Surprisingly, licensing doesn't really gum up the works for a big Hollywood production: $100,000 a song might seem like a lot to us normal folks, but in the bloated world of Hollywood budgets, it's chump change. Doug Mark of Mark Music and Media Law thinks it all boils down to clashes of visions and creative differences. He has something of a vested interest in the topic, as been trying to get a movie made of Motley Crue's book The Dirt, which would make a pretty rad biopic if it's done right.

"It's been torture!" [Mark] says. "Motley Crue is a band that has a really gritty book that was a hit, and yet people want a smoothed-over script. ... Rock 'n' roll that makes a good movie is hardcore stuff!"

A proposed Keith Moon biopic has similarly suffered. Its development has been overseen by Roger Daltrey and Bill Gerber; the script has gone through two drafts, and the filmmakers are planning on taking it "more independent" and "more organic," presumably because the scripts have lacked verisimilitude.

With deceased figures, the issue of branding comes up. Take Jimi Hendrix: The Hendrix estate wants any biopic to be about his music as much as his life, and worries that a drug movie would tarnish the image of their No. 1 brand. New flicks about Louis Armstrong and Miles Davis both heavily involved the estate of the artists in the process, but getting that permission, while crucial, is often difficult.

First off, I think it's a little ridiculous for someone like the Hendrix estate to worry about the depiction of drugs in a Hendrix movie; that information is already way out there in the public sphere, and if anything, the movie could set straight the facts surrounding his accidental overdose. (I remember watching a laughable John Denver TV movie where Chad Lowe portrayed Denver's alcohol issues by swaying at a party for 10 seconds. You could almost feel the writers saying, "That's that! That huge aspect of Denver's life is now swept under the rug.") If anything, realistic portrayals of artists only enhance the audience's enjoyment and understanding of an artist's music by placing it into the context of their often messy lives. Think about it: Is a Motley Crue movie without the raunch really a Motley Crue movie?

Also only hinted at here is fatigue with the format. We've seen the biopics. Countless Behind the Music episodes follow the same narrative arc: rise, drugs, fall, breakup, reconciliation/tragedy/both. It feels like even disparate stories are being told in similar ways. There are so many interesting musical stories out there, and so few see it through with any uniqueness. What about a movie where everybody enjoyed playing music the whole time and got a lot out of it?

And where is my Fleetwood Mac movie already? That thing would be downright sleazy: cult members, drugs, love triangles, drugs, pop music, drugs.

Filmmakers fight to make music biopics [Variety]

"The film shows a naked man who resembles Hendrix, the guitar legend who died in 1970, wearing a bandanna in his Afro, having sex with two brunettes in a dimly lighted bedroom. His full face appears on screen for only a few seconds, with his eyes closed. In other portions there are flashes of his profile. But his hands, bedecked with rings, roam large on the screen at times. The film has no audio."

Apparently the women in the tape are groupies Pamela Des Barres and Cynthia "Plaster Caster" Albritton, and as luck would have it, Albritton is going to see a little bit of scratch from the video! So of course, she's saying it's real—but based on her past experiences immortalizing Jimi's member, not of any memories of her actually being in the film.

Honestly, I don't know how this is going to do for Vivid, which will sell the tape for $39.99. Discussions of the differing aesthetics of "hotness" in nearly 40 years ago and now aside, don't you think that the Hendrix diehards would at least want some sort of, I don't know, discussion of the parallels between Jimi's playing style and the way he used his hands in his off-hours?

Jimi Hendrix sex tape emerges through the haze [NY Daily News]
Earlier: Jimi Hendrix Estate Not Very Pleased About The Jimi Hendrix Sex Tape / Jimi Hendrix Sex Tape Proof That No Celebrity Is Safe From This Nation's Constant Wank Mining

^* If there are any people left, of course.

Am the only person who gets a little scared when all the guitars are raised at the end? Maybe I'm just not comfortable with Eastern Europeans doing stuff in unison. Come on, America, I'm sure we have more Jimi fans than Poland. Let's show 'em how it's done! For Freedom!

Hendrix Fans Flock to Poland for World Record [Spinner]
Thanks Jimi Festival - Guinness Guitar Record [YouTube]
Guitar Guinness Record 2008 [YouTube]

Leaving aside the distastefulness of digging up someone's corpse in order to make a buck from those people who are so desperate for something new to jerk off to, they'll pay to see their long-departed guitar heroes (or their professional doppelgangers) in flagrante, the question remains: Hasn't anyone who's seen footage of Hendrix playing guitar pretty much know what his during-sex facial expressions were like anyway? In case you need a refresher course, there's a clip of my favorite Hendrix track, "Fire"—complete with song-opening tongue waggle!—below.

Jimi Hendrix - Fire Woodstock 1969 Live [YouTube]
Supposed Hendrix Sex Tape Is Offered [NYT]
[Photo: AP]

The story goes like this: Hendrix signed a super-exploitive deal with a guy named Ed Chalpin in the early 60s, and Chalpin subsequently recorded a bunch of his songs. Like anyone else who had anything to do with Hendrix, Chalpin was sued, perhaps with some justification, by the Hendrix estate, and is now required to pay them an override royalty on any money he makes from the recordings and cannot enter into new license deals without the estate's consent. But there are also another batch of recordings that Chalpin was required to turn over to the estate directly, which would then presumably be wholly controlled by the estate. The story primarily mentions Chalpin, but based on what they say, it sounds like Cee-Lo's label would still have to get any licenses approved by the estate, which means they're not licensing them, they're just shopping them around. Does Cee-Lo have a side deal with the estate, or just with Chalpin?

As always, let's turn to Zombie Hendrix for some answers.

Idolatemp: what's up
foxygravey: mmmmgggg
Idolatemp: so it's awesome that cee-lo can go crazy with those masters, but can he actually do that, or does your estate need to clear everything first?
foxygravey: rrrggggghhhhhmmmm...fuh
Idolatemp: wait, why do you type like you talk? that doesn't even make sense
foxygravey: nnnnnnn...eehhhh...ti...kettt
Idolator: whatever, zombie hendrix

Gnarls Jimi: Cee-Lo Green acquires infamous Jimi Hendrix masters [Daily Swarm]