Taking on the Man: Musicians Who Sue Their Record Label
Carly Simon is bummed that Starbucks didn't push her album as hard they peddle those grande Pumpkin Spice Lattes.
The singer-songwriter is suing the coffee king, saying they first didn't place enough copies of her alb, "This Kind of Love" in stores and then later slashed the price. Starbucks counters by stating, "the title received tepid response from music consumers," Ouch. See you in court.
RELATED GALLERY: Singers Who Can't Sing
It's an age-old story between artists and record labels (or coffee retailers turned record labels). Musicians feel ripped off and under-appreciated by the Man then decide to take matters into their own hands. Most of the time, they are right: labels have long been in the business of biting the hands that feed them. It's an unholy arranged marriage that always ends with a bitter musical bride.
Apparently, Starbucks sold about 124,000 copies of "This Kind of Love." I find it hard to believe there's anyone else out there clamoring for a Carly Simon album. My money is on Starbucks to win. Still, I'm no fan of the Man. They're more often than not on the wrong side of history and morality.
Here are a few of the messier artist-record label divorce stories. There are many more but I don't want to air everyone's dirty laundry. I'll leave the mudslinging to all of you (although, I hope one of you talks abbot Courtney Love suing Universal Music in 2000; that crazy chick has cajones).
Prince v. Warner Bros. Records
No one would say that working with Prince is easy. Yes, he's a musical genius but he's also famously mercurial and stubborn. His 18-year relationship with Warner Bros. endured many strains, including Prince's decision to scrap his 1987 "The Black Album" weeks before its release - and after 500,000 copies had been printed. However, by the '90s the marriage was becoming increasingly strained.
Warner Bros. blamed Prince for releasing too many albums in close succession. Prince claimed his label (and its publishing company Warner/Chappell) was not giving his music proper support and that the financial relationship amounted to slavery. Prince never sued but he might as well have. He changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol (copyrighted as Love Symbol #2) and painted the word "slave" on his cheek. The marriage ended in 1996. His first post- WB album was fittingly called "Emancipation."
Tom Petty v. MCA Records
By 1978, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers had released two albums on independent Shelter Records (formed by musician Leon Russell and producer Denny Cordell) and were enjoying a creative freedom envied by most bands. Through a series of business transactions, Petty found his record contract being transferred from the humble indie label to music conglomerate MCA. Petty's position was simple: he worked for Shelter Records not MCA. MCA didn't see it the same way.
Petty refused to record and went the extra step of declaring bankruptcy in order to void his contract. He then signed a new deal with another independent label, Backstreet Records, and maintained his creative freedom. Funnily enough, Backstreet happened to be distributed by MCA. All one big happy family.
Neil Young v. Geffen Records
Neil Young signed to Geffen Records in 1982. He was paid the extraordinary fee of $1 million per album and allowed total creative control. And Young used it. He made five albums that baffled his audience, drew ire from critics, and angered his label.
His excursions into electronica, rockabilly, and synth rock prompted Geffen to sue Young for $3.3 million. The lawsuit claimed Young was making recordings "musically uncharacteristic of [his] previous recordings." Can't say I blame 'em. Does anyone want to hear Neil Young and a vocoder (click on the video if you do)? Young countersued for $21 million and Reprise Records (Young's old label) provided the escape hatch - buying him out of his contract for $4 million in 1987.
Her new cd - released next Tuesday (coincidentally?) - is a much better record than the cd she did for Starbucks anyway.