Quote
Deltics

Quote
tatters

Quote
michaelsavage
so sleepy

Here ya go, scary. All seven of the Beatles Fan Club Christmas Messages. Enjoy!

I know it gets tedious quickly but I still love that one (especially the 1966 one 'Everywhere it's Christmas').

I'd like to see a future release that includes the long-version of Helter Skelter, Sour Milk Sea, Carnival Of Light, etc. The Beatles could also make a decent release out of the 'Get Back' sessions. There's enough recordings of significant interest to warrant it. However, they still won't release the Let It Be film, so why bother with the session outtakes?

tatters, thank you for posting the Christmas Records. Unless you purchased the Beatles Monthly Book, I don't believe there'd have been much chance of hearing them even back then!

I listened to the song previews on iTunes, and I'd earlier heard a lot of these outtakes on THE LOST LENNON TAPES radio show (and taped some then) years back. But on what I recorded, I have to wade through Elliot Mintz's tiresome commentary to get to the songs. So I think I'll purchase at least some of these "official" releases to get cleaner versions.

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
Deltics

Quote
tatters

Quote
michaelsavage
so sleepy

Here ya go, scary. All seven of the Beatles Fan Club Christmas Messages. Enjoy!

I know it gets tedious quickly but I still love that one (especially the 1966 one 'Everywhere it's Christmas').

Yeah, '66 is probably the best one. I love that "Podgy and Jasper" bit about the candles, matches, and buns. '68 is kinda interesting, too, with George seemingly making fun of the whole enterprise (and his fellow Beatles) by bringing in Tiny Tim, of all people, to sing "Nowhere Man." Also worth noting is that on the '68 and '69 messages, no two Beatles are ever in the same room at the same time. (Not so different from the way they were making their albums then.) In fact, by the time the '69 message was recorded, in Nov-Dec of that year, they had effectively ceased to exist as a group.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-24 02:16 by tatters.

Quote
tatters

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
Deltics

Quote
tatters

Quote
michaelsavage
so sleepy

Here ya go, scary. All seven of the Beatles Fan Club Christmas Messages. Enjoy!

I know it gets tedious quickly but I still love that one (especially the 1966 one 'Everywhere it's Christmas').

Yeah, '66 is probably the best one. I love that "Podgy and Jasper" bit about the candles, matches, and buns. '68 is kinda interesting, too, with George seemingly making fun of the whole enterprise (and his fellow Beatles) by bringing in Tiny Tim, of all people, to sing "Nowhere Man." Also worth noting is that on the '68 and '69 messages, no two Beatles are ever in the same room at the same time. (Not so different from the way they were making their albums then.) In fact, by the time the '69 message was recorded, in Nov-Dec of that year, they had effectively ceased to exist as a group.

Yes, you can track the history of the Beatles via Christmas messages 1963-69!

I'm surprised they kept making these after 1967, given the fact at that point they really all could've gone solo.

Just when you thought the last unheard Beatles demo had surfaced....

Peter Asher, of Peter and Gordon, for whom Paul McCartney wrote their 1964 #1 hit A World Without Love, and who unveiled earlier this year the previously unheard McCartney demo of the song, says he has another previously unheard Beatles demo that he will be incorporating into his shows.

“I have a demo of 'I'll Follow the Sun' that is kind of damaged. Somehow when it got transferred to digital, it got some big digital noises and gap in the middle of it, a Rose Mary Woods gap,” he says. “But I have that which I'll throw in the show eventually at some point or I'll play it somewhere. I think he recorded that at the same time he recorded the 'World Without Love' demo.” Asher played the demo for the first time during his guest host stint Dec. 22 on "Chris Carter's 'Breakfast With the Beatles.'"

Full details at: [www.examiner.com]

To refresh, this is the McCartney demo of World Without Love that was heard for the first time publicly earlier this year.

Thank you for posting, stoneshearted. Lennon and McCartney wrote quite a few songs for other artists and acts to record. It'd be terrific if an albums-worth of these recordings could be complied by Apple and EMI, remastered accordingly, and then officially released.

Quote
His Majesty

Doesn't this 50 year thing also cover performances?

I don't know, but scourer You Tube and one'll find a plethora of wonderful, televised Beatle-moments. There's certainly a decent number of live performances. All great stuff!

Quote
Big Al
Thank you for posting, stoneshearted. Lennon and McCartney wrote quite a few songs for other artists and acts to record. It'd be terrific if an albums-worth of these recordings could be complied by Apple and EMI, remastered accordingly, and then officially released.

this album was released by emi in the 70s, it´s rare but you can find it, i got it here´s a link





[en.wikipedia.org]

^ There's also a 4-CD bootleg collection called Songs The Beatles Gave Away.



Link for review and track listing: [www.bootlegzone.com]

In some cases, The Beatles did these better--for instance the song That Means A Lot, which they gave to P.J. Proby.

The P.J. Proby version:





The Beatles version (take 1) from the Help sessions, with the spine-tingling backing vocal harmonies:





The "true stereo" version:

Quote
His Majesty
Yeah, this is why I am puzzled. Why would they release a few previously unreleased takes of one already officially released song, but not all previously unreleased takes of that already officially released song?

It must relate to performances as in studio takes, radio sessions and live performances as well, hence stones stuff even as covers might fall under these wonky copyright laws.

As for your last question. I think it is simply the case that were someone to have written and recorded a song in 1962, but never released it... forward to 2013 and with the tapes found anyone could now release that song etc.

Good point Phil. There are literally hours and hours of multiple takes of Beatles songs. I have a 4 disc set of Revolver sessions alone. Are those takes protected by copyright law? Why did the recent Bootleg Recordings 1963 Beatles release include several takes of the same song? There's 3 takes of There's A Place!
There is much, much more from 63 still in the can by the Fabs.

Quote
His Majesty
Yeah, this is why I am puzzled. Why would they release a few previously unreleased takes of one already officially released song, but not all previously unreleased takes of that already officially released song?

It must relate to performances as in studio takes, radio sessions and live performances as well, hence stones stuff even as covers might fall under these wonky copyright laws.

As for your last question. I think it is simply the case that were someone to have written and recorded a song in 1962, but never released it... forward to 2013 and with the tapes found anyone could now release that song etc.

it´s about to copyright this recording. there was a law novel wich came last years or so, if you don´t use your recordings it will be pd because you didn´t do anything with it...

^ Which appears to mean they ought to release every single recording they have, but that's not what is happening.

Read this and it does indeed cover recorded performances. This stuff applies to EU of course, not sure what the score is for the rest of the world.

[ec.europa.eu]

1962 - 1963 stones, reveal yourselves!!!

Quote
bluesinc.
it´s about to copyright this recording. there was a law novel wich came last years or so, if you don´t use your recordings it will be pd because you didn´t do anything with it...

If you continue not to do anything with said recordings how can they become PD (public domain) if they are never released to the public? As long as they sit on the shelf they'll simply remain BD--bootleggers' domain.

Having access is of course an issue, but should someone copy said recordings it seems they could be released. I wonder if the song writing copyright might block such things though.

I'm still puzzled as to why they released a few takes of one song, but not all of them and that this didn't happen for all of their 1963 songs.

My understanding is that every unreleased take of any song would have to be released... Leave it to the law professionals I guess.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-25 02:07 by His Majesty.

Stonehearted's theory is that the Stones won't release their 1964 material because it's mostly covers and would therefore not be copyrighted by the Stones. Yet, the Beatles are releasing such material as Taste of Honey, Misery, Money, etc. So maybe we finally get Stones at the BBC and maybe some unreleased songs next year.

Quote
24FPS
Stonehearted's theory is that the Stones won't release their 1964 material because it's mostly covers and would therefore not be copyrighted by the Stones. Yet, the Beatles are releasing such material as Taste of Honey, Misery, Money, etc. So maybe we finally get Stones at the BBC and maybe some unreleased songs next year.

'The Stones At The BBC' would be the release of 2014.

<<Stonehearted's theory>>

I don't have any theories, only opinions.

The fact is, however, even though the Beatles are releasing "such material as Taste of Honey, Misery, Money, etc.", these are being released along with their originals, and their was already a considerable percentage of originals among their initial releases, whereas Stones material in those early times was almost exclusively covers up to a point. Lennon and McCartney were writing #1s from off their first album, whereas it took another 2 years and 4 albums for Jagger/Richards to write their first #1.

It is doubtful that Jagger will authorize BBC Stones for release--for the same reason that certain key early covers have been left off of certain recent compilations to make way instead for more recent and less-celebrated Jagger/Richards originals: There is money in song publishing, not in releasing covers.

Quote
24FPS
Stonehearted's theory is that the Stones won't release their 1964 material because it's mostly covers and would therefore not be copyrighted by the Stones. Yet, the Beatles are releasing such material as Taste of Honey, Misery, Money, etc. So maybe we finally get Stones at the BBC and maybe some unreleased songs next year.

And this theory is, sorry to say this, plain wrong. I read many posts here that confuse songwriting copyright with neighboring rights (copyright of the actual recording). The "use it or lose it" term deals with the right of the recorded performances (and this includes the artists -not composers!- and tape owners - record companies, producers, radio or TV stations etc. - rights).

So even for cover versions, the Stones "own" exclusive rights for the recorded performances, which they are about to lose if they don't use them.

And yes, if they still have, let's say, 20 unreleased takes of "Come On" in their vaults, they have to release all 20, not just one or two. Any recording/take that will NOT be released will be in the public domain.

Please note that songwriting copyrights run substantially longer, depending from country to country, in many cases 50 to 70 years after the death of the songwriter. So if you want to release a CD with a public domain Stones performance of, let's say "Roll Over Beethoven", the payment of copyright fees to Chuck Berry is absolutely essential if you don't want to have the police knocking on your front door one day!

<<Any recording/take that will NOT be released will be in the public domain.>>

So.... let me see if I have this crack-pipe logic straight....

Something unreleased, something unavailable to the public, is still.... "public domain"....

....Does this mean that the UK is finally going to stop prosecuting bootleggers?

At any rate, it seems obvious that Jagger--and, for that matter, Richards as well--are primarily interested in refurbishing the part of the catalog they control, if their recent remasters from 1971 are any indication. Also, they are concerned with tour revenues first, song publishing for compilations and reissues second, and performance royalties from unreleased recordings such a distant third that they seem content to just leave it to the bootleggers anyway. Nothing gained, nothing lost.

Quote
stonehearted
<<Any recording/take that will NOT be released will be in the public domain.>>

So.... let me see if I have this crack-pipe logic straight....

Something unreleased, something unavailable to the public, is still.... "public domain"....

....Does this mean that the UK is finally going to stop prosecuting bootleggers?

At any rate, it seems obvious that Jagger--and, for that matter, Richards as well--are primarily interested in refurbishing the part of the catalog they control, if their recent remasters from 1971 are any indication. Also, they are concerned with tour revenues first, song publishing for compilations and reissues second, and performance royalties from unreleased recordings such a distant third that they seem content to just leave it to the bootleggers anyway. Nothing gained, nothing lost.

True dat. But, this recent copyright conundrum may force their hand. Obviously Beatles Inc. was not interested in releasing all the 1963 stuff. There was zero publicity for it on their end, and it could have potentially interfered with their official release of BBC2 at Christmastime this year. The Stones, or ABKCO, or whatever entities are involved, may have to scour the vaults for whatever 1964 recordings they need to protect.

In that sense the hard core fans may finally get something they want that the band, I mean Jagger, saw no financial reason to release. He will probably see it as a nuisance. But if he can figure out a way to monetize it, he might get on board and promote it. Maybe it will be first sponsored album. 'The Samsung Galaxy VI' presents The Begrudging Bootlegs - 1964.

^ There is no point in releasing every take the Beatles did, because unless you're a musician there's no reason to sit through all 13 takes of From Me To You back to back--i.e., there's no market for it, number 1, and number 2 it doesn't show the band in the best light, and besides, a great many of these takes are merely aborted snippets.

Case in point, take 23 of Hold Me Tight, which lasts all of 15 seconds: "It feels so right, now hold me tight, let me go on--oh, bloody hell!"

One take of Seventeen (aka I Saw Her Standing There) had to be stopped abruptly by George Martin (who did so by whistling through the intercom), who noticed that as the background vocals were being sung George sang "I" while John and Paul were singing "she".

Surely, "Beatles Inc." doesn't want to subject the fans--or the band--to multiple takes of George Harrison venting his frustration at not being able to get the vocals right on his first recorded composition, Don't Bother Me.

Access and the ability to transfer things like 4, 8 multi-tracks, unreleased mixdowns, master recordings etc is still an issue even when the copyright protection on the performances has run out. Tapes can be in bad condition as well.

The recordings have to be in the hands of someone who wants other people to hear them. If they wish to do so legally, then they will have to release them and pay any due song writing royalties.

Of course, the moment a pd release gets released it will then get bootlegged and spread around for free.

Some ace stuff will probably find it's way to collectors etc and remain something that will only be heard by a few. Apple and ABKCO don't want you to hear it, I doubt any collectors will either.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-31 08:09 by His Majesty.

Then there are some things they don't want anyone--ever--to hear again, like Carnival of Light, the holy grail of unreleased Beatles tracks.

Whether or not I never want to hear it again, I just want to hear it once....

Well Macca wants you to hear it! He tried to get it on Anthology, and George vetoed it. Too Nurk Twin. Then Macca was trying a few years ago to release it and Yoko put the cabash on it. And, uh, what about frackin Let it Be on DVD!

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
Deltics

Quote
tatters

Quote
michaelsavage
so sleepy

Here ya go, scary. All seven of the Beatles Fan Club Christmas Messages. Enjoy!

I know it gets tedious quickly but I still love that one (especially the 1966 one 'Everywhere it's Christmas').

OK, now I am TOTALLY asleep.

Quote
whitem8
Well Macca wants you to hear it! He tried to get it on Anthology, and George vetoed it. Too Nurk Twin. Then Macca was trying a few years ago to release it and Yoko put the cabash on it. And, uh, what about frackin Let it Be on DVD!

Yes, I'm aware that grumpy George wouldn't allow it on Anthology, as I'm sure Paul is proud of the more avant garde moments in the Beatles. And dammit, Yoko blocking the release of a recording she wasn't even present for, fa frig sake! She continues to break up the Beatles.

Ok, I dont think I was being fair to Yoko. I did some researching and there is no accounts of Yoko blocking it. However, Macca did say he was working on a photo collage with CL as the soundtrack, yet there is no more mention of the track for possible release, and it would need Ringo, Olivia, and Yoko's approval to release it.

That being said...there are still a lot of interesting things that would be nice. The full version of Helter Skelter please...

I also liked the orginal idea that they were going to release alternate albums for each of the official albums they did, with alternate takes... that would be very cool.