Is The Mega Box set Dead?

[Gunner]

Andy is right, it was on a different forum. Names for the (original) box set were suggested to Renfield back in the 90s on the original Sickthings list, not SickthingsUK. (It was for the original box set which was released nearly 10 years ago.)

No, not that box set!! This '16 CD Warner Bros' thing. Renfield requested (via Si) that we have a competition to name the box set here on this website about 5 years ago before you and Andy posted here. I even remmber one of my suggestions; 'Sick teens 16' and Maurice had a couple of good ones an' all.

[pitkin88]

Andy is right, it was on a different forum. Names for the (original) box set were suggested to Renfield back in the 90s on the original Sickthings list, not SickthingsUK. (It was for the original box set which was released nearly 10 years ago.)

No, not that box set!! This '16 CD Warner Bros' thing. Renfield requested (via Si) that we have a competition to name the box set here on this website about 5 years ago before you and Andy posted here. I even remmber one of my suggestions; 'Sick teens 16' and Maurice had a couple of good ones an' all.

I think Gunner is correct. I remember my suggestion was
" Hanging With M.r. Cooper ".

[glamprincess]

Andy is right, it was on a different forum. Names for the (original) box set were suggested to Renfield back in the 90s on the original Sickthings list, not SickthingsUK. (It was for the original box set which was released nearly 10 years ago.)

No, not that box set!! This '16 CD Warner Bros' thing. Renfield requested (via Si) that we have a competition to name the box set here on this website about 5 years ago before you and Andy posted here. I even remmber one of my suggestions; 'Sick teens 16' and Maurice had a couple of good ones an' all.

Okay. I guess I got confused because I don't think Renfield ever really posted on SickthingsUK. But if you say that he sent the message via Si, then that would seem to make sense. And you're right that it would have been before I joined this forum.
(Also, Renfield had made the same request on the original box set on the original Sickthings list, a fan site that Renfield was actually posting on.)

[A_MichaelUK]

>for whatever reasons Alice/Shep/Toby or whoever else is in charge, is unwilling to do the job right.

This is rarely down to the artist or the management.

[A_MichaelUK]

>I'm no expert either

Obviously not, because you haven’t quite understood what glamprincess wrote. In fact, what is particularly annoying, is that you just ignored what she wrote (even though it was pretty accurate) and continued to post something that is not correct.

>but if Alice and Alice's personal management have such little control over the Alice Cooper back catalogue, that still is their fault.

Nonsense. You don’t know what you’re talking about. What do you mean by “control”? For example, the owners of the recordings are among others, Warner Brothers (“Alice’s personal management” are not a part of Warner Brothers or any other record company). On the other hand, Alice and “Alice’s personal management” do still have some ownership of the actual publishing of majority of the songs (I hope I don’t have to explain the difference between recordings and publishing, because if I do have to, it might be better if you stopped posting until I do). So even if there was (for the sake of argument) a conflict between a record company and a publisher, how do you know it isn't there to protect the artist or the song - writer (depending on which side you're on)? In that scenario, it might be because the artist has too much "control" and not too "little control”. Do you really think that “Alice and Alice’s personal management” own the recordings of the songs on “Killer” or “Lace And Whiskey”? Not even The Beatles own their recordings (before 1968) or even the majority of their publishing rights.

>I'm not sure what control we're talking about here.

So why did you even BOTHER posting the above, then?!

>It would appear that Alice has control enough to release live albums such as Montreux and Brutally Live that contain all sorts of old songs.

You obviously don’t understand the difference between a live performance of songs and studio recordings of those songs.

>Control enough for GTSYAAC and the deluxe B$B album to be released, so I'm not convinced that it's a "record company" thing.

There have been many idiotic things posted on this board – the above goes pretty near to the top of that list. Again, you don’t understand the difference between the former (which is a film of a live performance) and the latter (which is a studio recording).

>That's always an easy out.

Everything is always “easy” to someone who sits in front of a computer and pontificates about something they don’t know anything about, despite admitting they are “no expert”. To people like you, everything can happen just by clicking your fingers, just because you want it to happen.

>As far as commercial potential goes, my guess would be a deluxe version of LITD, KILLER, MoL, SO, would outsell any new project, so the hold up must be something else.

How about because the record industry is heading into oblivion because of people who use torrent sites, for example?

>Something that noone really can know

If that’s the case, why do you go around blaming certain people, then?!

[A_MichaelUK]

>Okay. I guess I got confused because I don't think Renfield ever really posted on SickthingsUK.

Yes, Gunner was right - my mistake. I was also thinking of the first box - set.

[Toronto Bob]

Oh Andy where do I begin? You have no grasp as to what I'm speaking of, so perhaps refrain from commenting. You sound foolish enough already.

If Alice is able to release a live recording of a recent tour - that contains the old songs, why not release a live recording of those same songs but recorded in 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973? Get it? Would WB really own the rights to some demo cassette, all the road tapes Artie King made etc. Don't be silly. You purposely misunderstand my post just to be argumentative.

As far as claiming what Alice has control over and what he doesn't have control over - you don't know specifics so quit trying to sound like you're in the know. But if he doesn't own his master tapes and doesn't have the artistic freedom to do as he wishes, this is still a short coming on his and management.

In releation to this thread - yes I think the box set is dead. Too bad, the work that was done on the B$B Deluxe edition was very nice and it would of been a real treat to see the other 6 ACG albums given that sort of treatment.

Oh well, par for the course with Alice - he never missed a chance to blow an opportunity.

[RemarkablyInsincere]

Would WB really own the rights to some demo cassette, all the road tapes Artie King made etc. Don't be silly. You purposely misunderstand my post just to be argumentative.

Actually, it's quite possible they do. Many recording contracts are structured so that the label owns all the demos you record while under contract with them.

This doesn't even take into account that the actual venue where the show was recorded may have certain rights should the artist wish to release it.

But if he doesn't own his master tapes and doesn't have the artistic freedom to do as he wishes, this is still a short coming on his and management.

This stuff was standard practice back in the day... how would this be a short coming of his management?

[glamprincess]

Oh Andy where do I begin? You have no grasp as to what I'm speaking of, so perhaps refrain from commenting. You sound foolish enough already.

If Alice is able to release a live recording of a recent tour - that contains the old songs, why not release a live recording of those same songs but recorded in 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973? Get it? Would WB really own the rights to some demo cassette, all the road tapes Artie King made etc. Don't be silly. You purposely misunderstand my post just to be argumentative.

As far as claiming what Alice has control over and what he doesn't have control over - you don't know specifics so quit trying to sound like you're in the know. But if he doesn't own his master tapes and doesn't have the artistic freedom to do as he wishes, this is still a short coming on his and management.

In releation to this thread - yes I think the box set is dead. Too bad, the work that was done on the B$B Deluxe edition was very nice and it would of been a real treat to see the other 6 ACG albums given that sort of treatment.

Oh well, par for the course with Alice - he never missed a chance to blow an opportunity.

Actually, at one point we were talking about the original box set and why it was delayed. The songs on the original box set were the original studio recordings and these are the property of the record companies. That can be different from a live recording done afterwards. For example: if Alice plays Under My Wheels live in concert and tapes the song, then Warner Brothers may not necessarily control that recording. But if the original recording of Under My Wheels which appeared on the Killer album is used on the box set, then Warner Brothers does have control because it is their property. Since Alice was involved with various record companies during the course of his career, for example, Warner Brothers, Atlantic, MCA, Epic, etc., then the rights to the recordings had to be obtained from the various record companies when the original box set was being put together. That is apparently what caused the delays.

To say that it is the fault of Alice and his management is to not understand that the original studio recordings used on the albums are the property of the record companies. That is not just true for Alice Cooper but even for artists, as Andy pointed out, such as the Beatles. That is distinct from the publishing which is about the songs rather than the original recordings put on the albums.

Andy was just pointing out this distinction between original studio recordings and publishing. He does know what he is talking about.

[RemarkablyInsincere]

As much as I love rareties and stuff, I'd much rather have the material given the Hoffman treatment so we can have definite great sounding editions of these albums one and for all.

Any rareties that were going to be included with the boxset can always be released in a stand alone project of their own, I imagine.

[A_MichaelUK]

>Oh Andy where do I begin? You have no grasp as to what I'm speaking of, so perhaps refrain from commenting. You sound foolish enough already.

Do tell us what experience you have of the music industry. We're all waiting.

>If Alice is able to release a live recording of a recent tour - that contains the old songs, why not release a live recording of those same songs but recorded in 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973?

You haven't read a single word I wrote. It is not within his personal power to release anything if he doesn't own the recording or to release it with the consent of the owner.

>Get it? Would WB really own the rights to some demo cassette, all the road tapes Artie King made etc.

Yes. Read the excellent reply from RemarkablyInsincere for a start.

>As far as claiming what Alice has control over and what he doesn't have control over - you don't know specifics

I know some, but not all, "specifics" - certainly more than you do. Try reading the small print on some of the more recent releases to start with.

> so quit trying to sound like you're in the know.

But you admitted that you're not that knowledgeable about these things, yet you're quite happy to blame certain people just because not everything you want released has not been.

>if he doesn't own his master tapes and doesn't have the artistic freedom to do as he wishes, this is still a short coming on his and management.

Finally - the MOST stupid post EVER on this board. You should be proud - there's been some stiff competition for that allocade. So let me get straight, since you're so afraid of being misunderstood. Are you saying that when The Beatles, David Bowie, Alice Cooper, Elvis Presley, Prince, Queen, Elton John, The Sex Pistols and George Michael (these are all specific examples, not random names) all signed their first contracts and did so from a postion of weakness, they should have been able to dictate to a record company that they (the artists) should own their recordings? Is that what you're saying, because if you are, it's a nice thought, but it shows you don't have much experience of life, never mind the music business.

>In releation to this thread - yes I think the box set is dead.

That would be a shame if it's true. If so, the rise of illegal downloading and file - sharing may have something to do with that. Maybe you should look in the mirror.

>Too bad, the work that was done on the B$B Deluxe edition was very nice and it would of been a real treat to see the other 6 ACG albums given that sort of treatment.

Agreed.

>Oh well, par for the course with Alice - he never missed a chance to blow an opportunity.

Again, you're blaming the wrong party, assuming there is blame to go around.

[A_MichaelUK]

> Many recording contracts are structured so that the label owns all the demos you record while under contract with them.

Exactly.

>This doesn't even take into account that the actual venue where the show was recorded may have certain rights should the artist wish to release it.

Exactly. The next time Toronto Bob goes to a concert, he should read the small print on the ticket.

> This stuff was standard practice back in the day... how would this be a short coming of his management?

That's because in the world that Toronto Bob lives in, no - one is allowed to make mistakes. Neither are record companies allowed to complain about poor sales because of file - sharing, even though Toronto Bob approves of that particular practice.

[kevinuk81]

If i can ask, the Queen song on the album A Night At The Opera, 1st track entitled Death on Two Legs (Dedicated to) is about mismanagement and the ripping off of early Queen songs/recordings?

[A_MichaelUK]

>If i can ask, the Queen song on the album A Night At The Opera, 1st track entitled Death on Two Legs (Dedicated to) is about mismanagement

Yes.

[A_MichaelUK]

>You haven't read a single word I wrote. It is not within his personal power to release anything if he doesn't own the recording or to release it with the consent of the owner.

That should read "without the consent of the owner."

[pitkin88]

>Oh Andy where do I begin? You have no grasp as to what I'm speaking of, so perhaps refrain from commenting. You sound foolish enough already.

Do tell us what experience you have of the music industry. We're all waiting.

>If Alice is able to release a live recording of a recent tour - that contains the old songs, why not release a live recording of those same songs but recorded in 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973?

You haven't read a single word I wrote. It is not within his personal power to release anything if he doesn't own the recording or to release it with the consent of the owner.

>Get it? Would WB really own the rights to some demo cassette, all the road tapes Artie King made etc.

Yes. Read the excellent reply from RemarkablyInsincere for a start.

>As far as claiming what Alice has control over and what he doesn't have control over - you don't know specifics

I know some, but not all, "specifics" - certainly more than you do. Try reading the small print on some of the more recent releases to start with.

> so quit trying to sound like you're in the know.

But you admitted that you're not that knowledgeable about these things, yet you're quite happy to blame certain people just because not everything you want released has not been.

>if he doesn't own his master tapes and doesn't have the artistic freedom to do as he wishes, this is still a short coming on his and management.

Finally - the MOST stupid post EVER on this board. You should be proud - there's been some stiff competition for that allocade. So let me get straight, since you're so afraid of being misunderstood. Are you saying that when The Beatles, David Bowie, Alice Cooper, Elvis Presley, Prince, Queen, Elton John, The Sex Pistols and George Michael (these are all specific examples, not random names) all signed their first contracts and did so from a postion of weakness, they should have been able to dictate to a record company that they (the artists) should own their recordings? Is that what you're saying, because if you are, it's a nice thought, but it shows you don't have much experience of life, never mind the music business.

>In releation to this thread - yes I think the box set is dead.

That would be a shame if it's true. If so, the rise of illegal downloading and file - sharing may have something to do with that. Maybe you should look in the mirror.

>Too bad, the work that was done on the B$B Deluxe edition was very nice and it would of been a real treat to see the other 6 ACG albums given that sort of treatment.

Agreed.

>Oh well, par for the course with Alice - he never missed a chance to blow an opportunity.

Again, you're blaming the wrong party, assuming there is blame to go around.

Nobody likes a know it all Andrew. Calling someones post the most stupid ever on this board is bordering on abusive. You seem to delight in picking apart every post you don't agree with point by point. No one can criticize Alice or Alice's management or you are all over them.

I am also tired of your negativity and complaining about illegal downloads etc when you yourself have collected bootlegs for over 20 years. You know darn well that we who buy/download boots buy all the official stuff too.

It seems to you that no one can understand any of your posts and that we are ALL missing the point all of the time. Perhaps it's not US but you that is deliberately missing the point ot taking things out of context.

Awaiting the inevitable long quote laden post that I'm wrong.

[pitkin88]

As much as I love rareties and stuff, I'd much rather have the material given the Hoffman treatment so we can have definite great sounding editions of these albums one and for all.

Any rareties that were going to be included with the boxset can always be released in a stand alone project of their own, I imagine.

I have the feeling Hoffman will only focus on the
" classic " Alice Cooper albums LITD/Killer/School's Out.
Not sure if he will go ahead with BDB's or WTMN as they have recently been re-mastered. I seriously doubt he'd do stuff like Goes To Hell or Da Da. Despite being some peoples faves I don't think they'd have the sales power to justify the Gold Audio.

As for a rarities only set I doubt there's the demand apart from the hardcore fan.

[BellaDonna]

I've never claimed to have any music industry experience (other than retail) but in EVERY walk of life: contracts can be a problem.


Fact of the matter is: a box set (of the magnitude that you guys are talking about) would involve a lifetime of sifting through years (30 +, now?) worth of legally binding 'contracts' - the early ones possibly signed under some form of 'duress' (need, want, only chance, don't know any better...yeah? - go prove it...that'll be another few years court delay, thank you very much...) to figure out who actually really owns what - which is only the "tip of the iceberg" - then there would have to be the negotiations...

A project of this nature would take a really, really long time...

I really don't think it's a matter of any one person's actual 'fault': it's a matter of 'contract'.

If you're going to blame anything: it's sheets of legally binding pieces of paper.

"Sign upon the dotted line, a drop of yours a drop of mine..."

BD

[pitkin88]

Would WB really own the rights to some demo cassette, all the road tapes Artie King made etc. Don't be silly. You purposely misunderstand my post just to be argumentative.

Actually, it's quite possible they do. Many recording contracts are structured so that the label owns all the demos you record while under contract with them.

This doesn't even take into account that the actual venue where the show was recorded may have certain rights should the artist wish to release it.

But if he doesn't own his master tapes and doesn't have the artistic freedom to do as he wishes, this is still a short coming on his and management.

This stuff was standard practice back in the day... how would this be a short coming of his management?

We can only speculate if Warners own Alice Cooper demos.
If recorded at a home studio then I doubt it. If on the Warner clock then maybe. I believe George Harrison not EMI owned the White Album demos often called The Esher Demos which were recorded at his home.

My short comings from the management are the fact that no one seems to care, with few exceptions, about the back catalogue. We as fans have been so poorly served in the digital age. Examples:

Greatest Hits: We've had numerous and we are still missing the 45 mixes.

Killer and Love It To Death. Drop outs in sound on certain tracks and no remasters.

WTMN: Why only a few cuts from the tv special and not all of them?

Box Set: Glaring omissions ie " No Price Tag ". Too many tracks from BDB's ( I think it's close to half the album )

BDB's: Many think the re-master is too loud. Why not the full concert with the encores?

The mega box looked like a mistake from the start. Work appears to have been done and then abandoned. It would have been a very costly proposition from the get go. Now it's almost too late even if it is done as we have the Rhino Re-issues/Hoffman etc.

Rhino Re-Issues: No remasters/no bonus cuts. Poor quality artwork.

The buck has to stop somewhere and that somewhere is the management. No one seems to be watching the store. Where is the quality control. Shouldn't we be able to hear these classic albums in the best possible qulaity? Is it too much to ask.

As a curator/fan I feel Renfield has done a poor job. He above everyone should have an attention to detail.

[pitkin88]

I've never claimed to have any music industry experience (other than retail) but in EVERY walk of life: contracts can be a problem.


Fact of the matter is: a box set (of the magnitude that you guys are talking about) would involve a lifetime of sifting through years (30 +, now?) worth of legally binding 'contracts' - the early ones possibly signed under some form of 'duress' (need, want, only chance, don't know any better...yeah? - go prove it...that'll be another few years court delay, thank you very much...) to figure out who actually really owns what - which is only the "tip of the iceberg" - then there would have to be the negotiations...

A project of this nature would take a really, really long time...

I really don't think it's a matter of any one person's actual 'fault': it's a matter of 'contract'.

If you're going to blame anything: it's sheets of legally binding pieces of paper.

"Sign upon the dotted line, a drop of yours a drop of mine..."

BD

The original project was for, I believe, just the Warner albums which I think is 15 or 16. If we adopt your argument it should have been a non starter from the beginning. Someone in management should have made the suggestion to do them two at a time or whatever. As for all the contractual stuff most of the albums are available now so i doubt there were many issues.