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

[guitarfool2002]

The single hit #1 and stayed there in multiple American regions and markets for close to a full month. In Europe too.

Just how bad or how lacking was the promotion to have a single sitting at #1 for more than a week, in the case of GV spending multiple weeks as the top single in various markets?

If the single stiffed, we'd have something to criticize. #1 for more than a week - Then, as now, quite a major feat for any record or musician.

Whatever was done or wasn't done, someone did a corking good job promoting it to that level of success.

GF - that was all radio.   There was no GV performed until well over a year later in 1968.   So, no Darlin' or Wild Honey on film. (that I can find)

They did I can Hear music - http://youtu.be/vzCy0VKMhUs     (20/20)

Do It Again - http://youtu.be/eLFAYaae0


They did Never Learn not to love (1968) with Dennis on lead, Carl on Drums. - Mike Douglas show.

http://youtu.be/810v2bVX8j4

They did a real bona fide promo for Breakaway and Celebrate the News on Mike Douglas with Carl on drums and Dennis on lead on July 8, 1969 - with the LP of 20/20 in hand.  Mike Douglas.

Enjoy.  

http://youtu.be/sobVMqnEIOI

Hope it copies.  - so up to that point, they got  20/20 on national US TV - real promotion.  

And Brian and Mike Douglas from 1976.

http://youtu.be/2gQD2g6F7y8

Hope they all copy.  

Note the white jacket on Brian.  

GV went to #1 regardless if there was or wasn't a live TV performance of the song. So did any number of hit singles that reached #1 from that era. This notion of music videos being pioneered by someone...they were around since the 1930's. Ricky Nelson's videos on Ozzie and Harriet did as much for promoting records through a TV show as anything, when Ozzie started featuring clips of Ricky and James Burton miming to a record at the end of those episodes, the records started selling if there was a single available for it and the kids watching Ricky, James Burton, and Joe Osborn lip-synch to it on the show wanted to buy it. Bingo - There was something there.

In the mid-60's, The Beatles began filming clips of themselves miming to their latest single specifically to send to the US so Ed Sullivan, Hollywood Palace, and other shows could air it and they wouldn't need to fly to the US to perform it for broadcast. Very soon after the first clips, which were basic miming clips, they began getting more artistic with the film. Hence, Paperback Writer and Rain were as much short films and imagery as they were of the band standing there pretending to play the song. By the time Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane came around, any notion of showing the band pretending to actually perform the song were ditched in favor of making a film with some artistic and visual draw. Depending on the outlet, in the UK the musicians' union had a ban on "miming" which meant there had to be a specific quota of "live" performance on clips shown on TV. It varied, but it explains why some performances are a live vocal mic set to the prerecorded band track.

Brian did the same thing with the GV promo film in the fall of 1966, it was a short film full of imagery and vignettes rather than a stand-up shot of the band miming to the backing track - In fact there are no instruments shown in the promo at all - and it went to #1. There was a shift in direction across the board, not specifically thanks to the Beatles (or the Monkees for that matter who had premiered in September 1966 and had music videos in every episode), but just part of the changing direction of how songs were promoted using film and video.

All of the GV films that were made and shown in the UK and US in Fall 1966 were in line with all of that. As music became a studio creation not specifically geared to be reproduced live, so did music film and video become something beyond showing the band pretending to perform the song. Some songs couldn't be performed unless they rigged up a tape machine like the Hollies would do to play "Carrie Ann" live with the steel drum break.

The fact that GV not only hit #1 but stayed there for multiple weeks and stayed top 10 for well over a month showed that promotions which were done worked beyond what most artists would have expected. Numerous weeks at #1 for a single? Quite a feat.

This notion that the lack of a TV appearance where the band is shown performing GV or any single "live" showed a lack of promotion doesn't make sense considering the success of the single.

And as I mentioned in the other thread, GV actually did premiere on TV. Here is the clipping from Billboard magazine that described it, dated early December 1966:



That was the appearance where Michael Vosse and Brian went to KHJ studios to be interviewed and watch as the kids danced to the new single being premiered. It made Billboard magazine as news because records were not premiered on TV...but GV was.

[filledeplage]

The single hit #1 and stayed there in multiple American regions and markets for close to a full month. In Europe too.

Just how bad or how lacking was the promotion to have a single sitting at #1 for more than a week, in the case of GV spending multiple weeks as the top single in various markets?

If the single stiffed, we'd have something to criticize. #1 for more than a week - Then, as now, quite a major feat for any record or musician.

Whatever was done or wasn't done, someone did a corking good job promoting it to that level of success.

GF - that was all radio.   There was no GV performed until well over a year later in 1968.   So, no Darlin' or Wild Honey on film. (that I can find)

They did I can Hear music - http://youtu.be/vzCy0VKMhUs     (20/20)

Do It Again - http://youtu.be/eLFAYaae0


They did Never Learn not to love (1968) with Dennis on lead, Carl on Drums. - Mike Douglas show.

http://youtu.be/810v2bVX8j4

They did a real bona fide promo for Breakaway and Celebrate the News on Mike Douglas with Carl on drums and Dennis on lead on July 8, 1969 - with the LP of 20/20 in hand.  Mike Douglas.

Enjoy.  

http://youtu.be/sobVMqnEIOI

Hope it copies.  - so up to that point, they got  20/20 on national US TV - real promotion.  

And Brian and Mike Douglas from 1976.

http://youtu.be/2gQD2g6F7y8

Hope they all copy.  

Note the white jacket on Brian.  

GV went to #1 regardless if there was or wasn't a live TV performance of the song. So did any number of hit singles that reached #1 from that era. This notion of music videos being pioneered by someone...they were around since the 1930's. Ricky Nelson's videos on Ozzie and Harriet did as much for promoting records through a TV show as anything, when Ozzie started featuring clips of Ricky and james Burton miming to a record at the end of those episodes, the records started selling if there was a single available for it and the kids watching Ricky, James Burton, and Joe Osborn lip-synch to it on the show wanted to buy it. Bingo - There was something there.

In the mid-60's, The Beatles began filming clips of themselves miming to their latest single specifically to send to the US som Ed Sullivan, Hollywood Palace, and other shows could air that and that wouldn't need to fly to the US to perform it for broadcast. Very soon after the first clips, which were basic miming clips, they began getting more artistic with the film. Hence, Paperback Writer and Rain were as much short films and imagery as they were of the band standing there pretending to play the song. By the time Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane came around, any notion of showing the band pretending to actually perform the song were ditched in favor of making a film with some artistic and visual draw. Depending on the outlet, in the UK the musicians' union had a ban on "miming" which meant there had to be a specific quota of "live" performance on clips shown on TV. It varied, but it explains why some performances are a live vocal mic set to the prerecorded band track.

Brian did the same thing with the GV promo film in the fall of 1966. There was a shift in direction across the board, not specifically thanks to the Beatles (or the Monkees for that matter who had premiered in September 1966 and had music videos in every episode), but just part of the changing direction of how songs were promoted using film and video.

All of the GV films that were made and shown in the UK and US in Fall 1966 were in line with all of that. As music became a studio creation not specifically geared to be reproduced live, so did music film and video become something beyond showing the band pretending to perform the song.

The fact that GV not only hit #1 but stayed there for multiple weeks and stayed top 10 for well over a month showed that promotions which were done worked beyond what most artists would have expected. Numerous weeks at #1 for a single? Quite a feat.

This notion that the lack of a TV appearance where the band is shown performing GV or any single "live" doesn't make sense considering the success of the single.

And as I mentioned in the other thread, GV actually did premiere on TV. Here is the clipping from Billboard magazine that described it, dated early December 1966:



That was the appearance where Michael Vosse and Brian went to KHJ studios to be interviewed and watch as the kids danced to the new single being premiered. It made Billboard magazine because records were not premiered on TV...but GV was.

GF - those are West Coast articles.  That does not equate to a systematic national promotion.  No way. 

Ed Sullivan or Bob Hope/Jack Benny for California Girls or Andy Williams for Help Me Rhonda, or any one of the other "go to" national network TV outlets that was a "required" element of a national model of promotion for any important single that would be contemporaneous to tour and ticket promotion all of which was going on. 

The national network TV galvanizes ticket sales when the band sits down with the host (not done on Ed Sullivan) and does the "tour talk" and holds up the LP as on Mike Douglas.  It all reinforces the learning curve among all those other bands to keep the standing out, head and shoulders above the others.

Footage set to the single track does not equate to a stand-up performance and interview on a national TV network and may have made the incremental difference between Good Vibrations  being #1 and falling behind Winchester Cathedral for record of the year in 1966 as it did. 

There were already missed TV appearance opportunities with WIBN/GOK.  There was a void in 1966-1967 for  national TV, which is indefensible in my book. 

Brian's appearance on Inside Pop is "it" as far as I can discern for the US.  Their managers needed to maintain a full TV appearance-promotional package alongside touring during that very critical time to keep the "buzz" going.   Just sayin'.   

 

 

[filledeplage]

Winchester Cathedral - the song beat Good Vibrations in 1966 for #1.

http://youtu.be/-xPFVFm8NpA

Seriously.

[Emily]

What if aliens came down from the sky in 1960 and abducted Brian Wilson, so The Beach Boys never even existed. How would the world be different?

Maybe they did.

[Emily]

In 1966-'67, were nationally televised TV appearances by bands typically arranged by the record companies, by the band's management, or a combination of both?

Not sure but my impression is that band appearances were typically arranged by band management. It was certainly so in the case of the Beatles. It's a good question.

[guitarfool2002]

In 1966-'67, were nationally televised TV appearances by bands typically arranged by the record companies, by the band's management, or a combination of both?

Not sure but my impression is that band appearances were typically arranged by band management. It was certainly so in the case of the Beatles. It's a good question.

Ultimately the decision on which acts would appear on these shows came down to the talent bookers from those shows. For all of the lobbying by agents and managers to get their acts on a TV show, if the people booking those shows didn't want the band on, or couldn't fit them into the schedule, that band wouldn't be on the show. In some cases - thinking Neil Young not wanting to play Johnny Carson with the Springfield - the band sdaid no even though the show wanted them booked.

In the case of the Beatles, Sullivan actively pursued them after seeing the hype around British "Beatlemania". Ed himself wanted the Beatles on his "really big shew". He ended up negotiating with Brian Epstein, who offered Sullivan the exclusive on the band's appearances, that stretched into 3 appearances with more possibly to be negotiated (and they were). But in a shrewd way, Epstein also managed to hustle Sullivan who normally didn't allow himself to be hustled.

Epstein offered the multi-appearance exclusive with a condition: Sullivan would also book his other Merseybeat act Gerry And The Pacemakers for an exclusive appearance too. It actually ended up working out well for both sides, Sullivan got the exclusive Beatles run and Gerry ended up with a huge hit that was featured on Sullivan, Ferry Across The Mersey out of it.

But the point is and was, if the show didn't want a group on the air, or simply couldn't schedule when that group was available,  the group didn't get booked. The ultimate call was with the people booking and scheduling the show no matter how much hustling and pressure the managers applied.

Brian traveled to NYC to meet with the Sullivan people some time in 1966 to discuss booking the group for an appearance. This was revealed in a letter from that era. The fact they didn't appear until 1968 might explain, and in '68 they also did their current single Do It Again as the featured song, then GV.

[guitarfool2002]

The single hit #1 and stayed there in multiple American regions and markets for close to a full month. In Europe too.

Just how bad or how lacking was the promotion to have a single sitting at #1 for more than a week, in the case of GV spending multiple weeks as the top single in various markets?

If the single stiffed, we'd have something to criticize. #1 for more than a week - Then, as now, quite a major feat for any record or musician.

Whatever was done or wasn't done, someone did a corking good job promoting it to that level of success.

GF - that was all radio.   There was no GV performed until well over a year later in 1968.   So, no Darlin' or Wild Honey on film. (that I can find)

They did I can Hear music - http://youtu.be/vzCy0VKMhUs     (20/20)

Do It Again - http://youtu.be/eLFAYaae0


They did Never Learn not to love (1968) with Dennis on lead, Carl on Drums. - Mike Douglas show.

http://youtu.be/810v2bVX8j4

They did a real bona fide promo for Breakaway and Celebrate the News on Mike Douglas with Carl on drums and Dennis on lead on July 8, 1969 - with the LP of 20/20 in hand.  Mike Douglas.

Enjoy.  

http://youtu.be/sobVMqnEIOI

Hope it copies.  - so up to that point, they got  20/20 on national US TV - real promotion.  

And Brian and Mike Douglas from 1976.

http://youtu.be/2gQD2g6F7y8

Hope they all copy.  

Note the white jacket on Brian.  

GV went to #1 regardless if there was or wasn't a live TV performance of the song. So did any number of hit singles that reached #1 from that era. This notion of music videos being pioneered by someone...they were around since the 1930's. Ricky Nelson's videos on Ozzie and Harriet did as much for promoting records through a TV show as anything, when Ozzie started featuring clips of Ricky and james Burton miming to a record at the end of those episodes, the records started selling if there was a single available for it and the kids watching Ricky, James Burton, and Joe Osborn lip-synch to it on the show wanted to buy it. Bingo - There was something there.

In the mid-60's, The Beatles began filming clips of themselves miming to their latest single specifically to send to the US som Ed Sullivan, Hollywood Palace, and other shows could air that and that wouldn't need to fly to the US to perform it for broadcast. Very soon after the first clips, which were basic miming clips, they began getting more artistic with the film. Hence, Paperback Writer and Rain were as much short films and imagery as they were of the band standing there pretending to play the song. By the time Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane came around, any notion of showing the band pretending to actually perform the song were ditched in favor of making a film with some artistic and visual draw. Depending on the outlet, in the UK the musicians' union had a ban on "miming" which meant there had to be a specific quota of "live" performance on clips shown on TV. It varied, but it explains why some performances are a live vocal mic set to the prerecorded band track.

Brian did the same thing with the GV promo film in the fall of 1966. There was a shift in direction across the board, not specifically thanks to the Beatles (or the Monkees for that matter who had premiered in September 1966 and had music videos in every episode), but just part of the changing direction of how songs were promoted using film and video.

All of the GV films that were made and shown in the UK and US in Fall 1966 were in line with all of that. As music became a studio creation not specifically geared to be reproduced live, so did music film and video become something beyond showing the band pretending to perform the song.

The fact that GV not only hit #1 but stayed there for multiple weeks and stayed top 10 for well over a month showed that promotions which were done worked beyond what most artists would have expected. Numerous weeks at #1 for a single? Quite a feat.

This notion that the lack of a TV appearance where the band is shown performing GV or any single "live" doesn't make sense considering the success of the single.

And as I mentioned in the other thread, GV actually did premiere on TV. Here is the clipping from Billboard magazine that described it, dated early December 1966:



That was the appearance where Michael Vosse and Brian went to KHJ studios to be interviewed and watch as the kids danced to the new single being premiered. It made Billboard magazine because records were not premiered on TV...but GV was.

GF - those are West Coast articles.  That does not equate to a systematic national promotion.  No way. 

Ed Sullivan or Bob Hope/Jack Benny for California Girls or Andy Williams for Help Me Rhonda, or any one of the other "go to" national network TV outlets that was a "required" element of a national model of promotion for any important single that would be contemporaneous to tour and ticket promotion all of which was going on. 

The national network TV galvanizes ticket sales when the band sits down with the host (not done on Ed Sullivan) and does the "tour talk" and holds up the LP as on Mike Douglas.  It all reinforces the learning curve among all those other bands to keep the standing out, head and shoulders above the others.

Footage set to the single track does not equate to a stand-up performance and interview on a national TV network and may have made the incremental difference between Good Vibrations  being #1 and falling behind Winchester Cathedral for record of the year in 1966 as it did. 

There were already missed TV appearance opportunities with WIBN/GOK.  There was a void in 1966-1967 for  national TV, which is indefensible in my book. 

Brian's appearance on Inside Pop is "it" as far as I can discern for the US.  Their managers needed to maintain a full TV appearance-promotional package alongside touring during that very critical time to keep the "buzz" going.   Just sayin'.   

Bringing it back to this, Billboard was *the* music business trade paper of note just as Variety was the trade paper of note for the film and TV industry. It was a national publication, not just West Coast. And KHJ at that time was the trend-setter as far as formatting, programming, and sequencing because they took the LA pop radio scene by storm and destroyed their competition. It got to a point where KHJ airchecks were being taken by program directors across the country to their own stations to copy the format and methods that made them such a success, down to the way DJ's like Don Steele delivered their presentations and talk-ups. If KHJ did something, first the other Drake-Chenault stations copied it, then the industry took notice and tried to do what KHJ was doing.

If Billboard reported that KHJ had broken a new single on a TV show instead of on their radio station, the industry took notice. This was new stuff at the time it was happening.

What if the TV shows simply did not want to book the Beach Boys in late 1966 to perform or pretend to perform a song on TV? Brian met with Sullivan's people, nothing came of it until 1968.

Bottom line for me is this: How much more should have been expected of a single than to reach number 1, and not only reach number one but to also stay there in various regional markets across the US for multiple weeks? What else could have been done to make any record more successful than hitting number one nationwide on the charts? I'm not understanding what other measure of success we're looking for when a hit record's peak is reaching #1 on the charts.

And whatever promotion was or wasn't done, Good Vibrations reached that peak. So whatever is was worked.

Winchester Cathedral? File that right next to Englebert Humperdinck's "Release Me" which kept the double A-side "Penny Lane / Strawberry Fields Forever" off the #1 spot in 1967. A fluke. I don't see many people in years to come poring over Release Me or Winchester Cathedral or having those songs show up on anyone's "best of" lists. Flukes.

[Emily]

Guitarfool2002,
I'm trying to figure out the business structure:
My reading indicates that a successful band at the time would normally have a general manager, a tour manager, a booking agent, and a pr manager (among others). Some of these roles would be outsourced (to an agency or management firm) rather than taken on as full time band employees. These roles were separate from the label and the band's responsibility (usually the GM took the responsibility on). And this team was responsible for the band's promotional appearances, both live and on TV.
Is that about right?

If so, it seems the label performed its promotional tasks and the gap (if there is one) with live appearances was on the BB team.

As far as I can tell the Beach Boys at that time still had William Morris as their booking agency; do we know who their general manager was, if any, between Murry and Grillo? Was Grillo a gm or just a financial manager? Was Fred Vail still working for them? Who was booking their tour dates?

Everything that I read that mentions the band's management at this time focuses on the Capitol lawsuit, the start-up of Brother, contract negotiations...

Does anyone have any detailed firm information about the business structure at this time?

Regarding the Beatles and Ed Sullivan, Sullivan was prescient, but Epstein was aggressive from the start regarding TV appearances. He rightly perceived that the Beatles' show was as marketable as the Beatles' music and got them on British TV as much as possible.

[guitarfool2002]

There was no template, especially at this time. The ultimate decision rested with the show's booking staff if not the host (as in the case with some of Sullivan's bookings). If the show said no, the artist wouldn't be on. I say there was no template because there were also known "blacklists" in the TV business with acts that were not to be booked for various reasons, sometimes out of personal spite or other personal baggage. No manner of hustling and selling could get certain acts booked onto certain shows.

There was also a lot of crossover and handshake deals as far as who actually handled the bookings or how the process was worked out. Early on the Beach Boys had Milton Berle's nephew Marshall (so he could actually call Berle 'Uncle Miltie' and be accurate!) as their agent and rep at William Morris. Whatever and however he got them booked to various shows, tours, and formats might have included any number of other people involved in the process. But again, the actual shows or venues had the last word, as in yes or no.

Consider this: When the Beach Boys made their first appearance on Ed Sullivan, they were surrounded by hot rods and custom cars, quite a cool visual especially for 1964 to have the band playing around those hot cars.

It was Brian Wilson who set that up. He struck up a conversation with one of the cars' builders and owners in New York at a convention,  and asked first about buying the car (I think - will confirm), then about getting the car to use for the appearance. The guy was shocked when Ed Sullivan actually called him at home to set up the Beach Boys appearance, and he and his hot rod buddies got their cars to CBS studios in NYC and got their cars on the Sullivan show with the Beach Boys. So that started with Brian Wilson - not an agent or a booker or anyone else - talking to the owner about using his car. The Sullivan people through CBS paid the owners to use the cars.

So that was the artist taking the lead on the details of the appearance. I think there were ways it worked, but it also varied case-by-case as to who was actually doing what to set up these appearances.

Also, if a show wanted a band or act that was "hot" at the time, they'd actively pursue them...no hustling or selling necessary by the artist or anyone around them.

[Emily]

There was no template, especially at this time. The ultimate decision rested with the show's booking staff if not the host (as in the case with some of Sullivan's bookings). If the show said no, the artist wouldn't be on. I say there was no template because there were also known "blacklists" in the TV business with acts that were not to be booked for various reasons, sometimes out of personal spite or other personal baggage. No manner of hustling and selling could get certain acts booked onto certain shows.

There was also a lot of crossover and handshake deals as far as who actually handled the bookings or how the process was worked out. Early on the Beach Boys had Milton Berle's nephew Marshall (so he could actually call Berle 'Uncle Miltie' and be accurate!) as their agent and rep at William Morris. Whatever and however he got them booked to various shows, tours, and formats might have included any number of other people involved in the process. But again, the actual shows or venues had the last word, as in yes or no.

Consider this: When the Beach Boys made their first appearance on Ed Sullivan, they were surrounded by hot rods and custom cars, quite a cool visual especially for 1964 to have the band playing around those hot cars.

It was Brian Wilson who set that up. He struck up a conversation with one of the cars' builders and owners in New York at a convention,  and asked first about buying the car (I think - will confirm), then about getting the car to use for the appearance. The guy was shocked when Ed Sullivan actually called him at home to set up the Beach Boys appearance, and he and his hot rod buddies got their cars to CBS studios in NYC and got their cars on the Sullivan show with the Beach Boys. So that started with Brian Wilson - not an agent or a booker or anyone else - talking to the owner about using his car. The Sullivan people through CBS paid the owners to use the cars.

So that was the artist taking the lead on the details of the appearance. I think there were ways it worked, but it also varied case-by-case as to who was actually doing what to set up these appearances.

Also, if a show wanted a band or act that was "hot" at the time, they'd actively pursue them...no hustling or selling necessary by the artist or anyone around them.

Cool story that I've never heard about the car thing and thanks for the overall response!

[filledeplage]

The single hit #1 and stayed there in multiple American regions and markets for close to a full month. In Europe too.

Just how bad or how lacking was the promotion to have a single sitting at #1 for more than a week, in the case of GV spending multiple weeks as the top single in various markets?

If the single stiffed, we'd have something to criticize. #1 for more than a week - Then, as now, quite a major feat for any record or musician.

Whatever was done or wasn't done, someone did a corking good job promoting it to that level of success.

GF - that was all radio.   There was no GV performed until well over a year later in 1968.   So, no Darlin' or Wild Honey on film. (that I can find)

They did I can Hear music - http://youtu.be/vzCy0VKMhUs     (20/20)

Do It Again - http://youtu.be/eLFAYaae0


They did Never Learn not to love (1968) with Dennis on lead, Carl on Drums. - Mike Douglas show.

http://youtu.be/810v2bVX8j4

They did a real bona fide promo for Breakaway and Celebrate the News on Mike Douglas with Carl on drums and Dennis on lead on July 8, 1969 - with the LP of 20/20 in hand.  Mike Douglas.

Enjoy.  

http://youtu.be/sobVMqnEIOI

Hope it copies.  - so up to that point, they got  20/20 on national US TV - real promotion.  

And Brian and Mike Douglas from 1976.

http://youtu.be/2gQD2g6F7y8

Hope they all copy.  

Note the white jacket on Brian.  

GV went to #1 regardless if there was or wasn't a live TV performance of the song. So did any number of hit singles that reached #1 from that era. This notion of music videos being pioneered by someone...they were around since the 1930's. Ricky Nelson's videos on Ozzie and Harriet did as much for promoting records through a TV show as anything, when Ozzie started featuring clips of Ricky and james Burton miming to a record at the end of those episodes, the records started selling if there was a single available for it and the kids watching Ricky, James Burton, and Joe Osborn lip-synch to it on the show wanted to buy it. Bingo - There was something there.

In the mid-60's, The Beatles began filming clips of themselves miming to their latest single specifically to send to the US som Ed Sullivan, Hollywood Palace, and other shows could air that and that wouldn't need to fly to the US to perform it for broadcast. Very soon after the first clips, which were basic miming clips, they began getting more artistic with the film. Hence, Paperback Writer and Rain were as much short films and imagery as they were of the band standing there pretending to play the song. By the time Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane came around, any notion of showing the band pretending to actually perform the song were ditched in favor of making a film with some artistic and visual draw. Depending on the outlet, in the UK the musicians' union had a ban on "miming" which meant there had to be a specific quota of "live" performance on clips shown on TV. It varied, but it explains why some performances are a live vocal mic set to the prerecorded band track.

Brian did the same thing with the GV promo film in the fall of 1966. There was a shift in direction across the board, not specifically thanks to the Beatles (or the Monkees for that matter who had premiered in September 1966 and had music videos in every episode), but just part of the changing direction of how songs were promoted using film and video.

All of the GV films that were made and shown in the UK and US in Fall 1966 were in line with all of that. As music became a studio creation not specifically geared to be reproduced live, so did music film and video become something beyond showing the band pretending to perform the song.

The fact that GV not only hit #1 but stayed there for multiple weeks and stayed top 10 for well over a month showed that promotions which were done worked beyond what most artists would have expected. Numerous weeks at #1 for a single? Quite a feat.

This notion that the lack of a TV appearance where the band is shown performing GV or any single "live" doesn't make sense considering the success of the single.

And as I mentioned in the other thread, GV actually did premiere on TV. Here is the clipping from Billboard magazine that described it, dated early December 1966:



That was the appearance where Michael Vosse and Brian went to KHJ studios to be interviewed and watch as the kids danced to the new single being premiered. It made Billboard magazine because records were not premiered on TV...but GV was.

GF - those are West Coast articles.  That does not equate to a systematic national promotion.  No way.  

Ed Sullivan or Bob Hope/Jack Benny for California Girls or Andy Williams for Help Me Rhonda, or any one of the other "go to" national network TV outlets that was a "required" element of a national model of promotion for any important single that would be contemporaneous to tour and ticket promotion all of which was going on.  

The national network TV galvanizes ticket sales when the band sits down with the host (not done on Ed Sullivan) and does the "tour talk" and holds up the LP as on Mike Douglas.  It all reinforces the learning curve among all those other bands to keep the standing out, head and shoulders above the others.

Footage set to the single track does not equate to a stand-up performance and interview on a national TV network and may have made the incremental difference between Good Vibrations  being #1 and falling behind Winchester Cathedral for record of the year in 1966 as it did.  

There were already missed TV appearance opportunities with WIBN/GOK.  There was a void in 1966-1967 for  national TV, which is indefensible in my book.  

Brian's appearance on Inside Pop is "it" as far as I can discern for the US.  Their managers needed to maintain a full TV appearance-promotional package alongside touring during that very critical time to keep the "buzz" going.   Just sayin'.  

Bringing it back to this, Billboard was *the* music business trade paper of note just as Variety was the trade paper of note for the film and TV industry. It was a national publication, not just West Coast. And KHJ at that time was the trend-setter as far as formatting, programming, and sequencing because they took the LA pop radio scene by storm and destroyed their competition. It got to a point where KHJ airchecks were being taken by program directors across the country to their own stations to copy the format and methods that made them such a success, down to the way DJ's like Don Steele delivered their presentations and talk-ups. If KHJ did something, first the other Drake-Chenault stations copied it, then the industry took notice and tried to do what KHJ was doing.

If Billboard reported that KHJ had broken a new single on a TV show instead of on their radio station, the industry took notice. This was new stuff at the time it was happening.

What if the TV shows simply did not want to book the Beach Boys in late 1966 to perform or pretend to perform a song on TV? Brian met with Sullivan's people, nothing came of it until 1968.

Bottom line for me is this: How much more should have been expected of a single than to reach number 1, and not only reach number one but to also stay there in various regional markets across the US for multiple weeks? What else could have been done to make any record more successful than hitting number one nationwide on the charts? I'm not understanding what other measure of success we're looking for when a hit record's peak is reaching #1 on the charts.

And whatever promotion was or wasn't done, Good Vibrations reached that peak. So whatever is was worked.

Winchester Cathedral? File that right next to Englebert Humperdinck's "Release Me" which kept the double A-side "Penny Lane / Strawberry Fields Forever" off the #1 spot in 1967. A fluke. I don't see many people in years to come poring over Release Me or Winchester Cathedral or having those songs show up on anyone's "best of" lists. Flukes.

GF - You are giving the fans too much credit.  I was not that sophisticated  as a pre-teen, to be reading Billboard. I might have had a little advantage, in that my evening radio reception was able to pull in WABC and WNEW, so I listened to Cousin Bruce Morrow  from New York City, in addition to the locals.   That was their job to talk about Billboard and tell us what was in the pipeline.  

Looking back beyond WIBN/GOK - I'm not sure that even Barbara Ann, which was about #2,  Sloop was #3 were ever promoted on TV.  We had UHF and VHF lineups and in a way the VHF were like the early underground fm stations and grew in the 60's.  So, even if the BB's did not get on Ed Sullivan, there were certainly other time slots and programs in the "minor leagues" which were emerging as a forum for younger audiences who would have loved to see them on TV.  

There may only have been a few in each region but still had a wealth of opportunity for teen centered TV programming.  There were other games in town besides Ed Sullivan.  They were not losers.  Or some of the lame circus acts on Ed Sullivan. ( I am being extremely kind.)

So, it is not just the expectation of  Good Vibrations doing better than #1 for a month,  but the expectation that the media job was done right.  They were a group of performers with a solid track record.  GV was beaten out by a fluke song.  So I ask myself "what was missing," that might  have pushed them into the #1 top spot for 1966 and look to the missing link.  

And, I think it was the void of TV appearances that might have made the difference.  So, going back to California Girls, which appeared very successful and very funny with Bob Hope and Jack Benny, they had not "messed up" a single TV performance, and should have had the status to be acceptable to many other TV programs for promotion of a single or LP.  When the weekly newspapers with the TV pullout had a program slot with The Beach Boys, it was listed as a "special appearance" or "top pick" of the week.  

But, I am thinking that even if Brian was responsible for that other Ed Sullivan appearance, that was not his job description.  And the job rested with Capitol (the new Brother Records, or a combination of both) with a well oiled PR machine at their disposal.  Even Party pre-dated Brother Records incorporation, so that promo was probably on them.  

Guess, GF I am just  frustrated in thinking that they were the best and the PR accorded to them should have been commensurate with that standard.  I am not disappointed in the band, but those who were charged with their marketing and promotion.    

  

[Emily]

 And the job rested with Capitol (the new Brother Records, or a combination of both) with a well oiled PR machine at their disposal.  Even Party pre-dated Brother Records incorporation, so that promo was probably on them.  

Guess, GF I am just  frustrated in thinking that they were the best and the PR accorded to them should have been commensurate with that standard.  I am not disappointed in the band, but those who were charged with their marketing and promotion.    
  

I'm thinking that it wasn't really Capitol's job. It seems to me that the label did not usually manage a band's personal appearances.

[filledeplage]

 And the job rested with Capitol (the new Brother Records, or a combination of both) with a well oiled PR machine at their disposal.  Even Party pre-dated Brother Records incorporation, so that promo was probably on them.  

Guess, GF I am just  frustrated in thinking that they were the best and the PR accorded to them should have been commensurate with that standard.  I am not disappointed in the band, but those who were charged with their marketing and promotion.    
  

I'm thinking that it wasn't really Capitol's job. It seems to me that the label did not usually manage a band's personal appearances.

Emily - And I am thinking it was "somebody's job." 

There are agents in place who handle that facet, especially in a mega corp such as Capitol.

from Music Biz Academy...

"A record label, PR firm, music manager, music publishing company, entertainment agency, music distribution firm, entertainment lawyer, music magazine and most other entities in the music industry are all part of a "mass media" wheel that generates airplay, publicity, gigs and record (CD) sales.  All this is part of record deal from a record label, or it can be used to get a record deal."

They already had a "record deal."

This void of TV media is inexcusable for over 2 years, when at their creative pinnacle, in my book.  Just sayin'.      

[Lonely Summer]

Good Vibrations took 7/8 months to record. In the middle of those exhaustive months, Brian Wilson once considered to give Good Vibrations away to an R&B group....

Let's imagine that this happened...

Brian instead focuses on completing SMiLE throughout those several months, and releases an album in the fall of 1966/winter of 1967, as planned.

What would have happened? Would The Beach Boys be hailed as spokespeople of the 1960s? Would they just fall into further obscurity after the commericial performance of Pet Sounds?

Yes, because we all know Pet Sounds was an unqualified commercial flop! (I don't know how it got to #10 in Billboard, or how Sloop John B and Wouldn't it Be Nice made the top ten...payola?). I am so sick of reading what a failure PS was in commercial terms. Did it sell as well as it should have? No, if you think it should have sold in Beatle numbers; but the sales of PS were (in Trump's word) HUGE compared to what SS and WH would do.

[Emily]

Good Vibrations took 7/8 months to record. In the middle of those exhaustive months, Brian Wilson once considered to give Good Vibrations away to an R&B group....

Let's imagine that this happened...

Brian instead focuses on completing SMiLE throughout those several months, and releases an album in the fall of 1966/winter of 1967, as planned.

What would have happened? Would The Beach Boys be hailed as spokespeople of the 1960s? Would they just fall into further obscurity after the commericial performance of Pet Sounds?

Yes, because we all know Pet Sounds was an unqualified commercial flop! (I don't know how it got to #10 in Billboard, or how Sloop John B and Wouldn't it Be Nice made the top ten...payola?). I am so sick of reading what a failure PS was in commercial terms. Did it sell as well as it should have? No, if you think it should have sold in Beatle numbers; but the sales of PS were (in Trump's word) HUGE compared to what SS and WH would do.

Sorry to be a grammar Nazi, but I think you mean 'UGE.

[LostArt]

In 1966-'67, were nationally televised TV appearances by bands typically arranged by the record companies, by the band's management, or a combination of both?

Ultimately the decision on which acts would appear on these shows came down to the talent bookers from those shows. For all of the lobbying by agents and managers to get their acts on a TV show, if the people booking those shows didn't want the band on, or couldn't fit them into the schedule, that band wouldn't be on the show

In the case of the Beatles, Sullivan actively pursued them after seeing the hype around British "Beatlemania". Ed himself wanted the Beatles on his "really big shew". He ended up negotiating with Brian Epstein, who offered Sullivan the exclusive on the band's appearances, that stretched into 3 appearances with more possibly to be negotiated (and they were).

But the point is and was, if the show didn't want a group on the air, or simply couldn't schedule when that group was available,  the group didn't get booked. The ultimate call was with the people booking and scheduling the show no matter how much hustling and pressure the managers applied.

Guitarfool2002,
I'm trying to figure out the business structure:
My reading indicates that a successful band at the time would normally have a general manager, a tour manager, a booking agent, and a pr manager (among others). Some of these roles would be outsourced (to an agency or management firm) rather than taken on as full time band employees. These roles were separate from the label and the band's responsibility (usually the GM took the responsibility on). And this team was responsible for the band's promotional appearances, both live and on TV.
Is that about right?

If so, it seems the label performed its promotional tasks and the gap (if there is one) with live appearances was on the BB team.

There was no template, especially at this time. The ultimate decision rested with the show's booking staff if not the host (as in the case with some of Sullivan's bookings). If the show said no, the artist wouldn't be on.

There was also a lot of crossover and handshake deals as far as who actually handled the bookings or how the process was worked out. Early on the Beach Boys had Milton Berle's nephew Marshall (so he could actually call Berle 'Uncle Miltie' and be accurate!) as their agent and rep at William Morris. Whatever and however he got them booked to various shows, tours, and formats might have included any number of other people involved in the process. But again, the actual shows or venues had the last word, as in yes or no.

So, you're saying that in 1966-'67 the record companies did not typically arrange television appearances for bands, and that such appearances were usually pitched to the TV shows by the band's management team or booking agents?  Were the Beach Boys management team and booking agents affiliated with Capitol Records at that time? 

[Lonely Summer]

Good Vibrations took 7/8 months to record. In the middle of those exhaustive months, Brian Wilson once considered to give Good Vibrations away to an R&B group....

Let's imagine that this happened...

Brian instead focuses on completing SMiLE throughout those several months, and releases an album in the fall of 1966/winter of 1967, as planned.

What would have happened? Would The Beach Boys be hailed as spokespeople of the 1960s? Would they just fall into further obscurity after the commericial performance of Pet Sounds?

Yes, because we all know Pet Sounds was an unqualified commercial flop! (I don't know how it got to #10 in Billboard, or how Sloop John B and Wouldn't it Be Nice made the top ten...payola?). I am so sick of reading what a failure PS was in commercial terms. Did it sell as well as it should have? No, if you think it should have sold in Beatle numbers; but the sales of PS were (in Trump's word) HUGE compared to what SS and WH would do.

Sorry to be a grammar Nazi, but I think you mean 'UGE.

[Niko]

 And the job rested with Capitol (the new Brother Records, or a combination of both) with a well oiled PR machine at their disposal.  Even Party pre-dated Brother Records incorporation, so that promo was probably on them.  

Guess, GF I am just  frustrated in thinking that they were the best and the PR accorded to them should have been commensurate with that standard.  I am not disappointed in the band, but those who were charged with their marketing and promotion.    
  

I'm thinking that it wasn't really Capitol's job. It seems to me that the label did not usually manage a band's personal appearances.

Emily - And I am thinking it was "somebody's job." 

There are agents in place who handle that facet, especially in a mega corp such as Capitol.

from Music Biz Academy...

"A record label, PR firm, music manager, music publishing company, entertainment agency, music distribution firm, entertainment lawyer, music magazine and most other entities in the music industry are all part of a "mass media" wheel that generates airplay, publicity, gigs and record (CD) sales.  All this is part of record deal from a record label, or it can be used to get a record deal."

They already had a "record deal."

This void of TV media is inexcusable for over 2 years, when at their creative pinnacle, in my book.  Just sayin'.      

I'd like to know who, with all of your posts seeming to relate to each other, you are trying to discredit and what your motives are, other than pushing what I see as a Mike Love influenced agenda. You didn't respond to my last post about it and I would like to know. Thx

[filledeplage]

 And the job rested with Capitol (the new Brother Records, or a combination of both) with a well oiled PR machine at their disposal.  Even Party pre-dated Brother Records incorporation, so that promo was probably on them.  

Guess, GF I am just  frustrated in thinking that they were the best and the PR accorded to them should have been commensurate with that standard.  I am not disappointed in the band, but those who were charged with their marketing and promotion.    
  

I'm thinking that it wasn't really Capitol's job. It seems to me that the label did not usually manage a band's personal appearances.

Emily - And I am thinking it was "somebody's job."  

There are agents in place who handle that facet, especially in a mega corp such as Capitol.

from Music Biz Academy...

"A record label, PR firm, music manager, music publishing company, entertainment agency, music distribution firm, entertainment lawyer, music magazine and most other entities in the music industry are all part of a "mass media" wheel that generates airplay, publicity, gigs and record (CD) sales.  All this is part of record deal from a record label, or it can be used to get a record deal."

They already had a "record deal."

This void of TV media is inexcusable for over 2 years, when at their creative pinnacle, in my book.  Just sayin'.    

I'd like to know who, with all of your posts seeming to relate to each other, you are trying to discredit and what your motives are, other than pushing what I see as a Mike Love influenced agenda. You didn't respond to my last post about it and I would like to know. Thx

Woodstock - Here is the short answer.  I don't like the accusatory and hostile tone.  Nor, do I like being assigned a faction position. I work hard to keep an open mind, and expect the same courtesy. I see any and every version of any BB/BW related band.  That supports being open-minded.  
 
As to Jules' article, I likely had read what he wrote when it was published.  And, I found his characterization of Carole Kaye (whom Brian appears to have worked very well with, performing on a great deal of his work) enormously disrespectful, sexist  and unacceptable.  

So, I guess I have a problem with gender bias, and disparaging treatment of women musicians, particularly since Carole appears to have been the only woman working in this capacity at that time.  I hate to think that young women (any students for that matter) have been subjected to reading his article in a textbook on Rock and Roll History, as is evidenced on his wiki page within the context of BB/BW music.  Young women need good women role models in every business, never mind the music business where it must have been an extremely high bar for her employment.  

It suggests that the subject matter is erroneous, and her work as an extraordinary electric bass player, has earned better note, than this disparaging characterization.  The fact that Jules was with this entourage for between 2 and 9 months (according to varying accounts) and doesn't know her role in the group, or attribute it properly, suggests sloppiness, to me.    

Jules' work should be held up to scrutiny, as others' work has been scrutinized over time.  Jules objectified her.  And I have a problem with that. More-so, because it has landed in textbooks.   It is really very simple.  

[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.

[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.

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...

[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.

[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.   

[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.

[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.