The Smiley Smile Message Board

For any of you who like me hope that missing tapes (esp. Smile) may still be found this makes interesting if occasionally distressing reading.
http://www.billholland.net/words/Labels%20Strive%20to%20Rectify%20Past%20Archival%20Problems.pdf

The paragraph "source familiar with the EMI-Capitol libraries admitted that "there are probably 10,,000 reels that nobody knows what's on them. And probably won't know--it isn't cost-effective. You know how much it would cost to play all those tapes and pay experts to find out what's there?" makes me wonder what could be lurking unfound.
Not sure how many of you are aware that a missing cut of  the 1927 film Metropolis was found (in Argentina) in 2008. Not suggesting Mr Boyd goes there to look for the dec 19th 1966 Heroes session but things can turn up in unusual places. I still hope to see Orson Welles' original cut of The Magnificent Ambersons one day and the Metropolis discovery made that seem like a possibility, no matter how small.
I'm sure Alan/Mark et al. looked everywhere possible. I wonder how much of a dead end they feel they have reached in terms of multitracks and acetates. I hope their latest discoveries appear on the boxset.

I would so happily volunteer my time for that.

Fascinating article.  You would think that the evaluation of such recordings could be crowdsourced.

I think a lot of folks here would.

Thanks go out to Ash for this wonderful piece of writing (which is also depressing reading, sometimes, but important at any rate).

I would like to recommend the following book, essential to all collectors and pop fans in general:

(http://www.eleventhvolume.com/miscellany/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/retromania.jpg)

Read it; it's cheap and you won't regret it.

I'd just like to stress i didn't write that article, just found it a while ago and lost it in my archive !
Orson Welles fans might like to know that UCLA has several cans of undeveloped film from It's All True and another unidentified project(s) from that period in it's archive.
Can you believe that ? Undeveloped....
No sign of the Inside Pop reels though.
I wish Alan et al. had printed more tape box pictures so we had a better idea of what was recorded and subsequently went missing. I'm sure Alan has mentioned that several Heroes boxes have no tape reels inside. Wonder if any of those tapes are in this "pile" of unlabelled tapes or if BW simply said we don't need that and used them for something else ? That's what happened to the first Heroes session isn't it ?

Thanks for correcting, Ash - only now I see that I forgot to write: 'thanks for posting this piece of writing (etc.)'.

And yes, it's another opportunity for starting speculating to our heart's content...

Imagine finding the finished smile album... ;D

I hear that it's located somewhere in a landfill near Roswell, NM.

Felix Baumgartner tried hard to take a new perspective on things, high above, and then dive for it.

It did not work.

I think I read a snippet of this in the Guardian, or at least it was  piece about retromania. Fascinating stuff - I might see if I can pick up that book. Thanks for the tip.

:lol

Not really ...

The most difficult, time consuming, and expensive element is not the listening but the transferring of old, fragile media. You must have the proper facilities to play such tapes, and the expertise to treat and handle them. Simply locating a working machine to play back some of the tapes would not be easy (how many folks here have a 1/2" 3-track recorder or a 1" 12-track?), and maintaining the variety of machines to play some of the masters is a specialized field. There are a few companies out there who can handle it ... Sonicraft in New Jersey comes to mind.

Can sound carriers be so fragile that they fall apart, when in the wrong hands?

That's why I said evaluation, not initial playback...

basically, yes. it's much more complicated than that. Every particular type of tape has specific problems that people need to be aware of in order to avoid damage.

Most of our beloved Beach Boys reels from the '60s are on Scotch 201, 202, 203 or 111, probably plenty of other variants as well. Each one of these tape types have specific potential problems that must be addressed prior to even attempting playback. I've actually heard people who should know better saying things like, 'Oh just bake it' ... if you bake any of these formulas, the tape can be ruined. 111 can be very brittle and the transport needs to be setup for gentle operation, and the operator needs to be very careful about handling. 202 and 203 are great tapes but can suffer from an anamoly that involves the oxide completely coming off of the tape (it will literally become transparent), and 203 is very thin and must be run very carefully to avoid stretching (which causes pitch variations similar to what you hear on 'Do You Like Worms?'). 201 is also problematic, but I haven't figured out exactly what's going on with it personally yet. It sheds more oxide kind of like sticky-shed, but it's acetate so it cannot be baked, and it doesn't have a backcoating anyway. Playback can be accomplished but cleaning of the tape and path frequenty is necessary for a clean transfer.

Acetate tape (particularly 111) usually has at least some degree of 'vinegar syndrome', which is a deterioration that emits a vinegar odor and can infect entire libraries like a virus (it literally spreads from tape to tape). It's best to not store large groups of acetate tapes close together, or to perhaps store them alternating side by side with poly tapes, but i doubt anyone actually does this because most people don't know about it. There's no cure for vinegar syndrome but exposure to dry air helps slow the process.

hmm perhaps I misunderstood ...

how can you evaluate the tape without playing it? I thought the problem was there are thousands of unlabeled or mislabeled reels?

To qualify as someone who could evaluate tapes, you need to be familiar with tapes and tape preservation. You would also need to have an understanding of the history of the label and artists, as well as an understanding of different tape types, when they were used, etc.

@DonnyL -

great info, cheers for that! I am an absolute layman in these matters, but love such detailed knowledge. It makes me much more aware of what people who try to save the treasures of the past have to go through...

Boyd once gave me an incomplete list of formats he'd encountered in the Brother archives. It would make your hair stand on end, especially when you factor in finding the equipment to actually play it on. But, as he added (he's also in the silent movie restoration/archive business), at least he's never opened a tape box to find it's apparently full of biscuit crumbs and sticky goop.

Yet.  :)

ha, yeh i can only imagine. although Sonicraft can transfer pretty much anything ... although I'd venture to say 90% of all '60s-'70s studio tapes are on 1/4" mono or 2-track, 1/2" 3 or 4-track, 1" 8-track, or 2" 16 or 24-track ... though you do have major historic recordings on oddball formats like the Scully 1" 12-track or the Stephens 2" 40-track (both ahead of their time really). Some studios even used 35mm recorders.

Perhaps somebody in the BB's camp should get in touch with SoniCraft, if they haven't already.

And then do with it what Mr Desper's doing on his thread..... :o

I didn't actually know that Mr Boyd was in the silent film business(don't laugh). I mainly knew of his Beach Boys association. I had read of some mention of silent film in regards to him, but I just thought he was a huge silent film buff.  ;D Perhaps then, he could be of some assistance in trying to identify this film. There are I think three parts of it on the YouTube channel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPuDig_Pw5Q&feature=plcp

Amazing stuff... thanks for referring!

Maybe translating the intertitles might furnish a clue ?

this is very enlightening, I never realized listening to old tapes was such an involved process.

well ... i mean, you can just throw the tape on, play it and hope for the best ... but it's a risk. chances are it will actually play okay since the '60s formulas are probably the most reliable tape ever, but if the master is important, you want to approach with caution. i have some 4-track and stereo masters from the '60s and they play fine without any treatment.

Sorry about being a damp blanket, but an AMBERSONS original cut rediscovery is not very likely at all. The reason for this is that the film was never released in it's original form. A couple of prints were made by RKO to preview then destroyed. The reels sent to Welles in Brazil were reportedly deposited at an archive there that claimed to have destroyed them two years later (!). The only hope is that someone lied and held onto those reels.

The long version of METROPOLIS, on the other hand, actually received a legitimate release which resulted in the South American distributor obtaining a copy which was eventually dubbed to 16mm and put on the shelf in the archive. An intermediate version of Welles' JOURNEY INTO FEAR received a brief two-week release before the prints were recalled by the studio for further work. However, the mere act of sending out multiple early prints meant that one of them was not returned and this alternate cut survives. A lot of the IT'S ALL TRUE footage survives (albeit some of it never developed) because the project was never completed and it was thought that the footage could be of use as stock footage.

I would add that Linett really has collected quite a few different tape machines and has probably become a bit of a specialist in the processing of old tape in a lot of formats.  I seem to remember him coming up with Kenny G's digital 48-track tape machine or something weird like that once. 

Also perhaps of interest--when I was working for Alan, I spent a fair bit of time working with the silent film reels, which is mostly nitrate film.  That stuff is very difficult to preserve.  Some of it was indeed turning to "salad dressing".  But I hope I was able to help a little bit in getting it all backed up...

Indeed, he's one of those skilled archivists I was referring to. Yeh I think he's actually been trying to sell that Sony (or was it 3M?) digital machine !


yikes !

Roger Ryan said regarding The Magnificent Ambersons "The only hope is that someone lied and held onto those reels. "
I know you're right Roger but that's still the kind of fighting chance Captain Kirk thrived on. It's not like i'm hoping for a finished Elements Suite tape.
Okay it is but i can dream on against overwhelming odds.
I'm also hoping for some kind of resolution to The Other Side Of The Wind.....perhaps that's a closer parallel to Smile. Brian and Orson have quite a lot in common in some ways perhaps most notably their giant sized talent and the fact that after a certain point in their careers the only thing they finished was dinner.
For anyone not versed in the arts and crafts of Orson Welles go buy Kane,Ambersons,Touch of Evil,F For Fake this weekend and find a copy of the 1982 (?) BBC TV Arena documentary. Cheaper than a Rolling Stones ticket it'll take your mind off Smile for a while until you dig a little deeper and end up obsessing over lost,missing,unfinished or editorially brutalised films.
Anyway,got to go i'm supposed to be helping out at La Sagrada Familia later.

Regarding The Magnificent Ambersons, there are two "Welles cuts": the first was the one that showed unfavorably to a test audience, the second was one that made two or so large cuts to shorten the film before the new regime at RKO decided to reshoot parts as well.  RKO destroyed all the copies of his cuts that they had, so unless there was a secret print somewhere that nobody knew about, there's not really any hope of it existing.  The reason that say, the longer version of Metropolis or The Passion of Joan of Arc resurfaced after years of being thought lost was that there had been a large enough number of prints circulating that nobody was keeping track of all of them.  Hence, prints sat around in insane asylums and archives for years without anyone knowing they still existed.  Since prints of the Welles cuts of The Magnificent Ambersons never circulated, it's very unlikely that there are any that fell through the cracks in the same way.

On the other hand The Other Side of the Wind has all its elements completely intact and it is entirely possible for a release of that film more or less as Welles intended it; the only problem is that his daughter Beatrice, who seems to have devoted her life to preventing people from seeing as many of her father's films as possible, has made clear that she will sue anyone who tries to release it.  Thus, it will probably end up getting released if she ever changes her mind, or after her death.  Sorry to put it that way, but unfortunately that's what it looks like.

Indeed those members of the Beach Boys community who despair over the infighting that has accompanied the band,re releases,box sets,legal tussles don't realise how lucky they've been. Maybe Beatrice feels hard done by her father and maybe she's justified in feeling that way but her attitude towards the release of his work is beyond shocking. I heard Orson was asked a question about all his film industry difficulties by Peter Bogdanovich once and replied they'll love me when i'm dead. A few years ago i bought most of welles' films as director while in the states because you simply couldn't find them in the uk in pre amazon days. i remember thinking yes they would love you if they could actually have the chance to see even a half decent quality vhs of any of your films.
It is such a desperate shame that one of the truly great talents of the 20th century was/is so shabbily treated as far as his work is concerned.
All those here who wish to complain about Mike should be extremely grateful that Beatrice wasn't in the Beach Boys - you wouldn't even be getting endless  surf and car compilations.
Now about record company archival policy....
I  wonder how the California Girls multi track survived but the Good Vibrations/Smile era tapes didn't fare so well. They are so close time wise. Is it true that some tapes were "lost" at Heiders around the time of Stack of tracks ? I heard that story at one time but have no hard evidence .

I'm quite sure I've read that Do it Again's multitrack was lost during the assembly of Stack of Tracks.

The Columbia Vocal multitracks recorded ca. 1965-67 are fairly recent acquisitions, returned to Captiol sometime in the late 80's/early 90's when they were going through their inventory.  So it's basically just dumb luck that we have those.

I think it was the original stereo mix that was lost.

Somehow the SOT guys got the multi's. So if it's not in the vault, someone has to have it.

I hate to be one of those 'search the archives' guys, but really ...

this story has been told so many times (including quite recently, like less than a month ago). I feel like I have personally told it like 4-5 times, and it's in the Desper thread too !

maybe we need some kind of database of info !

from the 'New Beach Boys 2012 Remasters!' thread:

Christ dude, ok.

Yes, we did discuss this not too long ago. Still doesn't explain the "lost master tape" showing up on SOT. Forgive me if that was in fact explained. Apparently my memory is not as on point as yours.

I think we really need a wiki for this stuff.

A master and a session tape aren't the same thing.

I meant no offense, and I don't have a super great memory or anything ... I've certainly asked questions here and there that have been discussed before.

my basic point is that people are mentioning these things in passing, like 'hey, didn't that happen?', 'yeh i think so', 'i heard from this guy this and that', 'oh really? yeh not sure' kind of conversations about things that have been discussed in thorough detail many many times, seemingly without even attempting to locate the info. and in this case, i didn't really want to keep quiet about it because i distinctly remembered a very recent conversation where it was discussed AGAIN, and most of the known info was presented AGAIN.

I've mentioned it a few times before, but this forum is crucial database of info, yet most of what I see posted here lately is drivel.

I guess it's sort of like I maybe expected a little bit more courtesy or thought before these kinds of gossip-type posts. but i fear the environment has kind of turned the forum into something where this posting style is more appropriate and expected than what it used to be. which is why I avoid posting in most threads, unless I feel I can add something worthwhile.

and yeh, there are some open questions. you're right; I don't think the Sea of Tunes stuff is from the final master (missing elements if I remember correctly). I also don't know where the story of the tape lost during Stack-O-Tracks came from, whether it is a known fact or just assumed.

in any case, 'lost' doesn't mean 'doesn't exist'. someone may very likely have them somewhere. I have what I believe to be the original 1978 stereo master of 'Baby It's You' by the Canadian band 'Promises', which I randomly bought for like $7 on a whim on a unlabeled reel that just had the phrase 'SIR NOSE' written on it in marker. doubt anybody wants it though ... but who knows, maybe on some Promises forum somewhere, they are wondering what happened to it after it flew out of some guy's car:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQeqt6cGBH4

i seriously had to listen to the tape, write down the lyrics, the google them to find out what the hell it was. pretty lame $hit !

I also know where there are a bunch of (I think) multi-track masters for a ton of Eric Burdon and War stuff and God knows what else being sold (probably as trash) from a storage unit in L.A. by someone who probably has no idea what a tape is, but I don't have the means or desire to rescue them. EDIT: actually, those Eric Burdon tapes may be long gone now ... hopefully they went somewhere where someone knows what they are.

(http://www.aetv.com/storage-wars/images/about/promo.jpg)

Barry has them... ;D

Just a quick aside: I just saw another "new" discovery of 1960's Johnny Carson "Tonight Show" video has been made recently. The shows date from either 1963 or 1964, which is significant because none of the first 10 years or so of Carson's shows were officially saved, as NBC either scrapped or wiped-and-reused the original video reels. So whatever is out there is either privately held or from other sources outside the NBC vaults.

These were from the Armed Forces network, where they would get kinescopes of Carson's shows then censor anything they found too inappropriate, and that's where these reels were found: A woman cleaning out an office building or something found a box full of film canisters, and they turned out to be Tonight Show kinescopes, "lost" for 40-odd years. And they were in excellent condition. The Carson library/vault acquired them and I think they will be made available to the public soon, if they aren't posted somewhere already. One of the only near-complete 60's Carson shows I found back in the 90's for my collection was a similar Armed Forces network kinescope from '64.

So there is just one example of a recording not thought to exist, or totally forgotten for decades, being found out of the blue in film cans stacked up in an unmarked cardboard box in an office somewhere. It happens!

Then you have creative, obsessive collector types like this who find *color* video copies of Carson featuring Jim Henson and the Muppets in '65, and feed it through an old TV console from the 60's for a time machine effect:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKo9VIQcN9M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKo9VIQcN9M)

Note: I thought there was no video footage (only audio) of the infamous Jim Garrison appearance with Johnny Carson in the 60's, discussing Kennedy. Then A&E runs a documentary where they somehow found a video of it...still don't know where that one was hiding.

Note #2: How about that TV appearance not long ago of Pink Floyd on TOTP, from 1967, thought to be lost for reasons similar to Carson? And then it shows up this summer...

I love silent films. I get such a kick out of this stuff.  ;D My absolute favorite type of silent film is the hand stenciled color films, where people literally drew onto the film reel itself.

wow ... that clip is pretty cool !

yeh this stuff is everywhere. most people have no idea what they throw away !

It is amazing what may still be out there, as you said I just hope people ID it and know how to handle it, or even the significance.

On the Carson topic, this may be the best quality we will *ever* see the early days of Carson on "Tonight". The content itself is a bit weak, but the quality is - for me at least - shocking and stunning. Just watch the first few minutes...this was transferred directly from the original 2" quad reel, so it's perhaps better than folks at home watching had seen it. The musician in the clip got the clip as a parting gift after leaving Carson, and his family had it restored and transferred.

It isn't the content itself, but to see that show in that high quality when no one thought it existed or would ever be seen can be a mind-blower. Carson's old RCA 77, the ashtray with his cigarette burning away, the NY studio set...in perfect quality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkeqkEg2SiI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkeqkEg2SiI)

In this case, the family held onto the original 2" master tape of the segment (!), which absolutely no one else had another copy of or thought existed, yet there it is. Another one of those great finds from an unexpected source...even though the clip is a bit on the corny side.

Too bad video of John and Paul, The Beach Boys or Monkees appearing in the late 60's on the Carson show can't be found this way!  :)

If it was just a session tape, wouldn't there be outtakes? False starts, random talking between takes etc, which is the whole point of having a session tape run, to capture stuff that the master tape doesn't have? Sounds like they're playing back different tracks from an 8 track master to me.

Either way, fact is ALL of the isolated elements exist on whatever that tape is. (Even I was able to isolate them!..)


Alright then, so why did you feel the need to get on my case? Essentially what you're saying is that you know as much as I do on the subject. I respect your knowledge and dig your posts (and hey weren't we just working together to try to get a cleaner sounding copy of the Spring promo?), but I really don't appreciate how you responded towards me.

I apologize for continuing to take this thread off-topic (and maybe this is relevant to the Beach Boys archive), but things are always more complicated than history reports. Regarding AMBERSONS, there were actually numerous versions prior to the release of the film, just as films today continue to be cut and reworked prior to release. Welles' initial rough cut was around 148 minutes (never previewed). This was whittled down to what was a fairly polished 131 minute edit (documented by a detailed cutting continuity so we know exactly what was in it); however, this version wasn't previewed either. Before even seeing the 131 min. version he helped edit via telegrams from Brazil*, he requested a 13 minute cut from the middle of the film (as well as a couple other scene cuts) plus a new scene be added. This version was the one screened at the first preview which went poorly. The 13 minutes Welles asked to be cut were put back in (although other footage was cut by the studio) for a second preview two days later. After that, Welles only had a small influence on the reworking of the film which was eventually released as an 88 min. edit illogically re-sequenced and containing numerous re-shoots not directed by Welles.

The situation regarding THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND is more complicated than just his daughter preventing its completion and release. Collaborators, financiers and and least one cable network have also been involved in the legal entanglements. I agree that this last uncompleted film is very comparable to SMiLE is that Welles was experimenting with shooting lots of snippets that could be arranged in a myriad of ways to tell a story that was already heavily improvised. No one is certain how it all goes together or whether enough footage exists to tell the story Welles initially set out to tell. Fortunately, the story of SMiLE had a much happier ending with two versions released and the opportunity for fans to create their own versions as well.

*Editor Robert Wise sent 24 reels of 35mm film to Welles in Brazil prior to the first preview. 14 reels contained that 131 min. edit; the 10 additional reels contained alternate takes and different versions of scenes so Welles could view his options. These reels were the ones Welles left at RKO's office in Brazil; a document exists which states the 24 reels were destroyed in December 1944 (two-and-a-half years after AMBERSONS had been released).

I guess I should have specified that by "Welles cuts" I meant edited versions of the film that were intended for release; obviously there has to be lots of assembling and cutting of the footage before that happens and there are always other possibilities.  (I was referring to the 131 minute version and the 117-or-so minute one.)  Somehow I thought that the 131 minute version was finished before Welles went to Brazil and shown for the test audience and that he made the cuts that he did from Brazil in order to save the rest of the film, as the test screening had gone poorly and as the new head of RKO was much more hostile to him than the previous one had been.  I don't remember the exact details, so you could be right, but because prints of the Welles version of the film hadn't been sent out widely for distribution, it seems unlikely that there were prints of either the 131 minute version, the slightly shorter Welles version, or any rough cuts, first assemblies, etc. that would allow us to see the film as Welles intended us to.

Peter Bogdanovich claims to have been given instructions by Welles as to how to finish The Other Side of the Wind, and if that is true there is some hope of the film being edited in a way that completes it more or less in line with Welles' vision.  I'm not sure  how specific these instructions were, though.

If there is an unreleased Welles film that resembles Smile, it's probably his Don Quixote film, which was a long-running project that he shot over a period of more than a decade.  There don't appear to be the same rights issues as with The Other Side of the Wind because snippets have been shown at festivals and on television before, and there was even a Spanish DVD release (that Jonathan Rosenbaum claims is awful...) but no one is sure how the film was meant to be edited together as Welles probably hadn't planned it out yet.

I apologize.

I'm not really interested in who knows more about what (hey, you may very well know more than me about this topic), but I clarified my concern in my previous post.

The information I'm not sure about is where the 'Stack-O-Tracks' story comes from. It's one of those that have been going around for a long time, pre-internet I believe.

More info from the archives:




... so Alan Boyd says it was indeed 'lost' in '84, and C-Man mentioned that the snare was an overdub, possibly added during the mono mix. Then there is the rumor that BW erased the 8-track master, or that it was lost during Stack O Tracks.

My hunch is the 8-track master used on Sea of Tunes is not the actual multi-track ... because there are processed elements on the Stack O Tracks version that I highly doubt were created during that instrumental mix -- the overdubbed snare is present on 'Stack', which means it was not added during the original mix, it was on the multi ... yet it is not on the multi that the SOT people had. I'm theorizing that the SOT 8-track was copied to another 8-track or 4-track tape, where some final elements were added, and that was lost (or erased by Brian ?!?) at some point.

The first 148 min. rough assembly wasn't fully put together until after Welles left for South America. He and Robert Wise worked out the much more polished 131 min. edit via telegrams and phone conversations. Welles had not even seen the 131 minute version before he requested the big chunk from the middle be taken out and this request came about a week before the first preview. In fairness, Welles was under the impression he could continue to tinker with different editorial ideas and I don't think he even knew which edits were screened during the previews until informed about it a few days later. Anyway, documents show that Welles' business manager Jack Moss was the chief architect of the extensively reworked release version; he was vocal about making changes even before the previews and later pushed through his ideas with Wise while largely ignoring Welles' long distance input. Welles' absence throughout virtually the entire post-production process did result in something positive: because he was making editorial choices from afar, he had the studio send him dozens of frame enlargements taken directly from the footage so he could better visualize how shots could go together. Those frame enlargements survived so, at least, we have a visual reference for almost all of the footage that was cut (including shots/scenes eliminated from the initial rough assembly).


The problem with DON QUIXOTE is that Welles was constantly rethinking what the film should be and, because he was funding it himself, was under no obligation to do more than tinker as he pleased. There are a handful of really good scenes, but it's nowhere near as complete as THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND in terms of footage shot. The released "finished" version of QUIXOTE put together by Jess Franco is, indeed, awful and a complete waste of time; watching the silent rushes of the unedited material is much more rewarding.

All good. Nice work digging up that info.

I just loaded up the session I made with the isolated elements and A/B'd it with the final mix.

Could it be possible that the overdub by John Guerin is the new drum track, and not just a snare? I'm having a hard time hearing a 3rd snare in the final mix. The only flam action I'm hearing is between the new drum track + the old one (which, incidentally, is the only element that can't easily be isolated from the SOT tracks - but I'm pretty sure from the way it's laid out, it would have its' own track on the master.)

For the life of me I'm not hearing any additional elements, though I certainly could be wrong.  Either way, I guess it's irrelevant until the SOT guys decide to turn over the tape.

In the meantime, based on what I was able to do, I'd imagine Derry Fitzgerald might be able to work some magic w/the SOT material and get damn close to recreating the master tape. I'm still flipping out over how he was able to isolate the different harmony stacks on Good Vibrations!

hmm ... i don't work in digital audio, so I haven't played around with the SOT stuff or anything ... that special, weird delay that Desper did is not on the SOT multis though, right? The thing is, the effect is present on 'Stack O Tracks', and it seems really unlikely that it was re-created specifically in preparation for 'Stack' ... but maybe it was, since Desper was involved with that release. Which might mean that there is a multi (either 4 or 8-track) where this is present, which I'm thinking might be the final multi-track master in question.

it certainly is possible that there is not a distinct snare overdub I'm sure ... maybe we should ask Desper, or if C-Man is reading this, perhaps he can clarify from the info he has. I'm assuming he has a session log that shows some type of drum overdub.

the original track 'Rendezvous' is a 4-track recording with very minimal drums submixed very low (this is the track where Mike sings '... surf again' instead of 'do it again'). This 4-track tape was transferred to 8-track, where they overdubbed another drum track and a bunch else. I'm guessing that this 8-track tape was transferred to another 8 or 4-track tape for some extra sweetening (perhaps just effects) before the final mix.

but, if the drum delay effect is present on the SOT tapes, then my theories are pure trash, and the SOT people probably had the final master !

No, your theory is not trash at all. That's a great point. The drums are dry on SOT - the only audible hole I can discern. Was creating a new master tape just for effects common back then? Makes sense to ease the load on the final mixdown. The only other thing I could think of is that maybe they made an instrumental mix at the same session that yielded the final mix. And yeah, would definitely love to hear C-Man & Desper weigh in if they see this!

No, it was not common to go to another multi just for effects. But Desper and Carl were very experimental and innovative during this period. In any case, I doubt they would have done it just for effects. More likely is that there are more elements there that are not clearly audible ... i.e. doubling of parts, extra backing vocals, an extra organ, etc. Or another theory ... Desper has noted in the past that 'Stack' was the first album he worked on, so it IS possible that he created the effect again when preparing 'Stack', but this also seems less likely. Making an instrumental mix the same night as the final is possible but wouldn't have been typical either.

My best guess is that the SOT 8-track was not the final master, perhaps it was an earlier (nearly finished) safety copy, made before the final bounces, etc. were done. How many discrete elements are present on the files you mixed from? 6, 7, 8 ?

Anyway, I think the story about Capitol losing the tape has been around since the '70s. I think they went back to do a stereo remix for '20/20' and couldn't do it because the tape was missing. Otherwise, they probably would have instead of releasing that fold-down, duophonic mess !

Yeah, I think you're right. Just A/B'd Stack-O-Tracks vs. Final Mix and the levels are too drastically different for it to have been done at the same session. Unless, like you said, maybe Desper re-created the effect which is pretty unlikely, but not impossible.

As far as discrete tracks.. the way the SOT people mixed it is kinda all over the place, and then I did some further unorganizing, but here's what I'm thinking:

1) Drums (in this case, they mixed the drums dead center over almost all of the instruments unfortunately - so in my mix I just went with their mono track for the majority, and applied the delay effect to EVERYTHING for certain spots - which clearly wasn't what happened on the final mix)
2) Guitar  (comes in on the 2nd verse) + maybe guitar solo
3) Lead Vocal 1 + Dit Dit Dit's 1
4) Lead Vocal 2 + Dit Dit Dit's 2
5) Brian "Bomp Bomp Bomp" - they had both overdubs on one track for this one, so maybe it was bounced on the master

all of the vocals can be (and probably were originally) squeezed onto those 3 tracks, so, 6-7-8 I guess would be something like:

6) Original guitar/organ/bass from Rendezvous
7) Original drums from Rendezvous
8) Sax / Organ / Handclap overdubs

Mind you, they had the broken down Rendezvous tracks on SOT as well so it's possible that I pulled some stuff from there.

right, so if there is processing on the orig. mix of discrete drum elements that are not present on the SOT mix, then it's a later overdub ... and the SOT mix was just a working (likely safety) copy of the multi, not the final. keep in mind, they would have probably left an open track or two and done some additional bouncing for those last overdubs. I also think there was some subtle sweetening or doubling of parts on the final that is not present on the SOT (like BW's 'bomp bomp' part).