Frank_ The Voice - James Kaplan [115]
The opening salvo was a relatively petty complaint: a late July telegram from Sinatra to Sacks, grousing that Columbia must not think much of him, since everybody except him, including Axel, was getting free records. “Oh, well,” he concluded. “After taxes I still have a few bucks.” He signed with a sarcastic thank you.
And then, an extraordinary reply, not from Manie, but from some suit:
AUGUST 1, 1945. MR. FRANK SINATRA, 1051 VALLEY SPRING LANE, NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA. RE YOUR BRUTAL WIRE TO OUR MR. SACKS. THIS IS YOUR AUTHORITY, ON PRESENTATION OF THIS TELEGRAM TO ANDREW SCHRADE, TO DEMAND ONE EACH OF ANY COLUMBIA RECORDS YOU WANT FOR YOUR COLLECTION.
Brutal wire! A letter from Manie arrived a week or two later, attempting to clear the air:
Dear Frank. For the past six months, there seems to be a question in your mind about certain payments which I am at a loss to understand. I’ve discussed the matters with Nancy, Sol Jaffe, Al Levy, Eddie Trautman [sic; Sacks evidently means Sinatra’s business manager, Edward Traubner: see below]—in fact, with everyone except yourself. For some reason or another, the opportunity never presented itself, although I’d much have preferred talking to you in person rather than writing to you …
I want to preface my remarks, though, by telling you (and this really goes without saying) that your interests are very important to me, and I wouldn’t permit anybody to take advantage of you. But in fairness to you, and also to Columbia, I want to point out and explain why we can’t do certain things.
In the case of Axel: You will recall standing on the corner of 51st Street and Broadway after we had finished lunch at Lindy’s, when we discussed what Axel should get [as a conducting fee]. The price of $300 [about $3,500 today] was agreed upon as being more than fair. At that time, I explained to you how it wouldn’t cost you $300: I would arrange with Axel to return to you the amount that he got from Columbia for each session, which is Scale, and that you would pay him $300. For example, if we have a record date and he received $80, you would pay him $300, the $80 would be turned over to you and actually would be a net [cost] to you of $220. There was never any question at that time that we should pay the full amount for Axel. In fact, I wrote Nancy on January 31st explaining this setup and sending her some of Axel’s recording checks.
Look, son, if anyone received compensation of that kind from Columbia, believe me, you would be the first to get it, but it’s never been done and we couldn’t start a precedent of that kind. It’s not good business, and I’m sure, if you’ll analyze it, you’ll agree with me. I’m not trying to bargain or be cheap because you know I’m not built that way. I’m only trying to point out a principle and also tell you that there was never any question about who was to pay Axel’s salary. To enlighten you, do you recall you asked me to speak to Axel regarding the money you were to pay him, and I told you the same evening that everything was okay and that he seemed very happy about it?
Now, regarding the second matter, which I don’t understand. Lately, I’ve been getting bills from Joe Ross for copying. What is that all about? His work is your property … How could we set a precedent of paying for copying when we have nothing to do with it? …
Let’s take a Sinatra date—say the one of March 6th. There were 37 men and the cost was $1,905. This we paid for. In other words, the cost of the orchestra is not deducted from royalties—it’s a flat outlay by Columbia. You’re the only artist who has such an arrangement … If you’ll think about it for a minute, I’m sure you’ll understand that the conductor’s fee and the copying costs are not obligations of Columbia. If you want, I could go to Ted [Wallerstein,