What is a successful album?

[Sing]

Here's a question I have that is relevant to the Carpenters albums, but could also be generalized towards any other artist or musical group.

How many copies of an album does an album have to generate within a year of its release to be considered a successful album?

500 thousand copies? 1 million copies?

I would estimate that there are some musical groups/artists release one album after another and never sell more than 50 thousand copies of any individual album.

Rock groups like King Crimson and Roxy Music and artists like Frank Zappa never had albums that sold extremely well. Still, they continued to release albums, even if they knew their albums would not reach anywhere near the top of the charts.

Is an album that sells, 100 thousand copies a failure or a modest success?

The British folk artist, Nick Drake recorded and released 3 albums in his short recording career (1969 - 1972) and they sold a combined 7,000 copies. Nick Drake died in 1974. But later, when Nick Drake's music got more attention, his albums sold in higher quantitied.

Getting back to the Carpenters, from a commercial perspective, which albums were successes and which were failures and which fall into the in between category, given that the Carpenters, to some extent, got accustomed to seeing their albums reach Gold or Platinum status.

Note: This isn't to say that one can not gain a lot of enjoyment from a Carpenters album that didn't sell very well.

 

[Jack A.]

The standards depend on how popular the artist is.

For instance, a Beatles album that sold 100,000 copies would be considered a total flop. But for Frank Zappa, who only had one Top 40 hit and only five charting singles out of 39 total, 100,000 copies might have been considered somewhat successful. Zappa's best-selling album sold two million copies, but overall most of his albums sold rather few copies, so perhaps 100,000 would have been high for his usual standards.

Relating this to the Carpenters, I think that, at least at their peak, an album that sold anything less than 1,500,000 copies domestically would have been considered unsuccessful for their standards at the time. Of course, later on in the '70s, those standards dropped dramatically, as Horizon was their last Platinum album - A Kind of Hush reached Gold, then Passage and Made In America both did not even reach Gold (Christmas Portrait eventually reached Platinum, however).

Personally, 100,000 sales for any mainstream artist, even if they are not that well-known, is not enough to be considered a huge success in my book. That's only 20% of a US Gold certification nowadays. Now, the perceived level of an album/song's success can still be partially drawn from airplay/streaming. For example, "Take On Me" sold 1,800,000 physical copies in the US, but has amassed well over a billion streams on Spotify. 1.8 million physical copies is nothing to sneeze at, but it's less sales than countless other songs that do not have nearly as many streams. So, "Take On Me" would probably be considered a more successful song than one that sold 2 million copies, but only has 40 million streams. The music video also contributed to the song's success, as it was heavily rotated on MTV in the mid-'80s.

Those are just my two cents. I do not have nearly as much wisdom as others do on topics like this.

 

[Geographer]

Did it turn a profit? Success! Did it lose money? Flop.

 

[Sing]

Did it turn a profit? Success! Did it lose money? Flop.

That's an interesting question/comment.

Before the days of streaming, could a record company make money releasing albums that sold 50,000 copies? What about the songwriters? The musicians?

Would they all have to get a "regular" job if those records only sold 50,000 copies or less? Of course, one could earn money on concert tours. But quite often earnings from concert tours are correlated with the popularity of albums released, allowing for situations where a current album sells poorly but fans who enjoyed the previous albums purchase concert tickets.

So, getting back to the question/comment I quoted: How many copies of an album needed to be sold for album to provide a half-way decent income for the songwriters/musicians, before streaming was a thing?

 

[Simon KC1950]

Longevity may also provide a scope into the success of an album, beyond sales. Take for example, an album is a hit when released but then completely forgotten about years later relative to an album that sells moderately when initially released but grows in stature over the years, becoming a well-loved/iconic album decades later. Which of these two albums should be deemed a success?

 

[Portlander]

Where is Michael when we need him?

 

[Sing]

Longevity may also provide a scope into the success of an album, beyond sales. Take for example, an album is a hit when released but then completely forgotten about years later relative to an album that sells moderately when initially released but grows in stature over the years, becoming a well-loved/iconic album decades later. Which of these two albums should be deemed a success?

One a similar line of thinking, take a group like Genesis-Phil Collins. My bet is that those musicians think of "Nursery Crime," "Foxtrot" and "Selling England By the Pound" as successes, even though they made more money off of "Invisible Touch" than all of those other albums put together. (I realize that the membership of Genesis changed from those old albums compared to the new albums.)

But getting back to Carpenters . . . . . .

Let's say, hypothetically (of course), that Richard and Karen Carpenter actually like Jazz music a bit more than pop music. So, in 1979 (assuming Richard didn't actually have a drug addiction problem that forced him to take time off) Richard and Karen recorded a jazz type album, inspired by the music of Michael Franks (the guy who wrote "B'Wana He No Home').

They record and release the album and jazz fans love it. But it only sells 100,000 copies. Richard and Karen enjoy the project and appreciate that people who never cared about the prior Carpenters music are fans of the new jazz-influenced album. They already have plenty of money. So, chasing the dollar isn't their only priority.

Isn't the album a success?

Sorry for being too philosophical.

 

[Matthew S]

If you’re defining success as something that makes the artists happy no matter what the financial reward, then yes.

 

[Geographer]

Well, there is something of a situation like Christmas Portrait that, at the time of release, did not seem a "success" by initial sales; however, over the years it has gone multiple platinum status. Most reasonable people would view CP as a "success" now; however, at the first release CP may have been seen to be a flop. The same principle applies to many Carpenter records. Many think both Passage and Made in America were not successful; but, it would be interesting to see, after all these years, what the sales stats are in total all these years. Did they "eventually" make a profit? Same for Offering/Ticket to Ride.

 

[Michael Hagerty]

Where is Michael when we need him?

Gotta sleep sometime...

Anyway, lots of answers to these questions.

"You're only as good as your last record" is a phrase I think I've heard from every recording artist I ever met or interviewed.

Sales are a ladder the record company expects you to climb. So, if your first album sells 10,000 copies and the record company is willing to release a second album, it needs to do better than that.

When you hit 100,000, they're expecting the next one to do a quarter million, and the next 500,000, and then they'll be looking to go Platinum.

When you have a string of Top 10 records and the next one peaks at #13, that's a disappointment. Maybe not fatal, but the one after that needs to go top ten. And if it only makes #33, that's trouble.

As for whether a record makes money, that depends on what the up-front costs were to produce it.

The number of session musicians involved, the number of hours of studio time for recording/editing/mixing, the producer's fee, the royalty rate for the artist(s) whose record it actually is, special packaging (vanity label rather than the company standard label, gatefold or double-pocket cover instead of a single-pocket, custom inner sleeve rather than the company's standard paper)----all of those are variables on top of the standard costs of recording, stamping, pressing, printing, packaging and shipping.

And even those fixed costs can vary based on how many copies the record label decided to produce in a first run (5,000? 10,000? 100,000? More?).

And we haven't touched on promotion costs---at a minimum, promo copies pressed and shipped, percentage of promotion department's time spent trying to get airplay or store placement for the record, print ads, radio/TV spots, billboards, contests, parties and receptions and music videos.

The more successful a group or artist has been in the past, the greater the likelihood that most, if not all those costs will be higher than for a newer, less successful act.

By the time you get to HORIZON, Karen and Richard are on their second or third contract with A&M, specifying higher royalties per record, either hard commitments or "best effort" pledges from the company in terms of promotion, and there's a custom inner sleeve with lyrics and a vanity label.

A&M likely had more money invested in HORIZON and A KIND OF HUSH than it did in NOW AND THEN and A SONG FOR YOU. Which made the fall from multiple platinum for the earlier two albums to single platinum and then just gold not just disappointing but made profitability on those albums (and likely PASSAGE and CHRISTMAS PORTRAIT---look at how many musicians were involved) harder to attain.

Yeah, over a period of 20 years, CHRISTMAS PORTRAIT ends up going platinum, and maybe it makes back its costs, but by the time it does, Karen's gone, Richard's not recording and Herb and Jerry don't even own A&M. Nobody in the record business is looking to make back their investment in a given record over decades---the target is months, and the fewer months, the better.

 

[Michael Hagerty]

So, getting back to the question/comment I quoted: How many copies of an album needed to be sold for album to provide a half-way decent income for the songwriters/musicians, before streaming was a thing?

It would depend on the royalty rate for the artist.

Personal anecdote---back in 1979, I produced a novelty record strictly for the radio station I was programming in Reno. It was based on the then-imminent crashing to earth of Skylab---and I did a fake interview in which the answers are provided by quick clips from popular songs.

Dickie Goodman had a 20-year run of records like this, from "Flying Saucer" in 1956, which peaked at #3:



....to "Mr. Jaws", which made it to #4 in 1975:



Well, someone heard it, liked it, and I start getting phone calls from record companies about possibly releasing it (we didn't, because by the time the music rights clearances could have been sorted out, Skylab would have crashed a month before).

I was pitched the then-standard new artist rate of five cents per 45 rpm single sold (the standard new artist rate for LPs was ten cents).

Meaning if we'd done a single and the record had sold a million copies, I would have gotten $50,000. That's $212,000 adjusted for inflation---so, if I were a musician serious about pursuing a recording career, that would be some decent money.

Even half a million copies would have been $25,000 then, $106,000 today----not too shabby. But for someone who's only selling 10,000 copies---that's $500 in 1979, a little over two grand today. Which means a lot more hustling trying to get a bigger record.

 

[Michael Hagerty]

Longevity may also provide a scope into the success of an album, beyond sales. Take for example, an album is a hit when released but then completely forgotten about years later relative to an album that sells moderately when initially released but grows in stature over the years, becoming a well-loved/iconic album decades later. Which of these two albums should be deemed a success?

Both. The first is a commercial success, the second a critical success.

It happens a lot in movies:

11 Beloved Movies That Were Box Office Flops

null

www.mentalfloss.com

 

[Michael Hagerty]

If you’re defining success as something that makes the artists happy no matter what the financial reward, then yes.

And if you're forgetting entirely that there's a record company involved that has infinitely more at stake on that record than the artists do, sure.

Artist royalty agreements mean that the artist gets paid for every unit sold....whether or not that record is profitable. Yeah, the artist is a lot happier with the royalty check for a million-seller than for a stiff that only moves 10,000 copies, and sometimes a previously commerically-successful artist will choose art over commerce (Harry Nilsson, Michael Nesmith), but the record company is on the line for nearly all of the costs associated with that art.

 

[Sing]

And if you're forgetting entirely that there's a record company involved that has infinitely more at stake on that record than the artists do, sure.

Artist royalty agreements mean that the artist gets paid for every unit sold....whether or not that record is profitable. Yeah, the artist is a lot happier with the royalty check for a million-seller than for a stiff that only moves 10,000 copies, and sometimes a previously commerically-successful artist will choose art over commerce (Harry Nilsson, Michael Nesmith), but the record company is on the line for nearly all of the costs associated with that art.

Great explanation, Michael. This is very helpful for someone who knows almost nothing about the recording industry.

This is what peaked my interest in this topic. I looked at the Carpenters' discography and how their albums charted and then I looked at the discography of Rita Coolidge and how her albums charted.

Both Carpenters and Rita Coolidge had their albums released by A & M records. But here is how their albums charted in the US (according to Wikipedia, which might or might not be accurate).

Year: 1969
Carpenters - Ticket To Ride - # 150

Year: 1970
Carpenters - Close To You - # 2

Year: 1971
Carpenters (The Tan Album) - # 2
Rita Coolidge - Rita Coolidge - # 105
Rita Coolidge - Nice Feeling - # 135

Year: 1972
Carpenters - A Song For You - # 4
Rita Coolidge - The Lady's Not For Sale - # 46

Year: 1973
Carpenters - Now and Then - # 2
Rita Coolidge & Kris Kristofferson - # 26

Year: 1974
Rita Coolidge - Fall Into Spring - # 55

Year: 1975
Carpenters - Horizon - # 13
Rita Coolidge - It's Only Love - # 85

Year: 1976
Carpenters - A Kind of Hush - # 33

Year: 1977
Carpenters - Passage - # 49
Rita Coolidge - Anytime .. Anywhere - # 6

Year: 1978
Carpenters - Christmas Portrait - # 56
Rita Coolidge - Love Me Again - # 32
Rita Coolidge & Kris Kristofferson - Natural Act - # 106

Year: 1979
Rita Coolidge - Satisfied - # 95

Year: 1981
Carpenters - Made In America - # 52
Rita Coolidge - Heartbreak Radio - # 160

Year: 1983
Carpenters - Voice of the Heart - # 46
Rita Coolidge - Never Let You Go - Did Not Chart

Year: 1984
Carpenters - An Old Fashioned Christmas - # 190
Rita Coolidge - Inside the Fire - Did Not Chart

Year: 1989
Carpenters - Lovelines - Did Not Chart

Year: 2001
Carpenters - As Time Goes By - Did Not Chart

Here's what I find interesting about this. It seems that even recording artists like Rita Coolidge, a majority of who's albums never made the top 20, can still get signed into a record contract with a reasonably well known record company.

Did A & M sign Rita Coolidge because they thought that they would make money on their investment in her but turned out to be wrong? Or did Herb and Jerry decide that even if they lost money, Rita's music needed to be heard?

 

[Harry]

Remember too, as Michael has pointed out, chart numbers are relative to all other chart entries that week. An album could zoom all the way to the top ten in a week where the competition wasn't so stiff. So the "number 4" position only means that in that particular week, it sold more than the #5 entry. How many more isn't important.

It could even occur that the following week, our former #4 album sold even more than it had in the prior week, but relative to the other entrants, it would only rank maybe a #7.

 

[Michael Hagerty]

Great explanation, Michael. This is very helpful for someone who knows almost nothing about the recording industry.

This is what peaked my interest in this topic. I looked at the Carpenters' discography and how their albums charted and then I looked at the discography of Rita Coolidge and how her albums charted.

Both Carpenters and Rita Coolidge had their albums released by A & M records. But here is how their albums charted in the US (according to Wikipedia, which might or might not be accurate).

Year: 1969
Carpenters - Ticket To Ride - # 150

Year: 1970
Carpenters - Close To You - # 2

Year: 1971
Carpenters (The Tan Album) - # 2
Rita Coolidge - Rita Coolidge - # 105
Rita Coolidge - Nice Feeling - # 135

Year: 1972
Carpenters - A Song For You - # 4
Rita Coolidge - The Lady's Not For Sale - # 46

Year: 1973
Carpenters - Now and Then - # 2
Rita Coolidge & Kris Kristofferson - # 26

Year: 1974
Rita Coolidge - Fall Into Spring - # 55

Year: 1975
Carpenters - Horizon - # 13
Rita Coolidge - It's Only Love - # 85

Year: 1976
Carpenters - A Kind of Hush - # 33

Year: 1977
Carpenters - Passage - # 49
Rita Coolidge - Anytime .. Anywhere - # 6

Year: 1978
Carpenters - Christmas Portrait - # 56
Rita Coolidge - Love Me Again - # 32
Rita Coolidge & Kris Kristofferson - Natural Act - # 106

Year: 1979
Rita Coolidge - Satisfied - # 95

Year: 1981
Carpenters - Made In America - # 52
Rita Coolidge - Heartbreak Radio - # 160

Year: 1983
Carpenters - Voice of the Heart - # 46
Rita Coolidge - Never Let You Go - Did Not Chart

Year: 1984
Carpenters - An Old Fashioned Christmas - # 190
Rita Coolidge - Inside the Fire - Did Not Chart

Year: 1989
Carpenters - Lovelines - Did Not Chart

Year: 2001
Carpenters - As Time Goes By - Did Not Chart

Here's what I find interesting about this. It seems that even recording artists like Rita Coolidge, a majority of who's albums never made the top 20, can still get signed into a record contract with a reasonably well known record company.

Did A & M sign Rita Coolidge because they thought that they would make money on their investment in her but turned out to be wrong? Or did Herb and Jerry decide that even if they lost money, Rita's music needed to be heard?

Again, a bunch of things here, and not really the best comparison. Neither of them had sold records when they were signed to that reasonably well-known record company.

Karen and Richard were a couple of kids from Downey who got a big break at A&M.

Rita Coolidge was already rock and roll royalty, or at least nobility---sister-in-law of Booker T. of Booker T and the MGs, domestic partner of then up-and-coming songwriter Kris Kristofferson, company member of Mad Dogs and Englishmen, which involved Joe Cocker, an A&M artist, and (uncredited) co-writer of "Superstar". You'd be crazy not to sign her, if you're A&M in 1971.

Number two---as I mentioned in one of the earlier posts, success works against you in terms of expectations and in terms of royalty agreements. After CLOSE TO YOU, Karen and Richard were expensive---higher royalty rates, more elaborate recordings in terms of numbers of musicians, hours of studio time and promotional commitments from the label.

Rita's debut album, on the other hand, had maybe 20 musicians total, and didn't need hours upon hours of overdubs. It was cheaper to make.

Was Rita's first or second album profitable? Don't know, but I'd argue that by the time you get to 1972 and Rita's third album, A&M probably didn't clear as much in profit (due to costs) from A SONG FOR YOU as you might have thought and it probably made a lot more money than you'd think from THE LADY'S NOT FOR SALE, which was a lot less expensive.

Profitability always matters more than chart performance to a label. Nobody's artist roster is made up of nothing but million-selling artists.

By 1977, Rita's peaking at #6 with an album that has three hits in the top 20 (one peaking at #2, one at #7 and one at #20) and Carpenters are stalling at #49 with an album that has two singles that couldn't crack the top 30 and a third that couldn't get into the top 40. And again, PASSAGE cost a fortune compared to ANYTIME...ANYWHERE. That year, Rita almost certainly made A&M money and Carpenters almost certainly lost A&M money.

 

[Mike Blakesley]

Or did Herb and Jerry decide that even if they lost money, Rita's music needed to be heard?

You also have to remember that A&M was a company known for giving artists plenty of chances to get over the goal line.

Joan Armatrading - never really got there, but released a lot of albums
Peter Frampton - Several unsuccessful studio albums followed by the mega-selling live Frampton Comes Alive
Head East - One hit single out of the box, only middling success after that, but they still released a long string of records
Phil Ochs - A critical success but went nowhere commercially

And so on. If Carpenters had been signed to some other label, chances are they never would have gotten past their first album. (A scenario made even more possible by the fact that if they'd been with another label, Herb Alpert would never have given them "Close to You.")

 

[Michael Hagerty]

This is very helpful for someone who knows almost nothing about the recording industry.

For anyone who wants to understand the business, at least as it was in the 50s through the 80s, I wholeheartedly recommend Stan Cornyn's book, Exploding:

Amazon product ASIN 0380978520
Cornyn spent 34 years working for Warner Bros. Records, beginning with its founding in 1958, and was one of the best writers you'll ever encounter.

Here's a classic example, from Stan's book, about how costs of recording can make a difference:

Elektra Records signed Arthur Lee and Love in 1967. The deal:

• $5,000 cash advance
• $17,500 recording/production budget
• 5% of music publishing on the band's original songs reverts to Elektra.
• Standard new artist royalty of 10% per album sold.

LOVE (the debut album) peaked at #57 and sold about 100,000 copies. In those days, the list price was $4.98 and wholesale was generally half that----$2.49.

So Elektra Records grosses $249,000. The band's royalty is $10,000, there's the $17,500 recording and production and the $5,000 cash advance.

That's $32,500 in up-front costs, minus the actual pressing, stamping, printing and shipping, which back in the day was thought to be about 89 cents per album. On 100,000 albums, that's $89,000.

So we're at $121,500 in expenses, against $249,000 in income. That's a net profit of $127,500. Yeah, there's still promotion to account for, but even if the label did $20,000 worth, Elektra still clears around $100,000 before their cut of the publishing.

But an artist with a track record will have higher advances and royalty deals. And the more expensive the album is to make, the harder the path to profit. Richard has said that A&M gave them a recording and production budget for OFFERING of $50,000. And that was probably the least-expensive of their albums.

 

[newvillefan]

Elektra Records signed Arthur Lee and Love in 1967. The deal:

• $5,000 cash advance
• $17,500 recording/production budget
• 5% of music publishing on the band's original songs reverts to Elektra.
• Standard new artist royalty of 10% per album sold

I’ve always been interested in how this side of the music business works. Several years ago I read the authorised ABBA biography “Bright Lights, Dark Shadows” and was shocked at how poor their royalty deal for international record sales was with Polar Music, given how lucrative an act they were for the label in terms of these overseas sales figures, especially in Australia, Europe and particularly the UK:

The first long-term contract was signed on July 1, 1975, wherein it was stated that Abba would get a royalty of eight per cent on all records sold in Sweden, and three per cent on sales throughout the rest of the world. This deal had been in operation since then, the only significant change occurring on July 1, 1980, when a separate contract was signed, according to which Björn and Benny would receive an additional 2.5 per cent “producer’s royalty”.

In September 1980, a contract covering the period July 1, 1982 to June 30, 1983 was signed by the group, along the same lines as the earlier agreements. It was this present deal that Abba now wanted to renegotiate. By the early Eighties few international top acts would accept a three per cent royalty, and the group felt it was unreasonable in the light of the profits they had brought to Polar Music International over the years.

Another curious aspect of the Polar/Abba deal related to Michael Tretow’s royalty rate. Although officially he was “only” the engineer, Björn and Benny decided that from the Voulez-Vous album onwards he should receive a 0.5 per cent royalty on all Abba recordings as a reward for his loyalty and invaluable contributions over the years. “It was kind of unprecedented,” says Michael with some understatement. “And it wasn’t because I asked for it, they were the ones who said, ‘You should have that.’ I’ve never heard of anything like it.” This generous gesture meant that when the three per cent royalty rate allotted to the stars – the Abba members – was split four ways, it amounted to only 0.75 per cent, marginally more than the 0.5 per cent allotted to their recording engineer.

Certainly, Mike Chapman, a producer and songwriter with long experience of the British and American music business, couldn’t quite believe the set-up between Polar and Abba. He later recalled Agnetha showing him her contract for Wrap Your Arms Around Me, which she explained was identical to her Abba deal. “I looked at the contract, then at her and said, ‘Is this a joke? You’re being ripped off!’” With Abba being in the midst of sensitive negotiations with Polar, none of the interested parties were best pleased when Chapman tried to interfere on Agnetha’s behalf. According to the producer, he was told by both Stig and Björn to mind his own business.

 

[Michael Hagerty]

You also have to remember that A&M was a company known for giving artists plenty of chances to get over the goal line.

Joan Armatrading - never really got there, but released a lot of albums
Peter Frampton - Several unsuccessful studio albums followed by the mega-selling live Frampton Comes Alive
Head East - One hit single out of the box, only middling success after that, but they still released a long string of records
Phil Ochs - A critical success but went nowhere commercially

And so on. If Carpenters had been signed to some other label, chances are they never would have gotten past their first album. (A scenario made even more possible by the fact that if they'd been with another label, Herb Alpert would never have given them "Close to You.")

True. And then there's the flip side. Artists who couldn't score on A&M, didn't get renewed and wound up having success for other labels---Liza Minelli, Brewer & Shipley, Waylon Jennings, Gary Wright...

 

[Michael Hagerty]

I’ve always been interested in how this side of the music business works. Several years ago I read the authorised ABBA biography “Bright Lights, Dark Shadows” and was shocked at how poor their royalty deal for international record sales was with Polar Music, given how lucrative an act they were for the label in terms of these overseas sales figures, especially in Australia, Europe and particularly the UK:

The first long-term contract was signed on July 1, 1975, wherein it was stated that Abba would get a royalty of eight per cent on all records sold in Sweden, and three per cent on sales throughout the rest of the world. This deal had been in operation since then, the only significant change occurring on July 1, 1980, when a separate contract was signed, according to which Björn and Benny would receive an additional 2.5 per cent “producer’s royalty”.

In September 1980, a contract covering the period July 1, 1982 to June 30, 1983 was signed by the group, along the same lines as the earlier agreements. It was this present deal that Abba now wanted to renegotiate. By the early Eighties few international top acts would accept a three per cent royalty, and the group felt it was unreasonable in the light of the profits they had brought to Polar Music International over the years.

Another curious aspect of the Polar/Abba deal related to Michael Tretow’s royalty rate. Although officially he was “only” the engineer, Björn and Benny decided that from the Voulez-Vous album onwards he should receive a 0.5 per cent royalty on all Abba recordings as a reward for his loyalty and invaluable contributions over the years. “It was kind of unprecedented,” says Michael with some understatement. “And it wasn’t because I asked for it, they were the ones who said, ‘You should have that.’ I’ve never heard of anything like it.” This generous gesture meant that when the three per cent royalty rate allotted to the stars – the Abba members – was split four ways, it amounted to only 0.75 per cent, marginally more than the 0.5 per cent allotted to their recording engineer.

Certainly, Mike Chapman, a producer and songwriter with long experience of the British and American music business, couldn’t quite believe the set-up between Polar and Abba. He later recalled Agnetha showing him her contract for Wrap Your Arms Around Me, which she explained was identical to her Abba deal. “I looked at the contract, then at her and said, ‘Is this a joke? You’re being ripped off!’” With Abba being in the midst of sensitive negotiations with Polar, none of the interested parties were best pleased when Chapman tried to interfere on Agnetha’s behalf. According to the producer, he was told by both Stig and Björn to mind his own business.

That's a god-awful deal.

 

[Mark-T]

Anyone know more specifics about the Carpenters deal throughout their career and post Karen's passing?

 

[Michael Hagerty]

Anyone know more specifics about the Carpenters deal throughout their career and post Karen's passing?

I can't find anything.

When artists' contracts with a label expire, there's usually an agreement made as to how to proceed---in some cases, the artist accepts a lump sum and the label then keeps whatever money it makes on future sales of the albums that were recorded while the artist was with the label. That also gives the label carte blanche to raid the vault for unreleased material.

Some simply agree that the royalty checks will keep coming for catalog sales (there may be some negotiation on the percentage---especially if an artist's popularity has fallen after signing a killer deal) until and unless there's a subsequent agreement.

Wealthier artists---Paul McCartney, Paul Simon---will sometimes buy their recordings back from the label and sell or lease them to their new home, or make ownership of their product part of a contract negotiation while still with the label. Herb retained ownership of his recordings as part of the sale of A&M.

Given that everything up to this point has been on A&M (to the extent that A&M exists), I'm guessing Richard either took a lump sum or agreed to continuing royalty payments. I'd be surprised if he still has an active contract with UMG.

 

[Sing]

In the case of The Beatles and Elton John, once they became enormously successful, they started their own record labels. The Beatles created Apple Records. Elton John formed The Rocket Record Company. Elton's record company signed Neil Sedaka and, if I remember correctly, Heart. But I don't think Elton ever recorded his own albums on his own record label, for reasons that aren't clear to me.

This makes me wonder if Richard or Karen ever considered starting their own record company. From what I can tell, it never entered their mind.

 

[Sing]

For anyone who wants to understand the business, at least as it was in the 50s through the 80s, I wholeheartedly recommend Stan Cornyn's book, Exploding:

Amazon product ASIN 0380978520
Cornyn spent 34 years working for Warner Bros. Records, beginning with its founding in 1958, and was one of the best writers you'll ever encounter.

Thanks for the book recommendation. I might have to pick up a copy.