What If?: SMiLE came out instead of Good Vibrations?

[Emily]

I'm curious if those who participated in this thread would comment on how this interview adds to this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDKaPv-vq58&app=desktop

In this interview which takes place just as Pet Sounds is being released, Mike says at around 7:07 that "we don't get jazzed too much on TV. In the first place, I don't think TV does us justice and vice versa. And so we'd just rather do personal appearance and...records and personal appearances. We'll do TV once in a while, you know. But we aren't worried about it."

Given Mike's statements here, could one not conclude that the decision not to be doing performances on TV around this time was a personal decision made by the band who seemed to think that those kinds of appearances were not that helpful? I'm curious what those who directed their critique towards those in marketing and PR would say about Mike's comments here.

CSM - Thanks SO much for that! I loved it! That mention of the great Arnie (Woo-Woo) Ginsburg -- one of my favorite DJ's alongside Cousin Bruce Morrow!

At any rate, I was listening to the "conditions" that the TV people seemed to want, not so much that they didn't want them on TV - "lip synching!" (Milly Vanilly?)

Not so much, that they did not want to appear.  They seemed to want live vocals included.

I'm not sure I agree with that reading. After Mike says what I quote him as saying above, the DJ says that lip synching can be a problem and Mike responds by saying, that, yes, "that's another thing." So, yes, they didn't like lip synching and would rather play live but this seems to be just part of the reason why they didn't like doing TV.

Milli Vanilli didn't just lip-synch. They lip-synched to vocals they never even sang!

Question is whether the record company or the PR people were advancing their interests by not making TV part of the overall promotional package, alongside their "teeny bopper" magazines...

It's hard to say but either way in May 1966, The Beach Boys weren't too interested in making TV appearances as part of the marketing campaign.

If I had to guess, it sounds like it is more complicated than that.  Maybe it was "diplomatically evasive" because TV promotion was a place where the PR people/record company had not done their jobs, and may have led, only a few months later to the BRI incorporation.   

Hmm...
Sounds a bit like speculation, which I know you don't really encourage, FdP.

Emily - absolutely not.  I am looking at events or (lack of events) - such as no TV appearances contemporaneous to releases of LP's.  And, the fact that these young 20-somethings pulling away from arguably the biggest record company in the States. 
 

Wait, are you saying this: "If I had to guess, it sounds like it is more complicated than that.  Maybe it was 'diplomatically evasive' because TV promotion was a place where the PR people/record company had not done their jobs, and may have led, only a few months later to the BRI incorporation, " which starts with "If I had to guess, it sounds like..." then goes on to "Maybe... and may have..." is not speculation?

[filledeplage]

I'm curious if those who participated in this thread would comment on how this interview adds to this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDKaPv-vq58&app=desktop

In this interview which takes place just as Pet Sounds is being released, Mike says at around 7:07 that "we don't get jazzed too much on TV. In the first place, I don't think TV does us justice and vice versa. And so we'd just rather do personal appearance and...records and personal appearances. We'll do TV once in a while, you know. But we aren't worried about it."

Given Mike's statements here, could one not conclude that the decision not to be doing performances on TV around this time was a personal decision made by the band who seemed to think that those kinds of appearances were not that helpful? I'm curious what those who directed their critique towards those in marketing and PR would say about Mike's comments here.

CSM - Thanks SO much for that! I loved it! That mention of the great Arnie (Woo-Woo) Ginsburg -- one of my favorite DJ's alongside Cousin Bruce Morrow!

At any rate, I was listening to the "conditions" that the TV people seemed to want, not so much that they didn't want them on TV - "lip synching!" (Milly Vanilly?)

Not so much, that they did not want to appear.  They seemed to want live vocals included.

I'm not sure I agree with that reading. After Mike says what I quote him as saying above, the DJ says that lip synching can be a problem and Mike responds by saying, that, yes, "that's another thing." So, yes, they didn't like lip synching and would rather play live but this seems to be just part of the reason why they didn't like doing TV.

Milli Vanilli didn't just lip-synch. They lip-synched to vocals they never even sang!

Question is whether the record company or the PR people were advancing their interests by not making TV part of the overall promotional package, alongside their "teeny bopper" magazines...

It's hard to say but either way in May 1966, The Beach Boys weren't too interested in making TV appearances as part of the marketing campaign.

If I had to guess, it sounds like it is more complicated than that.  Maybe it was "diplomatically evasive" because TV promotion was a place where the PR people/record company had not done their jobs, and may have led, only a few months later to the BRI incorporation.   

Hmm...
Sounds a bit like speculation, which I know you don't really encourage, FdP.

Emily - absolutely not.  I am looking at events or (lack of events) - such as no TV appearances contemporaneous to releases of LP's.  And, the fact that these young 20-somethings pulling away from arguably the biggest record company in the States. 
 

Wait, are you saying this: "If I had to guess, it sounds like it is more complicated than that.  Maybe it was 'diplomatically evasive' because TV promotion was a place where the PR people/record company had not done their jobs, and may have led, only a few months later to the BRI incorporation, " which starts with "If I had to guess, it sounds like..." then goes on to "Maybe... and may have..." is not speculation?

Emily - that is just argumentative, word-parsing.  I am looking at a "pattern of non-events, "such as no TV, which one would reasonably expect to occur in the record industry, with the #1 US band releasing new albums.     

And, I do think it was "diplomatically evasive" because there was stuff going on behind-the-scenes that he may not have wanted to discuss and was nobody's business.   

[Emily]

I'm curious if those who participated in this thread would comment on how this interview adds to this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDKaPv-vq58&app=desktop

In this interview which takes place just as Pet Sounds is being released, Mike says at around 7:07 that "we don't get jazzed too much on TV. In the first place, I don't think TV does us justice and vice versa. And so we'd just rather do personal appearance and...records and personal appearances. We'll do TV once in a while, you know. But we aren't worried about it."

Given Mike's statements here, could one not conclude that the decision not to be doing performances on TV around this time was a personal decision made by the band who seemed to think that those kinds of appearances were not that helpful? I'm curious what those who directed their critique towards those in marketing and PR would say about Mike's comments here.

CSM - Thanks SO much for that! I loved it! That mention of the great Arnie (Woo-Woo) Ginsburg -- one of my favorite DJ's alongside Cousin Bruce Morrow!

At any rate, I was listening to the "conditions" that the TV people seemed to want, not so much that they didn't want them on TV - "lip synching!" (Milly Vanilly?)

Not so much, that they did not want to appear.  They seemed to want live vocals included.

I'm not sure I agree with that reading. After Mike says what I quote him as saying above, the DJ says that lip synching can be a problem and Mike responds by saying, that, yes, "that's another thing." So, yes, they didn't like lip synching and would rather play live but this seems to be just part of the reason why they didn't like doing TV.

Milli Vanilli didn't just lip-synch. They lip-synched to vocals they never even sang!

Question is whether the record company or the PR people were advancing their interests by not making TV part of the overall promotional package, alongside their "teeny bopper" magazines...

It's hard to say but either way in May 1966, The Beach Boys weren't too interested in making TV appearances as part of the marketing campaign.

If I had to guess, it sounds like it is more complicated than that.  Maybe it was "diplomatically evasive" because TV promotion was a place where the PR people/record company had not done their jobs, and may have led, only a few months later to the BRI incorporation.   

Hmm...
Sounds a bit like speculation, which I know you don't really encourage, FdP.

Emily - absolutely not.  I am looking at events or (lack of events) - such as no TV appearances contemporaneous to releases of LP's.  And, the fact that these young 20-somethings pulling away from arguably the biggest record company in the States. 
 

Wait, are you saying this: "If I had to guess, it sounds like it is more complicated than that.  Maybe it was 'diplomatically evasive' because TV promotion was a place where the PR people/record company had not done their jobs, and may have led, only a few months later to the BRI incorporation, " which starts with "If I had to guess, it sounds like..." then goes on to "Maybe... and may have..." is not speculation?

Emily - that is just argumentative, word-parsing.  I am looking at a "pattern of non-events, "such as no TV, which one would reasonably expect to occur in the record industry, with the #1 US band releasing new albums.     

And, I do think it was "diplomatically evasive" because there was stuff going on behind-the-scenes that he may not have wanted to discuss and was nobody's business.   

It does not take parsing to see that that is a speculative statement.

[filledeplage]

I'm curious if those who participated in this thread would comment on how this interview adds to this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDKaPv-vq58&app=desktop

In this interview which takes place just as Pet Sounds is being released, Mike says at around 7:07 that "we don't get jazzed too much on TV. In the first place, I don't think TV does us justice and vice versa. And so we'd just rather do personal appearance and...records and personal appearances. We'll do TV once in a while, you know. But we aren't worried about it."

Given Mike's statements here, could one not conclude that the decision not to be doing performances on TV around this time was a personal decision made by the band who seemed to think that those kinds of appearances were not that helpful? I'm curious what those who directed their critique towards those in marketing and PR would say about Mike's comments here.

CSM - Thanks SO much for that! I loved it! That mention of the great Arnie (Woo-Woo) Ginsburg -- one of my favorite DJ's alongside Cousin Bruce Morrow!

At any rate, I was listening to the "conditions" that the TV people seemed to want, not so much that they didn't want them on TV - "lip synching!" (Milly Vanilly?)

Not so much, that they did not want to appear.  They seemed to want live vocals included.

I'm not sure I agree with that reading. After Mike says what I quote him as saying above, the DJ says that lip synching can be a problem and Mike responds by saying, that, yes, "that's another thing." So, yes, they didn't like lip synching and would rather play live but this seems to be just part of the reason why they didn't like doing TV.

Milli Vanilli didn't just lip-synch. They lip-synched to vocals they never even sang!

Question is whether the record company or the PR people were advancing their interests by not making TV part of the overall promotional package, alongside their "teeny bopper" magazines...

It's hard to say but either way in May 1966, The Beach Boys weren't too interested in making TV appearances as part of the marketing campaign.

If I had to guess, it sounds like it is more complicated than that.  Maybe it was "diplomatically evasive" because TV promotion was a place where the PR people/record company had not done their jobs, and may have led, only a few months later to the BRI incorporation.   

Hmm...
Sounds a bit like speculation, which I know you don't really encourage, FdP.

Emily - absolutely not.  I am looking at events or (lack of events) - such as no TV appearances contemporaneous to releases of LP's.  And, the fact that these young 20-somethings pulling away from arguably the biggest record company in the States. 
 

Wait, are you saying this: "If I had to guess, it sounds like it is more complicated than that.  Maybe it was 'diplomatically evasive' because TV promotion was a place where the PR people/record company had not done their jobs, and may have led, only a few months later to the BRI incorporation, " which starts with "If I had to guess, it sounds like..." then goes on to "Maybe... and may have..." is not speculation?

Emily - that is just argumentative, word-parsing.  I am looking at a "pattern of non-events, "such as no TV, which one would reasonably expect to occur in the record industry, with the #1 US band releasing new albums.     

And, I do think it was "diplomatically evasive" because there was stuff going on behind-the-scenes that he may not have wanted to discuss and was nobody's business.   

It does not take parsing to see that that is a speculative statement.

Emily - reasonable minds can differ.  I am connecting the (action/inaction) dots to see this pattern of non-feasance to see the reasons that the Boys broke from Capitol and over-reliance on unreliable historic sources such as teeny bopper magazines. 

There are many.   

[Emily]

Emily - reasonable minds can differ.  I am connecting the (action/inaction) dots to see this pattern of non-feasance to see the reasons that the Boys broke from Capitol and over-reliance on unreliable historic sources such as teeny bopper magazines. 

There are many.   

Reasonable minds can differ on some things.

[filledeplage]

Emily - reasonable minds can differ.  I am connecting the (action/inaction) dots to see this pattern of non-feasance to see the reasons that the Boys broke from Capitol and over-reliance on unreliable historic sources such as teeny bopper magazines. 

There are many.   

Reasonable minds can differ on some things.

Emily - we may disagree without being disagreeable about everything.   

[Emily]

Emily - reasonable minds can differ.  I am connecting the (action/inaction) dots to see this pattern of non-feasance to see the reasons that the Boys broke from Capitol and over-reliance on unreliable historic sources such as teeny bopper magazines. 

There are many.   

Reasonable minds can differ on some things.

Emily - we may disagree without being disagreeable about everything.   

That is for sure.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I'm curious if those who participated in this thread would comment on how this interview adds to this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDKaPv-vq58&app=desktop

In this interview which takes place just as Pet Sounds is being released, Mike says at around 7:07 that "we don't get jazzed too much on TV. In the first place, I don't think TV does us justice and vice versa. And so we'd just rather do personal appearance and...records and personal appearances. We'll do TV once in a while, you know. But we aren't worried about it."

Given Mike's statements here, could one not conclude that the decision not to be doing performances on TV around this time was a personal decision made by the band who seemed to think that those kinds of appearances were not that helpful? I'm curious what those who directed their critique towards those in marketing and PR would say about Mike's comments here.

CSM - Thanks SO much for that! I loved it! That mention of the great Arnie (Woo-Woo) Ginsburg -- one of my favorite DJ's alongside Cousin Bruce Morrow!

At any rate, I was listening to the "conditions" that the TV people seemed to want, not so much that they didn't want them on TV - "lip synching!" (Milly Vanilly?)

Not so much, that they did not want to appear.  They seemed to want live vocals included.

I'm not sure I agree with that reading. After Mike says what I quote him as saying above, the DJ says that lip synching can be a problem and Mike responds by saying, that, yes, "that's another thing." So, yes, they didn't like lip synching and would rather play live but this seems to be just part of the reason why they didn't like doing TV.

Milli Vanilli didn't just lip-synch. They lip-synched to vocals they never even sang!

Question is whether the record company or the PR people were advancing their interests by not making TV part of the overall promotional package, alongside their "teeny bopper" magazines...

It's hard to say but either way in May 1966, The Beach Boys weren't too interested in making TV appearances as part of the marketing campaign.

If I had to guess, it sounds like it is more complicated than that.  Maybe it was "diplomatically evasive" because TV promotion was a place where the PR people/record company had not done their jobs, and may have led, only a few months later to the BRI incorporation.   

Hmm...
Sounds a bit like speculation, which I know you don't really encourage, FdP.

Emily - absolutely not.  I am looking at events or (lack of events) - such as no TV appearances contemporaneous to releases of LP's.  And, the fact that these young 20-somethings pulling away from arguably the biggest record company in the States. 
 

I realize that Emily has already worked through a lot of this, but I just want to be clear. You have stressed the importance of primary sources, which you define as being The Beach Boys. And I may be wrong in this assumption, but I feel like this means that when it comes to say a (in this case hypothetical) contradictory statement between, say, David Anderle and Al Jardine, you would take the word of Jardine given that Jardine is a primary source. And yet here you are dismissing the possibility that The Beach Boys themselves were opposed to doing appearances on TV, something Mike Love directly stated, because you believe he is possibly being "evasive." Now, to me, this seems a little bit like having it both ways. That being said, do you have any evidence that can prove that Mike was being evasive in order to not deal with an issue of the marketing team's failure to promote the band? Or is this simply what Emily calls speculation or, to borrow a term that you have used to dismiss the Siegel article, conjecture?

[filledeplage]

I'm curious if those who participated in this thread would comment on how this interview adds to this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDKaPv-vq58&app=desktop

In this interview which takes place just as Pet Sounds is being released, Mike says at around 7:07 that "we don't get jazzed too much on TV. In the first place, I don't think TV does us justice and vice versa. And so we'd just rather do personal appearance and...records and personal appearances. We'll do TV once in a while, you know. But we aren't worried about it."

Given Mike's statements here, could one not conclude that the decision not to be doing performances on TV around this time was a personal decision made by the band who seemed to think that those kinds of appearances were not that helpful? I'm curious what those who directed their critique towards those in marketing and PR would say about Mike's comments here.

CSM - Thanks SO much for that! I loved it! That mention of the great Arnie (Woo-Woo) Ginsburg -- one of my favorite DJ's alongside Cousin Bruce Morrow!

At any rate, I was listening to the "conditions" that the TV people seemed to want, not so much that they didn't want them on TV - "lip synching!" (Milly Vanilly?)

Not so much, that they did not want to appear.  They seemed to want live vocals included.

I'm not sure I agree with that reading. After Mike says what I quote him as saying above, the DJ says that lip synching can be a problem and Mike responds by saying, that, yes, "that's another thing." So, yes, they didn't like lip synching and would rather play live but this seems to be just part of the reason why they didn't like doing TV.

Milli Vanilli didn't just lip-synch. They lip-synched to vocals they never even sang!

Question is whether the record company or the PR people were advancing their interests by not making TV part of the overall promotional package, alongside their "teeny bopper" magazines...

It's hard to say but either way in May 1966, The Beach Boys weren't too interested in making TV appearances as part of the marketing campaign.

If I had to guess, it sounds like it is more complicated than that.  Maybe it was "diplomatically evasive" because TV promotion was a place where the PR people/record company had not done their jobs, and may have led, only a few months later to the BRI incorporation.   

Hmm...
Sounds a bit like speculation, which I know you don't really encourage, FdP.

Emily - absolutely not.  I am looking at events or (lack of events) - such as no TV appearances contemporaneous to releases of LP's.  And, the fact that these young 20-somethings pulling away from arguably the biggest record company in the States. 
 

I realize that Emily has already worked through a lot of this, but I just want to be clear. You have stressed the importance of primary sources, which you define as being The Beach Boys. And I may be wrong in this assumption, but I feel like this means that when it comes to say a (in this case hypothetical) contradictory statement between, say, David Anderle and Al Jardine, you would take the word of Jardine given that Jardine is a primary source. And yet here you are dismissing the possibility that The Beach Boys themselves were opposed to doing appearances on TV, something Mike Love directly stated, because you believe he is possibly being "evasive." Now, to me, this seems a little bit like having it both ways. That being said, do you have any evidence that can prove that Mike was being evasive in order to not deal with an issue of the marketing team's failure to promote the band? Or is this simply what Emily calls speculation or, to borrow a term that you have used to dismiss the Siegel article, conjecture?

CSM - primary sources are what I look to first.  (like the Constitution or principals)  Al Jardine is talking about their work process. 

Mike's statement was sort of non-committal. And this is just a semantic considering that they were forming BRI soon (July of 1966, IIRC) after. 

Mike was smart to say nothing at that time.  "Anything you say, can and will be held against you."   

The evidence is the lack of evidence of TV appearances.  For example, in some instances, when you go to prove to an employer that you have "no criminal record," it is the "absence of entries in the log," that proves that you have "no record."

The "absence" of a fact can be used to "prove another fact."   Would it be reasonable to turn down a national TV appearance to perform when they had a new LP? Would they have?  Likely not.  Were most recording artists featured on TV when they released new stuff?  You betcha. The Beach Boys were "conspicuous by their absence."

Siegel trashed Carole Kaye.  Didn't know her role after being embedded for months?  Is that a primary source?  Not for me; it is not. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

CSM - primary sources are what I look to first.  (like the Constitution or principals)  Al Jardine is talking about their work process. 

I'm not sure what this point about Jardine means. As I said, the case of Jardine vs. Anderle was purely hypothetical and never happened.

Mike's statement was sort of non-committal.

He says, "we don't get jazzed too much on TV. In the first place, I don't think TV does us justice and vice versa. And so we'd just rather do personal appearance and...records and personal appearances." That doesn't sound non-committal to me. He goes on to say that the would go on TV but he obviously makes the case that it's not something the band enjoys doing.

And this is just a semantic considering that they were forming BRI soon (July of 1966, IIRC) after. 

It's not semantic and the formation of BRI has nothing to do with this quote.

Mike was smart to say nothing at that time. 

What evidence do you have that he was concealing something?    

The evidence is the lack of evidence of TV appearances. 

And I'd respond to that by saying the evidence for that is Mike outright saying that the band doesn't like to TV appearances because they don't do the band justice. What evidence do you have to show that any other party was stopping The Beach Boys from appearing on television or is the only evidence that exists on the matter come from the band themselves?

For example, in some instances, when you go to prove to an employer that you have "no criminal record," it is the "absence of entries in the log," that proves that you have "no record."

But in this case, there is no "absence" of evidence -- there is a band member saying outright that the band doesn't like doing TV spots.

Would it be reasonable to turn down a national TV appearance to perform when they had a new LP? Would they have?  Likely not. 

What is your evidence for this?

Were most recording artists featured on TV when they released new stuff?  You betcha.

The really higher end tended not to do it. The Beatles virtually stopped doing TV appearances by this time. I don't think you can find a single TV performance by them in 1967, a benchmark year for them.

Siegel trashed Carole Kaye.  Didn't know her role after being embedded for months?  Is that a primary source?  Not for me; it is not.

To be perfectly honest, I don't really understand how you are using the term primary source. I don't particularly think like a journalist where I think this idea of primary is coming from. In the academic world, a secondary source can just as valid/trustworthy/accurate as a primary source, if not more so. So I'm unclear on how you are evoking this terminology. In that case, it's a conversation that's probably best reserved for elsewhere and maybe a journalist could possibly take it up. That being said, when I used it in the post, I was trying to establish the kind of value that primary sources have for you.

[filledeplage]

CSM - I responded fully.  And, don't go much for the split post. 

I am not thinking like a journalist, now.

Leaving things out is not unreasonable to the prying eyes and ears of the press.  If I were in "stealth mode" with a company to be emerging, I might not comment or have something scripted ready (that is me, looking at what I consider reasonable and not Mike.)   

And, you think the BRI incorporation, on the horizon has no relationship? Especially since a Greatest Hits, Vo.l 1, was coming out in 1966, in July.

The fact that there are no appearances indicate that something is missing to me and find it a problem.  I care what band members have to say and not the opinions of "others" who are not band members.  They are largely irrelevant as far as I am concerned.  Everyone has an opinion, but not everyone is a principal.  

 

[Emily]

Yes, and in this case the only evidence presented for why they didn't do more TV is that a principal said they don't like to.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Which is pretty compelling evidence, I'd say.

[filledeplage]

Yes, and in this case the only evidence presented for why they didn't do more TV is that a principal said they don't like to.

Ever consider the possibility that they were not "invited to the party on TV?"

And that could have been a source of rejection or embarrassment among all the band members, including Carl, Dennis, or Al?  

Could they have chosen not to lip-synch?  Why would they do California Girls and Good Vibrations in 1968? Think they didn't want to do GOK or WIBN or Sloop on national TV?  

And even do lesser hits later, such as Cease to Resist on Mike Douglas in later years?  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Yes, and in this case the only evidence presented for why they didn't do more TV is that a principal said they don't like to.

Ever consider the possibility that they were not "invited to the party on TV?"

And that could have been a source of rejection or embarrassment among all the band members, including Carl, Dennis, or Al?  

What is the evidence for this possibility?

[filledeplage]

Yes, and in this case the only evidence presented for why they didn't do more TV is that a principal said they don't like to.

Ever consider the possibility that they were not "invited to the party on TV?"

And that could have been a source of rejection or embarrassment among all the band members, including Carl, Dennis, or Al?  

What is the evidence for this possibility?

CSM - I see you cut off three big 1966 hits from my response.

What is a reasonable explanation for GOK, WIBN and Sloop not to be on US TV?  All Top Ten hits.

The evidence is the absence of TV appearances. They were on for many other hits, constantly. The time break occurs in late 1965 through 1968. Can you explain why these hits were not on TV?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Yes, and in this case the only evidence presented for why they didn't do more TV is that a principal said they don't like to.

Ever consider the possibility that they were not "invited to the party on TV?"

And that could have been a source of rejection or embarrassment among all the band members, including Carl, Dennis, or Al?  

What is the evidence for this possibility?

CSM - I see you cut off three big 1966 hits from my response.

What is a reasonable explanation for GOK, WIBN and Sloop not to be on US TV?  All Top Ten hits.

The evidence is the absence of TV appearances. They were on for many other hits, constantly. The time break occurs in late 1965 through 1968. Can you explain why these hits were not on TV?

I cut them off because you don't like me splitting up your posts and I was trying to be accommodating. I guess you can't win for trying!

There was a promo video made for Sloop. Did that ever air? What about that other promo vid with the boys in the monster masks? Did that air anywhere on television?

The fact that the Beach Boys weren't on television does not prove that they were not "invited to the party."

[filledeplage]

Yes, and in this case the only evidence presented for why they didn't do more TV is that a principal said they don't like to.

Ever consider the possibility that they were not "invited to the party on TV?"

And that could have been a source of rejection or embarrassment among all the band members, including Carl, Dennis, or Al?  

What is the evidence for this possibility?

CSM - I see you cut off three big 1966 hits from my response.

What is a reasonable explanation for GOK, WIBN and Sloop not to be on US TV?  All Top Ten hits.

The evidence is the absence of TV appearances. They were on for many other hits, constantly. The time break occurs in late 1965 through 1968. Can you explain why these hits were not on TV?

I cut them off because you don't like me splitting up your posts and I was trying to be accommodating. I guess you can't win for trying!

There was a promo video made for Sloop. Did that ever air? What about that other promo vid with the boys in the monster masks? Did that air anywhere on television?

The fact that the Beach Boys weren't on television is not proof that they were not "invited to the party."

The industry practice was a performance and little interview with the bands, not a video. VHF and MTV were not even live for 20 years hence. 

Every band, whether The Turtles, Paul Revere, etc., played their songs to a live screaming audience.  This was absent. They did their other hits such as California Girls on Bob Hope and Jack Benny.  Why not GOK, the second (or top) song on the planet? 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Yes, and in this case the only evidence presented for why they didn't do more TV is that a principal said they don't like to.

Ever consider the possibility that they were not "invited to the party on TV?"

And that could have been a source of rejection or embarrassment among all the band members, including Carl, Dennis, or Al?  

What is the evidence for this possibility?

CSM - I see you cut off three big 1966 hits from my response.

What is a reasonable explanation for GOK, WIBN and Sloop not to be on US TV?  All Top Ten hits.

The evidence is the absence of TV appearances. They were on for many other hits, constantly. The time break occurs in late 1965 through 1968. Can you explain why these hits were not on TV?

I cut them off because you don't like me splitting up your posts and I was trying to be accommodating. I guess you can't win for trying!

There was a promo video made for Sloop. Did that ever air? What about that other promo vid with the boys in the monster masks? Did that air anywhere on television?

The fact that the Beach Boys weren't on television is not proof that they were not "invited to the party."

The industry practice was a performance and little interview with the bands, not a video. VHF and MTV were not even live for 20 years hence.  

Every band, whether The Turtles, Paul Revere, etc., played their songs to a live screaming audience.  This was absent. They did their other hits such as California Girls on Bob Hope and Jack Benny.  Why not GOK, the second (or top) song on the planet?  

Not every band. As I noted, by that time, The Beatles were not doing those kinds of TV appearances anymore, probably for similar reasons as The Beach Boys.

The reason why I brought up the promo videos is because if they had been shown, it would be difficult to argue that they weren't invited to the party on TV.

The reason why not GOK has been answered. By May of 1966, The Beach Boys had decided they didn't like doing TV appearances anymore. We know this because they said so. Maybe in 1965 they still didn't mind or they did them begrudgingly as a kind of one-off thing, as Mike says that they might continue to do. But ultimately they didn't play the song live because in their words TV didn't do them justice and they'd rather do "records and personal appearances." We have no evidence that suggests any other reason.

[filledeplage]

Yes, and in this case the only evidence presented for why they didn't do more TV is that a principal said they don't like to.

Ever consider the possibility that they were not "invited to the party on TV?"

And that could have been a source of rejection or embarrassment among all the band members, including Carl, Dennis, or Al?  

What is the evidence for this possibility?

CSM - I see you cut off three big 1966 hits from my response.

What is a reasonable explanation for GOK, WIBN and Sloop not to be on US TV?  All Top Ten hits.

The evidence is the absence of TV appearances. They were on for many other hits, constantly. The time break occurs in late 1965 through 1968. Can you explain why these hits were not on TV?

I cut them off because you don't like me splitting up your posts and I was trying to be accommodating. I guess you can't win for trying!

There was a promo video made for Sloop. Did that ever air? What about that other promo vid with the boys in the monster masks? Did that air anywhere on television?

The fact that the Beach Boys weren't on television is not proof that they were not "invited to the party."

The industry practice was a performance and little interview with the bands, not a video. VHF and MTV were not even live for 20 years hence.  

Every band, whether The Turtles, Paul Revere, etc., played their songs to a live screaming audience.  This was absent. They did their other hits such as California Girls on Bob Hope and Jack Benny.  Why not GOK, the second (or top) song on the planet?  

Not every band. As I noted, by that time, The Beatles were not doing those kinds of TV appearances anymore, probably for similar reasons as The Beach Boys.

The reason why I brought up the promo videos is because if they had been shown, it would be difficult to argue that they weren't invited to the party on TV.

The reason why not GOK has been answered. By May of 1966, The Beach Boys had decided they didn't like doing TV appearances anymore. We know this because they said so. Maybe in 1965 they still didn't mind or they did them begrudgingly as a kind of one-off thing, as Mike says that they might continue to do. But ultimately they didn't play the song live because in their words TV didn't do them justice and they'd rather do "records and personal appearances." We have no evidence that suggests any other reason.

The Beatles are irrelevant.  These are The Beach Boys. This is the US. 

If they did lesser songs such as Cease to Resist, later, that argument makes little sense to me. 

It does not explain the near 3 year TV void when they are doing their greatest hits.

Were they blackballed by the music industry for the perception of avant-garde music when the Beatles avant-garde music was highly promoted?

Had they reached their end-point with surf-cars-girls motifs?  Were they expendable at that point? 

They certainly were screwed in the UK for the 1967 TIKH tour.

Who did that?  Apparently the principals were not happy and are on record as such.     

 

[Emily]

Yes, and in this case the only evidence presented for why they didn't do more TV is that a principal said they don't like to.

Ever consider the possibility that they were not "invited to the party on TV?"

And that could have been a source of rejection or embarrassment among all the band members, including Carl, Dennis, or Al?  

What is the evidence for this possibility?

CSM - I see you cut off three big 1966 hits from my response.

What is a reasonable explanation for GOK, WIBN and Sloop not to be on US TV?  All Top Ten hits.

The evidence is the absence of TV appearances. They were on for many other hits, constantly. The time break occurs in late 1965 through 1968. Can you explain why these hits were not on TV?

I cut them off because you don't like me splitting up your posts and I was trying to be accommodating. I guess you can't win for trying!

There was a promo video made for Sloop. Did that ever air? What about that other promo vid with the boys in the monster masks? Did that air anywhere on television?

The fact that the Beach Boys weren't on television is not proof that they were not "invited to the party."

The industry practice was a performance and little interview with the bands, not a video. VHF and MTV were not even live for 20 years hence.  

Every band, whether The Turtles, Paul Revere, etc., played their songs to a live screaming audience.  This was absent. They did their other hits such as California Girls on Bob Hope and Jack Benny.  Why not GOK, the second (or top) song on the planet?  

Not every band. As I noted, by that time, The Beatles were not doing those kinds of TV appearances anymore, probably for similar reasons as The Beach Boys.

The reason why I brought up the promo videos is because if they had been shown, it would be difficult to argue that they weren't invited to the party on TV.

The reason why not GOK has been answered. By May of 1966, The Beach Boys had decided they didn't like doing TV appearances anymore. We know this because they said so. Maybe in 1965 they still didn't mind or they did them begrudgingly as a kind of one-off thing, as Mike says that they might continue to do. But ultimately they didn't play the song live because in their words TV didn't do them justice and they'd rather do "records and personal appearances." We have no evidence that suggests any other reason.

The Beatles are irrelevant.  These are The Beach Boys. This is the US. 

If they did lesser songs such as Cease to Resist, later, that argument makes little sense to me. 

It does not explain the near 3 year TV void when they are doing their greatest hits.

Were they blackballed by the music industry for the perception of avant-garde music when the Beatles avant-garde music was highly promoted?

Had they reached their end-point with surf-cars-girls motifs?  Were they expendable at that point? 

They certainly were screwed in the UK for the 1967 TIKH tour.

Who did that?  Apparently the principals were not happy and are on record as such.     

 

The Beatles may well be relevant; the Beatles didn't like doing TV and started sending out promo videos instead. Just after that the Beach Boys who also didn't like doing TV started sending out promo videos. Makes sense and given that the only evidence is that the Beach Boys didn't like doing TV it's really the only supported conclusion available. Thanks for finally providing some evidence so we can stop the conjecture, CSM!

[filledeplage]

Yes, and in this case the only evidence presented for why they didn't do more TV is that a principal said they don't like to.

Ever consider the possibility that they were not "invited to the party on TV?"

And that could have been a source of rejection or embarrassment among all the band members, including Carl, Dennis, or Al?  

What is the evidence for this possibility?

CSM - I see you cut off three big 1966 hits from my response.

What is a reasonable explanation for GOK, WIBN and Sloop not to be on US TV?  All Top Ten hits.

The evidence is the absence of TV appearances. They were on for many other hits, constantly. The time break occurs in late 1965 through 1968. Can you explain why these hits were not on TV?

I cut them off because you don't like me splitting up your posts and I was trying to be accommodating. I guess you can't win for trying!

There was a promo video made for Sloop. Did that ever air? What about that other promo vid with the boys in the monster masks? Did that air anywhere on television?

The fact that the Beach Boys weren't on television is not proof that they were not "invited to the party."

The industry practice was a performance and little interview with the bands, not a video. VHF and MTV were not even live for 20 years hence.  

Every band, whether The Turtles, Paul Revere, etc., played their songs to a live screaming audience.  This was absent. They did their other hits such as California Girls on Bob Hope and Jack Benny.  Why not GOK, the second (or top) song on the planet?  

Not every band. As I noted, by that time, The Beatles were not doing those kinds of TV appearances anymore, probably for similar reasons as The Beach Boys.

The reason why I brought up the promo videos is because if they had been shown, it would be difficult to argue that they weren't invited to the party on TV.

The reason why not GOK has been answered. By May of 1966, The Beach Boys had decided they didn't like doing TV appearances anymore. We know this because they said so. Maybe in 1965 they still didn't mind or they did them begrudgingly as a kind of one-off thing, as Mike says that they might continue to do. But ultimately they didn't play the song live because in their words TV didn't do them justice and they'd rather do "records and personal appearances." We have no evidence that suggests any other reason.

The Beatles are irrelevant.  These are The Beach Boys. This is the US.  

If they did lesser songs such as Cease to Resist, later, that argument makes little sense to me.  

It does not explain the near 3 year TV void when they are doing their greatest hits.

Were they blackballed by the music industry for the perception of avant-garde music when the Beatles avant-garde music was highly promoted?

Had they reached their end-point with surf-cars-girls motifs?  Were they expendable at that point?  

They certainly were screwed in the UK for the 1967 TIKH tour.

Who did that?  Apparently the principals were not happy and are on record as such.    

 

The Beatles may well be relevant; the Beatles didn't like doing TV and started sending out promo videos instead. Just after that the Beach Boys who also didn't like doing TV started sending out promo videos. Makes sense and given that the only evidence is that the Beach Boys didn't like doing TV it's really the only supported conclusion available. Thanks for finally providing some evidence so we can stop the conjecture, CSM!

Emily - you grew up with MTV.  I grew up with live TV.  The Beatles were based in the UK.  There is an unaccounted for void on live TV.  I have no idea how the Beatles were promoted in the UK, before cable TV.

And, I don't agree that an opportunity to promote on TV would be passed by, especially if performed (as it should have been) as a live performance and not a lip-sync. How much dollar value is put on a live appearance to promote an upcoming LP? Pet Sounds was under-promoted as far as I am concerned.  

That is inconsistent with the rest of their careers, whether on Johnny Carson, Mike Douglas, Bob Hope, Joan Rivers.  Or Shindig, Where the Action is, or any other teen-based shows like American Bandstand.  The Sunrays were on Where the Action is.  Almost every other band.  Why not them?  

[Emily]

Yes, and in this case the only evidence presented for why they didn't do more TV is that a principal said they don't like to.

Ever consider the possibility that they were not "invited to the party on TV?"

And that could have been a source of rejection or embarrassment among all the band members, including Carl, Dennis, or Al?  

What is the evidence for this possibility?

CSM - I see you cut off three big 1966 hits from my response.

What is a reasonable explanation for GOK, WIBN and Sloop not to be on US TV?  All Top Ten hits.

The evidence is the absence of TV appearances. They were on for many other hits, constantly. The time break occurs in late 1965 through 1968. Can you explain why these hits were not on TV?

I cut them off because you don't like me splitting up your posts and I was trying to be accommodating. I guess you can't win for trying!

There was a promo video made for Sloop. Did that ever air? What about that other promo vid with the boys in the monster masks? Did that air anywhere on television?

The fact that the Beach Boys weren't on television is not proof that they were not "invited to the party."

The industry practice was a performance and little interview with the bands, not a video. VHF and MTV were not even live for 20 years hence.  

Every band, whether The Turtles, Paul Revere, etc., played their songs to a live screaming audience.  This was absent. They did their other hits such as California Girls on Bob Hope and Jack Benny.  Why not GOK, the second (or top) song on the planet?  

Not every band. As I noted, by that time, The Beatles were not doing those kinds of TV appearances anymore, probably for similar reasons as The Beach Boys.

The reason why I brought up the promo videos is because if they had been shown, it would be difficult to argue that they weren't invited to the party on TV.

The reason why not GOK has been answered. By May of 1966, The Beach Boys had decided they didn't like doing TV appearances anymore. We know this because they said so. Maybe in 1965 they still didn't mind or they did them begrudgingly as a kind of one-off thing, as Mike says that they might continue to do. But ultimately they didn't play the song live because in their words TV didn't do them justice and they'd rather do "records and personal appearances." We have no evidence that suggests any other reason.

The Beatles are irrelevant.  These are The Beach Boys. This is the US.  

If they did lesser songs such as Cease to Resist, later, that argument makes little sense to me.  

It does not explain the near 3 year TV void when they are doing their greatest hits.

Were they blackballed by the music industry for the perception of avant-garde music when the Beatles avant-garde music was highly promoted?

Had they reached their end-point with surf-cars-girls motifs?  Were they expendable at that point?  

They certainly were screwed in the UK for the 1967 TIKH tour.

Who did that?  Apparently the principals were not happy and are on record as such.    

 

The Beatles may well be relevant; the Beatles didn't like doing TV and started sending out promo videos instead. Just after that the Beach Boys who also didn't like doing TV started sending out promo videos. Makes sense and given that the only evidence is that the Beach Boys didn't like doing TV it's really the only supported conclusion available. Thanks for finally providing some evidence so we can stop the conjecture, CSM!

Emily - you grew up with MTV.  I grew up with live TV.  The Beatles were based in the UK.  There is an unaccounted for void on live TV.  I have no idea how the Beatles were promoted in the UK, before cable TV.

And, I don't agree that an opportunity to promote on TV would be passed by, especially if performed (as it should have been) as a live performance and not a lip-sync. How much dollar value is put on a live appearance to promote an upcoming LP? Pet Sounds was under-promoted as far as I am concerned.  

That is inconsistent with the rest of their careers, whether on Johnny Carson, Mike Douglas, Bob Hope, Joan Rivers.  Or Shindig, Where the Action is, or any other teen-based shows like American Bandstand.  The Sunrays were on Where the Action is.  Almost every other band.  Why not them?  

It is perfectly accounted for by a direct quote at the exact time we are discussing by one of the principals that they don't like doing TV!

[felipe]

Here's the promo you were all bothering Capitol for not producing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2QM_H3akLk&t=5m55s

[filledeplage]

Yes, and in this case the only evidence presented for why they didn't do more TV is that a principal said they don't like to.

Ever consider the possibility that they were not "invited to the party on TV?"

And that could have been a source of rejection or embarrassment among all the band members, including Carl, Dennis, or Al?  

What is the evidence for this possibility?

CSM - I see you cut off three big 1966 hits from my response.

What is a reasonable explanation for GOK, WIBN and Sloop not to be on US TV?  All Top Ten hits.

The evidence is the absence of TV appearances. They were on for many other hits, constantly. The time break occurs in late 1965 through 1968. Can you explain why these hits were not on TV?

I cut them off because you don't like me splitting up your posts and I was trying to be accommodating. I guess you can't win for trying!

There was a promo video made for Sloop. Did that ever air? What about that other promo vid with the boys in the monster masks? Did that air anywhere on television?

The fact that the Beach Boys weren't on television is not proof that they were not "invited to the party."

The industry practice was a performance and little interview with the bands, not a video. VHF and MTV were not even live for 20 years hence.  

Every band, whether The Turtles, Paul Revere, etc., played their songs to a live screaming audience.  This was absent. They did their other hits such as California Girls on Bob Hope and Jack Benny.  Why not GOK, the second (or top) song on the planet?  

Not every band. As I noted, by that time, The Beatles were not doing those kinds of TV appearances anymore, probably for similar reasons as The Beach Boys.

The reason why I brought up the promo videos is because if they had been shown, it would be difficult to argue that they weren't invited to the party on TV.

The reason why not GOK has been answered. By May of 1966, The Beach Boys had decided they didn't like doing TV appearances anymore. We know this because they said so. Maybe in 1965 they still didn't mind or they did them begrudgingly as a kind of one-off thing, as Mike says that they might continue to do. But ultimately they didn't play the song live because in their words TV didn't do them justice and they'd rather do "records and personal appearances." We have no evidence that suggests any other reason.

The Beatles are irrelevant.  These are The Beach Boys. This is the US.  

If they did lesser songs such as Cease to Resist, later, that argument makes little sense to me.  

It does not explain the near 3 year TV void when they are doing their greatest hits.

Were they blackballed by the music industry for the perception of avant-garde music when the Beatles avant-garde music was highly promoted?

Had they reached their end-point with surf-cars-girls motifs?  Were they expendable at that point?  

They certainly were screwed in the UK for the 1967 TIKH tour.

Who did that?  Apparently the principals were not happy and are on record as such.    

 

The Beatles may well be relevant; the Beatles didn't like doing TV and started sending out promo videos instead. Just after that the Beach Boys who also didn't like doing TV started sending out promo videos. Makes sense and given that the only evidence is that the Beach Boys didn't like doing TV it's really the only supported conclusion available. Thanks for finally providing some evidence so we can stop the conjecture, CSM!

Emily - you grew up with MTV.  I grew up with live TV.  The Beatles were based in the UK.  There is an unaccounted for void on live TV.  I have no idea how the Beatles were promoted in the UK, before cable TV.

And, I don't agree that an opportunity to promote on TV would be passed by, especially if performed (as it should have been) as a live performance and not a lip-sync. How much dollar value is put on a live appearance to promote an upcoming LP? Pet Sounds was under-promoted as far as I am concerned.  

That is inconsistent with the rest of their careers, whether on Johnny Carson, Mike Douglas, Bob Hope, Joan Rivers.  Or Shindig, Where the Action is, or any other teen-based shows like American Bandstand.  The Sunrays were on Where the Action is.  Almost every other band.  Why not them?  

It is perfectly accounted for by a direct quote at the exact time we are discussing by one of the principals that they don't like doing TV!

Emily - it was an off-the-cuff remark that does not support in any way the absence of the band from the TV screens for 3 years and the concurrent incompetence of the management.  Nor it is credible, with the various variety shows that some hosts would not  have jumped at the chance to have The Beach Boys on their shows. No one turned down that TV exposure to support concert ticket sales, as well as LP/single sales. 

Why would they break their backs touring, to stay in the spotlight, and reject TV as a medium for promotion, because "they didn't like it?"