1965 archives

[Ian]

Obviously I mean the Beach Boys Concert 1964 not In Concert 1973

[Ian]

Beach Boys set lists were always a bit behind the times.  They were still playing Shut Down, Hawaii and Monster Mash, when they should have added Help Me Rhonda (released on March 8-so there brand new single), Kiss Me Baby (the B-Side) and Dance, Dance, Dance (their Dec 64 single).  But I guess that would have required extra work to get them ready to play live.

[AndrewHickey]

Beach Boys set lists were always a bit behind the times.  They were still playing Shut Down, Hawaii and Monster Mash, when they should have added Help Me Rhonda (released on March 8-so there brand new single), Kiss Me Baby (the B-Side) and Dance, Dance, Dance (their Dec 64 single).  But I guess that would have required extra work to get them ready to play live.

It may be that they didn't add the new songs in for this show because Brian was guesting on bass, having not played with them regularly for three months. Anyone know if they did those songs at other shows around that time?

[Robbie Mac]

Beach Boys set lists were always a bit behind the times.  They were still playing Shut Down, Hawaii and Monster Mash, when they should have added Help Me Rhonda (released on March 8-so there brand new single), Kiss Me Baby (the B-Side) and Dance, Dance, Dance (their Dec 64 single).  But I guess that would have required extra work to get them ready to play live.

It may be that they didn't add the new songs in for this show because Brian was guesting on bass, having not played with them regularly for three months. Anyone know if they did those songs at other shows around that time?

They did DDD with Brian on bass guitar in THE TAMI SHOW and SHINDIG.

[Micha]

Beach Boys set lists were always a bit behind the times.  They were still playing Shut Down, Hawaii and Monster Mash, when they should have added Help Me Rhonda (released on March 8-so there brand new single), Kiss Me Baby (the B-Side) and Dance, Dance, Dance (their Dec 64 single).  But I guess that would have required extra work to get them ready to play live.

It may be that they didn't add the new songs in for this show because Brian was guesting on bass, having not played with them regularly for three months. Anyone know if they did those songs at other shows around that time?

They did DDD with Brian on bass guitar in THE TAMI SHOW and SHINDIG.

And great performances, too. Mediocre audio quality there, though.

[Marty Castillo]

Finally got around to downloading Live in Chicago 1965 last night. I'm almost through the second show and am really enjoying it. I can't add much to what has already been said. Definitely not perfect, but very high energy and impressive to a straight live show without studio sweetening. I'm curious what songs they would have pulled from this two night stand without duplicating the first concert LP. They essentially had 11 songs to choose from:

Do You Wanna Dance (neither performance was especially strong, especially night one, though they could overdub in studio)
Little Honda
Surfin' U.S.A.
Don't Worry Baby
Louie Louie
Surfer Girl (night two, was better than night one, IMO)
Runaway
Shut Down
Wendy
Please Let Me Wonder
409

Also, does anyone else here the opening chords to "Then I Kissed Her" at the end of Monster Mash on night two? I know this would have pre-dated the studio recording by several months.

[Ian]

We listed a number of set lists in my book with Jon but it's been awhile since I looked at it. Probably has sets from around that time for comparison

[celticsurfer]

There are tons out outtakes on numerous bootlegs from the year 1965 (capitol punishments, sea of tune....)
and it appears that we won't get a digital release of those finest moments !
Keep an eye on summer for 1964 was a beautiful release.
We deserve a good release for 1965

[puni puni]

It's the last Friday before Christmas so I don't think it's happening after all. Maybe next year will be a reissue of the Pet Sounds Sessions... with an extra disc?

[Rocky Raccoon]

The fact that we got Chicago '65 this year probably means that next year, we'll get Michigan '66.  Now THAT'S an awesome concert.

[Cristian Kiper]

If a set of the 1965 sessions isn't released before the year is over, does it mean those sessions become part of the public domain? What does that mean for us? Can we go to Capitol HQ and ask for a free copy of the sessions? Is Capitol under legal obligation of making a free copy available somewhere/somehow? As long as I can get my hands on those sessions, I really don't care if I have to pay for them or get them by some other (legal) means. But what are those means?

Also, does it mean that people can legally distribute the bootleg recordings of those sessions?

[Matt Bielewicz]

I'm no copyright lawyer, but I would guess the basic answer is no, because most of what was recorded at Beach Boys sessions in 1965 HAS been released — as completed tracks on the albums that came out in that year. The sessions leading to the finished tracks with vocals might not have come out officially, but the finished tracks being out, as I understand it, means the copyright on those sessions continues to exist. I believe copyright law deems that the finished tracks and the sessions leading to them are part of the same recording (however screwy that might seem to musicians, the general public, or anyone who knows how multitrack recordings are made).

If I understand this situation correctly, this means that the only recordings on which copyright might expire at the end of this year are tracks that were recorded then, have been booted since, and have never been released officially in ANY form. And as folks were discussing upthread... there aren't actually too many of those as far as 1965 is concerned. Read upthread if you haven't already... 1965 is not a great year for booted but as-yet officially unreleased BB stuff. Even stuff like the orchestral arrangement of Three Blind Mice came out on the SMiLE boxed set, so copyright continues on that. Other than that... there's a mere handful of tracks. The contrast with 1963, which had all that stuff that came out on The Big Beat, is quite stark.

I may have some wires crossed in my explanation above... if so, I'm sure someone will be along to correct me shortly...!

[HeyJude]

I'm no copyright lawyer, but I would guess the basic answer is no, because most of what was recorded at Beach Boys sessions in 1965 HAS been released — as completed tracks on the albums that came out in that year. The sessions leading to the finished tracks with vocals might not have come out officially, but the finished tracks being out, as I understand it, means the copyright on those sessions continues to exist. I believe copyright law deems that the finished tracks and the sessions leading to them are part of the same recording (however screwy that might seem to musicians, the general public, or anyone who knows how multitrack recordings are made).

If I understand this situation correctly, this means that the only recordings on which copyright might expire at the end of this year are tracks that were recorded then, have been booted since, and have never been released officially in ANY form. And as folks were discussing upthread... there aren't actually too many of those as far as 1965 is concerned. Read upthread if you haven't already... 1965 is not a great year for booted but as-yet officially unreleased BB stuff. Even stuff like the orchestral arrangement of Three Blind Mice came out on the SMiLE boxed set, so copyright continues on that. Other than that... there's a mere handful of tracks. The contrast with 1963, which had all that stuff that came out on The Big Beat, is quite stark.

I may have some wires crossed in my explanation above... if so, I'm sure someone will be along to correct me shortly...!

I think your description is correct in terms of what Capitol (and other labels presumably) are thinking/assuming/know about the copyright law. It certainly doesn’t make any sense to me from a copyright standpoint, and I don’t know if they’d be 100% successful if challenged on the issue on either side of a court action.

If it’s physical recordings being copyrighted (and not just the compositions themselves being copyrighted), then it indeed is screwy that any material tied to a particular released, finished master is protected. How in the world would this be established? What are the guidelines? If the session takes place on the same day, does that count? What about on a different day? What if it’s clearly an alternate iteration rather than just a different take, like Mike’s alternate lead vocal/lyrics on “Please Let Me Wonder”?

Okay, so if the rule is that it’s any alternate version of a song that led up to the finished, released version (even if it’s in a different key, or different musicians, or different lyrics), then what if there’s an unreleased song of which a recording exists from, say, 1980, and then there is an early take of the song from 1965? Is that 1965 recording still covered?

If a 1964 demo of “I’m Going Your Way” surfaces, is that covered?

Lots of grey areas. But yes, within the context of what they have or haven’t released on these “extension” sets, it certainly must be that the law reads in such a way that raw sessions are covered and protected. Otherwise, the various sets would have had every second of what’s on the SOT releases.

I think where people have become confused concerns the fact that some of these “extension” sets have included stuff that presumably didn’t *have* to be included (many of the alternate mixes on last year’s “Keep an Eye on Summer”, etc.).

[Matt Bielewicz]

I know, Jude, it's utterly wack, isn't it? As in so many areas, the law doesn't seem to take account of any of the realities where (in this case) music recording, composition, or songwriting are concerned. It just looks at the finished track and says 'anything that led to this is essentially... the same thing'. Well, no. And maybe that could be challenged in some cases, although you'd probably have to have time, patience and a profound love of paying lots and lots of shiny moolah to copyright lawyers to get that idea to stand up in court...!

I mean, to take a very on-topic example... I read a review of the Party set somewhere in the last couple of weeks that mentions that in the sessions running up to a take of one of the tracks that ended up on the album, a guitarist (can't remember who, and haven't got the set myself, so can't check) is noodling the riff to what later becomes Billy Strange's riff on Sloop John B. Does that mean that legally, the session for that Party track also protects the copyright of Sloop John B, as one might be said to have ultimately led to the recording of the other...? What about recordings of in-studio live band jams that end up leading to ideas for multiple tracks...?

Law in 'resembling donkey' horror shock...

[Matt Bielewicz]

You're also right that it seems odd that the previous two copyright extension releases of BB-related stuff that came out on Capitol also contained material that HAD been out before, or alternate versions of released songs... but I think the reasons for that are also revealed upthread. Basically, the guys running the BB archive, being spectacularly super fellows, did their best to get as much unreleased stuff out to us as they could whenever Capitol was willing to spend the money to put out a copyright extension release, so we got extra stuff too (session highlights of existing songs, accapella mixes and backing tracks minus vocals, new stereo mixes of hits we all know, etc).

Here's where I depart from known facts and start speculating, but it makes sense to me that if the will to put out a copyright extension release for a particular year *doesn't* exist at the record company in the first place (because, say, there isn't much stuff for that year that requires a copyright extension...?), then there's no release onto which the backroom boys can piggyback that kind of extra material. New mixes and session highlights cost money to edit and prepare for release, and if the record company doesn't think it will make back its outlay, or it will but the resulting profit will be too small, nothing will happen. It looks as though that's the case where 1965/2015 is concerned...

In another universe, I wonder if a limited-edition version of the Party set that has actually come out was considered, with an extra disc covering the limited copyright extension stuff for 1965 and the best of the studio sessions. That would have been a great way to once again 'piggy back' that studio stuff out on an existing release. Who knows, perhaps that was proposed in THIS universe, but if so, I guess the bean counters at Capitol/EMI musta nixed it, as we don't have anything of that sort.

I'm hardly a member of the general record-buying public where Beach Boys releases are concerned, so this will be of no interest to Capitol whatsoever, but here's my story, for what it's worth: I haven't bought the new Party set, and have no plans to. There isn't enough on it that interests me to make me want it, fan as I am. BUT: if there had been a limited-edition version of the Party set containing an extra disc like KAEOS '64 to cover 1965's sessions, I would have crossed the country to buy the damn thing if need be (like I did to get the SMiLE box slightly early). No, *really*. Especially if it had an official mix of the 1965 backing track to 'In The Back Of My Mind' on it. If I'm honest, if I could have got just that recording officially by buying a Party set with an extra disc for a higher price than the regular set, they would have made a sale. I can see that I'm hardly a typical customer, although I bet a few people on this board would have done the same. There probably aren't enough of us to make a difference to Capitol, though. They'll know how many copies of The Big Beat and KAEOS sold by now, and I'm guessing the figures didn't bring them enough in the way of Christmas cheer the past couple of years...?

I still hope I'm spectacularly wrong about all of this, mind.

Somewhere, in another universe, maybe another me is listening to that official 1965 studio sessions disc right now, and enjoying it just as much as I did with Keep An Eye On Summer in the run up to Christmas last year. Ah, curse you, Red Baron!

[mikeddonn]

And then we have the Bob Dylan release of previously released (one would assume copyrighted stuff) but every session recorded in 1965. 

Regardless of what is covered and what isn't why couldn't we have that kind of release.  Sea of Tunesish if you know what I mean!  I'm people who have that series would still buy the official versions for better mixes etc.

[Ebb and Flow]

I really wish they had at least found some way to finally release the unbooted tracking session/backing track for "Sherry She Needs Me", though I suppose the copyright for that is safe because they released the 1976 version that uses it on Made In California.  Still, there's stuff in the vaults that would have been nice to hear in better quality/remixed form.

[hapman]

 

[37!ws]

This logic certainly would explain why there wasn't a 1964 or 1965 Beatles archival release....they don't really have any unreleased titles from those years -- "If You've Got Trouble," "That Means A Lot," "12-Bar Original," and "Leave My Kitten Alone" all have been released, so there's no real reason (other than to give fans what they want) to release any sessions from that time, and there's more than enough live material already released. (And what was released in 1977 on the Hollywood Bowl album is safe.) But yeah, unless there's something we don't know about unreleased titles in the Beach Boys' catalog from 1965, then there's no real reason to get anything out past that Chicago show and the Party! outtakes. (And I guess it finally settles the argument as to whether or not the Beach Boys recorded a version of "Sloop John B" during those sessions. My guess is that whoever first made that assumption heard one of the "Ticket To Ride" outtakes and drew a connection between the guitar riff there and the guitar riff in the released "Sloop John B.")

Now, having said that, what stuff from 1966 could possibly go on a "copyright extension" release this year? Other than perhaps the Michigan concert, I really can't think of anything. There's nothing missing from Pet Sounds, and all of the 1966 Smile songs that have been found -- as far as I'm aware -- are accounted for on at least one release. (As for the Beatles...does this mean finally "Carnival of Light"?)

[Andrew G. Doe]

Barcelona !

[Jim V.]

Barcelona !

Gonna be the first to point out that Andrew is making a "Carnival of Light" reference.