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

[Emily]

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

But which is the cart and which the horse?

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

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

[adamghost]

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

[Emily]

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

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

[drbeachboy]

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

But which is the cart and which the horse?

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

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

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

[Emily]

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

But which is the cart and which the horse?

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

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

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

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

[drbeachboy]

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

But which is the cart and which the horse?

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

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

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

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

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

[Empire Of Love]

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

EoL

[CenturyDeprived]

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

EoL

I second that emotion.

[Empire Of Love]

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

EoL

I second that emotion.

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

If I had enough material I would ask him myself. 

EoL

[HeyJude]

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

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

[joe_blow]

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

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

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

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

It seems Mike was quite a virtuoso.

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

[the captain]

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

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

[Emdeeh]

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

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

[Lonely Summer]

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

[Zargo]

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

[Fire Wind]

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

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

[Sjöman]

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

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

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

Emily, three or four things:

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

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

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

[the captain]

How many pictures can you find of another member singing in a hand-held mic ?

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

[Emily]

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

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

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

Emily, three or four things:

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

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

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

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

[drbeachboy]

Beach Boys Today:

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

Percentage based on 11 songs.

[Emily]

Beach Boys Today:

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

Percentage based on 11 songs.

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

[drbeachboy]

Beach Boys Today:

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

Percentage based on 11 songs.

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

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

[Emily]

Beach Boys Today:

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

Percentage based on 11 songs.

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

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

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

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

[KDS]

Emily,

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

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

[Emily]

Emily,

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

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

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