Feel Flows box set

[Pretty Funky]

I’m 100% sure the first part (Brian saying how much he loves Cool Cool Water) is from EH documentary. He then continues, and the keyboard discussion part I hadn’t heard before. Probably the same interview, just edited.


https://www.instagram.com/brianwilsonlive/?hl=en

[marcella27]

Brian's impersonation of rooster is great.  "One of those...what do they call them?  A...rooster."

[pdas1996]

Has anyone from AUS/NZ found anything yet?

[Wata]

Has anyone from AUS/NZ found anything yet?

It should be 35 minutes until it's Friday in NZ. We'll see....

[UEF]

I've got access to Aus/NZ/Vietnam stuff, but I don't know what I'm looking for... any ideas?

[ReggieDunbar]

I've got access to Aus/NZ/Vietnam stuff, but I don't know what I'm looking for... any ideas?

Keep on updating on their discography!!

[Mr Fulton]

Im from nz, nothing yet and its friday

[Rebel]

I am so excited!!

[Wata]

Im from nz, nothing yet and its friday

oh no, that's too bad.

Guess it would be out on Dec 20 or 27? Or some outtakes from 1969 (which are, admittedly, not many) would be out of copyright...

[Wirestone]

IIRC, the copyright motivation actually resulted from a misunderstanding of the law, which is why most artists (including the Beatles!) did them for a year or two and then stopped. The BBs continued because of fan interest. Seems like fans weren’t interested enough in last year’s for them to continue.

[WillJC]

.

[Mr. Tiger]

Last year's collection was well received despite receiving very little promotion. No need for the sky to fall... yet.

The year by year trawl through the BB vaults seems to have continued unabated... hence the Murray set coming out next friday. Maybe everything is due to drop on the 20th.

[37!ws]

My understanding of the copyright law -- which admittedly is next to none -- is that it goes by the *songs themselves,* not the *performances*. That would explain why The Beatles only had one copyright extension release -- and even that one was kind of useless because every *song* in and of itself had been released at some point. Except for "Carnival of Sound," I can't think of any Beatles song in the vaults that hasn't had some kind of release.

But going through the Beach Boys' copyright extension releases:
The Big Beat 1963 had at least one previously unreleased song ("Thank Him")
Keep An Eye On Summer had a few
In 1965 and 1966 I don't think there really was anything; what The Beach Boys gave us was all bonus.
Sunshine Tomorrow had "All Day, All Night" and "Honey Get Home"
Wake the World had a good handful of previously unreleased titles

The thing is...if the Beach Boys were putting out collections that had *just* the unreleased titles, they'd be pretty small, so they were padded with some stuff that was obviously ear candy for us die-hards. There was no reason, for example, to release any of the concert stuff, because none of those titles were in danger of copyright expiration, but we got 'em anyway.

[HeyJude]

Regarding the level of fan interest for the end-of-year “Copyright Extension” comps, while I don’t have any sales numbers, I would tend to think that these releases don’t sell in huge numbers, but Capitol/BRI know that ahead of time. I don’t think everything prior to the ’68 comps was selling a great deal more than the ’68 stuff. Also, these releases tend to have a pretty minimal budget. They have to pay for the stuff to be mixed and mastered (and sometimes not even mixed when vintage mixes are used). But it’s all material that’s already there. It’s pretty close to free money, especially the digital-only releases where there’s no manufacturing overhead costs.

In a few cases, Capitol/UMe and BRI have highlighted key/important material that’s worth doing physical releases for. I’d gather that a 70/71-ish boxed set early next year would be such a case, and they’d do something a bit more elaborate to make it worth a physical purchase.

From everything I’ve heard/seen, I’d tend to doubt that all of a sudden they’re going to cut off any further archival releases.

As for the “Copyright Extension” aspect and whether they *need* to be putting this stuff out, as far as I know it seems to be a case of there being some conflicting, contrary interpretations of the law, but that the “safe” thing to do is at the very least put out any unreleased songs that weren’t released in the past in order to more safely protect them under copyright. As previously mentioned, it seems that the only stuff that *need* protection are songs not previously released. That’s why the first ’63 release, “Big Beat ‘63”, was only full of weird odds and ends like “Thank Him”. Subsequently, it does appear that for the most part each successive year’s release has been a case of grabbing the hand full of songs that *need* protection, and then filling the sets out with stuff for fans (and also putting stuff that will at least lead to hundreds or a few thousand copies being sold rather than only 85 copies if it’s just like an EP with nothing but “Endless Sleep” and “Christmas Eve”).

There are no doubt grey areas in this copyright law. What if a 1967 demo for “Life is for the Living” surfaced? Would it then immediately put the “Adult Child” version in public domain because it’s now established that it’s over 50 years old and hasn’t been protected?

We know that having released any take of, say, “Fun Fun Fun” therefore protects all “work parts” for that eventual master. But what about completely different sessions? What if a 1968 session tape for “Sweet and Bitter” exists?

Also, it seems unclear as to how live recordings are classified. It would seem one interpretation is that the recording itself has to be protected, thus the huge dumps of extant live recordings in some previous years. But obviously as we get into the 70s, I doubt BRI is going to put out every extant recording from that decade.

Going back to the mention of the Beatles ’63 “extension” set, that one was odd. It had a bunch of raw ’63 session tapes, but not *all* of them. A bunch of takes of “There’s a Place”, but still missing some that circulate. Not sure what that was about. And if indeed it’s a case of only needing to protect unreleased songs, then indeed due to the small number of unique unreleased song titles (all of which made it onto archival releases save “Carnival of Light”, which did technically get one public airing at some show/exhibit some years back), the Beatles releases aren’t needed.

[Shady]

I'm in Ireland. Was expecting it to be out tonight past 12 but its not looking good

[Jay]

Ok, here's a weird question; do informal studio jams count as unreleased songs?   I was just reading the Beatles recording sessions book, and I noticed a few entries where the group apparently did some sessions of just raw jamming during the Sgt Pepper sessions. Would they count as songs? I have a feeling that the Get Back session tapes would be extremely difficult to sort out from a legal perspective, because it would come down to trying to define what would be considered and "unreleased song", and what would be considered just an impromptu jam made up on the spot for fun.

[TonyW]

7.00am Friday in Sydney - nothing on itunes or spotify yet

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I’m watching this thread like a hawk awaiting news...

[twentytwenty]

I’m watching this thread like a hawk awaiting news...

Me too. This is really disappointing

[37!ws]

BTW, I looked at the Reddit post again...it actually says "digital streaming only." Does that mean it won't be downloadable??? (Note to self...log into that Reddit account I never use and ask questions.)

[HeyJude]

When I see people say "streaming", it can mean either.

Some folks have taken to using "streaming" as a term for video or audio that encompasses all digital formats, including actual streaming (e.g. Spotify, Pandora, etc. for audio, or Netflix/Amazon or digital rentals for video) as well as digital *purchases* (e.g. actual downloadable audio files, or the "purchase" of digital video for full retail price, which usually still entails *streaming* the purchase rather than downloading it).

I sense the audio world has become even more polarized/extreme; people either go for physical releases or, if they're fine with digital, they often just go with Spotify rather than *buying* MP3s on Amazon, etc.

That being said, there hasn't been any digital-only release in terms of these BB "extension" releases that has been literally "streaming only", they've always been made available on Amazon for download, iTunes (or whatever Apple is calling their store now), and other digital audio retailers who often sell lossless and high-rez downloads.

Given how a large contingent of Beach Boys fans in my experience (no offense intended) tend to be well behind the cutting edge or even mainstream of how audio is consumed, they would be severely limiting their audience by only streaming a new BB "extension" release.

I'd say the main thing that would need to be clarified if they still do a digital release this month and also intend to do a physical boxed set sort of thing in a few months from now, is if the physical release will have any or all of the content of the earlier digital release, or if they are separately themed collections. The one reddit blurb implies the digital release coming first would catch 1969 odds and ends that need to be released before the end of 2019 that fall outside the purview of whatever the physical release will be. But I dunno.

[Emdeeh]

I'll buy digital files, but am not interested in anything that requires me to buy a subscription.

Also waiting for release news, like everyone else.

[Wirestone]

Not a single person in the know has said a digital release is coming this year. Given the lack of content thus far I would temper expectations accordingly.

[Shady]

Nope.. Not out

[SBonilla]

Ok, here's a weird question; do informal studio jams count as unreleased songs?   I was just reading the Beatles recording sessions book, and I noticed a few entries where the group apparently did some sessions of just raw jamming during the Sgt Pepper sessions. Would they count as songs? I have a feeling that the Get Back session tapes would be extremely difficult to sort out from a legal perspective, because it would come down to trying to define what would be considered and "unreleased song", and what would be considered just an impromptu jam made up on the spot for fun.

Yes, they count. An improvisation is a composition. Its creator(s) hold(s) the copyright at the moment of its creation.