What if the Beach Boys had fired Mike Love?

[CenturyDeprived]

If, after a certain point, say the late 60s, he was out of the picture… we certainly can't say for certain that it would have been a bad thing in every way. It's entirely possible that they could've carried on without him, and there might have been less internal resistance against a progressive direction, even after the 70s popularity resurgence.

While Mike certainly can't be entirely blamed for all of the band's problems/creative decay, the flipside of that is that when you remove a particular person from a group of people, it changes the dynamic. Perhaps with the loss, there is also a gain. When that person has a strong personality and a sense of entitlement because of past successes, that person's absence at a certain point might not have been a bad thing. Do I think a world where there were less potential thorns in each other's sides would've been a good thing for everyone involved? Yes, I do. Creative differences and resulting emotional turmoil both deeply suck. Maybe the band would have ceased to exist at a certain point, but it's also possible that there would have been more of an emphasis on quality as opposed to quantity.

I absolutely value Mike's contributions to the band, but some negatives outweigh the positives. We will never really know how it would have played out, except for the few glimpses of shows that Mike missed over the years, where the band seemed to carry on perfectly fine without him, without lines of fans demanding refunds.

[Emily]

I’m just going to go for it and share my honest opinion. I’d like to preface it by saying that I’m fully aware that this is a matter of opinion and personal taste and I don’t condemn in any way those who disagree. I have friends who are thrilled when Tiffany shows up for their pride parades and who listen to One Direction without irony. I have friends who talk of NWA, Roman Polanski and Woody Allen without a hint of misgiving. I’m completely cool with disagreement.
So, here I go:
What if Beach Boys had fired Mike Love on September 15, 1961 or had never even bothered with him to begin with? Perhaps none of the Beach Boys would ever have been heard.
But I consider this to also be perfectly likely:
-Brian finds sufficient quality lyricists to work with (he did anyway and more could’ve come of those collaborations if Mike and Murry hadn’t repeatedly chased them away). Frankly, to me and I think to many potential fans, Mike Love’s trivial and sexist lyrics are alienating.
-They are in LA; they find someone else with a good bass voice to work with who is a less dorky front man with a lot more charisma and, who knows, maybe also can play an instrument?!
-Brian feels more free to create the music he wants to make which results in fewer hits but a stronger long-term reputation.
-The band progresses, with or without Brian being actively engaged, into the 70’s without becoming a nostalgia act. Sure they play their early songs, but they are not so belittled because their lyrics weren’t so trivial and sexist to begin with.
-I’m a happier fan.
So, I’m serious, those of you who are fans of Mike Love, or think his contribution is worth the pain, I have no beef with you. I just don’t share your taste and that’s fine with me.
And those who just think Brian wouldn’t have gotten off his ass and done anything without Mike Love, I disagree there also. I think Brian was really driven in the early years.

[Mike's Beard]

No Mike = no Surfin' and Surfin' Safari, the two songs that broke The Beach Boys first locally and then nationally. Nothing Brian was writing with Usher at that time was going to make them stars.

[filledeplage]

If, after a certain point, say the late 60s, he was out of the picture… we certainly can't say for certain that it would have been a bad thing in every way. It's entirely possible that they could've carried on without him, and there might have been less internal resistance against a progressive direction, even after the 70s popularity resurgence.

While Mike certainly can't be entirely blamed for all of the band's problems/creative decay, the flipside of that is that when you remove a particular person from a group of people, it changes the dynamic. Perhaps with the loss, there is also a gain. When that person has a strong personality and a sense of entitlement because of past successes, that person's absence at a certain point might not have been a bad thing. Do I think a world where there were less potential thorns in each other's sides would've been a good thing for everyone involved? Yes, I do. Creative differences and resulting emotional turmoil both deeply suck. Maybe the band would have ceased to exist at a certain point, but it's also possible that there would have been more of an emphasis on quality as opposed to quantity.

I absolutely value Mike's contributions to the band, but some negatives outweigh the positives. We will never really know how it would have played out, except for the few glimpses of shows that Mike missed over the years, where the band seemed to carry on perfectly fine without him, without lines of fans demanding refunds.

CD - I look at this very differently for probably very different reasons.  

First, you can't fire yourself.  That is who BRI is.  It is a sort of "alter ego" of a family business (nothing to do with 'hanging on to an ego' in a psychological sense.)  That is hard to dissolve.  Mike was on the ground floor, with the rest of the guys.  Turn him sideways, in " silhouette mode" and he has the "Wilson profile."  Blood is thicker than water.

Frankly, I never paid a lot attention to Mike, although I liked his voice in the blend, and his lyrics a lot, (and the way he kept the crowd entertained) during a show, before they had roadies to tune the guitars, and fix a string, until after Carl died. Then, I wanted to see just "what Mike could do" to come out of this disaster. Could he keep the music alive? Losing Dennis was bad enough.  But Carl was the utter vocal backbone of the touring band.  Period.  Mike had a ton of leads, but fans looked to Carl, (looking so much like Brian, but with a creamier voice.)  And, maybe it is an unfair assessment, for me to put so much pressure on Carl, but he looked so much like Brian that he was almost a twin brother.  I cannot think of one die-hard fan of The Beach Boys that I know, who was not grieving after Carl died.  Most who took crap from their friends in high school and college just for being a fan.  Now, it is easy because that "window of time" is long over.

Second, looking back at the "totality of the circumstances" and not just a small window, since Brian took on the amazing solo touring, I think the "external" forces, such as the record company and various "interlopers" caused more trouble by meddling with the "principals" in any devious way possible. They were constantly undermined at a "band unit." Someone was always around who thought they "knew better."  

And, I think what the "business" did to non-promote Pet Sounds as a work was unconscionable.  Murry's disparagement didn't help anyone either.  When a parent disapproves or is jealous, it is a bad place.  No kid or family member wants to go against an elder and be disrespectful, no matter what.  You have to face them on Christmas and Thanksgiving or at wakes and funerals.  And we can spout off our opinions of what should have been done, but that was 1965 (50 years ago) and a very different world.    

Third, every kind of group, whether business or political, or a family, needs a strong "spokesperson," who is able to do the unpopular stuff, make hard and unpopular decisions, and "take the rap" for whatever entity that is.  At a point, it was Carl making hard decisions, maybe unpopular, and at others it was Mike.  So they take the heat.  It is like the campaign manager, who has to be "clear and tough" enough to make hard calls, in the name of the candidate, and not take things personally.  It isn't a popularity contest.  The music is like that candidate who needs to be presented in the best possible light.  And in the background the campaign manager takes the heat. But, do for the "greater good"  of the candidate or the band.

When I look at this dynamic, I see "worse influences" that "came in from the outside" (including and maybe especially Landy and/or Manson) than could ever have come from "inside."  

Mike couldn't be fired any more than Brian could have been fired.  It is a ridiculous concept.    

And, I've come to really respect what Mike has done, whether it has been easy or hard, to keep this BB music out there, being as tough a critic as anyone.  I've watched the attendance grow, from the time Mike took a chance on building a touring band, to include very young fans, so whatever Mike is doing, it is working.  If, as a body, BRI didn't endorse what Mike has done, he would have been unable to continue as the touring band.  

There is no "what if?"  

[CenturyDeprived]

If, after a certain point, say the late 60s, he was out of the picture… we certainly can't say for certain that it would have been a bad thing in every way. It's entirely possible that they could've carried on without him, and there might have been less internal resistance against a progressive direction, even after the 70s popularity resurgence.

While Mike certainly can't be entirely blamed for all of the band's problems/creative decay, the flipside of that is that when you remove a particular person from a group of people, it changes the dynamic. Perhaps with the loss, there is also a gain. When that person has a strong personality and a sense of entitlement because of past successes, that person's absence at a certain point might not have been a bad thing. Do I think a world where there were less potential thorns in each other's sides would've been a good thing for everyone involved? Yes, I do. Creative differences and resulting emotional turmoil both deeply suck. Maybe the band would have ceased to exist at a certain point, but it's also possible that there would have been more of an emphasis on quality as opposed to quantity.

I absolutely value Mike's contributions to the band, but some negatives outweigh the positives. We will never really know how it would have played out, except for the few glimpses of shows that Mike missed over the years, where the band seemed to carry on perfectly fine without him, without lines of fans demanding refunds.

CD - I look at this very differently for probably very different reasons.  

First, you can't fire yourself.  That is who BRI is.  It is a sort of "alter ego" of a family business (nothing to do with 'hanging on to an ego' in a psychological sense.)  That is hard to dissolve.  Mike was on the ground floor, with the rest of the guys.  Turn him sideways, in " silhouette mode" and he has the "Wilson profile."  Blood is thicker than water.

Frankly, I never paid a lot attention to Mike, although I liked his voice in the blend, and his lyrics a lot, (and the way he kept the crowd entertained) during a show, before they had roadies to tune the guitars, and fix a string, until after Carl died. Then, I wanted to see just "what Mike could do" to come out of this disaster. Could he keep the music alive? Losing Dennis was bad enough.  But Carl was the utter vocal backbone of the touring band.  Period.  Mike had a ton of leads, but fans looked to Carl, (looking so much like Brian, but with a creamier voice.)  And, maybe it is an unfair assessment, for me to put so much pressure on Carl, but he looked so much like Brian that he was almost a twin brother.  I cannot think of one die-hard fan of The Beach Boys that I know, who was not grieving after Carl died.  Most who took crap from their friends in high school and college just for being a fan.  Now, it is easy because that "window of time" is long over.

Second, looking back at the "totality of the circumstances" and not just a small window, since Brian took on the amazing solo touring, I think the "external" forces, such as the record company and various "interlopers" caused more trouble by meddling with the "principals" in any devious way possible. They were constantly undermined at a "band unit." Someone was always around who thought they "knew better."  

And, I think what the "business" did to non-promote Pet Sounds as a work was unconscionable.  Murry's disparagement didn't help anyone either.  When a parent disapproves or is jealous, it is a bad place.  No kid or family member wants to go against an elder and be disrespectful, no matter what.  You have to face them on Christmas and Thanksgiving or at wakes and funerals.  And we can spout off our opinions of what should have been done, but that was 1965 (50 years ago) and a very different world.    

Third, every kind of group, whether business or political, or a family, needs a strong "spokesperson," who is able to do the unpopular stuff, make hard and unpopular decisions, and "take the rap" for whatever entity that is.  At a point, it was Carl making hard decisions, maybe unpopular, and at others it was Mike.  So they take the heat.  It is like the campaign manager, who has to be "clear and tough" enough to make hard calls, in the name of the candidate, and not take things personally.  It isn't a popularity contest.  The music is like that candidate who needs to be presented in the best possible light.  And in the background the campaign manager takes the heat. But, do for the "greater good"  of the candidate or the band.

When I look at this dynamic, I see "worse influences" that "came in from the outside" (including and maybe especially Landy and/or Manson) than could ever have come from "inside."  

Mike couldn't be fired any more than Brian could have been fired.  It is a ridiculous concept.    

And, I've come to really respect what Mike has done, whether it has been easy or hard, to keep this BB music out there, being as tough a critic as anyone.  I've watched the attendance grow, from the time Mike took a chance on building a touring band, to include very young fans, so whatever Mike is doing, it is working.  If, as a body, BRI didn't endorse what Mike has done, he would have been unable to continue as the touring band.  

There is no "what if?"  

I'm just speaking in terms of hypotheticals, if Mike was no longer present, and less in terms of how that would/could have been accomplished. Yes, the fact that he was there since day one, was blood related (most important), and cowrote many hits are inarguable reasons why he didn't get fired.

But in terms of Mike not being in the picture after a certain point, regardless of how that could have happened - through him simply quitting or not being able to continue with the band for any number of reasons - I think the rest of my post still holds water, and that the band - past the mid 60s - could have kept going sans Mike (however circumstances could have caused that to happen), with less artistic conflict over direction being an indirect side effect. Would the band have kept touring until present day under the same name?  Probably not. But that doesn't mean there couldn't have been a perfectly awesome alternate path that could have nevertheless happened.  That said, I think Mike was definitely needed in the early years. Past a certain point… They could've carried on perfectly fine without him.

[SMiLE Brian]

Correct CD, those early 1970s shows are awkward with love hovering in the background like a ghost since he didn't do much anymore.

[filledeplage]

If, after a certain point, say the late 60s, he was out of the picture… we certainly can't say for certain that it would have been a bad thing in every way. It's entirely possible that they could've carried on without him, and there might have been less internal resistance against a progressive direction, even after the 70s popularity resurgence.

While Mike certainly can't be entirely blamed for all of the band's problems/creative decay, the flipside of that is that when you remove a particular person from a group of people, it changes the dynamic. Perhaps with the loss, there is also a gain. When that person has a strong personality and a sense of entitlement because of past successes, that person's absence at a certain point might not have been a bad thing. Do I think a world where there were less potential thorns in each other's sides would've been a good thing for everyone involved? Yes, I do. Creative differences and resulting emotional turmoil both deeply suck. Maybe the band would have ceased to exist at a certain point, but it's also possible that there would have been more of an emphasis on quality as opposed to quantity.

I absolutely value Mike's contributions to the band, but some negatives outweigh the positives. We will never really know how it would have played out, except for the few glimpses of shows that Mike missed over the years, where the band seemed to carry on perfectly fine without him, without lines of fans demanding refunds.

CD - I look at this very differently for probably very different reasons.  

First, you can't fire yourself.  That is who BRI is.  It is a sort of "alter ego" of a family business (nothing to do with 'hanging on to an ego' in a psychological sense.)  That is hard to dissolve.  Mike was on the ground floor, with the rest of the guys.  Turn him sideways, in " silhouette mode" and he has the "Wilson profile."  Blood is thicker than water.

Frankly, I never paid a lot attention to Mike, although I liked his voice in the blend, and his lyrics a lot, (and the way he kept the crowd entertained) during a show, before they had roadies to tune the guitars, and fix a string, until after Carl died. Then, I wanted to see just "what Mike could do" to come out of this disaster. Could he keep the music alive? Losing Dennis was bad enough.  But Carl was the utter vocal backbone of the touring band.  Period.  Mike had a ton of leads, but fans looked to Carl, (looking so much like Brian, but with a creamier voice.)  And, maybe it is an unfair assessment, for me to put so much pressure on Carl, but he looked so much like Brian that he was almost a twin brother.  I cannot think of one die-hard fan of The Beach Boys that I know, who was not grieving after Carl died.  Most who took crap from their friends in high school and college just for being a fan.  Now, it is easy because that "window of time" is long over.

Second, looking back at the "totality of the circumstances" and not just a small window, since Brian took on the amazing solo touring, I think the "external" forces, such as the record company and various "interlopers" caused more trouble by meddling with the "principals" in any devious way possible. They were constantly undermined at a "band unit." Someone was always around who thought they "knew better."  

And, I think what the "business" did to non-promote Pet Sounds as a work was unconscionable.  Murry's disparagement didn't help anyone either.  When a parent disapproves or is jealous, it is a bad place.  No kid or family member wants to go against an elder and be disrespectful, no matter what.  You have to face them on Christmas and Thanksgiving or at wakes and funerals.  And we can spout off our opinions of what should have been done, but that was 1965 (50 years ago) and a very different world.    

Third, every kind of group, whether business or political, or a family, needs a strong "spokesperson," who is able to do the unpopular stuff, make hard and unpopular decisions, and "take the rap" for whatever entity that is.  At a point, it was Carl making hard decisions, maybe unpopular, and at others it was Mike.  So they take the heat.  It is like the campaign manager, who has to be "clear and tough" enough to make hard calls, in the name of the candidate, and not take things personally.  It isn't a popularity contest.  The music is like that candidate who needs to be presented in the best possible light.  And in the background the campaign manager takes the heat. But, do for the "greater good"  of the candidate or the band.

When I look at this dynamic, I see "worse influences" that "came in from the outside" (including and maybe especially Landy and/or Manson) than could ever have come from "inside."  

Mike couldn't be fired any more than Brian could have been fired.  It is a ridiculous concept.    

And, I've come to really respect what Mike has done, whether it has been easy or hard, to keep this BB music out there, being as tough a critic as anyone.  I've watched the attendance grow, from the time Mike took a chance on building a touring band, to include very young fans, so whatever Mike is doing, it is working.  If, as a body, BRI didn't endorse what Mike has done, he would have been unable to continue as the touring band.  

There is no "what if?"  

I'm just speaking in terms of hypotheticals, if Mike was no longer present, and less in terms of how that would/could have been accomplished. Yes, the fact that he was there since day one, was blood related (most important), and cowrote many hits are inarguable reasons why he didn't get fired.

But in terms of Mike not being in the picture after a certain point, regardless of how that could have happened - through him simply quitting or not being able to continue with the band for any number of reasons - I think the rest of my post still holds water, and that the band - past the mid 60s - could have kept going sans Mike (however circumstances could have caused that to happen), with less artistic conflict over direction being an indirect side effect. Would the band have kept touring until present day under the same name?  Probably not. But that doesn't mean there couldn't have been a perfectly awesome alternate path that could have nevertheless happened.  That said, I think Mike was definitely needed in the early years. Past a certain point… They could've carried on perfectly fine without him.

CD - Ok - hypotheticals...so, going back to day one, they had a "force" who was "assertive" enough onstage, and that was Mike.  People have to learn to be "assertive" in certain situations, whether it is in a public speaking course, or learning how to teach in front of a class, or be a lawyer in a court room, in front of strangers and your opposition.  Not everyone can go onstage without stage fright and be able to "read" an audience. Barbra Streisand suffered for years from stage fright.  The amazing Barbra.  Mike appears to be able to do that.  Dennis was flamboyant and loved (an understatement) but wasn't consistent.  Mike "shows up."  I guess that is the difference.  I'm not sure that for all those years until Carl died and they all had to "learn the skill" of being an MC, that Mike was not "indispensable" onstage.  He makes it look easy.  It might not be. But he does it anyway, and well.    

And, lyricists are artistic. Not everyone can summon a phrase to work with a measure of music.  That is a gift.  

Artistic conflict?  Ya gotta sell your wares (music) and get someone to be your investor, and promoter and distributor...and, let's remember the "artistic" conflict arose from the record company who under-promoted just about the greatest rock album of all time.  I'll never give them a pass for them trying to pass them off in Europe as a surf band, post Pet Sounds.  What a joke.  Looking back, they were teenagers with talent well beyond their years and were taken advantage of by adult predators at many turns. And maybe whatever went down arose from "external forces"  attempting to "divide and conquer" rather than from their well-bonded synergy to make music.  

Reasonable  minds can differ.      

[filledeplage]

Correct CD, those early 1970s shows are awkward with love hovering in the background like a ghost since he didn't do much anymore.

Which awkward 70's shows did you see?

[CenturyDeprived]

CD - Ok - hypotheticals...so, going back to day one, they had a "force" who was "assertive" enough onstage, and that was Mike.  People have to learn to be "assertive" in certain situations, whether it is in a public speaking course, or learning how to teach in front of a class, or be a lawyer in a court room, in front of strangers and your opposition.  Not everyone can go onstage without stage fright and be able to "read" an audience. Barbra Streisand suffered for years from stage fright.  The amazing Barbra.  Mike appears to be able to do that.  Dennis was flamboyant and loved (an understatement) but wasn't consistent.  Mike "shows up."  I guess that is the difference.  I'm not sure that for all those years until Carl died and they all had to "learn the skill" of being an MC, that Mike was not "indispensable" onstage.  He makes it look easy.  It might not be. But he does it anyway, and well.    

And, lyricists are artistic. Not everyone can summon a phrase to work with a measure of music.  That is a gift.  

Artistic conflict?  Ya gotta sell your wares (music) and get someone to be your investor, and promoter and distributor...and, let's remember the "artistic" conflict arose from the record company who under-promoted just about the greatest rock album of all time.  I'll never give them a pass for them trying to pass them off in Europe as a surf band, post Pet Sounds.  What a joke.  Looking back, they were teenagers with talent well beyond their years and were taken advantage of by adult predators at many turns. And maybe whatever went down arose from "external forces"  attempting to "divide and conquer" rather than from their well-bonded synergy to make music.  

Reasonable  minds can differ.      

Yes, Mike was a guy who connected with the audience in a vocal and MC capacity, and I'm not trying to downplay that role, nor do I not appreciate his good lyrics - he had many, at least up until a certain point. Yet still, past the late-60s, once they were famous + established... if he was going to be permanently unavailable for whatever reason that could have been, that absence wouldn't have been a dealbreaker for the band to just magically dissolve. Even Mike's biggest fans can't honestly say that they couldn't have carried on, wounded as they may have been - the Boys could have adapted. And sometimes people who are in fact quite talented can still cause artistic friction that isn't necessarily worth the fallout, so it's possible that there could have been less stress in some ways. I'm sure it was less stressful for Mike to not have to be around Al's alleged attitude problem post 1998, so perhaps without Mike, it could have been a similar de-stressor for certain other band members.

Mike himself has proved (by both the M&B show as well as the rare pre-M&B shows that he missed) that if a (or multiple) living original members are not present, the band can go on.  If at a certain point in the band's history, both Brian and Al are gonna be considered expendable to the live show, then Mike certainly could be considered expendable during certain eras too. It cuts both ways. Just because Brian and Al aren't famously great MCs, that doesn't negate my point. These guys could adapt if needed. Past the late-60s, they'd surely have found a way to go on (though likely not lasting until present day), despite him absent being in a permanent capacity.

[filledeplage]

CD - Ok - hypotheticals...so, going back to day one, they had a "force" who was "assertive" enough onstage, and that was Mike.  People have to learn to be "assertive" in certain situations, whether it is in a public speaking course, or learning how to teach in front of a class, or be a lawyer in a court room, in front of strangers and your opposition.  Not everyone can go onstage without stage fright and be able to "read" an audience. Barbra Streisand suffered for years from stage fright.  The amazing Barbra.  Mike appears to be able to do that.  Dennis was flamboyant and loved (an understatement) but wasn't consistent.  Mike "shows up."  I guess that is the difference.  I'm not sure that for all those years until Carl died and they all had to "learn the skill" of being an MC, that Mike was not "indispensable" onstage.  He makes it look easy.  It might not be. But he does it anyway, and well.    

And, lyricists are artistic. Not everyone can summon a phrase to work with a measure of music.  That is a gift.  

Artistic conflict?  Ya gotta sell your wares (music) and get someone to be your investor, and promoter and distributor...and, let's remember the "artistic" conflict arose from the record company who under-promoted just about the greatest rock album of all time.  I'll never give them a pass for them trying to pass them off in Europe as a surf band, post Pet Sounds.  What a joke.  Looking back, they were teenagers with talent well beyond their years and were taken advantage of by adult predators at many turns. And maybe whatever went down arose from "external forces"  attempting to "divide and conquer" rather than from their well-bonded synergy to make music.  

Reasonable  minds can differ.      

Yes, Mike was a guy who connected with the audience in a vocal and MC capacity, and I'm not trying to downplay that role. Yet still, past the mid-60s, once they were famous + established... if he was going to be permanently unavailable for whatever reason that could have been, that absence wouldn't have been a dealbreaker for the band to just magically dissolve. Even Mike's biggest fans can't honestly say that it would for sure have been an entirely bad thing - the Boys could have adapted. Mike himself has proved (by both the M&B show as well as the rare pre-M&B shows that he missed) that if a (or multiple) living original members are not present, the band can go on.  If at a certain point in the band's history, both Brian and Al are gonna be considered expendable to the live show, then Mike certainly could be considered expendable during certain eras too. It cuts both ways. Just because Brian and Al aren't great MCs, that doesn't negate my point. These guys could adapt if needed. Past the mid-60s, they'd surely have found a way to go on (though likely not until 2015), despite him absent being in a permanent capacity.

Al and Brian have "grown into" being MC's but didn't have to in the early days.  I'm not sure how they would've had the same "voltage" as a show with Mike as the MC, and doing a large portion of leads.  I cannot even imagine Little St. Nick without Mike or Fun, Fun, Fun.  A lot of artists left their bands, to go on to solo careers in the mid-60's but, I think as the BB's it would have been a deal breaker and loss to not have Mike.  He was the other half of Brian-Mike.  We didn't have Brian on the road.   

We won't ever know, because the hypothetical, here, is raised as a "coulda woulda shoulda." I find it preposterous because we can't go back and re-write the events and I'm not sure I'd want to.   



   

[Sheriff John Stone]

We won't ever know, because the hypothetical, here, is raised as a "coulda woulda shoulda." I find it preposterous because we can't go back and re-write the events and I'm not sure I'd want to.   
 

But, it gives the Smiley Smile Message Board yet another thread to diminish Mike Love's contributions.

[CenturyDeprived]

CD - Ok - hypotheticals...so, going back to day one, they had a "force" who was "assertive" enough onstage, and that was Mike.  People have to learn to be "assertive" in certain situations, whether it is in a public speaking course, or learning how to teach in front of a class, or be a lawyer in a court room, in front of strangers and your opposition.  Not everyone can go onstage without stage fright and be able to "read" an audience. Barbra Streisand suffered for years from stage fright.  The amazing Barbra.  Mike appears to be able to do that.  Dennis was flamboyant and loved (an understatement) but wasn't consistent.  Mike "shows up."  I guess that is the difference.  I'm not sure that for all those years until Carl died and they all had to "learn the skill" of being an MC, that Mike was not "indispensable" onstage.  He makes it look easy.  It might not be. But he does it anyway, and well.    

And, lyricists are artistic. Not everyone can summon a phrase to work with a measure of music.  That is a gift.  

Artistic conflict?  Ya gotta sell your wares (music) and get someone to be your investor, and promoter and distributor...and, let's remember the "artistic" conflict arose from the record company who under-promoted just about the greatest rock album of all time.  I'll never give them a pass for them trying to pass them off in Europe as a surf band, post Pet Sounds.  What a joke.  Looking back, they were teenagers with talent well beyond their years and were taken advantage of by adult predators at many turns. And maybe whatever went down arose from "external forces"  attempting to "divide and conquer" rather than from their well-bonded synergy to make music.  

Reasonable  minds can differ.      

Yes, Mike was a guy who connected with the audience in a vocal and MC capacity, and I'm not trying to downplay that role. Yet still, past the mid-60s, once they were famous + established... if he was going to be permanently unavailable for whatever reason that could have been, that absence wouldn't have been a dealbreaker for the band to just magically dissolve. Even Mike's biggest fans can't honestly say that it would for sure have been an entirely bad thing - the Boys could have adapted. Mike himself has proved (by both the M&B show as well as the rare pre-M&B shows that he missed) that if a (or multiple) living original members are not present, the band can go on.  If at a certain point in the band's history, both Brian and Al are gonna be considered expendable to the live show, then Mike certainly could be considered expendable during certain eras too. It cuts both ways. Just because Brian and Al aren't great MCs, that doesn't negate my point. These guys could adapt if needed. Past the mid-60s, they'd surely have found a way to go on (though likely not until 2015), despite him absent being in a permanent capacity.

Al and Brian have "grown into" being MC's but didn't have to in the early days.  I'm not sure how they would've had the same "voltage" as a show with Mike as the MC, and doing a large portion of leads.  I cannot even imagine Little St. Nick without Mike or Fun, Fun, Fun.  A lot of artists left their bands, to go on to solo careers in the mid-60's but, I think as the BB's it would have been a deal breaker and loss to not have Mike.  He was the other half of Brian-Mike.  We didn't have Brian on the road.   

We won't ever know, because the hypothetical, here, is raised as a "coulda woulda shoulda." I find it preposterous because we can't go back and re-write the events and I'm not sure I'd want to.   
   

We can know in some fashion, since the pre-M&B band played somewhere around a dozen shows without Mike over the years. I recall hearing of no long lines of fans demanding refunds. I believe Al sang Fun, Fun, Fun, but I'd have to check the setlist archive. No, an entire tour wasn't launched as "The BBs" without Mike, but those isolated cases proved that it could be done; shows weren't cancelled, it clearly wasn't a deal-breaker. Those non-Mike shows went off without a hitch, as far as I know. Leads were spread to the other guys. The band was very famous by that point, but remained (then as they do today) largely anonymous to the public at large in terms of personnel. They aren't distinctly known for all their members the way The Beatles are. People would have walked out of a Beatles show if John wasn't there (during his lifetime). Mike has now (and had then) good things to offer, but they could (and did) do perfectly good shows without him.

[CenturyDeprived]

We won't ever know, because the hypothetical, here, is raised as a "coulda woulda shoulda." I find it preposterous because we can't go back and re-write the events and I'm not sure I'd want to.  
  

But, it gives the Smiley Smile Message Board yet another thread to diminish Mike Love's contributions.

Being realistic about a band's ability to go on without a member in certain eras doesn't mean that his many legitimately positive contributions are being diminished, anymore than, for example, Al's contributions are diminished from his non-presence in the touring band. If you're ok with the latter, a rational conversation about the former should be just fine. Speaking for myself, I greatly appreciate the positive things Mike has contributed to the band over the years, and I'd prefer a functional BB band with all the members INCLUDING MIKE present and emotionally/personally content.

[SMiLE Brian]

Al did the early songs way better than Mike at the BW show a few weeks ago!

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

Al did the early songs way better than Mike at the BW show a few weeks ago!

Absolutely! Face it, Al has an incredible voice that has always outdistanced myKe luHv's nasal fingernails on the chalkboard scratchy attempts at trying to sing.

[CenturyDeprived]

Al did the early songs way better than Mike at the BW show a few weeks ago!

Can't say I disagree with that. I really, really liked hearing Al on Little Deuce Coupe at a recent show. He brought a totally different and fresh flavor to a song that I've otherwise not been particularly fond of. While I'd rather see all living members onstage together, situations like this prove how this is a unique band that is far more adaptable at replacing members (including Mike) than most other bands are.

[SenorPotatoHead]

There is a part of me which feels that without Mike, Murry and any other "Villain" - the Beach Boys story would be a hell of a lot less interesting.  The music drew me in, and then the slow discovery of all the drama and turmoil behind the scenes, the whole screwed up family dynamic and the corporate mindset vs cutting edge art/experimentation - that is what gave me some of the biggest "WTF" moments and drew me in even further.   It's all incredibly Shakespearean, in a uniquely American way.  
Mike did some nice vocals, he wrote some decent lyrics and he has/had a legitimate compass for the "commercial", but no matter what cabbage one wishes to toss - it's Brian Wilson's music, production and vision which will always stand.  He's an American treasure of the caliber of Twain, Ellington, and whomever else would rank in such a list.  No one else in the Beach Boys ever came close.  Dennis had the most prospects in that way.  

[bonnie bella]

Had they fired Mike Love, the band would have gone to sh*t. He is the lead singer of the Beach Boys. You don't have to love him, but show some respect. I mean, put on Little Honda or Dance, Dance, Dance and hear him snarl those great lyrics like a boss he is. I don't really care if he's a dick in his person, when it comes to music he's the only one who could have done what he did. I'm a fan.

Take out the "I'm a fan" bit, and I agree.

[Cam Mott]

The band has gotten along fine without Brian, or Dennis, or Carl, or David, or Bruce, or Al, or Mike.

[gxios]

I saw a lot of early 1970's shows.  Mike wasn't awkward, he was still the front man, telling jokes, introducing numbers, keeping the audience occupied while Carl switched guitars or Bruce switched to bass or whatever, which is what he has always done. 

[Lonely Summer]

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

[Emily]

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

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

[filledeplage]

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

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

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

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

[ontor pertawst]

A band member who was a co-author knows the backstories of the music in a way that an outside person could not possibly know.

In Mike's case, I wonder if that extends as far as being able to identify the chords.

[filledeplage]

A band member who was a co-author knows the backstories of the music in a way that an outside person could not possibly know.

In Mike's case, I wonder if that extends as far as being able to identify the chords.

Ontor - What does that mean?

Haven't you seen Youtubes of Mike at a keyboard? 

Or the theremin?