⭐ Official Review [Album]: "MADE IN AMERICA" (SP-3723)

[Mark-T]

I can't deny so many of you have made good and valid points, yet I'm not sure anything they would have done would have been better received at that point in their career. Popular tastes had moved on to other singers with often times better material. And certainly better marketing images and promotion!

But what was Richard to do? Perhaps outside ears should have chosen which completed songs to be placed on MIA out of the 20 or so recorded. Would that have helped?

I still maintain allowing Karen's solo album to come out would have been a good thing to make the public hear her anew. But what do I know? I'm just a fan.

There are times even I get tired of the Carpenters sound because I've heard too much of it. So I take a rest from it and then go back to it at some point.

 

[Jarred]

They certainly needed some outside influence again when it came to steering them in a better direction. Richard as captain wasn’t cutting it anymore on all fronts. I’m often confused on the Jack Daugherty situation but it seems that he had some outsider influence that they benefitted from, and when he was let go that furthered their downward spiral. They sometimes needed to allow someone in their hermetically sealed bubble and given them the proper credit. Yes, their classic, baroque sound ended after N&T for different reasons, but Jack’s absence may have been one of them.

 

[GaryAlan]

It is telling that Karen's favorites from the MIA album were Those Good Old Dreams and Because We Are In Love (interview 1981).
It is telling that Richard could not decide which songs were his favorites regards the songs on the album (the same 1981 interview).
So, we got what we got at the time, and I do not think for a second that the duo were not completely happy with that LP.
LP Hush apparently went Gold at the time (but then, if it was so bad, how did it manage to sell Gold ?),
perhaps Passage sales frightened them ? Certainly, the Christmas Portrait initial figures had to have frightened them (or A & M).
Let's face it, that 1978 Christmas Portrait vinyl-album is incredible and if that album was not enough to turn heads--at the time of its release--
then NOTHING released in 1981 was going to do it.

 

[Jarred]

It is telling that Karen's favorites from the MIA album were Those Good Old Dreams and Because We Are In Love (interview 1981).
It is telling that Richard could not decide which songs were his favorites regards the songs on the album (the same 1981 interview).
So, we got what we got at the time, and I do not think for a second that the duo were not completely happy with that LP.
LP Hush apparently went Gold at the time (but then, if it was so bad, how did it manage to sell Gold ?),
perhaps Passage sales frightened them ? Certainly, the Christmas Portrait initial figures had to have frightened them (or A & M).
Let's face it, that 1978 Christmas Portrait vinyl-album is incredible and if that album was not enough to turn heads--at the time of its release--
then NOTHING released in 1981 was going to do it.

I think it was said in one of the fan club newsletters that Strength of a Woman was her favorite, which is rather illuminating given what she was going through personally then.

 

[Mike Blakesley]

Hush apparently went Gold at the time (but then, if it was so bad, how did it manage to sell Gold ?),

In the wide world of the mid-70s through the '80s, Gold was a fairly low threshold -- 500,000 units, so even though they were on the downside of their popularity curve at the time, a half-million people buying their new album isn't that much of a stretch.

Also, it probably "shipped gold," meaning it shipped more than 500,000 units. For a well-established act, most stores would stock it in multiple copies because hey, it was a new Carpenters album and they didn't exactly have a bad track record to that point -- most of their stuff had sold well, so there was still good reason to stock their new release. There were lots of albums in that era that "shipped platinum" (a million units) but "returned gold."

 

[Vinylalbumcovers]

I can't deny so many of you have made good and valid points, yet I'm not sure anything they would have done would have been better received at that point in their career. Popular tastes had moved on to other singers with often times better material. And certainly better marketing images and promotion!

But what was Richard to do? Perhaps outside ears should have chosen which completed songs to be placed on MIA out of the 20 or so recorded. Would that have helped?

I still maintain allowing Karen's solo album to come out would have been a good thing to make the public hear her anew. But what do I know? I'm just a fan.

There are times even I get tired of the Carpenters sound because I've heard too much of it. So I take a rest from it and then go back to it at some point.

It's simple for me, really. Carpenters created the wrong album. They had decent tunes (not enough of them but they had them) but didn't assemble a good record. The good stuff ended up on "Lovelines" but even then, those tunes were entirely too orchestrated for the time.

In short, they needed to be able to recognize good tunes from dross and on MIA, they didn't.

Ed

 

[WYBIMLA]

He even knows how much he can’t help himself from (over) orchestrating; the new book quotes him as saying “everything with me turns into a production”, in regards to “Argentina”, which is at least more fitting for it and wasn’t even fully arranged by him. Want You Back is trying so hard to be hip and trendy but can’t let go of the classical, un-trendy core roots of its arranger and singer. The material, as often noted, is the real culprit here. The album would be far better remembered today if there was more substance to what we heard even if just wasn’t going to fly in 1981. But then you think about what they have done going ahead if Karen lived and still recorded with him.

The 80s would’ve continued to be very rough for them as a duo, commercially. It’s like, if he placed Karen in the framework of the sound he used on Time we would be cringing today hearing this timeless, ethereal voice competing with dated drum machines and synths, but then if he stuck with the Carpenter formula heard here then the albums would be on record store shelves collecting dust. But as heard from a song like Kiss Me the way You Did Last Night, there was a possibility they could’ve found a fresh sound of the era while still capturing the timeless core.

It's interesting the similarities between Carpenters fans discussion about Made in America and Michael Jackson fans discussion about Invincible.

It wasn't too long ago I listened to a podcast roundtable of discussion about MJ's Invincible and it's fascinating learning about the makings of what turned out to be a final album during his lifetime.

These two projects are remarkably different of course and wildly different set of circumstances. There are parallels that Made in America and Invincible.
Both weren't intended as a final album during the artists' lifetime.

Also, how fans say things like: "if they changed the track listing," "the outtakes from the album were better than what was released at the time," "the choice of instrumentation, overproduction and overall 'business' of the tracks could have been changed," "they should've focused more so on being a legacy act instead of trying to be modern," "the music sounded dated by the time they put it out," "the radio stations didn't want to play the records because the artist was stigmatized and had image problems," "they look terrible during public appearances during this time," "their lifestyle at the time contributed to the albums downfall." etcetera, etcetera.

I find the similarities striking in ways.

This was the first Carpenters album where KC was married.
This happened to be the first time MJ had been married (for a second time) and had children while recording.

Those life events alone seem to make for a different outcome other than what fans expect from artists.

I'm bringing in MJ into the discussion just to point out issues with a final album that aren't unique to The Carpenters.
The narrative of a Star in the music business making their final album is an incredibly interesting subject.

And we're talking about 'greatest selling artists of all time' who are at a point in career where the stakes are high and both in situations where they can't win.
There's different perspectives to have on these points and likely it's a function of fame and fortune that probably leads to these offbeat ideas and choices.

I think of MIA in a similar way of Invincible in that it's the artist making music that they like. It's more for them than it is for fans, and it is the artists' way of saying "I'm still here."

I suppose, if you think about the decision making on MJ's final album during his lifetime, he made some rather 'insane' choices musically.
More production elements than listeners even know what to do with and these strange vocalizations that some describe as "phoned in" or "doesn't sound like the other albums."

In some odd way The C's made their strange choices too and there is an audible difference in the KC of MIA and the KC of 'the Tan album.'

Now...
Fans can argue about the track listing all day and come up with different playlists. To me, I don't want to quarrel too much about it because fans have "Lovelines" and "Voice of the heart."
And I agree MJ's Invincible could've been shorter and perhaps switched out for different songs, but since posthumous releases and leaks are out... fans can create whatever playlist they'd like. And they do.
So, I'm not sure what the complaint is at this point or what more is wanted from that.

In terms of production or "overproduction" it's a thing where if the album was completely stripped back then fans would probably complain about that too.
I mean, if you're in showbiz... 'the business of shows,' then you're naturally going to be 'showy.' That's what the sell is.

So, I get why fans aren't thrilled with MIA in ways, but if you were a millionaire making an album and had all kinds of resources at your disposal to make a great album wouldn't you think to add in an orchestra, choir and bigger elements than just a piano and vocals? You know what I mean?
Knowing who the artist is and where they are in their career; the growth of their sound makes sense to my ears.
I'm not bothered by it, personally.

Next, the issue of modernization or contemporizing music as an artist that's been in the business for a decade or more.
Again they don't really have a choice. If the industry standard is using drum machines in the 80s then a lot of artists would be encouraged by their label and other producers, musicians and artists at the time to use what's available. That's the industry standard and still a lot of 80s sounds are still sold as broadcast standard.

I don't have an issue with the sound of RC's "Time" album. And there is currently a resurgence of interest in 80s analogue synthesized sounds.
So, I don't think of it as voice competing with the accompaniment like how other fans do.
A good song is a good song regardless. It doesn't matter if it's done as a "2010s sound" or a "punk sound" or "jazz sound" or "rock sound."The melody is what makes it and the kind of feeling the song evokes. So, I find fans can become nitpicking on some of these things and miss the craftsmanship by dismissing the work because there's that one thing that causes disgust.

It's always been an enormous task for an aging star to 'fit in' with the times. They're always subject to scrutiny and even the producers that try to help keep them fresh too.
I find it sad in ways.

The other options are to go the way of being a 'Legacy act' and re-record old songs or cover more traditional songs, and don't try to chart your album.
And then have fans complain that you didn't try to do anything current.
So, you see again there's no winning here, at this point in career.

Some artists do re-recordings and old traditional song recordings as well, but what motivation would The Carpenters have to do that? I think they included some of that in MIA but it truly is 'middle of the road' as intended.

Oddly enough that's how MJ's Invincible comes off too. He's doing almost an EP of futuristic sounds, and then traditional R n' B on that album plus a few songs he wrote himself and revisiting themes he did on previous albums.

So, I guess there's a thing for me where I feel for the aging star and artists in crisis.
As time goes by, I try to learn to be grateful for what I have.

We can't change the way releases happened and I do think The Carpenters were trying their best.
And in the case of Mike I think he wasn't in a good place health wise and fighting with his label. There were a lot of politics involved and probably just plain tired out at that point since recording for his entire life.

Although The C's had a later start than other child stars, they were still very young when they started. I'm not saying that as an excuse for them, but just understanding the context in which their albums were happening. It's great we even have MIA to talk about at all. How wonderful that they were in good standing with their label and thinking of venturing out to different areas.
We'll never know what the plans were for the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s... but having MIA as a final album wasn't the idea. They were just getting started again.

It's all fascinating to discussion and perspectives to me. As I've written on here before I honestly don't get the fan complaints about MIA anymore. Lol

 

[Geographer]

It's interesting the similarities between Carpenters fans discussion about Made in America and Michael Jackson fans discussion about Invincible.

It wasn't too long ago I listened to a podcast roundtable of discussion about MJ's Invincible and it's fascinating learning about the makings of what turned out to be a final album during his lifetime.

These two projects are remarkably different of course and wildly different set of circumstances. There are parallels that Made in America and Invincible.
Both weren't intended as a final album during the artists' lifetime.

Also, how fans say things like: "if they changed the track listing," "the outtakes from the album were better than what was released at the time," "the choice of instrumentation, overproduction and overall 'business' of the tracks could have been changed," "they should've focused more so on being a legacy act instead of trying to be modern," "the music sounded dated by the time they put it out," "the radio stations didn't want to play the records because the artist was stigmatized and had image problems," "they look terrible during public appearances during this time," "their lifestyle at the time contributed to the albums downfall." etcetera, etcetera.

I find the similarities striking in ways.

This was the first Carpenters album where KC was married.
This happened to be the first time MJ had been married (for a second time) and had children while recording.

Those life events alone seem to make for a different outcome other than what fans expect from artists.

I'm bringing in MJ into the discussion just to point out issues with a final album that aren't unique to The Carpenters.
The narrative of a Star in the music business making their final album is an incredibly interesting subject.

And we're talking about 'greatest selling artists of all time' who are at a point in career where the stakes are high and both in situations where they can't win.
There's different perspectives to have on these points and likely it's a function of fame and fortune that probably leads to these offbeat ideas and choices.

I think of MIA in a similar way of Invincible in that it's the artist making music that they like. It's more for them than it is for fans, and it is the artists' way of saying "I'm still here."

I suppose, if you think about the decision making on MJ's final album during his lifetime, he made some rather 'insane' choices musically.
More production elements than listeners even know what to do with and these strange vocalizations that some describe as "phoned in" or "doesn't sound like the other albums."

In some odd way The C's made their strange choices too and there is an audible difference in the KC of MIA and the KC of 'the Tan album.'

Now...
Fans can argue about the track listing all day and come up with different playlists. To me, I don't want to quarrel too much about it because fans have "Lovelines" and "Voice of the heart."
And I agree MJ's Invincible could've been shorter and perhaps switched out for different songs, but since posthumous releases and leaks are out... fans can create whatever playlist they'd like. And they do.
So, I'm not sure what the complaint is at this point or what more is wanted from that.

In terms of production or "overproduction" it's a thing where if the album was completely stripped back then fans would probably complain about that too.
I mean, if you're in showbiz... 'the business of shows,' then you're naturally going to be 'showy.' That's what the sell is.

So, I get why fans aren't thrilled with MIA in ways, but if you were a millionaire making an album and had all kinds of resources at your disposal to make a great album wouldn't you think to add in an orchestra, choir and bigger elements than just a piano and vocals? You know what I mean?
Knowing who the artist is and where they are in their career; the growth of their sound makes sense to my ears.
I'm not bothered by it, personally.

Next, the issue of modernization or contemporizing music as an artist that's been in the business for a decade or more.
Again they don't really have a choice. If the industry standard is using drum machines in the 80s then a lot of artists would be encouraged by their label and other producers, musicians and artists at the time to use what's available. That's the industry standard and still a lot of 80s sounds are still sold as broadcast standard.

I don't have an issue with the sound of RC's "Time" album. And there is currently a resurgence of interest in 80s analogue synthesized sounds.
So, I don't think of it as voice competing with the accompaniment like how other fans do.
A good song is a good song regardless. It doesn't matter if it's done as a "2010s sound" or a "punk sound" or "jazz sound" or "rock sound."The melody is what makes it and the kind of feeling the song evokes. So, I find fans can become nitpicking on some of these things and miss the craftsmanship by dismissing the work because there's that one thing that causes disgust.

It's always been an enormous task for an aging star to 'fit in' with the times. They're always subject to scrutiny and even the producers that try to help keep them fresh too.
I find it sad in ways.

The other options are to go the way of being a 'Legacy act' and re-record old songs or cover more traditional songs, and don't try to chart your album.
And then have fans complain that you didn't try to do anything current.
So, you see again there's no winning here, at this point in career.

Some artists do re-recordings and old traditional song recordings as well, but what motivation would The Carpenters have to do that? I think they included some of that in MIA but it truly is 'middle of the road' as intended.

Oddly enough that's how MJ's Invincible comes off too. He's doing almost an EP of futuristic sounds, and then traditional R n' B on that album plus a few songs he wrote himself and revisiting themes he did on previous albums.

So, I guess there's a thing for me where I feel for the aging star and artists in crisis.
As time goes by, I try to learn to be grateful for what I have.

We can't change the way releases happened and I do think The Carpenters were trying their best.
And in the case of Mike I think he wasn't in a good place health wise and fighting with his label. There were a lot of politics involved and probably just plain tired out at that point since recording for his entire life.

Although The C's had a later start than other child stars, they were still very young when they started. I'm not saying that as an excuse for them, but just understanding the context in which their albums were happening. It's great we even have MIA to talk about at all. How wonderful that they were in good standing with their label and thinking of venturing out to different areas.
We'll never know what the plans were for the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s... but having MIA as a final album wasn't the idea. They were just getting started again.

It's all fascinating to discussion and perspectives to me. As I've written on here before I honestly don't get the fan complaints about MIA anymore. Lol

All I know is that I enjoy MIA very much. To me, it's a great listen with fantastic moments and, at the time, sounded exactly like R&K aimed for...back to the original formula but with an updated (yes, "modern" sound) for the time. It's one of my favorites.

 

[Jarred]

Very interesting post about the final two albums. Also, sadly of note is that Michael too was anorexic (he admitted to his friend Glenda in a phone call that the only thing he could control in his life in his youth was his eating. No wonder he connected with Karen’s sound, and likely later her story). He even still struggled with it in the early 90s he said. Both were very complex, uniquely American tragedies that opened up whole new conversations about identity, celebrity, disease/illness, body image, culture, etc.

There is a sadness to the last two albums not because of how they vocally sound or the music itself but how each were discarded by the broader public by this point, their artistry coming off as a desperate attempt at being loved again like they once were despite their best days well behind them. I haven’t heard all of the initially unused Michael stuff but I know a lot about those final years and for both artists they were harrowing.

 

[GaryAlan]

Expectations were already high by the time the album was finished in 1981,
this after a nearly 4 year hiatus (from delivering a standard Carpenters' album).
By then, the chart-slumping I Believe You was already 'old stuff.' The song stiffed upon its 1978 release,
so, I wondered why--at the time-- it was not jettisoned on the new album.
I loved--and still do--Those Good Old Dreams.
But, when I think back to my first listen --in 1981--of the MIA LP compared to my first listen --in 1977--of Passage,
it's like the difference between night and day. Passage compelled me to listen over and over again.
As much as I like/love some of the MIA songs, I have maintained from "first hear" that Karen's lead vocals
are somehow drowned out. Had Karen's lead vocals been "front-and-center" I would never have had an issue with the album.

 

[Harry]

See page 27, 35, 42 and 51 of this thread - they're all the same!

 

[WYBIMLA]

Very interesting post about the final two albums. Also, sadly of note is that Michael too was anorexic (he admitted to his friend Glenda in a phone call that the only thing he could control in his life in his youth was his eating. No wonder he connected with Karen’s sound, and likely later her story). He even still struggled with it in the early 90s he said. Both were very complex, uniquely American tragedies that opened up whole new conversations about identity, celebrity, disease/illness, body image, culture, etc.

There is a sadness to the last two albums not because of how they vocally sound or the music itself but how each were discarded by the broader public by this point, their artistry coming off as a desperate attempt at being loved again like they once were despite their best days well behind them. I haven’t heard all of the initially unused Michael stuff but I know a lot about those final years and for both artists they were harrowing.

It is interesting. It could be subject of a documentary probably because there is a lot of material there.
And fans kind of have to have discussion about mental health when bringing up MIA.

I don't want to digress too much from the subject of the thread, but it's relative.

Can't not mention how obviously Karen saw herself differently on the promotional tour for MIA than what fans saw.

Karen was still thinking "Thin is in" and dieting, controlling her intake and overexercising and doesn't see how the public is wondering what's going on.
Obviously, she did not look well during MIA promotional tour. She looked a bit better around Music, Music, Music, but certainly by 1981 she did not look well. And as RC says, it in her eyes. You can tell. She wasn't "fit" and in good form.

That's right and true about MJ.. He did have Body dysmorphia also. He said "I've never been a great eater."
The distortion of self can be a feature for persons living with eating disorders.

I would theorize that, if there were brain scans or eye movement testing on KC and MJ, there would be provable evidence that their brain lights up in different areas than most people. So there are legitimate markers for how their brain sees themselves and the world differently.

There are times a person with anorexia, bulimia or body dysmorphia can have moments of clarity (more so in retrospect) and think "I look terrible here and not sure how I didn't see it at the time. I can't believe I was doing that to myself." Much like how an addict can recover or improve their condition and see themselves clearly, express regret for how it affected them and their loved ones.

That moment can occur much later on in life after recovery.

But, of course another similarity is the "Elvis Presley syndrome" where you can't say no to a Star.

There's the "yes people" that surround them and doesn't seem to be the right people around to help.
It's not that there weren't health professionals caring or family and friends that tried to intervene, but there didn't seem to be quite the right people surrounding them in the end. There wasn't balance there.

There wasn't anyone who was going to tell Michael Jackson "No" when he's thinking he has to go to multiple doctors to help his pain and insomnia.
And he kept it, reportedly, so the other doctors didn't know what other treatments he was receiving.

Likewise people around Karen would struggle to say "No" when she wants to go for a run to the pharmacy to pick up over-the-counter medicine and prescriptions that, in her mind, is a means of coping to settle her anxieties, depression by caving into eating disorder urges.

It's very complex.

And it interesting to bring up Elvis too because in each cases their passing was accidental. They didn't see what they did as addict behaviour or really know what they were doing, but thought that was what they had to do to deal with their pain. It's very sad. Also, Judy Garland fell to the same fate as well. Accidents waiting to happen. And people around them didn't seem to realize how bad it was or didn't know what to do or say.

Anywho, that's the strange phenomena of Hollywood, showbiz and music business stories.
I'd like to think as a culture we know more now, and can prevent, reduce, mitigate or limit these kinds of cases.
It is interesting reading about 20th century artists, musicians, producers, dancers, actors and singers and finding these kinds of parallels.
I think it still remains to this day that often in entertainment business there isn't really anyone to turn to when in need of support. Like there isn't an HR department or counselling offered by a film company or things like that to catch problems earlier.

Usually, people who work in those industries are working on a freelance basis, and with TV/Film/Music personnel aren't typically well versed in psychology and general wellbeing practices. Perhaps there'll come a time for that to change for the better. Who knows.
It's a tough business from what I understand. Not for the faint of heart.

Again these parallels by the time of the final album are interesting and for KC and MJ to have met in 1979 is a really special story in music history.
I think MJ really had a soft spot for The Carpenters and likely would have asked Karen to participate in "We are the World" in 1985 or during his recording for Invincible he may have asked her to be in "What more can I give" in 1999. I'm sure she would have agreed and they'd have likely crossed paths again.

 

[Harry]

Can we please get back to the music?

 

[WYBIMLA]

Can we please get back to the music?

Sure thing.

Lived realities are part of the music, in my view. It's part of the context of what was going on at the time of the album.
It's relevant since discussion about this album across social media and message board brings up some of these issues.
I understand if the conditions, circumstances and characterizations described is intense for a review thread.
I think it plays it's part in how the music is perceived, and I felt there's possibility to dive a little deeper than usual.

I get that. So, let's re-direct with a question. This has been asked before, but maybe there are fans here who may answer it differently now.

What songs from VOH, Lovelines and ATGB would you think to replace songs on MIA and possibility change your rating of MIA?
What would you new tracklisting be looking at it today? No right or wrong answers. Whomever wants to answer is welcome to.

 

[A&M Retro]

It is interesting. It could be subject of a documentary probably because there is a lot of material there.
And fans kind of have to have discussion about mental health when bringing up MIA.

I don't want to digress too much from the subject of the thread, but it's relative.

Can't not mention how obviously Karen saw herself differently on the promotional tour for MIA than what fans saw.

Karen was still thinking "Thin is in" and dieting, controlling her intake and overexercising and doesn't see how the public is wondering what's going on.
Obviously, she did not look well during MIA promotional tour. She looked a bit better around Music, Music, Music, but certainly by 1981 she did not look well. And as RC says, it in her eyes. You can tell. She wasn't "fit" and in good form.

That's right and true about MJ.. He did have Body dysmorphia also. He said "I've never been a great eater."
The distortion of self can be a feature for persons living with eating disorders.

I would theorize that, if there were brain scans or eye movement testing on KC and MJ, there would be provable evidence that their brain lights up in different areas than most people. So there are legitimate markers for how their brain sees themselves and the world differently.

There are times a person with anorexia, bulimia or body dysmorphia can have moments of clarity (more so in retrospect) and think "I look terrible here and not sure how I didn't see it at the time. I can't believe I was doing that to myself." Much like how an addict can recover or improve their condition and see themselves clearly, express regret for how it affected them and their loved ones.

That moment can occur much later on in life after recovery.

But, of course another similarity is the "Elvis Presley syndrome" where you can't say no to a Star.

There's the "yes people" that surround them and doesn't seem to be the right people around to help.
It's not that there weren't health professionals caring or family and friends that tried to intervene, but there didn't seem to be quite the right people surrounding them in the end. There wasn't balance there.

There wasn't anyone who was going to tell Michael Jackson "No" when he's thinking he has to go to multiple doctors to help his pain and insomnia.
And he kept it, reportedly, so the other doctors didn't know what other treatments he was receiving.

Likewise people around Karen would struggle to say "No" when she wants to go for a run to the pharmacy to pick up over-the-counter medicine and prescriptions that, in her mind, is a means of coping to settle her anxieties, depression by caving into eating disorder urges.

It's very complex.

And it interesting to bring up Elvis too because in each cases their passing was accidental. They didn't see what they did as addict behaviour or really know what they were doing, but thought that was what they had to do to deal with their pain. It's very sad. Also, Judy Garland fell to the same fate as well. Accidents waiting to happen. And people around them didn't seem to realize how bad it was or didn't know what to do or say.

Anywho, that's the strange phenomena of Hollywood, showbiz and music business stories.
I'd like to think as a culture we know more now, and can prevent, reduce, mitigate or limit these kinds of cases.
It is interesting reading about 20th century artists, musicians, producers, dancers, actors and singers and finding these kinds of parallels.
I think it still remains to this day that often in entertainment business there isn't really anyone to turn to when in need of support. Like there isn't an HR department or counselling offered by a film company or things like that to catch problems earlier.

Usually, people who work in those industries are working on a freelance basis, and with TV/Film/Music personnel aren't typically well versed in psychology and general wellbeing practices. Perhaps there'll come a time for that to change for the better. Who knows.
It's a tough business from what I understand. Not for the faint of heart.

Again these parallels by the time of the final album are interesting and for KC and MJ to have met in 1979 is a really special story in music history.
I think MJ really had a soft spot for The Carpenters and likely would have asked Karen to participate in "We are the World" in 1985 or during his recording for Invincible he may have asked her to be in "What more can I give" in 1999. I'm sure she would have agreed and they'd have likely crossed paths again.

Very thought-provoking and interesting observation.

 

[Chris May]

As I've said before, I think a number of the outtakes from MIA were stronger tracks all around than what ultimately ended up on there.

At the end of the day, I honestly believe that K&R were just being true to themselves and making the kind of music they wanted to make. That was almost always the case. It served as both a blessing and a curse for them. Had neither of them pursued such a globally public career, paired with the intense drive to be successful in it, the story likely would have turned out much differently.

 

[Matthew S]

As I've said before, I think a number of the outtakes from MIA were stronger tracks all around than what ultimately ended up on there.

At the end of the day, I honestly believe that K&R were just being true to themselves and making the kind of music they wanted to make. That was almost always the case. It served as both a blessing and a curse for them. Had neither of them pursued such a globally public career, paired with the intense drive to be successful in it, the story likely would have ended much differently.

Very true Chris and well said! Now, I’m waiting for Harry to tell us on which other pages this type of comment has already been made. I’m sure I have heard (and perhaps said) something similar before but don’t have the mental stamina to read every page and find it.

 

[Chris May]

Very true Chris and well said! Now, I’m waiting for Harry to tell us on which other pages this type of comment has already been made. I’m sure I have heard (and perhaps said) something similar before but don’t have the mental stamina to read every page and find it.

Somewhere in this thread (or in the official review on Lovelines), I believe. I'm sure I was at least one of the people who have said it.

 

[Jarred]

I think the album is in part so rich with varying opinions and such because it’s the end point for a career that had already largely underutilized the talents of two geniuses for a few years now. Then both of those gifts come to end - a voice is silenced forever and an arranger is left without his muse and locked into a past, unable to forge ahead fully anymore. MIA is the culmination and reminder that the brilliance of 1969-1975 was maybe gone forever, even if the duo lived to be 100. AKOH, Passage, then MIA are a disappointing trio; some gems in there, but largely not worthy. And when Karen Carpenter dies at 32 you want every crevice of her precious artistry to fully express that gift at all times.

Its very telling that their best later work were leftovers or made for television recordings that bested any of the standard fluff from 76-81. ATGB is an album I hear more over a few of their regular albums because even with those early demos in the mix there’s real passion in them and they play to their strengths.

 

[ullalume]

Sure thing.

Lived realities are part of the music, in my view. It's part of the context of what was going on at the time of the album.
It's relevant since discussion about this album across social media and message board brings up some of these issues.
I understand if the conditions, circumstances and characterizations described is intense for a review thread.
I think it plays it's part in how the music is perceived, and I felt there's possibility to dive a little deeper than usual.

I get that. So, let's re-direct with a question. This has been asked before, but maybe there are fans here who may answer it differently now.

What songs from VOH, Lovelines and ATGB would you think to replace songs on MIA and possibility change your rating of MIA?
What would you new tracklisting be looking at it today? No right or wrong answers. Whomever wants to answer is welcome to.

Years ago I created a MIA redux playlist. I really like the album as it stands but I switched Strength, Lying, Believe and Wedding for You're Baby, End of a song, Uninvited Guest and Kiss me....this version I love.

 

[GaryAlan]

I really like Want You Back In My Life Again.
Now, if we could only bring Karen's lead vocal out front in the song I would love it.
Ear candy on this one.

 

[Tom_P]

Harry's right; this has been a very long thread, and I'm kinda rolling my eyes at myself for not resisting the urge to chime in now! Like WYBIMLA, I don't understand the need for or benefit of such nit-picking and negativity on a fan site. It's not that I dislike critical comments - I respect that we all have different opinions and have no expectation or need to change yours to mine. What gets me down is the fact that so much of the criticism here is so relentless and negative.

So, few of us would pick MIA as one of our favourite Carpenters albums. So what? Why is it so important to pick apart an album that's 40 years old?


While I don't like it as much as most of the Carpenters' other albums, I was glad to get it 1981, and still listen to it. Awkward lyrics aside, I actually like I Believe You. It wasn't released as a single here in the UK, and I remember paying what seemed like an extortionate amount of money to a bank for an International Money Order in order to get the 7" vinyl single from the US! That year was also the first and only time I met K&R when they signed my copy of MIA at Harrods in London after an 18-hour bus journey - me that is, not them!

So I'm not going to join the 'let's all criticise MIA' brigade. What I will say is that it was a 'placeholder' album while the Carpenters decided what to do next. There are three distinct groups of tracks (Sorry if I'm repeating anybody; I couldn't face reading the whole thread!): the type of stuff that had worked well for them before, show-type tunes and light jazz/soul tracks. Clearly they were hedging their bets, but any album that includes Touch Me When We're Dancing or When It's Gone can't be the Jar-Jar Binks of the Carpenters' canon!

Am I showing my age with the ropey Star Wars metaphor?

​

 

[Jarred]

Like WYBIMLA, I don't understand the need for or benefit of such nit-picking and negativity on a fan site. It's not that I dislike critical comments - I respect that we all have different opinions and have no expectation or need to change yours to mine. What gets me down is the fact that so much of the criticism here is so relentless and negative.

So, few of us would pick MIA as one of our favourite Carpenters albums. So what? Why is it so important to pick apart an album that's 40 years old?

I don’t think anyone (even I, amazingly) is implying that either are the anti-Christ for putting out this album as is, but I do think this it is absolutely fair game to pick apart any piece of product we are given if we see fit. The product becomes “ours” now so to speak. I don’t think anyones being juvenile here and trashing the album like a teenager hating the uncoolest band alive. There’s no personal attacks happening as far as I’ve seen. Every fan base, online or otherwise, of an artist does this same thing - going into the nitty gritty of albums decades old and understanding why something does or does not work and engaging with people who might agree or not. I personally am a pessimistic/cynical f*ck, generally, but I do think when I think and talk about them as people and musicians I’m being honest and assessing fairly.

Of course there’s the enormous elephant on the board of the deeply complicated and sad matter of the politics surrounding that album of Karen’s that came right before (the red headed stepchild of the Carpenters story that might as well be on par with discussing Voldemort’s existence; how’s that for another reference?). It’s impossible for a fan who knows most of the details to consider MIA without taking into account what happened just before and during these new recordings. Naturally, for most people this will bring out bitterness, passion, and, yes, relentlessness of opinion.

The album almost can’t be discussed for long without the personal story rearing it’s head back in, but in fear of giving certain people a conniption fit it is staunchly instructed to keep that on mute. This is at least partly why this thread is as long as it is; we have to dodge and weave talking about a controversial album while walking on egg shells about the essential dimension needed to make sense of the whole thing. Yes, the forum should be about the music primarily, but for a duo who lived, as they performed, as “a world unto themselves” (per AllMusic), it becomes even more intrinsic than other music group discussions to discuss the public knowledge we’ve steadily become privy too. Their personal lives are so entangled with earlier albums and career instances as well but it all reaches an even more unavoidable and shattering climax here when we make one last stop in America.

 

[GaryAlan]

I spent too many years dodging the snickering of sales clerks at record stores (when I purchased my original Carpenters' albums and cds)
to be overly concerned-- at this point in time--about whether, or not, it is okay to be cynical about my purchase.
Heck, I even badgered one radio station multiple times in 1976 just to get I Need To Be In Love played !
And, I am still not entirely happy with the (arrangement of ) the song,
but, hey it is a Carpenters' song so I did what I could to promote it (then, as now).
Music is personal. Each person has their own opinion, and their opinion is as valid as any other.
To believe that this album, Made In America, is somehow a magnet for un-warranted criticism is surely off-the-mark.
By the way, there is nothing wrong with considering an album as a product of its own time-frame,
so, judging Made In America in its own day (in light of the other 1981 artists and their albums) is very much a valid route.
Doesn't imply--and, never did-- that I don't still love the Carpenters and appreciate this particular album (for whatever strengths I do find with it).

 

[Mark-T]

I'm just glad to see how many people are passionate about their music!