Would Al have had more lead vocals if he'd never quit in '62?

[tpesky]

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

[Emily]

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

That's an awesome point.

[Don Malcolm]

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

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

[Lonely Summer]

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

[Cam Mott]

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

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

[KDS]

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

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

Primary lead singer. 

[Cam Mott]

Leadiest singer?

[KDS]

Leadiest singer?

Ha.  That's pretty good. 

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

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

[Emily]

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

Primary lead singer.  

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

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

[Cam Mott]

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

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

[Emily]

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

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

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

[Cam Mott]

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

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

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

Those Beatle boards sound awful.

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

[Sjöman]

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

I've never understood the idea of Mike being the lead singer.

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

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

[Emily]

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

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

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

Those Beatle boards sound awful.

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

🙂 OK.

[Emily]

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

I've never understood the idea of Mike being the lead singer.

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

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

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

[Emily]

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KDS]

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

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

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

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KDS]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm with you 100% here. 

[Cam Mott]

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

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

[KDS]

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

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

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

[Cam Mott]

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

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

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

How about Jack Rieley and Dean Torrence and Jasper Dailey?

[jiggy22]

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

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

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