the T.A.M.I. Show

[Micha]

No that was the so called "Lost Concert." It was taped in March 1964 and played in theaters with footage of the Beatles at the Washington DC Coliseum (during their Feb 64 tour)  and Leslie Gore. It is called "The Lost Concert" because the footage was "lost" in some warehouse till its discovery in the 80s.  Actually-watch the Lost Concert first and than pop in the TAMI Show and be amazed at how much more polished the BBs were in the space of seven months!!

And yet their best live recording (What'd I Say) was recorded in January 1964... 

Hadn't you mentioned "What'd I Say" I would have. I think the "Lost Concert" was done on a bad/lazy day or the audience was not responsive enough or the mic'ing was bad. The lead guitar is too soft on the "Lost Concert".

Unlike most people, who rather praise the Blondie/Ricky era, I think 1964 was the BB's live peak... seriously. IMHO.

[The Shift]

I wish that they hadn't stopped after the "T.N.T. Show" (though it wasn't as good as T.A.M.I.), even though they had the  Monterey pop festival, I wish they had done something like this every two years going into the 70's and the 80's 

Perspective here: I'd recommend with no malice or sarcasm intended doing some research into rock and pop history of the 60's and early 70's with concerts, television broadcasts, and the like, it's not only informative but a hell of a lot of fun!

Aye you can find some fascinating stuff that happened almost in your own backyard! My fave from Yorkshire:

http://www.ukrockfestivals.com/Krumlin-festival-1970.html

That site is a motherlode of info:

http://www.ukrockfestivals.com/

[Mr. Wilson]

Ya know if the Beach Boys got 50 thousand dollars for 4 songs in 1964 they really scored.. Because The Beatles got slightly less than 30 thousand for 3 Ed Sullivan shows filmed over a couple of weeks plus plane tickets + hotel rooms  free..  Which reached a lot more people than  TAMI . What I don't understand is the BB were the hottest act on the bill and were in the middle of the movie.. The stones up to that point were more PR + Image + Long hair etc.. Dangerous guys etc. I have no charts or books in front of me but im pretty sure in 1964 in USA they released Come On..  Not Fade Away..  Its all over now as singles.. I might  have missed 1 more .. Their bigger hits were couple years away.. Those songs charted BUT not near as well as BB.. DC5 had more hits that year than Stones.. The Animals had more also im sure also.. The Stones didn't deserve to close the show... IMHO..   Anybody have any thoughts on this  ..?  Heck when the stones played San Bernardino on their 1st tour 1964  hardly anyone showed up for the show..!

[retrokid67]

Ya know if the Beach Boys got 50 thousand dollars for 4 songs in 1964 they really scored.. Because The Beatles got slightly less than 30 thousand for 3 Ed Sullivan shows filmed over a couple of weeks plus plane tickets + hotel rooms  free..  Which reached a lot more people than TNT.... What I don't understand is the BB were the hottest act on the bill and were in the middle of the movie.. The stones up to that point were more PR + Image + Long hair etc.. Dangerous guys etc. I have no charts or books in front of me but im pretty sure in 1964 in USA they released Come On..  Not Fade Away..  Its all over now as singles.. I might  have missed 1 more .. Their bigger hits were couple years away.. Those songs charted BUT not near as well as BB.. DC5 had more hits that year than Stones.. The Animals had more also im sure also.. The Stones didn't deserve to close the show... IMHO..   Anybody have any thoughts on this  ..?  Heck when the stones played San Bernardino on their 1st tour 1964  hardly anyone showed up for the show..!

I agree 100% if anyone should've closed it, it should've been the BB.  I do know that James Brown wanted to close the show but the producers wouldn't let him, they wanted a British act to close the show.  then he cornered Mick Jagger in the bathroom and told him something like "I'm gonna make you regret that you EVER came to America".  Then of course he did his thing on stage and Mick was in the back throwin up and was begging the producers not to let them go on after him 

[Jon Stebbins]

Ya know if the Beach Boys got 50 thousand dollars for 4 songs in 1964 they really scored.. Because The Beatles got slightly less than 30 thousand for 3 Ed Sullivan shows filmed over a couple of weeks plus plane tickets + hotel rooms  free..  Which reached a lot more people than TNT.... What I don't understand is the BB were the hottest act on the bill and were in the middle of the movie.. The stones up to that point were more PR + Image + Long hair etc.. Dangerous guys etc. I have no charts or books in front of me but im pretty sure in 1964 in USA they released Come On..  Not Fade Away..  Its all over now as singles.. I might  have missed 1 more .. Their bigger hits were couple years away.. Those songs charted BUT not near as well as BB.. DC5 had more hits that year than Stones.. The Animals had more also im sure also.. The Stones didn't deserve to close the show... IMHO..   Anybody have any thoughts on this  ..?  Heck when the stones played San Bernardino on their 1st tour 1964  hardly anyone showed up for the show..!

I don't know about the show order...the Beach Boys are top-billed in advertising and promos for the film, and in the intro during the film. Maybe they chose their slot, following Jan and Dean and being before the dreary Billy J Kramer made them look great. Comparing what they were paid to the Beatles is apples and oranges. The Beatles were new and white-hot in Jan. '64 but in Nov. '64 the Beach Boys were established, with a lot of fundamental show business clout. Getting paid well for a feature film appearance isn't that surprising. Obviously the Stones were still on the way up...but by late '64 they were making huge gains in the US. Time is On My Side went to #6, the first two LP's were high in the charts, and they were only a few months away from Last Time ...and 6 months from Satisfaction which went to #1. To me, the Beach Boys and the Stones were easily the two most famous acts on the TAMI bill...you could flip a coin as to which was more famous in Nov. '64...but the Beach Boys could command more money because they had their business established in the US in a way the Stones would not until 1965. As it turned out the iron clad contract the BB's negotiated is why their set was removed from re-issues of the TAMI film, they would need to get paid again and the people who acquired the rights to re-distribute (I believe it was Dick Clark's company) did not want to pay them a giant fee....therefore their set could not be shown in later versions of the film. The other acts just signed away their rights for a single payment, the Beach Boys put some kind of clause in their contract that made it too expensive to keep them in future movie runs of the film. This started a rumor that the Beach Boys removed their set from the film because they were embarrassed by it. I noticed this rumor has evaporated after the BB's set was restored to the movie and people can clearly see they were as well-recieved, if not more so, than any of the other performers in the movie.

[retrokid67]

Yup no doubt they were established by the end of '64.  I wish they had the entire video performance of them on the Ed Sullivan show like they do with the Beatles including the interview.  And I wish they did televised press conferences like they did.  I also find it strange that they didn't have any movies of their own and that the ones they were in were just them appearing in a title sequence (of one of Annette's Disney movies and not beach party movies) and the other a beach movie, but the center of that one was the Beatles  .  is it me or did they not look too happy about being in "Monkey's Uncle"?

[Mr. Wilson]

Thank You Jon for clearing up why the Beach Boys were removed from the film,, I NEVER knew that.. Interesting the power BB had so early in their career .! So Murry was involved in that decision .??  Please don't  misunderstand me Jon im not questioning your integrity just don't understand how everything happened.. Because some of it to me doesn't make sense.. Example... In 1964 minimum wage for over 18 was 1.25 per hour under was 0.75  per hour .. My mother in 64 made 75.00 a week plus tips as a waitress and supported 2 kids on that.. So The Beach Boys must felt like they won the lotto and laughed all the way to the bank.. !!  And the cost of the film was  HUGE.. Santa Monica  civic only holds 2500 people or so .. Ticket costs then who knows maybe couple of bucks.?   The outlay for money for all the performers was huge..  I don't see how the producers made any money for years..! And the video has been unavailable for decades.. I finally found a legit DVD in 2007 at Best Buy..  So I am confused and meant NO disrespect.. Also BB used to get 50 thousand dollars plus a percentage of the gate for a 2 hour gig indoors.. 70"s + 80"s from what I read.. Out doors more.. So 50 thousand for 4 songs  In 64 BLEW me away..!!  BTW  Love all of your books !!  Paul

[Jon Stebbins]

Thank You Jon for clearing up why the Beach Boys were removed from the film,, I NEVER knew that.. Interesting the power BB had so early in their career .! So Murry was involved in that decision .??  Please don't  misunderstand me Jon im not questioning your integrity just don't understand how everything happened.. Because some of it to me doesn't make sense.. Example... In 1964 minimum wage for over 18 was 1.25 per hour under was 0.75  per hour .. My mother in 64 made 75.00 a week plus tips as a waitress and supported 2 kids on that.. So The Beach Boys must felt like they won the lotto and laughed all the way to the bank.. !!  And the cost of the film was  HUGE.. Santa Monica  civic only holds 2500 people or so .. Ticket costs then who knows maybe couple of bucks.?   The outlay for money for all the performers was huge..  I don't see how the producers made any money for years..! And the video has been unavailable for decades.. I finally found a legit DVD in 2007 at Best Buy..  So I am confused and meant NO disrespect.. Also BB used to get 50 thousand dollars plus a percentage of the gate for a 2 hour gig indoors.. 70"s + 80"s from what I read.. Out doors more.. So 50 thousand for 4 songs  In 64 BLEW me away..!!  BTW  Love all of your books !!  Paul

No problems...we're just analyzing this thing, and I agree 50k is a lot of money and seems over the top, unless you think of this as a starring movie role and not just a 4-song performance. It wasn't like they showed up, played 4 songs, got a check and walked out. There were rehearsals and run-throughs at the Santa Monica Civic for a day or two before, all the camera blocking, lighting, adjustments, makeup etc... Then they were filmed in two separate concerts on two successive days/nights. So they were probably tied up and devoted to this production for at least three if not four days. And they were used to promote the film as it's starring centerpiece. If the film cost (I'm just guessing)...say 350k 400k to make, it's not unusual for the star's fee to be 20% of the total cost. let's say the Stones got 25k, and everybody else got 5k to 10k. So you've got about 150k for the acts and another 150k - 200k for the rest of the production. I could see that working in 1964. Then...the film is released to hundreds, probably thousands of movie screens across the US, first run as a leading feature during Xmas '64 (while the BB's are #1 on the LP charts btw)...and a second run at drive-ins and matinees doubled with an Elvis movie or a beach party movie. All of those movie admission dollars add up to a hell of a lot more than 400k. If A Hard Day's Night grossed 12 million, and Viva Las Vegas grossed 10 million, it would not be a stretch to say the TAMI Show potentially grossed 10% of that, so say a million to a million and a half ...Lots of profit, and then they sold the rights to Dick Clark minus the BB's set, and he ran it through the profit grinder a few more times. The Beach Boys payday was big, but certainly within the business model of a feature film budget it wasn't outlandish.

[Mr. Wilson]

Thank you Jon for your comeback post.. Im seeing things a little clearer now.. And im sure im  not the only one that learned something from this chat.. The one thing that went OVER my head was :  The BB were advertised as Headliners and I wasn't getting that because they didn't end the show.. !  And im amazed I don't remember any advertising And I was 12 years old and a huge BB fan + English invasion fan and in middle school.. 7th grade .. Glendale Ca.. I always thought TAMI was a small budget movie.. Thanks to your research I learned it was a bigger deal than I thought.. Thx

[Ed Roach]

...As it turned out the iron clad contract the BB's negotiated is why their set was removed from re-issues of the TAMI film, they would need to get paid again and the people who acquired the rights to re-distribute (I believe it was Dick Clark's company) did not want to pay them a giant fee....therefore their set could not be shown in later versions of the film. The other acts just signed away their rights for a single payment, the Beach Boys put some kind of clause in their contract that made it too expensive to keep them in future movie runs of the film. This started a rumor that the Beach Boys removed their set from the film because they were embarrassed by it. I noticed this rumor has evaporated after the BB's set was restored to the movie and people can clearly see they were as well-received, if not more so, than any of the other performers in the movie.

Dennis always credited Murry for that contract, Jon, which in later years he felt both a blessing & a curse.  He was so proud that his Dad had the to vision to realize the long term value of the film, and have them finally begin to be treated as stars.  However, at a certain point he didn't think their footage would ever be restored within its proper context, and knew that a legendary performance was possibly never going to be seen again.  Just too bad that he wasn't around to see the film, and more importantly The Beach Boys, receive the attention deserved. 
Me, I got to see it on the big screen when it was first released, and it was one of those things etched in my memory forever - right along with that lost David Frost footage of Dennis & The Boys!  (Now if only that would turn up...)

[bgas]

Some interesting  comments in this Smithsonian review for the DVD release, including perspective on the camera shots and artists chosen: 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/The-Rock-Concert-That-Captured-an-Era.html

[Ed Roach]

Fantastic article - thanks, man

[Mr. Wilson]

   I just love this board !   

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Has there ever been a T.A.M.I Show soundtrack album?

You'd think it would ne a no-brainer.

[retrokid67]

Has there ever been a T.A.M.I Show soundtrack album?

You'd think it would ne a no-brainer.

yea really, after almost 50 years you would think they would make one

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Has there ever been a T.A.M.I Show soundtrack album?

You'd think it would ne a no-brainer.

yea really, after almost 50 years you would think they would make one

All those years the film was unavailable, that soundtrack could have done killer business.....