Candix numbers
By Phlip (Phlip) on Thursday, January 3, 2002 - 01:54 pm:
I am attempting to determine the relative rarity (and value) of the various versions of the record “Surfin’” b/w “Luau” manufactured circa 1961.
According to Stephen McParland in his book “Our Favourite Recording Sessions,” there were three distinctly separate pressings/matrix designations, and FIVE distinctly separate labels:
MATRIX:
1. CD-TS-1 (“Surfin’”) b/w CD-TS-2 (“Luau”);
2. CD-TS-1-R (“Surfin’”) b/w CD-TS-2-R (“Luau”);
3. CD-TS-1R (“Surfin’”) b/w CD-TS-2R (“Luau”).
NOTE: The Candix matrix designations indicate:
CD=Candix Records
TS=The Surfers (the name Candix originally intended to give to the
Pendletones)
1=side of the record
R=reissue
LABELS:
1. “Candix 331” (matched with matrix #1)
2. “X 301” (matched with matrix #2)
3. “Candix 301” (matched with matrix #2)
4. “Candix 301” (matched with matrix #3)
5. “Candix 301 - Dist. by Era Record Sales” (matched with matrix #3).
1. “Candix 331” was the first pressing (first version). There was apparently a problem with the pressing plant getting paid.
2. “X 301” was one of two things: EITHER a Hite Morgan label, created after Murry Wilson naively gave the master to Candix (resulting in the manufacture of Candix 331), OR an attempt by the Dix brothers (the owners of Candix) to hide the identity of the label from the first pressing plant;
3. “Candix 301” was (apparently) the one and only time Candix reissued a previously-used catalogue number, probably to keep the same number as the one used on the previously-manufactured “X 301.” A number of sources show the release date of “Candix 301” to be Friday, December 8, 1961. So
then “X 301” (and probably “Candix 331” as well) MUST have been manufactured (and released) PRIOR to December 8th?
4. Collectors books show “Candix 301 - Dist. by Era Record Sales” to be the version released nationally, while Stephen McParland speculates that “Candix 301 - Dist. by Era Records” was for release in the L. A. area, to show the local radio stations and record companies that Herb Newman’s money was now behind the record. So which was it?
In my collector’s records books, the value of the various versions are ranked as follows:
1. “X 301” (most rare/most valuable)
2. “Candix 301”
3. “Candix 331”
4. “Candix 301 - Dist. by Era Record Sales” least rare)
NOTE: There is no distinction made between "Candix 301" with matrix #2, and "Candix 301" with matrix #3).
Here are some questions:
1. Since "Candix 331" was the “original” pressing of the record, how many copies would Candix have normally ordered?
2. If “Candix 301” (with matrix #2) was “officially” released on December 8, 1961, then “X 301” and (probably) “Candix 331” had already been released. So was “X 301” released in November, and “Candix 331” in November (or maybe even October)? Or were none of the records "formally released" until the record was provided to KFWB on December 8?
3. Was the "Battle of the Bands" won by "Surfin'" on December 9? Or December 16?
4. How many copies of the pressing with the second matrix were manufactured, and what percentage of these received the “X 301” label,
and what percentage received the “Candix 301” label?
5. How many copies of the pressing with the third matrix were manufactured (probably a lot, since Herb Newman was now involved, and the record was certainly known to be a “hit” and ready for national distribution by this time), and what percentage of these received the “Candix 301 - Dist. by Era Record Sales” label?
Let’s try a survey...
All of you who have a copy of “Surfin’” b/w “Luau” manufactured circa 1961, please check the record carefully for matrix and label, and determine which “version” you have. We’ll total it up, and find out at least which are the most rare amongst ourselves.
Thanks in advance.
By Brad on Thursday, January 3, 2002 - 10:48 pm:
Phlip,
A lot of the information Stephen included in his book came from me. I'm the one who figured out that "TS" stood for "The Surfers," and I'm the one who (working with Derek Bill) figured out that there were two different masterings of Candix 301 and that they matched up to the X and Era-distributed copies, respectively. Since I talked to Stephen, though, I've continued to research the Candix releases and have uncovered a considerable amount of additional information.
A couple of points:
- The X label was not a Hite Morgan label. I've talked to the Dix brothers (yes, they're still alive!) and it was their label, designed to get around the fact that their Candix label owed money to the pressing plant that handled Candix 331. The apparent reason the single needed to be repressed was that Candix had negotiated a distribution deal with a company called Alco Research and Engineering Inc.
- Murry did not naively give the master of "Surfin'" to Candix. Hite Morgan was directly involved in the dealings with Candix.
- The Candix 301 designation for the single seems to have come about when Candix negotiated a second distribution deal, with Pacific Record Distributors. After several months, Era Record Sales was brought in by Pacific, apparently to handle national distribution of the single (Pacific was primarily a local L.A. operation). The three parties (Candix, Pacific and Era) agreed that Era would operate under the terms of the contract that Pacific had with Candix. The "Era Record Sales" notation likely was added at that time to copies distributed nationally.
A reasonable sequence of events looks like this:
1. The record receives its first mastering (CD-TS-1 and CD-TS-2) for release as Candix 331, which is self-distributed by Candix.
2. A distribution deal is negotiated with Alco. Unable to return to the pressing plant used for the first pressing, Candix remasters the single (CD-TS-1-R and CD-TS-2-R) for a new pressing, to be released as X 301.
3. Candix arranges a distribution deal with Pacific Record Sales and uses the same plates from the Alco remastering to press discs to be sold by Pacific. The new pressings again carry the Candix label (the bill with the original plant presumably having been paid), but are numbered 301 to retain conformity with the X release.
4. At some point, the plates either wear out or break. A second remastering is done (CD-TS-1R and CD-TS-2R), which is used to press more copies of Candix 301.
5. Era assumes national distribution of the single, and the notation "Dist. by Era Record Sales" is added to the copies Era will distribute.
Now, to try and answer your questions ...
** 1. Since "Candix 331" was the “original” pressing of the record, how many copies would Candix have normally ordered? **
The Dix brothers no longer have those kind of detailed records, but their recollection is that they sold 12,000 copies of Candix 331.
** 2. If "Candix 301" (with matrix #2) was "officially" released on December 8, 1961, then "X 301" and (probably) "Candix 331" had already been released. So was "X 301" released in November, and "Candix 331" in November (or maybe even October)? Or were none of the records "formally released" until the record was provided to KFWB on December 8? **
Based on information provided by the Dix brothers, the Dec. 8 release date probably should be attached to Candix 331. The best date I can put on X 301 is Dec. 19, which is the date on a telegram confirming the deal between Candix and Alco for the latter to distribute "Surfin'" on the X label. Realistically, though, it's doubtful that copies would have been available the same day as the deal was reached, so figure it would have been at least several days later.
Strangely, the deal with Alco seems to have fallen apart very quickly, because a new distribution deal with Pacific was negotiated and signed before the end of the year. Era assumed national distribution beginning in early February 1962.
** 3. Was the "Battle of the Bands" won by "Surfin'" on December 9? Or December 16? **
I really have no documentary evidence, but if 12,000 copies of Candix 331 were sold before X 301 was issued, then I'd lean very heavily toward Dec. 9 as the date of the "Battle of the Bands." That would allow more than just a couple of days for the record to sell that many copies.
** 4. How many copies of the pressing with the second matrix were manufactured, and what percentage of these received the “X 301” label,
and what percentage received the “Candix 301” label? **
Given the very short duration of the deal with Alco, it's reasonable to assume that there were very few copies of X 301 pressed and sold.
I can't break down the Candix 301 sales by mastering, but by June 1962, Pacific had sold a total of 33,000 copies of Candix 301 (some would be the second mastering, some the third).
** 5. How many copies of the pressing with the third matrix were manufactured (probably a lot, since Herb Newman was now involved, and the record was certainly known to be a “hit” and ready for national distribution by this time), and what percentage of these received the “Candix 301 - Dist. by Era Record Sales” label? **
That information doesn't seem to be available any more. None of the documents still in the possession of the Dix Brothers show sales numbers from Era. However, based upon my 25+ years of collecting, I think there are a lot less Era-distributed copies than you might think. Copies of Candix 301 with the Era notation are a LOT rarer than those without!
In conclusion, this is how I see the various issues of "Surfin'" in terms of rarity and desirability:
1. X 301 (Without a doubt, this is the rarest of the various issues. Even though we now know it wasn't the original pressing, there's still quite a mystique around it in collectors' circles, so I don't think it's going to fall from the top spot any time soon.)
2. Candix 331 (Although there apparently were 12,000 copies sold, most have not survived. This actually is a very rare record today and doesn't turn up often. However, because it wrongly has been believed to be the last of the various issues, it hasn't commanded any attention. Now that the truth is known, I expect the value and desirability of this issue to soar.)
3. Candix 301, with "Era Record Sales" notation (This seems to be a lot harder to find than regular copies of Candix 301 without the notation.)
4. Candix 301, without the "Era" notation (This issue sold at least 33,000 copies and is by far the most common of the various Candix/X releases.)
I hope that helps. There's still a lot we don't know, but we're learning more nearly every day.
By Brad on Thursday, January 3, 2002 - 11:07 pm:
A quick addendum to what I just posted:
I indicated that the Alco distribution deal for X 301 was fairly short-lived, but I really don't think it was as short lived as I indicated (only a week or two). While the contract between Candix and Pacific Record Distributors is dated in December 1961, I think there's a fair chance the contract was backdated for some now-obscure legal reason. My best guess is that the Candix/Pacific deal went into effect sometime in January 1962. That would seem to jibe with the fact that "Surfin'" first showed up on a Billboard chart for the week ending Jan. 13, 1962, and was shown as Candix 331, not 301!
By Phlip (Phlip) on Friday, January 4, 2002 - 08:29 am:
Brad: You are amazing! Absolutely amazing! You know, if somebody really wanted to do a DECENT film about the Beach Boys, just limiting it to the events up through December 1961 might be an interesting approach. All the great characters and personalities, the underbelly of the L. A. music business.
Thanks again for all the info. I'm gonna have to try and get a copy of 331 (if I can find one) before too many dealers get wise to it.
By Textus (Textus) on Friday, January 4, 2002 - 10:06 am:
There's a thought -- a Rashomon-like "Birth of the Beach Boys" with accounts of how Mike, Al and Brian all had the idea for the group.
By Brad on Friday, January 4, 2002 - 10:08 am:
Phlip wrote:
** I'm gonna have to try and get a copy of 331 (if I can find one) before too many dealers get wise to it. **
Smart move! That's a "word to the wise" for any Beach Boys collectors!
Surf's up!
Brad
By Mikie (Mikie) on Friday, January 4, 2002 - 07:07 pm:
Well, flipping through the singles in my record collection tonight I found the following. Three of these 45’s are M – condition, the other two are VG++ condition. Coincidently, I bought one of my Candix 301’s from Derek Bill in the mid 70’s for $35.00. Anybody know what they’re going for now?
Surfin/Luau
X RECORDS 301
CD-TS-1-R, CD TS-2-R
Drink-Guild Music (BMI)
Producer: H. Morgan
Surfin/Luau
CANDIX 331
CD-TS-1-R, CD TS-2-R
Drink-Guild Music (BMI)
Surfin/Luau
CANDIX 301
Dist. By ERA RECORD SALES INC.
CD-TS-1-R, CD TS-2-R
Guild Music (BMI)
Producer: H. Morgan
Surfin/Luau
CANDIX 301
CD-TS-1-R, CD TS-2-R
Guild Music (BMI)
Producer: H. Morgan
(2 copies)
OK, Brad and Phlip, shall we talk about the Wallach’s Music City KFWB and Salt Lake City promos? Or we could get into picture sleeves - Ten Little Indians, Barbara Ann, Heroes & Villains w/Capitol logo……..
By Phlip (Phlip) on Friday, January 4, 2002 - 08:10 pm:
Mikie: Wow! Before you put 'em back in the vault, let's examine this a bit further... Can you verify that the matrix numbers you have listed (presumably from the labels) are the same (exact) numbers as the ones in the run-out grooves of the records? Because...
Brad: On Mikie's Candix 331, he is showing a matrix with an "R" suffix. How can that be? Weren't all of the 331s manufactured from the first master (matrix CD-TS-1), the one supplied to the first pressing plant by the Dix Brothers?
And what about the 301 "Dist. by Era Record Sales"? Mikie is showing matrix "CD-TS-1-R" instead of "CD-TS-1R." Shouldn't the 301s "Dist. by Era Record Sales" all be from master #3 (matrix CD-TS-1R)?
By Mikie (Mikie) on Friday, January 4, 2002 - 10:35 pm:
Woooooops!!! Wait a minute, Phlip. I made a mistake. My Candix 331 does NOT have an "R" after CD-TS-1. I did a cut and paste with the same information as the the 301's and forgot to delete the "R" for the 331. Sorry to confuse you. I'm losing it......
My Candix 301 with the "Era Record Sales" DOES have the CD-TS-1-R designation on the label though.
By the way, on all of my records, the matrix numbers on the labels are the same numbers as the ones in the run-out grooves.
By Brad on Saturday, January 5, 2002 - 12:42 am:
Mikie, you came real close to surprising me there! As far as I know, no copies of Candix 331 carry the "R" (for remaster) notation on their master numbers.
As for the fact that Mikie's got an "Era Record Sales" 301 from mastering #2, I'm really not too surprised. Pacific Record Distributors began handling "Surfin'" at the beginning of 1962 and continued to sell copies through at least mid year. The third mastering could have occurred anywhere during that time span.
Era picked up national distribution on the single about a month after Pacific began distributing the single in L.A. Mikie's copy of the "Era Record Sales" 301 simply indicates that the third mastering didn't occur until sometime after that and that the first copies of the "Era Record Sales" 301 were done from the second set of masters.
Thanks, Mikie, that's a nice piece of information to have!
Brad
P.S. -- Mikie, can you drop me an e-mail? You've got one of the largest collections of Candix/X 301/331s I know about, and there's something I'd like to have you check for me on all those copies, if you wouldn't mind. Thanks! (I promise: If I learn anything worthwhile from the information Mikie provides, I'll post it to this thread.)
By Phlip (Phlip) on Saturday, January 5, 2002 - 06:58 pm:
Brad: Everything I've read shows that "Surfin'" b/w "Luau" sold "about" 50,000 copies.
If we figure that (probably) most all 12,000 copies of Candix 331 were sold, and if Pacific Record Distributing reported 33,000 copies of Candix 301 sold through June 1962 (figuring that the number includes 301 with AND without the "Era" notation), that would leave only about 5,000 copies sold for X 301, and that makes X 301 the RAREST OF THE RARE!
Also, how did "Surfin" do outside of L. A? I know that "Surfin" (supposedly) peaked at #2 or #3 sometime in February 1962 on the local L. A. "hit surveys", but did it sell at all anywhere else? In other words, can a record get to #75 on the Billboard "Hot Hundred" chart simply by being a VERY big hit in one major market (like L. A.), and a stiff everywhere else? I would think it could.
And if it did NOT get any "action" in the rest of the country (and I don't think it did), then there shouldn't be hardly ANY copies of Candix 301 with the "Era" notation around... UNLESS the "Era" notation was placed on ALL copies of the record (including ones sold in L. A.) after Herb Newman got involved. Otherwise, if Candix 301 ("Era") was ONLY sold OUTSIDE of L. A., then it should be even more rare than X 301 (which is is not, right?).
By Brad on Saturday, January 5, 2002 - 11:35 pm:
Phlip,
** that makes X 301 the RAREST OF THE RARE! **
Absolutely! The documents the Dix brothers have make it very clear that the distribution deal that was done with Alco for X 301 was very short-lived.
** there shouldn't be hardly ANY copies of Candix 301 with the "Era" notation around... UNLESS the "Era" notation was placed on ALL copies of the record (including ones sold in L. A.) after Herb Newman got involved. Otherwise, if Candix 301 ("Era") was ONLY sold OUTSIDE of L. A., then it should be even more rare than X 301 (which is is not, right?). **
From looking at the documents provided by the Dix brothers, it's obvious that the Pacific and Era distribution deals were simultaneous for at least part of the time "Surfin'" was in print as Candix 301. It's also clear that Era's deal was for national distribution. I did a little more digging into my files today and have moved my time estimate for when the Era deal was put into place up a little bit -- right now, I'd say it went into effect in late January 1962. I base that on the fact that Billboard began listing "Surfin'" on its charts in its Jan. 13, 1962 issue, and the record was shown as Candix 331. However, Cashbox ran a capsule review of the single in its Jan. 27 issue and listed the single as Candix 301. Plus, the review noted that the single was "on the Era-handled Candix label." That would mean the arrangement with Era started almost at the same time as the deal with Pacific.
Based on that, the only reasonable conclusion is that the Candix 301's without the "Era" notation had to be simultanously issued with those that had the notation. There simply wasn't enough time (maybe only a week or two!) between Pacific's assumption of distribution and Era's entry into the picture to account for all the many copies of Candix 301 wihtout the notation that exist.
You may be right, though, about the Era-distributed Candix 301 not selling many copies, but what you're not taking into account is that ANY record that is being distributed nationally has to have a certain number of copies pressed and put into the distribution system from the outset. The records may not sell, but a certain number of copies have to exist so that they can be available to be sold all over the company. If they don't sell, they'll often surface over time in cutout bins. That may be what happened with the Era-distributed copies. Certainly after the success of "Surfin' Safari" in the fall of 1962, copies of "Surfin'" would have been a hot commodity as cutouts.
Also, you may be underestimating exactly how many sales are required to put a record on the charts, even only into the 70s. I think the national sales of the "Surfin'" weren't anything to sneeze at. The single landed at #75 on Billboard's chart; that's not far from the performance that was obtained by later 45s like "Bluebirds Over The Mountain" (#61) and "Add Some Music To Your Day" (#64). While neither of those records are necessarily easy to find anymore, they certainly aren't RARE by any stretch of the imagination. They were pressed and sold in sufficient quantity that they can be found with a minimal amount of hunting. Similar chart performance would suggest that Candix 301 probably exists in similar quantity, and I'm sure some significant portion of that is Era-distributed copies.
On the other hand, I think the Era-distributed 301's may indeed be the rarest variation after X 301. The kicker is that I really don't have a feel for just how many 331's are out there, simply because it's been dismissed for so long as "just a reissue."
Brad
By Brad on Sunday, January 6, 2002 - 12:22 am:
Something else I came across today while digging through my files is some earlier research I'd done on the X/Candix situation. I sat down and tried to put that information into the context provided by what I've learned in the past year-and-a-half from the Dix brothers, and I'm going to revise what I said about the Dec. 8, 1961 release date.
The key pieces of information prompting this reappraisal are the Delta number on the Candix/X single and the realization of just where that legendary Dec. 8 date came from.
First, let me explain just a little about Delta numbers. If you look in the runout grooves of many 45s released by independent West Coast labels in the 1950s and 1960s, you'll find not only the matrix number, but also a five-digit number preceded by a small triangle (the Greek letter "delta"). These Delta numbers were a way for the major independent mastering labs in L.A. to identify and log their jobs. It's fortunate such a system was used, because it allows us to date the singles that carry them. (Some dedicated collectors worked out a dating chart almost 30 years ago.) For example, the only reason we know that the Bob & Sheri single dates to October 1962 is that the Delta number establishes it.
In the case of all the Candix/X singles, they carry a Delta number of 41389, which dates to not December 1961, but rather late November 1961.
Now, does anybody know where the legendary Dec. 8 date came from? I did some digging some years ago and nailed it down. I'd forgotten the original source until I ran across my notes today. The identity of the source surprised me when I ran it down years ago, and it surprised me again today!
Most people will point to David Leaf's book as the source, and the date indeed is mentioned there, but David picked it up from an earlier source. It wasn't Byron Preiss' book (which preceded David's by only a matter of some months), nor was it Ken Barnes' thin tome of several years earlier (the first book ever done on the BBs). Neither of them referenced Dec. 8, 1961 at all. No, the original source of the Dec. 8 date was in the Nov. 11, 1971 "Rolling Stone" article by Tom Nolan. And, surprisingly, Nolan was quoting MURRY WILSON! Specifically, Murry said, "Eight months before the record 'Surfin'' of Dec. 8th, 1961, is when The Beach Boys really started." In that one comment, Murry tied the record to that date forever!
But notice that Murry really doesn't say that the record was released that day. He could very well mean that's the day it won the "Battle Of The Bands" on KFWB. Or he could mean that's the day Candix had it pressed and the BBs received test pressings (with the actual release date a few days to a week later). There's no way to know exactly what he meant, but I've got to say that given everything else Murry told Tom Nolan in that interview, I really can't consider his statement as authoritative documentation of a release date!
So where does that leave us? I went back through everything the Dix brothers had told me. You've got to understand these guys are old and sometimes they'll contradict themselves in recalling facts. Nevertheless, you can usually sort out the chaff from the wheat if you try hard enough.
Anyway, I ran across a statement they made at one point that Candix 331 came out in late November. Immediately, it struck me how that's right in line with the Delta number dating!
So my current thinking is that a late November release date for Candix 331 is probably more accurate than Murry's Dec. 8th date. In fact, I'm not even sure that the Dec. 8th date has any real significance as far as release dates go. X 301 seems to date from mid-December, when the Alco deal was hatched. And Candix 301 dates from January, when Pacific and Era picked up distribution.
Fwiw, barring any further informational finds, this is how I date the Candix/X singles:
Candix 331 -- late November 1961
X 301 -- mid December 1961
Candix 301 (both with and without the Era notation) -- January 1962
Surf's up!
Brad
By Shan (Shan) on Sunday, January 6, 2002 - 06:38 am:
Brad, I am loving this. Thank you. Information such as this brings us back to a heady time and an important story about breaking into the business. And Mikie--what a "Surfin'" collection! All I've got is one copy of 301-ERA.
One thing I love about the Surfin' single is its use of the generic "Beach Boys" as artist title. As if this is just another in a litany of throwaway youth-artists. Beach Boys, Hopping Boys, Smiling Boys, whatever. It wouldn't be long, however, until "Beach Boys" became "The Beach Boys."
Interestingly, the first Capitol single, "Surfin Safari" also names them "Beach Boys" then the 10 Little Indians single finally notes "The Beach Boys" then (for the last time) the Surfin' USA single goes back to "Beach Boys." (Odd that)
.
By twentysix (Twentysix) on Sunday, January 6, 2002 - 07:44 am:
of course, it could be worse: it could have been released as 'brian and mike' 
conversely..does anyone know how rare the B&M 'gettin hungry' single is?
By on Sunday, January 6, 2002 - 03:10 pm:
** does anyone know how rare the B&M 'gettin hungry' single is? **
Pretty rare! Among the commercially released Capitol singles, its only competition for rarity is "Ten Little Indians." It's not an X 301 by any means, but I think "Gettin' Hungry" easily can compete with "Cool Cool Water," "Surf's Up" and "Child Of Winter" in terms of rarity. It's certainly among the 10 rarest commercially-released BB singles, maybe even in the Top 5.
By Harveywilliams (Harveywilliams) on Sunday, January 6, 2002 - 03:59 pm:
Yes, this has been a fantastic thread, hasn't it? One question I have to add is: what about promo copies? The only edition I've ever seen with official promo markings (as "audition copy") is the Candix 301 Era Distribution issue, ie the final edition. Why would it have been left so late in the record's 'history' to press up promo copies? I guess that this edition was the first attempt to break the record nationally, thus promos were sent coast-to-coast...? I don't have this edition to hand (but there's one on the way!!) to check runout groove details, but I imagine they're the same as the regular 301 issue.
Incidentally, does anyone know why the publishing details changed between the X issue ("Drink-Guild") and the 301 issue ("Guild")? And why the 331 issue has one side credited to one, and one side to the other? This, to me, would suggest that the 331 issue was the intermediate edition, but history seems to prove me wrong...
What fun,
Harvey W.
ps: rarest Beach Boy record? The promo LP Capitol sent out in January 67 containing the Smile ad, surely?
By twentysix (Twentysix) on Sunday, January 6, 2002 - 05:16 pm:
thanks brad! ok, well what would the the five rarest stock bb's discs be, then?
By Brad on Sunday, January 6, 2002 - 10:56 pm:
Harvey wrote:
** One question I have to add is: what about promo copies? The only edition I've ever seen with official promo markings (as "audition copy") is the Candix 301 Era Distribution issue, ie the final edition. **
Those are the only ones I know about.
** Why would it have been left so late in the record's 'history' to press up promo copies? I guess that this edition was the first attempt to break the record nationally, thus promos were sent coast-to-coast...? **
That's what I've concluded. If you don't have to distribute but a handful of copies to L.A. radio stations, as Candix originally would have, why spend the extra money doing a special press run marked "promo"? On the other hand, if you're distributing copies to hundreds of radio stations nationwide, then it's certainly more worthwhile to do a run of promos.
** I don't have this edition to hand (but there's one on the way!!) to check runout groove details, but I imagine they're the same as the regular 301 issue. **
They are.
** Incidentally, does anyone know why the publishing details changed between the X issue ("Drink-Guild") and the 301 issue ("Guild")? And why the 331 issue has one side credited to one, and one side to the other? This, to me, would suggest that the 331 issue was the intermediate edition, but history seems to prove me wrong... **
That's certainly one of the biggest mysteries about the various Candix and X releases. The problem is that nobody seems to have heard of "Drink Music"! Based on Candix 331, the logical assumption would be that the publishing on "Surfin'" was being shared by Hite Morgan's company (Guild) and another company (Drink), perhaps representing the interests of The Beach Boys or Murry Wilson, while "Luau" (written by Morgan' son, Bruce) was handled solely by Guild. However, I have a copy of the publishing contract that Brian and Mike signed with Guild Music for "Surfin'," and it predates the release of the single by several months. And there's no indication in the contract that the publishing was being shared with any other company! So I don't know how to explain the Drink-Guild credit on "Surfin'" on Candix 331 and X 301. (I figure the Drink-Guild credit on "Luau" on X 301 is simply a mistake.)
Unfortunately, I don't know that we'll ever find definitive answers to some of these questions. Too much time has passed, and too many of the central participants (Murry, Hite, Dorinda, etc.) have passed away. There simply isn't anybody left who knows all the answers.
Brad
By Brad on Sunday, January 6, 2002 - 11:20 pm:
For Twentysix:
The five rarest stock BB singles? Hmmm ...
Looking only at the rarity of the records and not at their actual value ... this is simply off the top of my head, but here goes:
1. X 301 - "Surfin'" b/w "Luau"
2. Candix 331 - "Surfin'" b/w "Luau"
3. Candix 301 (Dist. by Era Record Sales) - "Surfin'" b/w "Luau"
4. Brother/Reprise 0998 - "Cool Cool Water" b/w "Forever"
5. Brother/Reprise 1321 - "Child Of Winter" b/w "Susie Cincinnati"
The next five probably would include the following (although not necessarily in this order):
* Candix 301 - "Surfin'" b/w "Luau"
* Brother 1001 - "Gettin' Hungry" b/w "Devoted To You" [credited to Brian Wilson & Mike Love]
* Brother/Reprise 1058 - "Surf's Up" b/w "Don't Go Near The Water"
* Ode 66016 - "Wouldn't It Be Nice" b/w "The Times They Are A-Changin'" (B-side by Merry Clayton)
* FBI 7701 - "East Meets West" (by The Beach Boys & The Four Seasons) b/w "Rhapsody" (by The Four Seasons)
Of course, once you start talking about promotional records, the list changes completely! You get into things like Caribou 9034 ("School Day" b/w same), of which only a handful of copies are known. And if you include albums in the discussion, the disc that Harvey mentioned would have to be included. But I don't even want to try those lists, because they get very subjective!
Surf's up!
Brad
By STE (Ste) on Monday, January 7, 2002 - 03:41 am:
So how about the more valuable ones ?
By Harveywilliams (Harveywilliams) on Monday, January 7, 2002 - 04:45 am:
Brad said:
>If you don't have to distribute but a handful of copies to L.A. radio stations, as Candix originally would have, why spend the extra money doing a special press run marked "promo"? On the other hand, if you're distributing copies to hundreds of radio stations nationwide, then it's certainly more worthwhile to do a run of promos.
Indeed. So why do promos of the Bob & Sheri 45 exist? I know most of them are bootlegs, but the copy I have seems to be official (delta numbers & everything!)
By twentysix (Twentysix) on Monday, January 7, 2002 - 04:45 am:
when i look at the rarity of these singles, i just have to dredge up the argument that it just appears ridiculous that 'cool cool water' and 'surf's up' were deemed 'radio friendly' in 1971. it boggles the mind. as brilliant and beautiful as those are (and make no mistake, they are two of brian's masterpieces) they certainly arent pop songs. if the bb's wanted to release a smile-related track as a single, why didnt they use 'cabinessence'? at least that has verses and choruses (in a manner of speaking). im sure the idea came up at one point or another.
By Brad on Monday, January 7, 2002 - 09:50 am:
Harvey wrote:
** So why do promos of the Bob & Sheri 45 exist? I know most of them are bootlegs, but the copy I have seems to be official (delta numbers & everything!) **
Oh, there are legit promo copies of the Bob & Sheri 45, without a doubt. I handled the sale of one just a couple of years ago.
As to why they exist ... ummm ... somebody had delusions of grandeur? Maybe Brian, maybe Murry? I dunno; people do crazy things!
Brad
By Phlip (Phlip) on Monday, January 7, 2002 - 12:35 pm:
As a sort of review of, and/or appendix to, some of the items mentioned by Brad...
"Surfin'" received its world radio premiere on KFWB ("Channel 98") by way of the station's "Battle of the Bands" (in which three new records were faced off against one another, and the one that received the most votes from listeners, got added to the KFWB play list for the following week). However, there is some question as to exactly when "Surfin'" won the contest. According to a radio interview with Dennis Wilson in 1975, "It was on a Saturday, I think..." And as Brad pointed out, Murry Wilson is quoted in the Tom Nolan "Rolling Stone" interview in 1971 as referring to "... the record "Surfin'" of December 8th, 1961..."
Brad also mentioned that the mastering lab ("delta") stamp on "Surfin'" points to a date in "late November 1961", and that the Dix Brothers remembered "Surfin'" as being released (that would be the "Candix 331" version) in "November 1961." So if the "Battle of the Bands" did indeed occur on a Saturday (as Dennis remembered), then the most likely Saturdays for the event would be:
December 2, 1961 (in which case "Surfin'" would have been added to the KFWB playlist "for the week ending December 8th"... which might be the date Murry was remembering in the 1971 interview),
or
December 9, 1961 (if "Surfin'" had been officially released for local distribution by Buckeye Record Distributors on that unforgettable-for-some-reason "December 8th" date as remembered by Murry).
December 16, 1961 would be seem to be a lot less likely, but only because the date of the telegram confirming the "X Records" deal between Candix and Alco Engineering was dated December 19th, and it seems unlikely that the need for such a deal would have been both apparent AND consummated only three days after the world premiere of "Surfin'" on KFWB.
What IS certain is that "Surfin'" first appeared on the KFWB "Fabulous Forty" Survey for the week ending December 29, 1961. Here is how the record progressed...
#33 - week ending December 29, 1961
#19 - week ending January 5, 1962
#11 - week ending January 12, 1962
# 6 - week ending January 19, 1962
# 6 - week ending January 26, 1962
# 4 - week ending February 2, 1962
# 4 - week ending February 9, 1962
# 3 - week ending February 16, 1962
# 9 - week ending February 23, 1962
# 9 - week ending March 2, 1962
#19 - week ending March 9, 1962
#25 - week ending March 16, 1962
As can be noted, "Surfin'" enjoyed its greatest popularity in L. A. from mid-January through the end of February 1962.
And what two records kept "Surfin'" from getting to #1 on KFWB for the week ending February 16? "Duke of Earl" (Gene Chandler) and "The Wanderer" (Dion).
"Surfin'" (as Candix 331) was first noted by national magazine "Billboard" (at position #118) in its January 13, 1962 issue (two weeks BEFORE it was mentioned "Cash Box"), but did not enter the magazine's "Hot Hundred" (at #93) until the week ending February 17th (one week AFTER it entered the "Cash Box" Top 100). "Surfin'" PEAKED at #75 on the "Billboard" charts for the week ending March 24th (one week AFTER "Surfin" had slipped completely off the KFWB "Fabulous Forty"), and left the "Hot Hundred" in April.
Meanwhile, "Surfin'" (as Candix 301) first was mentioned in "Cash Box" magazine as a "Hit Pick of the Week" for the week ending January 27, 1962, and entered the "Cash Box" Top 100 (as Candix 331) at position #96 for the week ending February 10th (one week BEFORE it made the "Billboard Hot Hundred"). "Surfin'" peaked at #85 in "Cash Box" during the week ending March 10th (ten positions lower than it would peak in "Billboard" two weeks later), and made its last appearance in the "Cash Box" Top 100 for the week ending March 31st.
So the fact that "Surfin'" peaked nationally AFTER it had already fallen from the top of the charts in L. A. would seem to indicate (as Brad postulated) that "Surfin'" had some degree of popularity outside Southern California. Anybody know where? Sacramento, maybe?
By Mikie (Mikie) on Monday, January 7, 2002 - 12:51 pm:
I think Phlip ought to get acknowledgement in Brad's upcoming book for his independent investigation into the release of Surfin'/Luau on Candix.
Whatia think Brad? Is Phlip a condenda?
OK, I gotta go do my own inspection on the inner grooves of my Candix's with a magnifying glass. Man, this is really heavy stuff.
Return to Brian Wilson Writings.
Return to theWeb Page for Brian Wilson.