gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680599 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 01:00:26 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Would Al have had more lead vocals if he'd never quit in '62?  (Read 16624 times)
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #50 on: April 19, 2016, 12:30:08 PM »

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

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: April 19, 2016, 12:31:41 PM »



 I always looked at Brian & Mike as the two lead singers.
This is pretty much how I've looked at it, too.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #52 on: April 19, 2016, 12:32:30 PM »

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.

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

The fact that a large number of early hits have Mike leads surely helps further that line of thinking. I wouldn't say it's a ridiculous statement to make, just not quite accurate.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2016, 12:37:59 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #53 on: April 19, 2016, 12:43:59 PM »

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.

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

The fact that a large number of early hits have Mike leads surely helps further that line of thinking. I wouldn't say it's a ridiculous statement to make, just not quite accurate.
Yeah, that Mike, he sure is a sinister mofo. Wink Even if he is a co-lead singer, he can still claim to be a lead singer and not be stating something incorrect. All one has to do is listen. Even David can claim it once. All nine Beach Boys can claim to be lead singers. Smiley
Logged

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
KDS
Guest
« Reply #54 on: April 19, 2016, 01:27:19 PM »

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

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

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #55 on: April 19, 2016, 01:31:16 PM »

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

I think the answer of whether or not Al would've gotten more lead vocals is already there, in the albums on which he's absent.  How many Dave vocals?  One co-vocal with Carl on Summertime Blues.  That probably would've been Al singing with Carl there. 
You haven't figured that out, yet? Of course, all threads here eventually devolve into that. Wink
Logged

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: April 19, 2016, 01:36:57 PM »

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

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

« Last Edit: April 19, 2016, 01:39:22 PM by Emily » Logged
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #57 on: April 19, 2016, 01:41:19 PM »

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

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



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

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: April 19, 2016, 01:44:48 PM »

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

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



I lost my head. My apologies to you, Emily.
Smiley Maybe we're all touchy today. Sorry for the sarcasm.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #59 on: April 19, 2016, 03:26:24 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

I would imagine Brian began to see soon after Al rejoined that Al was a secret weapon to the group vocally, but I think it's fair to consider the possibility that politics within the band - possibly related to Al's non-blood relation, to Al now being a second tier, salaried BB member, to other members perhaps being reluctant to relinquish lead vocal duties more often - might have affected Al's standing and utilization (or lack thereof) as a lead vocalist. Hard to say, and I certainly make no concrete assumptions (nobody can)... just stuff to ponder as a fan.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2016, 03:27:22 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: April 19, 2016, 03:37:08 PM »

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

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

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #61 on: April 19, 2016, 03:41:33 PM »

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

But otherwise? Like, pre-64, 63? I honestly have no idea, I don't listen to all that much pop from that era.
You may be on to something there. Most bands had one lead singer.
Logged

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: April 19, 2016, 03:45:04 PM »

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

But otherwise? Like, pre-64, 63? I honestly have no idea, I don't listen to all that much pop from that era.
Yeah. That's what I said way at the beginning of the thread about Al; they may have wanted to limit the number of lead vocalists for the sake of a consistent marketable image.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: April 19, 2016, 03:46:26 PM »

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

But otherwise? Like, pre-64, 63? I honestly have no idea, I don't listen to all that much pop from that era.
Yeah. That's what I said way at the beginning of the thread about Al; they may have wanted to limit the number of lead vocalists for the sake of a consistent marketable image.

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

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: April 19, 2016, 03:48:27 PM »

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

But otherwise? Like, pre-64, 63? I honestly have no idea, I don't listen to all that much pop from that era.
Yeah. That's what I said way at the beginning of the thread about Al; they may have wanted to limit the number of lead vocalists for the sake of a consistent marketable image.

Damnit, I copied? "I'm a genius, too, [Emily]!" Can we agree it's an inadvertent copy? We're both geniuses...  Grin
Nah - you made the point better.
Logged
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: April 19, 2016, 03:51:40 PM »

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

But otherwise? Like, pre-64, 63? I honestly have no idea, I don't listen to all that much pop from that era.
Yeah. That's what I said way at the beginning of the thread about Al; they may have wanted to limit the number of lead vocalists for the sake of a consistent marketable image.

Damnit, I copied? "I'm a genius, too, [Emily]!" Can we agree it's an inadvertent copy? We're both geniuses...  Grin
Nah - you made the point better.

Everything's comin' up Luther!
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
mojoman3061
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 103


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: April 19, 2016, 03:55:54 PM »

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

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

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

Posts: 863


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: April 19, 2016, 04:01:47 PM »

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

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: April 19, 2016, 04:09:48 PM »

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

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

Al had been a big fan of Kingston Trio-style folk music, and maybe there would have been more songs with this influence.  If so, he would have been the first choice as lead singer on those.  Of course, we'll never know for sure.
Good cut-to-the-chase point about lead singing and about the "What if" aspect. Of course, if Al had not quit there would have been a many-rippled butterfly effect. We can't say "maybe Al would have sung this or that song instead of whomever" because we can't even know what songs they would have recorded had he not quit. Each member has some effect on what they ended up doing, even if it wasn't explicit.
Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: April 19, 2016, 04:44:25 PM »

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

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Bill30022
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: April 19, 2016, 05:01:04 PM »

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

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

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #71 on: April 19, 2016, 05:29:41 PM »

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

Which means that Mike sang lead (if you throw in Dennis Al, Bruce & Blondie) about 1/3 of the songs. He is not THE lead singer, but a lead singer. And IMO, there are very few songs where his lead vocals are the most interesting facet of the song.  
It may not be the most interesting facet, but as soon as he starts to sing, you know who you are listening to. So, distinct may be a better description. Really ashame that he became so nasal after the Holland album. The album where he sounds almost like his pre-73 self is Love You, except for Airplane where the nasalness comes back.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2016, 05:33:41 PM by drbeachboy » Logged

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
Bill Ed
Guest
« Reply #72 on: April 19, 2016, 05:36:04 PM »

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

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

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: April 19, 2016, 05:39:23 PM »

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

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

Mike is the lead singer in the lead.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2016, 02:23:54 AM by Cam Mott » Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Autotune
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1699



View Profile
« Reply #74 on: April 19, 2016, 05:43:38 PM »

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.

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

I like your posts and most of the threads you start, but I think you tend to read and guess too much into Mike's mind and intentions, and you become judgemental without probably intending to. I recall Mike downplaying his lead-singing role during C50 interviews, and other fairly recent interviews, while stressing that he mostly enjoys and sees himself as a bass harmony singer. He did this whie praising his bandmates' vocal contributions, including Al's.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2016, 05:46:23 PM by Autotune » Logged

"His lyrical ability has never been touched by anyone, except for Mike Love."

-Brian Wilson on Van Dyke Parks (2015)
gfx
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.816 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!