How much has leaked?

[JohnMill]

If we have already heard mostly everything (and for what it's worth I believe we have) it's a shame the spinsters feel compelled to tell us bold faced lies that "everything on this box set will be new".  Hopefully once it's released someone will set the record straight in the mainstream media.

[Mikie]

Sorry, I must have missed something somewhere. Who said everything on this box will be new? Are we talking about the new Smile box? Would you please direct me to the article or interview?

[Andrew G. Doe]

If we have already heard mostly everything (and for what it's worth I believe we have) it's a shame the spinsters feel compelled to tell us bold faced lies that "everything on this box set will be new".  Hopefully once it's released someone will set the record straight in the mainstream media.

If you're going to quote someone, kindly do it accurately. From the 3/11 Billboard article:

BB - "Smile" is one of the most bootlegged albums of all time. What will be new for the listener?

ML - For most of them, the whole thing will be new. The Beach Boys have an enormous amount of material from their whole career and [since] we have been actively doing an archive project for about 10 years, there are things that we have discovered that the bootleggers missed.

"Most of them" is obviously Joe Q. Public, not the likes of us.

[hypehat]

And seeing as new things turn up quite regularly, in a (by most accounts) horrifically organised vault, the archival project will most definitely have turned up some new stuff.

[OneEar/OneEye]

So, Columbia, at some point, doing a bit of Spring cleaning, just CHUCKED OUT these tapes of BB's vocal sessions?  How can that happen?  I mean, isn't that...just....WRONG?   Did they even have the courtesy perhaps to contact the band to say, "Hey, just a heads up, but we have a bunch of stuff you recorded here and it's really been cluttering up the place, soooo we're gonna throw 'em all in the dumpster out back - unless of course you would like to have them."   

[Curtis Leon]

If we have already heard mostly everything (and for what it's worth I believe we have) it's a shame the spinsters feel compelled to tell us bold faced lies that "everything on this box set will be new".  Hopefully once it's released someone will set the record straight in the mainstream media.

If you're going to quote someone, kindly do it accurately. From the 3/11 Billboard article:

BB - "Smile" is one of the most bootlegged albums of all time. What will be new for the listener?

ML - For most of them, the whole thing will be new. The Beach Boys have an enormous amount of material from their whole career and [since] we have been actively doing an archive project for about 10 years, there are things that we have discovered that the bootleggers missed.

"Most of them" is obviously Joe Q. Public, not the likes of us.

At the very least, however, he DID say that there are new things that "the bootleggers missed" in it. It's good enough for me. Anyone who expects everything in the boxset to be brand spanking new is going to be sorely disappointed. Personally, I'm just hoping for a decent quality version of Holidays. The instrumental version on the BWPS vinyl was god-like.

[JohnMill]

If we have already heard mostly everything (and for what it's worth I believe we have) it's a shame the spinsters feel compelled to tell us bold faced lies that "everything on this box set will be new".  Hopefully once it's released someone will set the record straight in the mainstream media.

If you're going to quote someone, kindly do it accurately. From the 3/11 Billboard article:

BB - "Smile" is one of the most bootlegged albums of all time. What will be new for the listener?

ML - For most of them, the whole thing will be new. The Beach Boys have an enormous amount of material from their whole career and [since] we have been actively doing an archive project for about 10 years, there are things that we have discovered that the bootleggers missed.

"Most of them" is obviously Joe Q. Public, not the likes of us.

The way I interpret that quote is that he's speaking directly to collectors or those listeners whom are already familiar with the bootlegs.  Which goes to my point that he's claiming that most of the box set will be new to those listeners.  Therefore my opinion has not changed about that quote.   

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Hmmm....I can see where it could be taken either way.

[Bicyclerider]

If we have already heard mostly everything (and for what it's worth I believe we have) it's a shame the spinsters feel compelled to tell us bold faced lies that "everything on this box set will be new".  Hopefully once it's released someone will set the record straight in the mainstream media.

If you're going to quote someone, kindly do it accurately. From the 3/11 Billboard article:

BB - "Smile" is one of the most bootlegged albums of all time. What will be new for the listener?

ML - For most of them, the whole thing will be new. The Beach Boys have an enormous amount of material from their whole career and [since] we have been actively doing an archive project for about 10 years, there are things that we have discovered that the bootleggers missed.

"Most of them" is obviously Joe Q. Public, not the likes of us.

The way I interpret that quote is that he's speaking directly to collectors or those listeners whom are already familiar with the bootlegs.  Which goes to my point that he's claiming that most of the box set will be new to those listeners.  Therefore my opinion has not changed about that quote.   

Unfortunately your opinion will change drastically after the set is released IMO.  If more than half of one CD (30 minutes) is new to those familiar with the boots, I'll eat my hat and do two two and a halfs!

[Mikie]

30 minutes of new stuff we haven't heard before?  I doubt it very much.  If there's 15 or even 10 minutes of 'new' material that has not been bootleged before, I'll be very surprised.

[BJL]

So, Columbia, at some point, doing a bit of Spring cleaning, just CHUCKED OUT these tapes of BB's vocal sessions?  How can that happen?  I mean, isn't that...just....WRONG?   Did they even have the courtesy perhaps to contact the band to say, "Hey, just a heads up, but we have a bunch of stuff you recorded here and it's really been cluttering up the place, soooo we're gonna throw 'em all in the dumpster out back - unless of course you would like to have them."   

Sadly, it was common practice in music and television well into the 70s.  Of course, the Boys can't have thought these tapes would end up being important either, being as they literally left them on a shelf at the studio...  Personally, given what I know about the regard shown original tapes of popular music/media in the 60s, that the insane quantities of tapes that have survived are still around!

[Andrew G. Doe]

If we have already heard mostly everything (and for what it's worth I believe we have) it's a shame the spinsters feel compelled to tell us bold faced lies that "everything on this box set will be new".  Hopefully once it's released someone will set the record straight in the mainstream media.

If you're going to quote someone, kindly do it accurately. From the 3/11 Billboard article:

BB - "Smile" is one of the most bootlegged albums of all time. What will be new for the listener?

ML - For most of them, the whole thing will be new. The Beach Boys have an enormous amount of material from their whole career and [since] we have been actively doing an archive project for about 10 years, there are things that we have discovered that the bootleggers missed.

"Most of them" is obviously Joe Q. Public, not the likes of us.

The way I interpret that quote is that he's speaking directly to collectors or those listeners whom are already familiar with the bootlegs.  Which goes to my point that he's claiming that most of the box set will be new to those listeners.  Therefore my opinion has not changed about that quote.   

If the question was "What will be new for the collector ?", you have a point. But the term used was "listener". Mark is well aware, and has been for some time, exactly what's out there on boots. Similarly, he stated "there are things that we have discovered that the bootleggers missed", not "there's a lot we've discovered".

If the box has the equivalent of a whole disc of 'new' stuff, I'll be thrilled, and also very surprised.

[Andrew G. Doe]

So, Columbia, at some point, doing a bit of Spring cleaning, just CHUCKED OUT these tapes of BB's vocal sessions?  How can that happen?  I mean, isn't that...just....WRONG?   Did they even have the courtesy perhaps to contact the band to say, "Hey, just a heads up, but we have a bunch of stuff you recorded here and it's really been cluttering up the place, soooo we're gonna throw 'em all in the dumpster out back - unless of course you would like to have them."   

They didn't target the BB. Bruce told me that the Columbia studio was originally a cinema (or theatre, I forget which), and  tapes were mostly stored in the old balcony. Spring 1967, they needed more space, so they just emptied it. Maybe they assumed that the artists had copies.

[guitarfool2002]

So, Columbia, at some point, doing a bit of Spring cleaning, just CHUCKED OUT these tapes of BB's vocal sessions?  How can that happen?  I mean, isn't that...just....WRONG?   Did they even have the courtesy perhaps to contact the band to say, "Hey, just a heads up, but we have a bunch of stuff you recorded here and it's really been cluttering up the place, soooo we're gonna throw 'em all in the dumpster out back - unless of course you would like to have them."   

Sadly, it was common practice in music and television well into the 70s.  Of course, the Boys can't have thought these tapes would end up being important either, being as they literally left them on a shelf at the studio...  Personally, given what I know about the regard shown original tapes of popular music/media in the 60s, that the insane quantities of tapes that have survived are still around!

I have to assume BJL, that you are in the US, otherwise some of these TV program names might not be as familiar.

I'm quite the fan of chasing the clues on lost material and how it got lost: Music is somewhat related but the issue of TV programs surviving on video tape is a somewhat easier one to address.

The programs were recorded on 2" videotape in the 60's and into the 70's. This format was not only very expensive, but also took up a lot of storage room. If you had a daily talk show like Johnny Carson or Dick Cavett or Joey Bishop, one month of programs on 2" tape was a lot of storage.

I only learned recently from a Dick Cavett interview why his shows survived, and it might say a lot about what is considered "lost" today:

Cavett's network had his run of programs stored on tape, but was going to erase or reuse them which was standard procedure: HOWEVER, they gave him the option of buying the tapes and preserving them at his own cost. Recognizing the importance of having pristine, color copies of interviews with folks like Lennon, Hendrix, Groucho, etc preserved for the future, Cavett bought back his tapes. This is why nearly his entire run is preserved. Joey Bishop's ABC show is all but forgotten: little or no tapes survived. Merv Griffin's show is almost all there. Ed Sullivan's archives are nearly complete. Hollywood Palace, the same. Local shows like the KHJ "Boss City" dance show which Brian appeared on to premiere Good Vibrations are still thought lost - again mostly due to the cost of the 2" tape at the time. Yet some other KHJ TV shows survive in the collections of the actual hosts.

Compare that to Johnny Carson: For years it was thought NBC had in some mix-up or mistake erased almost all of his 60's episodes when he was broadcasting from New York for 90 minutes each night. All that survived for years were audio clips, random small clips which he played on anniversary shows, and maybe a few kinescopes of lesser quality than the videotape masters. Was it really NBC's error, or did Carson or his production team simply not want to buy the 2" reels and store them? Some have been leaking out, various clips here and there, but Carson's 60's output  is still a mystery.

Was it because these artists didn't want to buy and store their own tapes in the music world as well? Or did places like Columbia simply run out of room and not care what happened to them?

If you see an original videotape copy of Carson's Tonight Show in color in the 60's (some clips have leaked...), and compare it to the kinescopes we're more familiar with, the difference is stunning enough to bring a tear to your eye. Much like hearing the poor quality Smile boots versus anything taken from the reels in the vaults.

[guitarfool2002]

I had to post an example of this for comparison. Imagine this as the difference between an acetate-sourced Smile outtake and a version taken from a vault tape and it's easy to see where this can go.

I don't have professional video capturing equipment here but this is a decent example:

This is what we've seen for years from Johnny Carson's show in the early 60's: a black and white kinescope sourced from film in this kind of quality:



Compare that to this clip, which was taken from one of the only surviving pieces of original 2" Quad videotape from Carson in the early 60's:



It is truly amazing to think of people watching that show in full, vibrant color after assuming the quality we're most familiar with: black and white, poorly defined images, was the way everyone saw the show at home. The only reason why that original 2" videotape clip survived was it had been given to one of the guests on the show and his family had the tape restored and transferred in the last few years.

[JohnMill]

If we have already heard mostly everything (and for what it's worth I believe we have) it's a shame the spinsters feel compelled to tell us bold faced lies that "everything on this box set will be new".  Hopefully once it's released someone will set the record straight in the mainstream media.

If you're going to quote someone, kindly do it accurately. From the 3/11 Billboard article:

BB - "Smile" is one of the most bootlegged albums of all time. What will be new for the listener?

ML - For most of them, the whole thing will be new. The Beach Boys have an enormous amount of material from their whole career and [since] we have been actively doing an archive project for about 10 years, there are things that we have discovered that the bootleggers missed.

"Most of them" is obviously Joe Q. Public, not the likes of us.

The way I interpret that quote is that he's speaking directly to collectors or those listeners whom are already familiar with the bootlegs.  Which goes to my point that he's claiming that most of the box set will be new to those listeners.  Therefore my opinion has not changed about that quote.   

If the question was "What will be new for the collector ?", you have a point. But the term used was "listener". Mark is well aware, and has been for some time, exactly what's out there on boots. Similarly, he stated "there are things that we have discovered that the bootleggers missed", not "there's a lot we've discovered".

If the box has the equivalent of a whole disc of 'new' stuff, I'll be thrilled, and also very surprised.

Still some of the weirdest phrasing I've ever come across but I can now see that Linett was not being intentional deceptive or anything malicious.  As far as "new stuff" on the box set, like you I'll be pleasantly surprised if there is a significant amount of new material.  Again for me some of the SQ upgrades are going to be more than worth the price of admission.  

[HeyJude]

I suppose it boils down to what we consider "new" material. I'm sure there will be "session" material that isn't already out there. There probably won't be much in the way of totally alternate versions of songs, and certainly not much if anything in terms of totally new actual songs.

I'd love to hear more of that "Our Prayer" vocal session, and in better sound quality.

What I really hope for is that this released is not drenched in reverb/echo the way most everything with the BB's has been lately that has required any fresh mixing. I don't want this stuff to sound like the stereo remix of "Please Let Me Wonder", where it sounds like I accidentaly hit the "opera hall" setting on a digital receiver.

[Andrew G. Doe]

New songs ?  That is, something we've not heard before in any form whatsoever  ?  Hugely unlikely.

New sessions ?  Almost certainly.

[Ed Roach]

I had to post an example of this for comparison. Imagine this as the difference between an acetate-sourced Smile outtake and a version taken from a vault tape and it's easy to see where this can go.

I don't have professional video capturing equipment here but this is a decent example:

This is what we've seen for years from Johnny Carson's show in the early 60's: a black and white kinescope sourced from film in this kind of quality:



Compare that to this clip, which was taken from one of the only surviving pieces of original 2" Quad videotape from Carson in the early 60's:



It is truly amazing to think of people watching that show in full, vibrant color after assuming the quality we're most familiar with: black and white, poorly defined images, was the way everyone saw the show at home. The only reason why that original 2" videotape clip survived was it had been given to one of the guests on the show and his family had the tape restored and transferred in the last few years.

Reading this thread this morning, (and specifically seeing this post above), has really touched on a raw nerve for me.  Strangely, it ties in with why I never had an interest in 'bootlegs', or taped concerts, as I always had an extreme desire in & for purity.  You know, first generation, and what an artist wants us to hear.  (Made it all the more profound for me that I got so deeply involved in the studio with The Boys...)
As an archivist, and particularly as the creator and artist personally behind a great of my archives, I long ago accepted the fate of my work once it was 'out there', and published in some way.  With the advent of the internet, I faced a fear I'm sure is shared by archivist everywhere, that nothing is safe from duplication anymore.  And, while the digital age has minimized the effects of generation loss, there is no substitute for getting as close to the source as possible - as is evident from the Carson examples. 
A little closer to home, my personal & artistic disaster was Malcolm Leo somehow illegally obtaining a copy of my film for The River Song!  While I did license memorable material to him for An American Band, I absolute said NO to using that footage.  Compare the quality of my footage in his film to recent uses of River Song by both Sony for the recent release, and in the BBC documentary on Dennis - it's like night and day.  Interestingly, the example I found on YouTube is someones reedit of my footage; the internet at it's best:
                                                                                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arQUVdjI2y0
This thread also brings up another dilemma for archivists, and that is the ever- changing need to upgrade from original sources, and the massive expense in doing so.  Transferring every piece of film and video to the latest, cleanest medium isn't only wise, it's become essential with hi-def & wider formats.  Fortunately for me, each time I revisit to update, there are always new revelations, or things newly significant...

[Andrew G. Doe]

This is what we've seen for years from Johnny Carson's show in the early 60's: a black and white kinescope sourced from film in this kind of quality:

It is truly amazing to think of people watching that show in full, vibrant color after assuming the quality we're most familiar with: black and white, poorly defined images, was the way everyone saw the show at home.

The same hold true for silent movies - the difference between the poor prints routinely shown on TV, and often projected, and a print struck from the original negative (or even a safety copy), is shocking. Irrespective of the qualities of the acting and scenario, technically a movie from 1910, or earlier, was originally as sharp and crisp as one made in the 80s.

[TdHabib]

This is what we've seen for years from Johnny Carson's show in the early 60's: a black and white kinescope sourced from film in this kind of quality:

It is truly amazing to think of people watching that show in full, vibrant color after assuming the quality we're most familiar with: black and white, poorly defined images, was the way everyone saw the show at home.

The same hold true for silent movies - the difference between the poor prints routinely shown on TV, and often projected, and a print struck from the original negative (or even a safety copy), is shocking. Irrespective of the qualities of the acting and scenario, technically a movie from 1910, or earlier, was originally as sharp and crisp as one made in the 80s.

A brilliant point Andrew, as a lover of silent films I'm very enthusiastic about this. AND we must remember that silent films were almost never silent. They were accompanied often by symphony orchetras and at the very least piano.

[guitarfool2002]

I need to add one more element to this discussion, after reading some of the great posts about source material and quality:

Just recently the Smithsonian found a series of photographs from a man named Ives, who was experimenting with color photography in the 1890's into the 1900's. He just happened to use some of his new techniques to capture the way San Francisco looked in the aftermath of the 1906 earthquake.

When these first showed up on a news site, I was mesmerized by them. I couldn't stop looking at them and I got a strange feeling of being closer than ever before to the events shown in the photo. It was the same feeling I got seeing the Carson clip taken from the master videotape rather than a later-generation copy or kinescope: It feels as if you are *there*, and the history comes alive.

Look at the colors of the advertising billboards in this Ives photo from 1906. We have been programmed to see and feel 1906 in black and white, or in rickety and shaky newsreel footage where details don't matter as much as the overall shot. Here we can see the detail, and it's very shocking, again like the examples we've mentioned earlier. It feels more immediate and more real, and this has not been colorized after-the-fact, it is the original photo as Ives made the image.

I'm thinking more and more, especially after thinking about it through this thread, that the highlight of a Smile box set may just be the ability to hear this music as close to the source as we could imagine, short of being in the studio as the master tapes are being played. Seeing it from that point of view, I'm more excited than I've been to hear this than I was since they announced it.

[letsmakeit31]

I had to post an example of this for comparison. Imagine this as the difference between an acetate-sourced Smile outtake and a version taken from a vault tape and it's easy to see where this can go.

I don't have professional video capturing equipment here but this is a decent example:

This is what we've seen for years from Johnny Carson's show in the early 60's: a black and white kinescope sourced from film in this kind of quality:



Compare that to this clip, which was taken from one of the only surviving pieces of original 2" Quad videotape from Carson in the early 60's:



It is truly amazing to think of people watching that show in full, vibrant color after assuming the quality we're most familiar with: black and white, poorly defined images, was the way everyone saw the show at home. The only reason why that original 2" videotape clip survived was it had been given to one of the guests on the show and his family had the tape restored and transferred in the last few years.

Have to say the work done on restoring old classic black and white Doctor Who shows comes to mind while reading this, Simply breathtaking.

[Chris Brown]

Just that one photo you posted is quite stunning guitarfool - if I didn't know any better, I'd say it was from the 50's or 60's. 

[SurfRiderHawaii]

What hasn't leaked are pristine, lovingly mixed/edited CD quality material.  Everything available.

Like the Barnyard demo - the best possible quality version will be released.  Not some crappy, scratchy piece of merda.

I'm just happy to not EVER AGAIN spend money on a Smile bootleg.