimes also the more out-of-tune ones) and would agree that for me, these qualities that are detractors for some are more of a personal flavor that makes their songs all the more unique. I'd say in my (unprofessional) opinion they are better-than-average singers, but maybe just didn't really care all that much. As a wise man once said, "It's just a ride..."

The point in bold is probably the key issue I have in this discussion and with Jan & Dean in general. There are people telling us how much care and attention Jan Berry gave to his studio productions, writing out each and every part for the musicians to play and mixing everything with such meticulous attention to detail, really taking the craft of recording and arranging pop or teen music into an art form.

Then you hear the out of tune vocals, and vocal tracks which sound like they really didn't care all that much, and it almost immediately destroys the other point by example.

Again the question becomes why would such care and attention be given to the instrumental tracks only to put vocals on those tracks that too often sound like they were half-assed?



It almost makes you think about Brian producing an entire album (or SERIES of albums, god forbid!) of songs like "Teeter Totter Love"  :lol


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: Mitchell on September 15, 2021, 08:50:25 PM
Not to get too much into the "debate" but I'm pretty sure that the bad singing on Folk 'n Roll was at least partially intentional - they were sending up the genre.

I would wager that at least some of their imperfection is a defense mechanism against the same; if they're not *trying* to be perfect then they can dismiss criticism for it. And for me, they succeed in walking the line between irreverent and competent.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: HeyJude on September 16, 2021, 06:41:16 AM
I'm not trying to pile on, and I'm also not suggesting anybody was making a full, direct comparison between Jan & Dean and the other vocalists cited as examples. But I have to say, *every* other vocalist cited in this thread is by any measure a far better singer than Jan or Dean, including any of the Beatles, Ray Davies, Neil Young, and even Bob Dylan.

In particular, someone like George Harrison grew into a fine, skilled singer, and even in his early days when his lead singing voice (though still far better than Jan or Dean) was clunky on early stuff like "Do You Want to Know a Secret", he learned very early on to sing some great multi-part harmonies with John and Paul. And, even as a lead singer George had a level of skill and experience and even self-confidence that I never heard in something like Jan & Dean. Listen to the Beatles' Decca Audition; Harrison arguably carries the band on lead vocals. Remember that a fact kind of lost to history (if you don't listen to pre-EMI stuff or read Lewisohn) is that Harrison was a *bigger* part of the act pre-EMI. He kind of got cut out of the act to some degree when they started cutting albums and doing more formulated live setlists.

I think there's a HUGE difference between a bunch of 60s rock/pop singers who were not formally trained but had obvious raw vocal talent and in many cases honed their skills through playing lots of live gigs, etc., and something like Jan & Dean where they weren't exactly playing 8 hours per night in Hamburg, Germany, and weren't exactly doing anything near the breadth of song types a band like the Beatles were doing, switching from show tunes to country to rock and roll to originals, and so on.

Jan & Dean were very much a "they get the job done" sort of act vocally (and sometimes perhaps not quite rising even to that level); whereas the Kinks or Beatles or Neil Young or whomever were fine, exceptional singers that often if not usually just didn't come from formal training. HUGE, HUGE difference between these two things.

I'm not even sure who to compare to Jan & Dean. To try to find something else in the BB world to compare, I guess I'd say it hews much closer to something like Jack Rieley's vocals on "Tree", or the wonkiest of the Honeys/Spring vocals. And really, I truly feel like that's kind of being too unkind to the Honeys/Spring stuff.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: Tom on September 20, 2021, 05:56:06 AM
Definitely agree with HeyJude - 'Bob Dylan couldn't sing' is a bizarre misconception that's somehow taken hold in popular thought. Much like 'Ringo is a bad drummer'. At his peak, Dylan was in tune, evocative, and technically strong - i.e. you can hear that he's projecting his voice and using resonance in a way which we'd consider 'correct' in contemporary western singing. He sounded like a professional vocalist, in other words. Sure he was never gonna be Stevie Wonder, but he used his instrument to its full potential. Jan and Dean did not; they sounded weak and amateurish.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: DonnyL on September 20, 2021, 10:38:14 AM
The issue w/ Jan & Dean is not one of off-key singing IMO. It's that they never really seemed to have had true artistic vision- it just seemed like guys having fun making silly records in many cases.

It's not about the singing IMO. I think many of the Jan & Dean records are really actually just great.

The 1968 Carnival of Sound sessions feature neither Jan nor Dean singing on most tracks. Yet they still sound like Jan & Dean. It's really just how Jan Berry produced records that make them what they are. Case in point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2HLMvsRGp4

Personally, I find this 1972 track by Jan Berry (w/ him singing) to be moving and emotive:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzWtjcVfr5I

In fact, I think the post-accident fragility in his voice makes this track really poignant.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: relx on September 20, 2021, 08:04:08 PM
Jan and Dean vocals were very hit and miss. I think their stuff from the 1950s/early 1960s, when it was just the two of them singing, sound fine. Songs like Baby Talk, Heart and Soul, etc. They actually did all of the vocals on Linda, which are very strong. As you move into 1963 and 1964, the vocals--and Jan's leads--are excellent on songs like Surf City, Deadman's Curve, Little Old Lady, Ride the Wild Surf, and many of their other surf and hot rod tunes.

I think their vocals declined as they tried to move away from the surf and hot rod sound in 1965, until Jan's accident the following year. For example, I heard "You Really Know How to Hurt A Guy" on the radio today, and Jan's vocal ruins the song. And it wasn't just being out of key--at times, Jan could sound like a bad lounge singer, with poor phrasing, etc. That song needs a really powerful singer, and Jan couldn't deliver that kind of performance.

J&D were also pretty much always bad live in the 1960s (though not terrible on the TAMI show, where I believe that had off-stage backing vocalists.)

Jan's studio vocals were actually fairly strong in the early to mid-1970s, post-accident, when he had to really concentrate on his singing.

I actually like Dean's falsetto--its no Brian Wilson, but its unique, and I miss it on songs when PF Sloan or someone else is doing the falsetto.

Overall, I think that Jan and Dean were average singers. On the right type of material--such as on their big surf and hot rod classics or early doo wop--they could sound good. However, if the material didn't suit their voices, the vocals could be mediocre. They were also both full-time students, so there is material that Jan probably didn't work on as much due to time considerations.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: guitarfool2002 on September 21, 2021, 09:10:07 AM
I think the most recent comments fall in line with my opinions too, that when J&D had stronger material, as in their prime era of hits written with Brian and his co-writers like Roger Christian, it was a better fit and some classic records were created, like Surf City or Dead Man's Curve. And I like the 50's material going back to Jan & Arnie because the raw garage energy carried the day, and they weren't out to make symphonic pop productions but rather raw teenage rock and roll records, and I along with many other listeners really dig that energy. But the elephant in the room is that it's difficult to put Jan Berry on equal footing with his peers in the 60's studio production game (or even put him above those peers in the eyes of some) when so many of the records he was cutting in the 60's before the accident do have that Achilles Heel of a grand pop production with top-notch studio musicians playing tightly-arranged and well-crafted musical parts falling flat because of a lackluster vocal performance on top.

And maybe if the guys didn't have time to record proper vocals, after spending hours upon hours and a lot of money making those huge backing tracks, other singers with more time and perhaps a better voice for the music could have been brought in to do the job.

It just baffles me why so much care would be taken in the instrumental tracks and the production process only to put vocals on top that didn't live up to the work done on the music. Whatever turn of the phrase it could be, the ends didn't justify the means, or the sum of the parts was greater than the whole, or whatever else...I need another cup of coffee to reckon that one out.  ;D


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: relx on September 21, 2021, 10:37:09 AM
I think Jan did spend a lot of time on the vocals for the most part. All of their hits--Surf City, etc.--have strong, multi-tracked vocals, and even Jan sounds great on his leads, which are frequently double-tracked with Brian and others. It's really just the 1965 material like Folk n Roll, etc. that suffer from poor vocals. J&D were filming a movie and a TV show during that time period, and Jan also broke his leg, which may have affected how much he could do, since his mobility was likely limited for a few months. By early 1966, his leg had healed, and the vocals were up to par again--it you listen to a record like Batman, recorded right before Jan's accident, the vocals are as strong as Surf City and the like. Jan just never sounded good on ballad type leads. While Dean rarely sang lead, he could sound good as well--listen to his 1967 stuff, like Yellow Balloon. Unlike the BB's, who could sound great just singing together on a street corner, J&D needed a lot of studio work to produce good vocals.

I also think the "elevation" of Jan and Dean, particularly Jan, is not about putting him on the level of Brian or Lennon and McCartney, but more about acknowledging that he was an important part of the development of the west coast sound, and that he deserves to be remembered for more than just the guy who had the accident, if people even remember him for that now. Look, for example, at the RnR Hall of Fame list. Among the inductees are Lou Adler, Dave Clark Five, Duane Eddy, The Isley Brothers, Joan Jett, Darlene Love, The Mamas and the Papas, Ricky Nelson, Randy Newman, The Ronettes, Sam and Dave, Del Shannon, Percey Sledge, Patti Smith, The Ventures, etc. Not to mention several 50s doo-wop groups that had a handful of hits and no consistent membership. I am not trying to disparage any of the acts I just listed--I love many of them--but Jan and Dean definitely belong alongside them. Del Shannon, for example, had three top 20 hits, and was obviously inducted because of Runaway. I would say that J&D were much more important than Del.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: guitarfool2002 on September 21, 2021, 11:22:33 AM
I think Jan did spend a lot of time on the vocals for the most part. All of their hits--Surf City, etc.--have strong, multi-tracked vocals, and even Jan sounds great on his leads, which are frequently double-tracked with Brian and others. It's really just the 1965 material like Folk n Roll, etc. that suffer from poor vocals. J&D were filming a movie and a TV show during that time period, and Jan also broke his leg, which may have affected how much he could do, since his mobility was likely limited for a few months. By early 1966, his leg had healed, and the vocals were up to par again--it you listen to a record like Batman, recorded right before Jan's accident, the vocals are as strong as Surf City and the like. Jan just never sounded good on ballad type leads. While Dean rarely sang lead, he could sound good as well--listen to his 1967 stuff, like Yellow Balloon. Unlike the BB's, who could sound great just singing together on a street corner, J&D needed a lot of studio work to produce good vocals.

I also think the "elevation" of Jan and Dean, particularly Jan, is not about putting him on the level of Brian or Lennon and McCartney, but more about acknowledging that he was an important part of the development of the west coast sound, and that he deserves to be remembered for more than just the guy who had the accident, if people even remember him for that now. Look, for example, at the RnR Hall of Fame list. Among the inductees are Lou Adler, Dave Clark Five, Duane Eddy, The Isley Brothers, Joan Jett, Darlene Love, The Mamas and the Papas, Ricky Nelson, Randy Newman, The Ronettes, Sam and Dave, Del Shannon, Percey Sledge, Patti Smith, The Ventures, etc. Not to mention several 50s doo-wop groups that had a handful of hits and no consistent membership. I am not trying to disparage any of the acts I just listed--I love many of them--but Jan and Dean definitely belong alongside them. Del Shannon, for example, had three top 20 hits, and was obviously inducted because of Runaway. I would say that J&D were much more important than Del.

I can see your points, definitely. We could debate several specifics but it ultimately comes down to opinion of the artists and the music overall - and don't get me started on the R&R Hall Of Fame overall lol. I just don't hear the complete follow-through in J&D records and Jan's productions and songs from the 60's that I do with the work of those producers and writers from that era who are considered legends, and of course that's with some exceptions as always. I've dug into the catalog and have had more of an experience of hearing some very interesting ensemble playing and arrangements, but there were often a few pieces missing from the end result to where I'd  stop short of calling it a classic or a great record. And a lot of times the songs in their musical construction can contain some interesting parts but the whole of the song either meanders too much, tries too hard, or it's missing a key hook or something that draws people in. Of course Surf City is a classic and a great record, but without that BW hook and those odd chord changes, would it have been as much of a classic? Kudos to them for cutting some solid hits, but there more often seems to be something lacking than there is the reaction of hearing a record and really feeling it.

As far as gauging the importance of any act or any song, that's maybe too subjective. But I have had the feeling that some try to push Jan into the sphere of accolades and influence which people like Brian and Spector and the other familiar names occupy, and if influence is one of the parameters, I don't hear or see too many artists saying they wanted to make records like or were inspired/influenced by Jan Berry's records...except perhaps Brian Wilson who said he loved to watch Jan make records!  :)  And since I hear mostly the Spector Wall-Of-Sound in Jan's better productions, and the vocals don't come close to those in Brian's, I can understand why. Of course that's just my ears and my opinions, but while Jan made some good records that became staples on oldies radio for decades, I just don't see him being in the same category as the others while I see some trying to push him up there. Again just my opinion.

Agree to disagree about Del Shannon, I think Del inspired a lot of musicians in the early 60's because he was making records that had some of that rock and roll grit and dirt that were making the national charts at a time when rock music overall was subject to being cleaned up and homogenized, and there wasn't much on the radio that had the kind of grit which Del's records had when "Runaway" charted at #1 across the board in 1961. That song in particular was like a bridge between the 50's sound of doo-wop and heavier instrumentals like "Harlem Nocturne" and "Rumble",  and what would come very soon after with the Beatles and Brian and Spector and Shadow Morton and the like, with chord changes that were different and darker sounding than the standard fare of 1961.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: Ian on September 21, 2021, 03:17:35 PM
I agree that Jan and Dean should be in the rock hall but the politics of that place have gotten ridiculous. It seems like the only way that 1960s artists that they didn’t induct the first time around can now get in is if they are inducted as “influences.” There is a lot bias in the Hall-for example they have pretty much ignored most 70s-80s British greats like Paul Weller and the Jam, The Smiths, Siouxsie and the Banshees and the Buzzcocks, though The Cure managed to get in. All Of those acts are no brainers in the UK but sales wise were not as big in The States. IMHO it’s a travesty to let Bon Jovi in before those bands. But that is the thing about a rock hall it is very subjective. Also if you let in an artist like Ritchie Valens-who only recorded for a short while, where do you draw the line? Why not let in other acts who are famous for a few classics too


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: HeyJude on September 21, 2021, 04:02:27 PM
While I would say the cream of the crop Jan & Dean tracks (many of which are the Brian co-penned songs not coincidentally) have the strongest J&D vocals, they're still sometimes wonky.

I love "Deadman's Curve", but the worst part of the song is the lead vocal (on either version). Jan had that sort of slightly, I dunno what to call it, like a 5% drunken slur sound to his voice?

That sort of quality became more pronounced on stuff like that "You Really Know How to Hurt a Guy" track and things like that.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: relx on September 21, 2021, 04:41:02 PM
I know what you mean by the "drunken slur" or whatever it is that Jan's voice had. It got more pronounced as time went on. Listen to a song like Space and Time from 1966, where he also seems to be affecting some sort of twang, which he also did on occasion. He was likely trying to stretch his voice beyond where it could go. He was usually better when he had someone singling along with him. For example, he was fine on the early do-wop stuff, many of which were duets with Dean. (Having the two of them sing together helped keep them on-key more often.) He was also okay, as has been mentioned, on stuff where his voice was double-tracked and someone like Brian would join him. When he sang by himself--You Really Know How to Hurt A Guy--is when the flaws showed.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: FreakySmiley on September 21, 2021, 05:31:19 PM
On an objective level there are definite flaws in more than a few of the J&D vocal deliveries. I certainly agree that it is odd given the obvious effort put into so many other aspects of the recording. As far as their influence J&D were without a doubt influential on the evolving scene and many people, musicians or otherwise of the day. I can see that in my parents who moved from out west, their lifestyle definitely owed something to the culture perpetuated by J&D. As far as my further opinion, again, I've been a big BB fan for most of my life and since high school have really become a hopeless fanatic. But it wasn't until the last few years that I really listened to more of J&D than just the Brian-adjacent tunes, and I personally was in fact blown away the deeper I delved. Is every tune 5-Stars? Hell no, but the same can certainly be said about a few BBs albums in my humble opinion. Again, this all gets down to subjective taste at a certain level, I can definitely acknowledge pretty much all of the flaws the articulate members of the board bring to discussion (this is a thoroughly enjoyable, respectful, witty and entertaining discussion  ;D) but to echo my earlier sentiment, a lot of those flaws are just quirky enough for me to enjoy as opposed to... Not. Again, I'm only an amateur musician and certainly not vocally trained, but I can recognize the difference between a Beatle and Jan & Dean when it comes to vocal skill. I know what I'm getting into when I throw on one of their records. I always have fun.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: Sam_BFC on September 21, 2021, 05:41:28 PM
Another vote in defense of Bob Dylan over here.

It Ain't Me Babe and Forever Young are but two examples of iconic vocal performances on popular record.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: DonnyL on September 21, 2021, 06:06:03 PM
I think it’s hard to put Jan & Dean into context of the ‘60s groups, today.

They really never had true artistry. It seemed like the goal was commercialism and good times. It’s hard to juxtapose Jan Berry the creative, even groundbreaking producer w/ Jan Berry, the guy who re-used Barry McGuire’s exact backing track on his own semi-parody version of “Eve of Destruction”. In what universe would someone like Dylan, or even Del Shannon do that?

I have to say, Del Shannon is really and truly underrated. To me, he’s top 10 all time artists.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: guitarfool2002 on September 21, 2021, 06:49:46 PM
I think it’s hard to put Jan & Dean into context of the ‘60s groups, today.

They really never had true artistry. It seemed like the goal was commercialism and good times. It’s hard to juxtapose Jan Berry the creative, even groundbreaking producer w/ Jan Berry, the guy who re-used Barry McGuire’s exact backing track on his own semi-parody version of “Eve of Destruction”. In what universe would someone like Dylan, or even Del Shannon do that?

I have to say, Del Shannon is really and truly underrated. To me, he’s top 10 all time artists.

I actually think Jan did have his artistry on those early tracks as Jan & Arnie and then just after Dean replaced Arnie, and right there is some truly exciting, home-brewed rock and roll that could only come from a certain time and place. And the rawness of it added to the excitement. I see that original Hite Morgan cut of Surfin in the same way, it's just pure youthful energy that was so raw and unpolished, yet still polished enough to have a distinct feel and sound, that it transformed itself from being kids bashing out music in a garage or a spare room into something more. I dig those early sides Jan was cutting in the 50's, and the DIY ethic was very strong on all sides of those early sessions and releases.

Why - oh why - that TV movie bio Dead Man's Curve had to rewrite history and show Jan cutting Surfin and other Beach Boys hits is still one of the most absurd and maddening things I've ever seen, especially when several actual Beach Boys were involved with that movie, but that's another topic.  ;D

I think part of the reason why Del is no longer with us is that maybe he never felt like he had the recognition and love he deserved through his music, and combined with lifelong battles with depression and alcohol, it was ultimately a lethal combo. But people who know and played rock and roll through the years knew and loved Del's music, and yet again he was another case like Eddie Cochran where Del's brand of rock and roll was much more popular and appreciated in the UK than it was in the US, except for the handful of chart hits he had, and a generation of influential rockers in the UK took inspiration from Del's music. I love watching that video of Del on the old NBC Letterman show with Paul Shaffer and the band, where Paul looks like a little kid again acting out his fantasy of playing Max Crook's Musitron solo with Del on stage. And Del's stance and posture while he's singing was straight from the 50's book of cool, and something sorely lacking in rock and roll...and that combined with Elvis, Gene Vincent, Eddie Cochran, Buddy, and their peers is what you saw in Lennon's stage look too. Sorely lacking indeed. I guess I miss seeing Billy Zoom play guitar on stage too.



Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: DonnyL on September 21, 2021, 08:16:16 PM
Yeh I guess I’m using “artistry” in a particular way- meaning the shift beginning in 1965 to the pop musician as ARTIST. Seems like Jan & Dean were “exposed” as mere entertainers when Highway 61, Revolver, and Pet Sounds were out- but J&D were doing Popsicle and Batman.

But I do think Jan was a very creative and innovative producer, in his way. I just think his way was so of the time and place (‘60s SoCal) that it doesn’t make a lot of sense in the context of how the ‘60s are perceived by most today.

I think The Further Adventures of Charles Westover proves that Del Shannon was a serious musical force. As you say, unrecognized in this way. But he was a great songwriter and a big influence on people in a way that is maybe not realized. I don’t think it’s easy to put him into a box or a soundbite (“he was the guy to do XYZ”).


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: DonnyL on September 21, 2021, 08:25:32 PM
… also the ‘66 records Del Shannon did are two of my all time faves. Total Commitment and This is My Bag. Consistently cool sounding and some undiscovered gems in there, like this one:

https://youtu.be/74ruahZ66-k


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: Lonely Summer on September 21, 2021, 10:51:18 PM
Another vote in defense of Bob Dylan over here.

It Ain't Me Babe and Forever Young are but two examples of iconic vocal performances on popular record.
I hear the criticism of Dylan's vocals all the time. On those mid-60's records, he's sort of talk-singing. It's a style people found hard to accept after listening to people with wonderful voices like Elvis Presley and Roy Orbison. But it was a style that worked for those songs. Dylan's rock and roll wasn't about being melodic and pretty (although he could do that too), it wasn't like the Byrds versions of his songs; it was harsh and loud, with that organ way up in the mix, and Bob himself howling over the wailing of the guitars and the pounding of the drums.
Bob has proven to have many voices through the years. I think he was at his vocal peak from 73-78.
Neil Young just has a strange voice - but again, it works for him.
Randy Newman has an awful voice - and it's perfect for the material he writes.
Neither Jan or Dean was ever going to be any match for Brian Wilson, or Carl Wilson, or even Mike Love as lead singers. The Beach Boys were blessed to have 4 or  5 guys that were all good lead singers. Not many groups can claim that. The Beatles, Eagles, not many others.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: Loaf on September 22, 2021, 02:51:57 AM
Another vote in defense of Bob Dylan over here.

It Ain't Me Babe and Forever Young are but two examples of iconic vocal performances on popular record.

Another vote here!

To some degree, Bob and Jan & Dean "can't sing" because they don't always "hit the notes"... HOWEVER...

Have a listen to Bob Dylan singing Isis live on the Rolling Thunder tour, or Gotta Serve Somebody live in Toronto in 1980. The guy was an amazing singer. Listen to the resonance, the passion and conviction and how he inhabits the songs. He makes them feel elemental and immortal.

In contrast, to me, Jan & Dean sound like karaoke. Off-tune, thin voices, no feeling, frequently poor material.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: relx on September 22, 2021, 06:23:21 AM
Yeh I guess I’m using “artistry” in a particular way- meaning the shift beginning in 1965 to the pop musician as ARTIST. Seems like Jan & Dean were “exposed” as mere entertainers when Highway 61, Revolver, and Pet Sounds were out- but J&D were doing Popsicle and Batman.

But I do think Jan was a very creative and innovative producer, in his way. I just think his way was so of the time and place (‘60s SoCal) that it doesn’t make a lot of sense in the context of how the ‘60s are perceived by most today.

I think The Further Adventures of Charles Westover proves that Del Shannon was a serious musical force. As you say, unrecognized in this way. But he was a great songwriter and a big influence on people in a way that is maybe not realized. I don’t think it’s easy to put him into a box or a soundbite (“he was the guy to do XYZ”).

I agree about J&D not really fitting into the overall arc of the 1960s. They don't really sound like anyone else, for better or worse, their well-known records are dominated by trite, teenage themes, and they stopped suddenly in 1966 after Jan's accident. And having Batman as their final album was cringe-worthy. I know some people like the comedy aspect, but I find it unlistenable. (BTW, Popsicle was actually recorded and released in 1963, and then re-released after the accident, so it wasn't indicative of what they were doing in 1966.)

Of course, the great what if is what they would have done if Jan hadn't had the accident. They would have had a TV show on the air in the fall of 1966 which, even if it had just run for a season, could have dramatically changed the perception of them. (The Monkees only ran for two seasons.) Now, they would have needed to produce Monkees-level music, and we will never know if Jan had it in him. It is interesting to take a look at Carnival of Sound. Is that the direction Jan would have gone in if he hadn't had the accident? Much of the music on that album is wonderful, in my opinion, and would have fit in perfectly in 1966/67. Songs like Carnival of Sound, I Know My Mind, Girl, You're Blowin My Mind (which Jan had started work on before the accident), Mulholland, etc. are great mid-60s California pop. If J&D could have combined that kind of music with a TV show, they would likely be considered classic artists. Or, would Jan have just continued on in the Batman, Only A Boy direction?

Jan and Dean also had no advocte for them after 1966. Jan wasn't able, and Dean didn't care. I am surprised someone like Lou Adler wasn't able to get them into the RnR HOF. He was their manager for years, and even helped Jan record in the 1970s. Lou is in the Hall, so I'm surprised he couldn't or wouldn't use his influence. Whatever you think of their music, having Jan get into the Hall and perform Deadman's Curve at the induction ceremony would have been very emotional and dramatic.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: guitarfool2002 on September 22, 2021, 07:07:38 AM
The Monkees comparison is an interesting one. I've watched the unaired Jan & Dean show, and it is a pretty enjoyable show overall, with the highlight being the live concert finale featuring the Wrecking Crew on stage with them. But it has nothing on what The Monkees would be doing with the same media.

If we're talking voices, The Monkees creators and producers struck gold musically. The actors they assembled could not only act, but they also each had a distinct voice, with maybe Peter Tork not on the same level but still able to contribute distinctive vocals where needed. Micky Dolenz had one of the best voices of that era for AM radio pop, a distinct voice in the higher register that could cut through the mix. And he was a good singer, period. Davy Jones had the showtune and stage chops to be the ballad crooner when needed, and he became the sex symbol for obvious reasons, and with a British accent to boot. Mike Nesmith had that country twang and swagger that was a perfect compliment to Micky, and when they harmonized or sang in tandem, it was a classic blend. Peter was more of the Woody Guthrie/Pete Seeger folk voice, and when needed on the records, it was ready to go.

And these four guys literally came together at a casting call, minus Davy who had already been cast. It just worked musically, and the guys had a magnetism that translated on screen and on record. You can't plan on hitting the lottery, but they did with that casting.

Reminds me of The Partridge Family a few years later - When David Cassidy walked in to audition, the producers again struck gold and hit the lottery. He could sing, very well, he had a perfect AM radio pop voice, he had superstar looks, and had a good personality that the cameras liked. That's why they had to dumb him down in the show's scripts and make him a dim bulb, they thought he'd be too perfect and would turn people off if they wrote his character as being intelligent on top of everything else. They originally thought Shirley Jones would carry the show, and Cassidy ended up carrying it musically and on screen. Again, you can't plan to win the lottery with casting like those.

Just consider, were Jan & Dean strong enough personalities who could carry a TV show like The Monkees or like Cassidy did with the Partridge Family? Could their voices sustain the type of material that those shows were featuring, that blend of pure pop and innovation ironically often played by the same guys who played on Jan's productions?

I just don't see Jan's strengths in songwriting and production being anything on the level of Last Train To Clarksville, Daydream Believer, I Think I Love You, etc. And that's where those producers of the aforementioned shows had the ace up their sleeve, they had the music that was equal to or in some cases better than the shows which were written around the music.

And I don't think the J&D vocals would have carried that type of material for mass consumption, and perhaps the personalities would not have carried the shows either. If comedy was their game, The Monkees did it better, and it didn't look like the characters were much of a stretch for the actors to play, except Peter who had to play dumb when he was really introspective and intelligent. I just don't know how long fans would have tuned in to see J&D playing...what...themselves?     


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: guitarfool2002 on September 22, 2021, 07:23:11 AM
I'm going to go slightly off topic for this point, but it really does bother me and I remember discussing it here previously but can't recall any resolutions or reasons why.

We're talking about Jan & Dean in the hall of fame, and Jan's legacy, and the band's legacy, etc. So they did that TV movie bio in the late 70's called Dead Man's Curve, and I remember watching it as a little kid (and digging the music) when it was rerun, which it was often in the early 80's. Standard TV biopic of J&D, with several Beach Boys involved, and when all principals were still alive.

So I still cannot get over how they rewrote the history of both J&D and The Beach Boys in this thing to show Jan producing and recording Beach Boys songs.

My thought and question is, after this discussion this week, if Jan's legacy is firmly in place as a producer and musician and the band's history earned them a place in the hall of fame, then why would the producers combined with others close to the group see fit to erroneously give credit to Jan for what Brian and the Beach Boys did musically in this bio pic?

It's fairly easy to trace how and why such bogus rewrites of history were seen in the two major Beach Boys TV movie biographies, especially the "American Family" long-form movie on ABC, which was as someone close so perfectly called it "Love propaganda". And the classic scene in "Summer Dreams" showing a bearded 1970's era Brian caricature wearing a robe and listening to Sgt Pepper in 1967 speaks for itself.

But to show Jan cutting Beach Boys records and give that as part of his history, while all band members were alive and could call bullshit on those scenes...all the time knowing Jan's legacy in reality...it makes no sense to try to punch up Jan & Dean's credits that way.

Maybe that's part of my issues with the whole ball of wax involving the group, I don't know.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: Joshilyn Hoisington on September 22, 2021, 07:28:48 AM
I can't stomach more than a couple seconds of Dylan singing.  Oof.

I think we are closing in on the keystone of the Jan & Dean phenomenon -- I've read several really apt descriptions of what they were above.  I agree that it kind of does come down to them just not fitting in with what we retrospectively expect the 60s to be, and in general, what western art has become expected to be.

Artistic expression has become the "purpose" of art creation, thanks to the romantics throughout the actual romantic period and beyond.  I've written this elsewhere, but a simplistic way to look at it is that if Brian Wilson was the Bach of 60s pop, and Spector was the, I dunno, Puccini, then maybe Jan Berry was the Mozart -- the most purely commercially driven of the lot, the most playful -- not without some pathos, but mostly without the baggage of "profundity" that seems to be a sine qua non of "serious" music.

Now, like all classical music analogies on this board, it's not a perfect one.  But it does go to partly explain the state we find the legacy of Jan and Dean in now.  Jan wasn't plunging the depths of his soul to create spiritual music that would be an act of worship to the universe -- he just liked making records and having fun, and was really good at producing tracks and arranging.  I mean, heck, he should go in the RnR HOF as an arranger.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: rab2591 on September 22, 2021, 07:49:34 AM
Not to veer off track too much here, but I gotta defend Bob Dylan's singing.

I used to absolutely hate it! My father would put on tapes of Bob Dylan during road trips when I was a kid and I couldn't stand it - Dylan's voice made those road trips feel like they just wouldn't end.

But then one day I put on 'Blowin in the Wind' or something, it was the lyrics that captured me, entranced me. I used to be so put off by Dylan's voice that I'd never listen to the lyrics. But his lyrics coupled with his voice, it's full of conviction. 'It's All Over Now, Baby Blue' - I've heard many covers, but no other artist has ever convinced me that they really mean what they're singing like Bob does.

Anyways, I was once a former hater, then came to absolutely love his music. He's now one of my top played artists, even his later work where his voice isn't as strong. 'Murder Most Foul' is hypnotizing. Time Out Of Mind is one of my favorite albums ever. I just don't know how he does it. I shouldn't even really like his music considering how much I disliked it decades ago, yet I'm obsessed.

*and all that being said, I totally get why people dislike it, so I'm not trying to convince anyone (so I guess my post is less of a defense of his voice, and more of my story of how I came to like his voice/music).


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: guitarfool2002 on September 22, 2021, 07:55:01 AM
I'll wade into this issue, hopefully avoiding the political debate aspect of it, but it is relevant.

How do we explain or how can we view Jan's "The Universal Coward"? Was it Jan being earnest or honest in expressing his views, or was it a pure send-up or parody designed to be taken as tongue-in-cheek? Dean didn't participate in the recording, yet it's on the Folk And Roll album, which we're told was a send-up of folk music and folk rock. Yet Jan sounds like he's giving an honest delivery of the lyrics, if there is comedy it doesn't show on the surface. So is it parody or is it honesty?

Considering the friendship with The Beach Boys, the lyrics directly condemn conscientious objectors, and of course Carl Wilson was one. It also went against the grain of at least, what...99 percent of rock and pop music at the time that song was released? This one song put Jan in a place where he didn't fit in with the 60's music scene, and that was not in a good or innovative way.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: Loaf on September 22, 2021, 08:00:44 AM
@Joshilyn.  I'll disagree with your point that Jan & Dean aren't more popular because they weren't "deep" or plunging the depths of their souls. I'm a huge fan of the Monkees and a lot of their stuff is bubblegum fluff. There's plenty of great 60s music that can be enjoyed on a purely surface level, like the Beatles' covers on their first few albums.

There's nothing wrong with making music to have fun, but deliberately singing bad on an album like Folk n Roll because it's a "send up" is just a poor joke :)

I won't try to dissuade someone from enjoying Jan & Dean (more power to anyone who does) but it is not a mystery to me why their standing is so low.

And we'll have to agree to disagree about Dylan's singing!


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: FreakySmiley on September 22, 2021, 08:21:42 AM
While most of the J&D discography is pretty fun surface-level material, there is definitely some material (Jan's solo single "Mother Earth" comes to mind, as do some of Dean's 'Save for a Rainy Day' and Jan's 'Carnival of Sound' songs) that should not be overlooked for their emotional/artistic content, and while one can certainly debate quality on various levels I for one find that most of it definitely hits the sweet spot (again, this is just me). As for stuff like "Universal Coward" I used to figure that Jan was kind of playing both sides in a manner of speaking (including "Eve of Destruction" on the same album). Kind of like "Only a Boy" isn't really an anti-war song but isn't exactly a pro-war song (in my opinion). Was he too afraid to take one stand? Did he see both sides? Did he not care?

It is definitely a reach to put J&D on the same level as a lot of their peers who had more time to continue to discover themselves in the late sixties, but I don't think it's quite like filet mignon vs a McDouble.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: Joshilyn Hoisington on September 22, 2021, 09:02:38 AM
@Joshilyn.  I'll disagree with your point that Jan & Dean aren't more popular because they weren't "deep" or plunging the depths of their souls. I'm a huge fan of the Monkees and a lot of their stuff is bubblegum fluff. There's plenty of great 60s music that can be enjoyed on a purely surface level, like the Beatles' covers on their first few albums.

There's nothing wrong with making music to have fun, but deliberately singing bad on an album like Folk n Roll because it's a "send up" is just a poor joke :)

I won't try to dissuade someone from enjoying Jan & Dean (more power to anyone who does) but it is not a mystery to me why their standing is so low.

And we'll have to agree to disagree about Dylan's singing!


I'm not sure that my reasoning above applies to why they aren't more popular.  More like why they haven't been accepted as part of the classic 60s pantheon.  But the question of popularity is a good one, too--you're very correct that there are other groups out there whose driving principle was not catharsis via expression.  Perhaps the J&D oeuvre was simply too...in-jokey?  So if you're in on it you love it, but there's a wall up from the get go?  I'm not sure if that's the case or not.

The more I think about, the more unique J&D's position is, especially Jan's position.  There are very few creative forces I admire more than Jan Berry, but given my respect for his abilities, I admit that his catalog taken as a whole does leave me a little...disappointed.  I would love Mark Moore's perspective on all this.

Thanks for an interesting thread, people.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: HeyJude on September 22, 2021, 09:22:54 AM
I've rarely felt the need to use the word "dork" to describe music, but a lot of that J&D stuff is dork music, and not in an endearing way. It's kitsch/novelty stuff. I don't sense like a *ton* of people found it funny back then, and I certainly don't find it funny now.

I don't feel like it's a question of whether the writers of the material are plumbing the depths of their personal pain or experiences or anything. Good material is good material. Some writers for some amount of time in their career have so much oozing of them that even the stuff that maybe *didn't* mean a lot to them is jaw-dropping. McCartney was rolling out of bed with jaw-dropping material for many years there. Brian too.

I don't think the issue with J&D is that they didn't do personal music. I think the issue is that most of it was mediocre or worse, and they didn't have great vocals to fall back on either.

I've mentioned before, back 10 or 15 years ago when they did that 2-disc set of definitive Jan & Dean singles, I picked it up to give stuff beyond the core half dozen hits another chance. None of the rest of the stuff seemed very strong. I kept just going back to "Surf City" and "Deadman's Curve", and some fondness for a few other old songs that for whatever reason were played a lot when I was a kid, like "Ride the Wild Surf", "Honolulu Lulu", etc. And even some of that stuff kind of sounds embarrassingly like BB knockoffs. I think some of the stuff is *better* as BB knockoffs compared to, say, the Bruce & Terry stuff. But it's all a *million, kajillion* miles away from what Brian was writing, arranging, and producing even in his early days.

I'm all for people digging J&D or whomever they like, but there's a very justifiable reason J&D doesn't belong in the discussion with the likes of Brian Wilson/Beach Boys, or the Beatles, or Dylan.

I think it was Howie that said some years back that J&D's contemporaries worth comparing were the likes of Freddie Cannon and Gary Lewis.

Sometimes, band's have amazing deep cuts. Sometimes, though, the hand full of songs "we all know and love" actually *are* the best, and that's the case with J&D. It also just so happens that a number of those songs are Brian Wilson co-writes. I don't believe that's coincidental.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: Joshilyn Hoisington on September 22, 2021, 09:48:45 AM
I've rarely felt the need to use the word "dork" to describe music, but a lot of that J&D stuff is dork music, and not in an endearing way. It's kitsch/novelty stuff. I don't sense like a *ton* of people found it funny back then, and I certainly don't find it funny now.

"Dork music" does seem apt at times -- and that's an interesting idea worth exploring: did people appreciate the schtick at the time, or did it fall flat then?

Quote
I don't feel like it's a question of whether the writers of the material are plumbing the depths of their personal pain or experiences or anything. Good material is good material. Some writers for some amount of time in their career have so much oozing of them that even the stuff that maybe *didn't* mean a lot to them is jaw-dropping. McCartney was rolling out of bed with jaw-dropping material for many years there. Brian too.

I don't think the issue with J&D is that they didn't do personal music. I think the issue is that most of it was mediocre or worse, and they didn't have great vocals to fall back on either.

To clarify, my point about plunging the depths of the soul vs. being in it for the money was not about the quality of the material -- in fact I was basically saying what you are saying, even if I was saying it in a much less elegant way, that good material is good material.  But I do think that the perception of the artist that we've taken on in the west does contribute to a a band's long-term reputation, and that music acts that have traditionally been received as "artistic" and drawing their art from the well of the romantic tradition do seem to have stronger reputations among CURRENT tastemakers.  To go to the classical depository again, Puccini is my favorite composer by far and I think he absolutely composed out of the depths of his soul, and was a total genius.  But his reputation among facile pundits is bad because he's seen as someone who pandered to the lowest common denominator.  Now, was Jan Berry a genius of Puccinian scale?  I don't think he was -- but the point is, because of the way he did things, his work is automatically discounted before it can be more objectively assessed.  Of course, maybe the objective assessment is not great, in the end, but my point was that there is a bias there.



Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: HeyJude on September 22, 2021, 10:29:28 AM
I've rarely felt the need to use the word "dork" to describe music, but a lot of that J&D stuff is dork music, and not in an endearing way. It's kitsch/novelty stuff. I don't sense like a *ton* of people found it funny back then, and I certainly don't find it funny now.

"Dork music" does seem apt at times -- and that's an interesting idea worth exploring: did people appreciate the schtick at the time, or did it fall flat then?

Quote
I don't feel like it's a question of whether the writers of the material are plumbing the depths of their personal pain or experiences or anything. Good material is good material. Some writers for some amount of time in their career have so much oozing of them that even the stuff that maybe *didn't* mean a lot to them is jaw-dropping. McCartney was rolling out of bed with jaw-dropping material for many years there. Brian too.

I don't think the issue with J&D is that they didn't do personal music. I think the issue is that most of it was mediocre or worse, and they didn't have great vocals to fall back on either.

To clarify, my point about plunging the depths of the soul vs. being in it for the money was not about the quality of the material -- in fact I was basically saying what you are saying, even if I was saying it in a much less elegant way, that good material is good material.  But I do think that the perception of the artist that we've taken on in the west does contribute to a a band's long-term reputation, and that music acts that have traditionally been received as "artistic" and drawing their art from the well of the romantic tradition do seem to have stronger reputations among CURRENT tastemakers.  To go to the classical depository again, Puccini is my favorite composer by far and I think he absolutely composed out of the depths of his soul, and was a total genius.  But his reputation among facile pundits is bad because he's seen as someone who pandered to the lowest common denominator.  Now, was Jan Berry a genius of Puccinian scale?  I don't think he was -- but the point is, because of the way he did things, his work is automatically discounted before it can be more objectively assessed.  Of course, maybe the objective assessment is not great, in the end, but my point was that there is a bias there.


For sure, I think Jan Berry and many others of a similar ilk (and, well, just across the board I suppose, even with some truly great artists) are often automatically discounted from a more deep analysis because of any number of preconceived notions (or a lack of any notion).

To put it perhaps overly-simplistically, in being dismissive of Berry, some folks might be right about Jan Berry, but for the wrong reasons.

But among folks in the BB world and on this board, people who generally know their stuff, the J&D question is more complicated and nuanced. That is, there are some folks who kind of fetishize the J&D material, or Jan's stature, etc. to a strangely excessive/disproportionate degree, and in very extreme cases this has led to folks in the distant past putting Jan Berry in the same category as Brian Wilson (or Lennon and McCartney, etc.). Some of those folks tend to be the folks who are more into the early material than, say, "Carl and the Passions" or whatever. And I have to say, while I certainly don't like speaking in such broad strokes often, and while I don't like go out of my way unsolicited to knock J&D or Jan Berry, I'm very firmly of the mind that Jan Berry and J&D are not anywhere in the ballpark to the level of quality of *any* aspect of Brian/BB material. I'm not sure what analogy would even begin to work. Jan Berry is to Brian Wilson as, I dunno, Tony Sheridan is to the Beatles? Meaning, they were sort of contemporaries for like five minutes, and the Beatles and Brian picked up a thing here and there from Sheridan and Berry respectively. But it kinda ends there, and at that point, it is more like a Lou Christie/Freddie Cannon/Gary Lewis sort of situation when it comes to J&D.

In any event, I think the sometimes fervent push back we've seen in little waves on this board over the years against J&D comes from that occasional penchant to assert Jan was on Brian's level in any regard, or to defend J&D material in such a way to, say, compare Jan's voice to the likes of Dylan or Lennon.

As regards this thread, I actually don't like dogpiling on a "J&D were s***ty singers" thread. I don't mean this cruelly or sarcastically, but I kind of assumed we all kinda already knew this was the case.

I don't know how big of a fan I am of the "What If?" sort of questions, but here's one: What if Brian had cut all of the tracks he co-write with Jan, especially something like "Dead Man's Curve"; what if Brian had arranged and recorded/produced the track, and had the Beach Boys singing? That would be up there with the idea of hearing a Brian vocal on "Guess I'm Dumb." (Though, as an aside, I don't pine after that, because Glen's vocal on that is good and Brian-esque enough that I'm fine kinda just considering it nearly a de facto BB recording).


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: JK on September 22, 2021, 10:43:36 AM

"Dork music" does seem apt at times -- and that's an interesting idea worth exploring: did people appreciate the schtick at the time, or did it fall flat then?

I think (as someone who heard their music at the time) for those of us whose first earful of J&D was "Heart And Soul", well... it was hard to take them seriously, although "HAS" does have its charms.

I remember "Surf City" came as quite a shock! Was this the same J&D?? (To say nothing of "Dead Man's Curve".) But then "Popslcle" was released in the wake of Jan's accident and we were back to "shtick". But I'd say it was appreciated, definitely.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: Don Malcolm on September 22, 2021, 12:25:09 PM
Jan had his finger on the pulse of a particular "wave" of popular music that represented the adolescent period of rock. His skills as an arranger allowed him to move in heady circles for awhile, but when rock started to grow up, he was in serious trouble--and he knew it. There's a desperation captured in his work from late '64 up until the accident, a kind of "I'll throw anything up against the wall and hope something sticks" undercurrent, embodying someone who is all too aware that he's being left behind and is flailing against the dying of light (so to speak). And of course it was manifesting itself in his personal life as well.

A different version of the same problem confronted a group that still belongs in the RRHOF--the Shangri-Las, who were essentially abandoned by their svengali producer and allowed to die on the vine after a second LP that is one of the great records of the decade...but on the losing side of rock history, just as Spector was. Shadow Morton made a perfunctory effort to mold Mary Weiss into a version of the full-fledged "diva" singer that was emerging in 1966-67, but he didn't really have the arranging chops to pull off the transition, so he left them in a trash can adjacent to the Brill Building and moved on to Janis Ian and the Vanilla Fudge, signaling the exact type of phase shift that rock was undergoing at that time, a shift that made symphonic pop an endangered species literally overnight. SHANGRI-LA's '65, in its last incarnation (the label reissued it twice by adding singles) is the apex of the East Coast "symphonic pop" style and shows the range of talent in the singing group--check out their cover of the Ikettes' "I'm Blue," where its neither Mary or Betty Weiss but Mary-Ann Ganser, one of the twin "backup" singers, who gets one shot to step up to the plate and knocks it out of the stadium.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: JK on September 22, 2021, 12:59:28 PM
A different version of the same problem confronted a group that still belongs in the RRHOF--the Shangri-Las, who were essentially abandoned by their svengali producer and allowed to die on the vine after a second LP that is one of the great records of the decade...but on the losing side of rock history, just as Spector was. Shadow Morton made a perfunctory effort to mold Mary Weiss into a version of the full-fledged "diva" singer that was emerging in 1966-67, but he didn't really have the arranging chops to pull off the transition, so he left them in a trash can adjacent to the Brill Building and moved on to Janis Ian and the Vanilla Fudge, signaling the exact type of phase shift that rock was undergoing at that time, a shift that made symphonic pop an endangered species literally overnight. SHANGRI-LA's '65, in its last incarnation (the label reissued it twice by adding singles) is the apex of the East Coast "symphonic pop" style and shows the range and singing group--check out their cover of the Ikettes' "I'm Blue," where its neither Mary or Betty Weiss but Mary-Ann Ganser, one of the twin "backup" singers, who gets one shot to step up to the plate and knocks it out of the stadium.

Indeed, an excellent rendition. The Shangs were in a field of one. R.I.P., Mary-Ann and Marge Ganser.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: DonnyL on September 23, 2021, 04:43:00 PM
I think that while the actual results were not as good, Jan was ahead of a Brian as a producer in 1963, for instance. Thing is, Brian quickly moved along and Jan kind of stayed where he was.

RE: “Universal Coward”- presumably, Jan Berry was a right-wing kinda guy … but I would also think it could be something as simple as “wouldn’t it be clever to make a protest protest song?!?” kind of thing.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: guitarfool2002 on September 24, 2021, 08:24:16 AM
I think that while the actual results were not as good, Jan was ahead of a Brian as a producer in 1963, for instance. Thing is, Brian quickly moved along and Jan kind of stayed where he was.

RE: “Universal Coward”- presumably, Jan Berry was a right-wing kinda guy … but I would also think it could be something as simple as “wouldn’t it be clever to make a protest protest song?!?” kind of thing.

If the attempt with "Universal Coward" was to do a complete parody of protest music and flip the script with the lyrics, it was a total failure of a joke because Jan's legacy has been hung with that song around its neck like an albatross for decades, continuing to this day. I'd suggest most people took it and still take it at face value, and didn't get the joke if it was supposed to be a joke.I still question why something like that was even released, but then again it was on an album where singing folk music out of tune was supposed to be the punchline of the joke and that falls flat too.

I think Jan was great at copying what Phil Spector had trailblazed in terms of that production sound and style, using the same musicians too. In that way Jan was skilled at doing his version of what Spector had already been doing versus carving his own path. Brian was in that same line, of course, but his fastball was the vocals and vocal harmony, and he soon carved out his own space after doing the Spector model whereas Jan never found his unique calling card (and  the songwriting wasn't as good).


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: DonnyL on September 24, 2021, 08:20:56 PM
I know you guys might think I’m nuts but … you know who I think was the producer who got closest to Spector?

SONNY BONO


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: relx on September 24, 2021, 08:28:42 PM
I think that Universal Coward was a totally serious song from Jan. He was a right-winger. The song was actually released as a single under his name alone, as Dean refused to appear on it. Jan also did Only A Boy right before his accident, which is in the same vein, so I think there is little doubt that this was how he felt at the time.

I am a big J&D fan, but I would never put Jan in Brian's orbit musically. I think there was a time in 1963 and 64 when both were in their surf and hot rod phase where Jan was ahead of Brian in terms of production and arranging, which is why they worked together. However, Brian had equaled or passed Jan in that regard by late 1964, and was always far superior in terms of vocals and songwriting, of course. Did Jan and Brian even work together after 1964? By 1966, Brian was doing Pet Sounds, and Jan was doing Batman, so whatever common musical threat they shared was likely gone by then.

I think Jan and Dean are a very good second tier 1960s act. I know it was mentioned that they belong in the company of groups like Gary Lewis and the Playboys, but Gary Lewis did not produce or arrange his records, or write his own songs for the most part. If you treat the California pop music of the early to mid-1960s as an important moment in American musical history, the two most important groups of that time are the Beach Boys and Jan and Dean, in that order. That is why I think J&D deserve more respect, despite their shortcomings.





Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: DonnyL on September 25, 2021, 12:12:01 AM
I’m not so sure- why would he record “Eve of Destruction” on the same album if he was so serious about “Universal Coward”? The “message” of each song seem like polar opposites.

I haven’t had Folk N Roll for awhile, but my take when I bought a copy a few years back was that both tracks sounded like parodies. No idea if Jan really believed and/of felt strongly about “Universal Coward”, but I just kind of passively assumed it was like “let’s put on a protest song, and a protest of a protest song”. I might be naive on this because I haven’t really studied Jan & Dean. The main reason I thought Jan was right wing was because Dean seems to be super right wing these days. But then I hear Dean refused to be part of “Universal Coward”, and things get murky. Of course, Dean may have been anti war in the ‘60s or just averse to making a political statement of any kind.

I think PF Sloan might have noted something about this topic in his autobiography, but I can’t recall and I don’t have it anymore. Something about Jan’s political leanings being at odds with his but they were friends? *in relation to “eve” and/or “soldier” (he was involved with the Folk N Roll record).


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: relx on September 25, 2021, 08:46:15 AM
I agree that it is hard to tell where Jan's political sympathies lie back then--if he really even had any--because of the conflicting messages. Someone like Mark Moore would likely know better. I just base my assumption that he was right-wing on the fact that he included two songs, Universal Coward and Only A Boy, that clearly reflect that position. Add to that the fact that Dean wouldn't appear on Universal Coward, plus I think a comment that Dean made that Jan was pro-war as long as he didn't have to fight. If Universal Coward really were a parody, it is a terrible one, as no one gets the joke.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: DonnyL on September 25, 2021, 11:24:03 AM
I think Dean said the song was “counter-parody”.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: Mitchell on September 25, 2021, 06:25:53 PM
I just want to mention Pop Symphony No. 1 as a sort of rebuttal to the notion that Jan lacked ambition or artistic "merit". But I say that as someone who loves Meet Batman, so take that for what it's worth.

I do think the comparison with girl groups is apt, as both seem to have fallen out of favour in the mid-60s.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: relx on September 29, 2021, 06:08:07 AM
It's interesting that you bring up Pop Symphony as an example oj Jan's artistic vision. IF I recall the liner notes to the record, Jan writes about how he is trying to show, by doing orchestral versions of his songs, how his music--and pop music in general--can be appreciated as "serious" music. Thus his aim with Pop Symphony seems to be to convince older people of the value of popular music. Basically, Jan is aiming for the parents of his typical audience, people in their thirties and forties, etc.

At the same time, Brian's PS record, Pet Sounds, is a "teenage symphony to God." So, you have Brian doing an album designed to advance the tastes of his regular audience, while Jan is writing music for their parents. That in a nutshell probably explains why Jan wasn't cool, as his ultimate artistic expression was essentially muzak, the kind of stuff that is played in elevators.

For lack of a better word, much of Jan's music lacked soul. It is all technically well-done, but it is not music that touches you emotionally, nor was it designed to. Jan just didn't have it in him to be emotional in his music. When he tried--for example, A Beginning From An End from Folk n' Roll, which talks about a woman dying in childbirth, and may have been based on Jan's experiences in medical school--it comes off a heavy handed. His most soulful music was Carnival of Sound, where he was expressing the real suffering of his physical and mental handicaps.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: FreakySmiley on September 29, 2021, 07:50:15 AM
For lack of a better word, much of Jan's music lacked soul. It is all technically well-done, but it is not music that touches you emotionally, nor was it designed to. Jan just didn't have it in him to be emotional in his music. When he tried--for example, A Beginning From An End from Folk n' Roll, which talks about a woman dying in childbirth, and may have been based on Jan's experiences in medical school--it comes off a heavy handed. His most soulful music was Carnival of Sound, where he was expressing the real suffering of his physical and mental handicaps.

I agree with your first point to an extent (Jan presenting his teen-oriented music in a way that an older audience might more easily appreciate) but this further point is where we begin to wade into serious subjectivity. There are definitely more than a few J&D cuts that I find quite soulful and emotional -- "A Surfer's Dream" is a bit of a deep cut that comes to mind in that regard, featuring a superb vocal from Jill Gibson (who seems to be rarely given credit for her contributions to a few stellar J&D tracks). But I understand that this is my subjective opinion, and just because I might be deeply moved by a song or (out-of-key) vocal doesn't mean someone else will be. It strikes me as interesting the broad stroke statements made by some throughout this thread; all music is different things for different people.

I definitely agree that most of 'Carnival of Sound' is quite "soulful" as you put it, in my opinion, as is a fair amount of Jan's solo work (both released and unfinished) but I wouldn't necessarily say because of expressing "the real suffering" of his handicaps as you put it, but rather that he was expressing himself through those handicaps. Sometimes in suffering, sometimes in joy. Yes, Jan was CERTAINLY no Brian Wilson, it's been said again and again, but he was an interesting guy with a lot going on upstairs, and even after "the accident" had a lot of drive and passion right up to the end. Again, this is just one music listener's subjective opinion.


Title: Re: Jan & Dean are terrible singers
Post by: 37!ws on October 31, 2021, 02:50:18 PM
Okay...sorry to revive this, but....man, I heard "The Joker is Wild" on the Underground Garage channel....holy hell, the singing was TERRIBLE. Really, I wonder how much more enjoyable the Jan & Dean stuff would be if someone went in and pitch-corrected the vocals. But wow...I could NOT listen.