How to entirely embarrass a friend :-D

[Andrew G. Doe]

Sorry, both my comments were in regard to the first paragraph: as regards to "Mulan" songs being on the Disney album... I'm flattered you think I might know.

[The Heartical Don]

I woke up with a horses head! Starting to get a tad worried

Son, you shouldn't advertise your sexual conquests on the internet, especially if they're that ugly.

 

[Andrew G. Doe]

Aye, a curious thread that's had me curiositifising for days…

I reckon Craig's been asked to verify certain sessions detail and has run it by AGD for double-verification, which has given AGD an insight into release schedules and potential tracklists but he's sworn to secrecy and will, if he lets anything slip, have to hunt us all down, one by one, and kill us.

Just like he did with everyone on the original Cabinessence board…










… and yes, he knows who you are, and that you're still out there, and YOU"RE NEXT!

Damn. Rumbled. 

[18thofMay]

I woke up with a horses head! Starting to get a tad worried

Son, you shouldn't advertise your sexual conquests on the internet, especially if they're that ugly.

Better than sleeping with the Fishes/\..

[Les P]

The use of Frank's artwork would make everyone happy (especially Frank): like I've been saying since day one, if not slightly before - thanks, ACJ - to put this out without the iconic cover is unthinkable, and if it's purely finance that's preventing it then hell, Brian, pay him out of your own pocket. This thing needs to be done right and, with all due respect to Mark London for his sterling work on the BWPS, there's only one cover, only one booklet.

Uh-oh, it sounds like Frank Holmes' artwork still may not be a done deal.  Do we need to take up a collection?

[bgas]

The use of Frank's artwork would make everyone happy (especially Frank): like I've been saying since day one, if not slightly before - thanks, ACJ - to put this out without the iconic cover is unthinkable, and if it's purely finance that's preventing it then hell, Brian, pay him out of your own pocket. This thing needs to be done right and, with all due respect to Mark London for his sterling work on the BWPS, there's only one cover, only one booklet.

Uh-oh, it sounds like Frank Holmes' artwork still may not be a done deal.  Do we need to take up a collection?

Yes, let's collect every existent copy of Franks' cover and destroy them. Then Capitol will have to buy the artwork, knowing everone, everywhere will buy the box for the artwork.

[hypehat]

Well he does seem to be somewhat irritating about it - didn't he make an eye-watering offer for it''s use on BWPS, hence the use of London?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Well he does seem to be somewhat irritating about it - didn't he make an eye-watering offer for it''s use on BWPS, hence the use of London?

His point is very simple - he wasn't paid for the work he did in 1966, he wants paying now.

BTW, the reason the prints he was selling included a Capitol copyright wasn't because they did indeed pay him back then, but because said prints of the front cover included the bands name and the album title, which were the work of the Capitol art department.*


[* this occurred to me maybe 20 seconds before I wrote it]

[hypehat]

At all? - For some reason I thought they had given him a flat fee of some kind but royalties weren't forthcoming because, well, it never made it into shops.

[bgas]

nothing, nada, zilch, zero

[Les P]

Well he does seem to be somewhat irritating about it - didn't he make an eye-watering offer for it''s use on BWPS, hence the use of London?

If I accurately recall his account, he asked Brian's people how his artwork would be used, how many copies expected to sell, etc. and got no answers.  So he made an opening offer of $50,000.  End of negotiations.

I assume experts will clarify if I'm mistaken.

[The Heartical Don]

Well he does seem to be somewhat irritating about it - didn't he make an eye-watering offer for it''s use on BWPS, hence the use of London?

If I accurately recall his account, he asked Brian's people how his artwork would be used, how many copies expected to sell, etc. and got no answers.  So he made an opening offer of $50,000.  End of negotiations.

I assume experts will clarify if I'm mistaken.

I know zilch about remuneration in these matters. But $ 50,000 seems very cheap to me.

[earcandy]

Well he does seem to be somewhat irritating about it - didn't he make an eye-watering offer for it''s use on BWPS, hence the use of London?

His point is very simple - he wasn't paid for the work he did in 1966, he wants paying now.

BTW, the reason the prints he was selling included a Capitol copyright wasn't because they did indeed pay him back then, but because said prints of the front cover included the bands name and the album title, which were the work of the Capitol art department.*


[* this occurred to me maybe 20 seconds before I wrote it]

According to Mark London in 2004, Frank was paid $2,000 by Brian back in 1966.   This, among other things pretty much killed Frank working on BWPS in 2004. 

[hypehat]

Man, are my facts off. Thanks all....

[drbeachboy]

Well he does seem to be somewhat irritating about it - didn't he make an eye-watering offer for it''s use on BWPS, hence the use of London?

In your opinion, what would have been a fair going rate back in 1966-1967?

His point is very simple - he wasn't paid for the work he did in 1966, he wants paying now.

BTW, the reason the prints he was selling included a Capitol copyright wasn't because they did indeed pay him back then, but because said prints of the front cover included the bands name and the album title, which were the work of the Capitol art department.*


[* this occurred to me maybe 20 seconds before I wrote it]

According to Mark London in 2004, Frank was paid $2,000 by Brian back in 1966.   This, among other things pretty much killed Frank working on BWPS in 2004.

[bgas]

Well he does seem to be somewhat irritating about it - didn't he make an eye-watering offer for it''s use on BWPS, hence the use of London?

In your opinion, what would have been a fair going rate back in 1966-1967?

His point is very simple - he wasn't paid for the work he did in 1966, he wants paying now.

BTW, the reason the prints he was selling included a Capitol copyright wasn't because they did indeed pay him back then, but because said prints of the front cover included the bands name and the album title, which were the work of the Capitol art department.*


[* this occurred to me maybe 20 seconds before I wrote it]

According to Mark London in 2004, Frank was paid $2,000 by Brian back in 1966.   This, among other things pretty much killed Frank working on BWPS in 2004.  

And of course Mark London is an authority on this matter why?
If Brian personally paid Frank $2,000, he's never mentioned it; and I've never heard Frank mention, nor seen any mention, for Frank being paid by Capitol.  

[earcandy]

Well he does seem to be somewhat irritating about it - didn't he make an eye-watering offer for it''s use on BWPS, hence the use of London?

In your opinion, what would have been a fair going rate back in 1966-1967?

His point is very simple - he wasn't paid for the work he did in 1966, he wants paying now.

BTW, the reason the prints he was selling included a Capitol copyright wasn't because they did indeed pay him back then, but because said prints of the front cover included the bands name and the album title, which were the work of the Capitol art department.*


[* this occurred to me maybe 20 seconds before I wrote it]

According to Mark London in 2004, Frank was paid $2,000 by Brian back in 1966.   This, among other things pretty much killed Frank working on BWPS in 2004. 

And of course Mark London is an authority on this matter why?
If Brian personally paid Frank $50,000, he's never mentioned it; and I've never heard Frank mention, nor seen any mention, for Frank being paid by Capitol. 

Umm, Mark was THERE at the preliminaries for the art for BWPS.  Initially worked with Frank.  And then was privy to the "negotiations".  Simple.

[bgas]

Well he does seem to be somewhat irritating about it - didn't he make an eye-watering offer for it''s use on BWPS, hence the use of London?

In your opinion, what would have been a fair going rate back in 1966-1967?

His point is very simple - he wasn't paid for the work he did in 1966, he wants paying now.

BTW, the reason the prints he was selling included a Capitol copyright wasn't because they did indeed pay him back then, but because said prints of the front cover included the bands name and the album title, which were the work of the Capitol art department.*


[* this occurred to me maybe 20 seconds before I wrote it]

According to Mark London in 2004, Frank was paid $2,000 by Brian back in 1966.   This, among other things pretty much killed Frank working on BWPS in 2004. 

And of course Mark London is an authority on this matter why?
If Brian personally paid Frank $50,000, he's never mentioned it; and I've never heard Frank mention, nor seen any mention, for Frank being paid by Capitol. 

Umm, Mark was THERE at the preliminaries for the art for BWPS.  Initially worked with Frank.  And then was privy to the "negotiations".  Simple.

Frank to Mark:  "Brian already paid me $2000 for this cover, I'd sure like to be paid again, for doing nothing else" 

Yeah, right, sure. I wasn't there, of course....

[earcandy]

Well he does seem to be somewhat irritating about it - didn't he make an eye-watering offer for it''s use on BWPS, hence the use of London?

In your opinion, what would have been a fair going rate back in 1966-1967?

His point is very simple - he wasn't paid for the work he did in 1966, he wants paying now.

BTW, the reason the prints he was selling included a Capitol copyright wasn't because they did indeed pay him back then, but because said prints of the front cover included the bands name and the album title, which were the work of the Capitol art department.*


[* this occurred to me maybe 20 seconds before I wrote it]

According to Mark London in 2004, Frank was paid $2,000 by Brian back in 1966.   This, among other things pretty much killed Frank working on BWPS in 2004.  

And of course Mark London is an authority on this matter why?
If Brian personally paid Frank $50,000, he's never mentioned it; and I've never heard Frank mention, nor seen any mention, for Frank being paid by Capitol.  

Umm, Mark was THERE at the preliminaries for the art for BWPS.  Initially worked with Frank.  And then was privy to the "negotiations".  Simple.

Frank to Mark:  "Brian already paid me $2000 for this cover, I'd sure like to be paid again, for doing nothing else"  

Yeah, right, sure. I wasn't there, of course....

Actually, it is a little more involved than that...but I won't bore you with the facts about the merchandising percentage questions and the lawyers... plus the parts that Jean Sievers and Melinda played in the "negotiations"...

[Andrew G. Doe]

Interesting that Frank - who btw has also claimed he was never paid at all for his work - says that he was paid by Brian, and not Capitol. Can you say "legal minefield" ?

[Les P]

Interesting that Frank - who btw has also claimed he was never paid at all for his work - says that he was paid by Brian, and not Capitol. Can you say "legal minefield" ?

"50 Years of Legal Minefield"...great name for the next greatest hits set!

[The Shift]

Shrikes… without Frank's artwork this box takes a credibility knock for sure. I'd be happy to wait 'til next year or the year after if it means there's chance for successful negotiations over this, if all this speculation  –  and I'm assuming it's speculation  –  is true.

With all due respect to Mark London, there's only one possible artist to associate with the original SMiLE project.

Having eh box set in anything but Frank's art would be like the remastered Sgt Pepper coming out in a Tracey Ermin-designed sleeve*.





* which would probably be a spent condom, or a stained tent floor…

[juggler]

Shrikes… without Frank's artwork this box takes a credibility knock for sure. I'd be happy to wait 'til next year or the year after if it means there's chance for successful negotiations over this, if all this speculation  –  and I'm assuming it's speculation  –  is true.

With all due respect to Mark London, there's only one possible artist to associate with the original SMiLE project.

Having eh box set in anything but Frank's art would be like the remastered Sgt Pepper coming out in a Tracey Ermin-designed sleeve*.





* which would probably be a spent condom, or a stained tent floor…

Hey, I'm a huge fan of Frank's work, and I'll be sorely disappointed if it's not used in this release, but I'm not getting any younger.  I, for one, will NOT be happy to wait until 2013 for the Smile box.   Sure, a delay of a month or two would be fine.   But a year or two?  I must part company with you on that one.   

I'm hoping that sensible minds prevail on both sides and mutually agreeable terms are reached... soon.

[bgas]

I'm hoping that sensible minds prevail on both sides and mutually agreeable terms are reached... soon.

Yes, let's hope for sensiblity where there once was none.( Capitol/ BBs) 
Let's really hope they don't use a Mark London cover.  ( nothing personal)

[The Shift]

Let's really hope they don't use a Mark London cover.  ( nothing personal)

Agree with you 100%. Nothing personal on my part either.