what was the first album to release the pre-capitol demos?

[bgas]

According to this document:

http://heroinc.hostingsiteforfree.com/monarch/MonarchNumbers.pdf

which compiles the pressing "delta" numbers of Monarch Record Manufacturing Company (so named because the serial numbers scratched into the trail-out grooves were preceded with a triangle or "delta") the delta number of 14050 on the lacquers for THE BEACH BOYS BIGGEST BEACH HITS would indicate a November 1969 manufacturing date.  If the lacquers weren't cut until November, it could very well be December, or even January before the album was pressed, packaged, and distributed.

Lee

I also found this article in the August 2, 1969 issue of Billboard:

Happy Tiger Line to GRT
LOS ANGELES - Newly formed Happy Tiger Records has given its 8-track and cassette rights to GRT.  Happy Tiger will also provide GRT with product from Era Records, with which it recently worked out a distribution agreement.
Among the acts on Happy Tiger are newly acquired Roberta Sherwood, and Lynn Kellogg of the New York cast of "Hair."
The labels' other acts are Red Rhodes and the Detours, Priscilla Paris, and Buddy Bohn.
Happy Tiger's executive team includes president Robert Reiter and Don Peake, a&r vice president.  Herb Newman operates Era.

There is no mention of the Beach Boys release, which I think would be big news.

Since the singles were purely on the Era label, and the LP was on the Era / Distributed by Happy Tiger imprint, I think we may be talking two different timeframes -- perhaps spring of 1969 for the first pressing of the singles, and late fall / winter for the album.

Lee

Thanxx for the great info Lee, and really great that Custom Machine has been so persistent on this subject!!

Actually, the singles were on the Era "Back To Back Hits" label, which is wrongly dated ( I just discovered) on the Starlines site, as none of the labels' 45s were issued until at least 1972.
Article from May 20 1972 Billboard:  http://tinyurl.com/ljxaq37

[LeeDempsey]

Actually, the singles were on the Era "Back To Back Hits" label, which is wrongly dated ( I just discovered) on the Starlines site, as none of the labels' 45s were issued until at least 1972.
Article from May 20 1972 Billboard:  http://tinyurl.com/ljxaq37

Very interesting...

There was a similar discussion over on the Steve Hoffman board back in 2012:

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/what-were-the-first-issues-of-the-beach-boys-morgan-candix-tapes.301773/

Steve reported there that Bruce Morgan had his dad's tapes transferred to a mono 15 ips reel at Sound Masters in September 1968, and then had a copy cut (for Era) on October 2, 1968.  Jim Murphy reported that the contract between Deck Records and Era was executed on March 31, 1969.  But now we have no mention of the release in Billboard in August 1969, and a Monarch delta number that puts the lacquer being cut in November 1969.  All this is lending more and more evidence to the assertion that Era held onto the tapes for over a year -- maybe, as some have speculated, until after the Beach Boys' contract with Capitol expired (on June 30, 1969).

Lee

[Andrew G. Doe]

I'm not understanding the whole Capitol thing. The tracks were all cut before the band signed to Capitol, so they had no claim on them whatsoever. According to Elliott, Hite Morgan gave Capitol a special release to include "Surfin'" on the first album.

[Custom Machine]

Thanks Bgas and Lee for providing even more interesting background and insight into the release date of this material.

I'm not understanding the whole Capitol thing. The tracks were all cut before the band signed to Capitol, so they had no claim on them whatsoever. According to Elliott, Hite Morgan gave Capitol a special release to include "Surfin'" on the first album.

The "whole Capitol thing", as far as not releasing the Hite Morgan recordings, is, to the best of my knowledge, simply based on conjecture.  First, it's possible that when Morgan gave Capitol the rights to release "Surfin'", the contract may have also stated that none of the other Morgan recordings could be released while the BBs were under contract to Capitol.  Second, it's possible that there was no such agreement, but there was concern about a potential cease and desist order or lawsuit from Capitol if the Morgan material was released, with Capitol potentially saying that they had the exclusive rights to release any Beach Boys recordings.  In this second scenario, Morgan and/or ERA Records, as small players, would most likely not have the desire and resources to dispute such an action.  Again, these are simply possible scenarios explaining why the material was not released when the BBs were under contract to Capitol.

[Andrew G. Doe]

As far as I'm aware, the letter from Morgan to Capitol gave them permission to include "Surfin'" - and only "Surfin'" - on the first album. Capitol had no legal claim to the other Morgan material, some of which had already been released as it was recorded under contract to him and not them. What we have here is some postulating a non-existent situation as a possible explanation, and to any researcher worth their salt, that's abhorrent. Bluntly, it's making stuff up to support your pet theory.

[LeeDempsey]

Andrew,

I think we have to consider Custom Machine's postulation as a possible explanation -- simply because we don't have anything better.  I agree that Capitol had no legal right to the Morgan tapes, but perhaps there was a clause in the Capitol contract prohibiting release of alternate versions of songs released by Capitol -- which would apply to "Surfin' Safari" and "Surfer Girl" here.  Also remember that "Judy" was on the group's demo tape given to Nik Venet by Murry -- didn't Capitol purchase that entire tape?  Perhaps Era/Happy Tiger decided to take a "better safe than sorry" stance, and waited for the contract to expire.

And perhaps the fear was the Beach Boys themselves, and not Capitol.  We saw how they were able to block the FIRST WAVE set through the use of legal power and deep pockets, when they apparently had no proper legal claim.  And we also know that the Beach Boys' legal machine was in full motion at the time, having filed suit against Capitol on April 12, 1969.  Sometimes the threat of legal action can be as effective as legal action itself.

On the other hand, what better time to sneak a release out "under the radar" -- when the group and their record label are embroiled in a legal battle?  I can't find any trade ads for BIGGEST BEACH HITS, or any mention in Billboard or Cash Box, so maybe Era was trying to keep this release quiet to avoid controversy.  But keeping it quiet would be counter-intuitive to sales...

As an aside, for background on the Beach Boys lawsuit with Capitol, check out this article:
http://www.mcrfb.com/?p=15386

It has some information that I never knew --for example that the Beach Boys were investors in a cardiovascular clinic in Jacksonville, Florida???

Lee

[bgas]

As far as I'm aware, the letter from Morgan to Capitol gave them permission to include "Surfin'" - and only "Surfin'" - on the first album. Capitol had no legal claim to the other Morgan material, some of which had already been released as it was recorded under contract to him and not them. What we have here is some postulating a non-existent situation as a possible explanation, and to any researcher worth their salt, that's abhorrent. Bluntly, it's making stuff up to support your pet theory.

Seems a fair point. In any case, there's no need to banter( Let's just let the >supposed<Capitol issue die now) as the Billboard articles show dating that precludes anything Spring /Summer 1969 AND the monarch numbering dates the LP to a November 1969 pressing.
Dirstribution after that is anyone's guess. Probably ERA couldn't promote it quickly enough for the Christmas market, so they postponed the actual release( just conjecture of course)  

edit: typed as Lee posted

[Andrew G. Doe]

Also remember that "Judy" was on the group's demo tape given to Nik Venet by Murry -- didn't Capitol purchase that entire tape?  

I'm away from the Bellagio vaults right now, but my memory is that Capitol purchased three masters - "Surfin' Safari", "409" & "The Lonely Sea" - and not the entire demo tape.

[LeeDempsey]

Also remember that "Judy" was on the group's demo tape given to Nik Venet by Murry -- didn't Capitol purchase that entire tape?  

I'm away from the Bellagio vaults right now, but my memory is that Capitol purchased three masters - "Surfin' Safari", "409" & "The Lonely Sea" - and not the entire demo tape.

Ahh, I stand corrected.

[Steve Mayo]

over on amazon, one can buy this lp and  a promo copy of it also for the collectors out there.

[bgas]

over on amazon, one can buy this lp and  a promo copy of it also for the collectors out there.

But where's the test pressings? 

[Mikie]

Who the f*** cares about test pressings??? Aren't promo copies already going above and beyond the normality scope of most collectors who are satisfied by obtaining stock copies? What, are you addicted to vinyl? Is it the smell? And what do you do with it when you get it - file it away on the shelf, never to be seen by anyone for at least five years? What a fanatic!

[Steve Mayo]

mikie, I think he was joking about my previous post about having a test pressing for this lp before it was lost 6 years ago.

[Custom Machine]

As far as I'm aware, the letter from Morgan to Capitol gave them permission to include "Surfin'" - and only "Surfin'" - on the first album. Capitol had no legal claim to the other Morgan material, some of which had already been released as it was recorded under contract to him and not them. What we have here is some postulating a non-existent situation as a possible explanation, and to any researcher worth their salt, that's abhorrent. Bluntly, it's making stuff up to support your pet theory.

Andrew, No one is making stuff up to support a pet theory, and I can guarantee you that there is nothing "abhorrent" going on here!  As I said in my most recent post, "Again, these are simply possible scenarios explaining why the material was not released when the BBs were under contract to Capitol."  In my case, I'm a fan wondering why this material finally saw release when it did, and as a result of our discussion, Lee and Bgas have uncovered info proving that neither the album nor the singles were released in the Spring of 1969.  And the only two people posting in this discussion who purchased the album when they first saw it remember buying it "in early 1970..right before add some music was released" in Steve's case, and March 1970 in my case.  And in my case, it's not simply based on a recollection.  Ensuring that my stuff would be worth less than it could have been in the future collectibles market, I wrote my name and the month and year of purchase, "3-70", on the inside of the record jacket. 

Andrew,

I think we have to consider Custom Machine's postulation as a possible explanation -- simply because we don't have anything better.  I agree that Capitol had no legal right to the Morgan tapes, but perhaps there was a clause in the Capitol contract prohibiting release of alternate versions of songs released by Capitol -- which would apply to "Surfin' Safari" and "Surfer Girl" here.  Also remember that "Judy" was on the group's demo tape given to Nik Venet by Murry -- didn't Capitol purchase that entire tape?  Perhaps Era/Happy Tiger decided to take a "better safe than sorry" stance, and waited for the contract to expire.

And perhaps the fear was the Beach Boys themselves, and not Capitol.  We saw how they were able to block the FIRST WAVE set through the use of legal power and deep pockets, when they apparently had no proper legal claim.  And we also know that the Beach Boys' legal machine was in full motion at the time, having filed suit against Capitol on April 12, 1969.  Sometimes the threat of legal action can be as effective as legal action itself.

On the other hand, what better time to sneak a release out "under the radar" -- when the group and their record label are embroiled in a legal battle?  I can't find any trade ads for BIGGEST BEACH HITS, or any mention in Billboard or Cash Box, so maybe Era was trying to keep this release quiet to avoid controversy.  But keeping it quiet would be counter-intuitive to sales...

As an aside, for background on the Beach Boys lawsuit with Capitol, check out this article:
http://www.mcrfb.com/?p=15386

It has some information that I never knew --for example that the Beach Boys were investors in a cardiovascular clinic in Jacksonville, Florida???

Lee

Lee, Excellent point that the concern (or one of the concerns) could have been legal action, justified or not, on the part of the Beach Boys themselves, similar to what we saw in Brad Elliott's attempt to release "First Wave - The Complete Hite Morgan Sessions" on CD about 15 years ago.  And thanks for tracking down that April 12, 1969 Billboard article - interesting stuff!

[Andrew G. Doe]

Beg to differ, but people have been introducing theories into this topic that are, frankly, ludicrous - i.e. that Capitol in some way had a legal option over these tracks when they blatantly didn't - purely to promote their own personal idée fixe. I totally accept the Delta code evidence that it couldn't have been released before 11/69, and have a supplementary question: if there is one, what is the © date on the album sleeve ?

As for the BB putting a stop to the release of First Wave, I've heard it said that this was in part a stratagem to put Elliott out of business: if so it was entirely successful, if morally bankrupt. The band had no more legal claim to the Morgan masters than Capitol did.

[bgas]

Beg to differ, but people have been introducing theories into this topic that are, frankly, ludicrous - i.e. that Capitol in some way had a legal option over these tracks when they blatantly didn't - purely to promote their own personal idée fixe. I totally accept the Delta code evidence that it couldn't have been released before 11/69, and have a supplementary question: if there is one, what is the © date on the album sleeve ?

There are no dates on the sleeve or the labels for either the stock or promo copies

The Canadian issue on RCA Camden (CAS-2371) also has no date on the cover; it mentions  > Released In The USA by ERA Records< n the back cover ;
I can't find a good Canadian discography, but the US one lists these two closely numbered  LPS: 
CAS-2367 Skeeter Davis Easy To Love (LP, Album) 1970
CAS-2377 Living Voices Living Voices Sing "True Girl"/"Jean" And Other Motion Picture Favorites (LP) 1970

[bgas]

Amazingly enough, this test pressing showed up on Ebay today, with a date of 9-25-69; Steve, does this look similar to the one you had?
It has the ERA numbers stamped in the dead wax. 
I'm not spending $495, so please, someone else go for it!!  ( Oh! It's 61-63 stuff, so Jim Murphy will HAVE to buy it)
 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/BEACH-BOYS-KENNY-CADETS-TORNADOES-CENTURY-LP-60S-MATERIAL-TEST-PRESSING-/311296717026   

[Steve Mayo]

the white label was on the copy I had but there was no ink writing on it. came with a generic white jacket which had the lp title written on it.

[LeeDempsey]

From what I can see online, Century Record Manufacturing was a "vanity" record press.  They did stuff like high school marching bands, college glee clubs, etc. -- stuff that was typically presssed in quantities of 500 or less.  Maybe Herb Newman took it to them for test pressings, and then took it to Monarch for the full run?

Lee

[bgas]

From what I can see online, Century Record Manufacturing was a "vanity" record press.  They did stuff like high school marching bands, college glee clubs, etc. -- stuff that was typically presssed in quantities of 500 or less.  Maybe Herb Newman took it to them for test pressings, and then took it to Monarch for the full run?

Lee

the white label was on the copy I had but there was no ink writing on it. came with a generic white jacket which had the lp title written on it.

Comparing these two statements then, I'd ask this of you, Steve:
As I'm not certain what you meant, did yours have a completely blank white label, or did it have a Century label without any writing added? 
If the latter, I could see someone possibly losing the Century sleeve and  using a plain White cover. If the former, I guess that implies two separate test pressing runs.

[Steve Mayo]

a blank century label without any writing

[bgas]

a blank century label without any writing

Perfect!  Now if Publishers Clearing House will hurry and show up at my door....

[SMiLE Brian]

 

[bringahorseinhere?]

I'm pretty tired and have not spent hours into this stuff, but when do the Hite & Dorinda Morgan recordings become 'public domain'??
is it 68 or 69? I have a hard time understanding all of this.
I have the great 'lost and found' cd, but obviously there is more available on tape and there are many takes and recordings still not 'official'.
Where are things standing these days?
I remember reading that there was no interest in releasing as they were not a part of the Capitol/Brother organisation. Is this correct?
if this has been discussed lately and in detail, can you please address me to the thread?
Thanks.

[Bicyclerider]

As for the BB putting a stop to the release of First Wave, I've heard it said that this was in part a stratagem to put Elliott out of business: if so it was entirely successful, if morally bankrupt. The band had no more legal claim to the Morgan masters than Capitol did.

I wonder what Brad did to piss off BRI- One day he's writing the liner notes for Pet Sounds mono/stereo CD release,the next the liner notes are replaced and he's being sued for First Wave.  Was Mike "litigation" Love behind this?