Elvis. As far as I understand a new mix of a mechanical recording counts as the same song, the same performance and the same recording in terms of royalties due to the performers. I don't think the band would get more unless they were paid as consultants in the mixing process. I think the real difficulties that Sundazed and UMG would face would be the cost of a new mix (studio and technician time) and getting permission from the band as they probably have IP rights in the recording even if UMG still outright own the tapes. The cost alone may prevent Sundazed from pursuing it if it eats into their profits unless UMG paid for it. Getting the band to agree would probably be a long and arduous task given what we know.Elvis Plebsley wrote:Would they have to pay the band more to release previously unavailable mixes? Or to release new sympathetic mixes. I'd guess yes, in both cases.
As far as using the original mixes... Well, would they have to approach the band to get an agreement? That might the main difficulty. I get the idea that Reed is dead against (ok, it's hearsay, but heard on this forum) releasing any still unreleased materials. But then the question is ? how did UMG get to release the original mixes of Temptation and Stephanie Says in 2005? It's pretty sure that nothing was happening with Reed and Cale at that time. So did UMG 'sneak' them out?
The other impediment may be simply commercial. Sundazed and UMG may not want to put them out for fear of negative critical and market responses to the rough mixes. They would have to play that carefully to let buyers know that this was the best decision. I somehow think that the record companies want a polished user-friendly commercial product and therefore do not really have the incentive to put out rough mixes.
All this is speculation and it would be nice to get some information from a trusted source on this but I doubt that we will.
I wish we knew what was left unreleased on the tapes, though.
