Idolator

I wouldn't be surprised if the label wanted to tack on a new single for a re-release a few months later (it worked for Shakira's last album), but I would be surprised if Kelly agreed to do that.

"It was Kwatinetz...who convinced Kelly she was a miserable, unhappy singer-songwriter and not a shiny pop star whom everyone loved."

What do you think he used to achieve this? A shiny gold watch swung back and forth? A spiral pattern on the end of a revolving dowel? Perhaps he drugged her milk, and when she came to, the recording sessions were over.

Long story short, this guy and Dr. Eugene Landy need to cut a record, STAT.

Of course, that special edition depends on whether or not My December sells well out of the box--if it has Linkin Park first-week numbers, talk of this special edition will likely be scuttled.

I disagree - they'll probably do a special edition no matter what (i.e., Friedman's right). Beyonce's album had a more than respectable first week late last summer, but when it started to sputter in the fall and winter, Sony/Daddy Knowles immediately moved to set up the Shakira duet and record additional content. After Breakaway, Kelly will have a strong first week no matter what, but the proof will be in week two, week five, week 10.

General rule: an album's first-week sales are a referendum on ther act's last album. Seriously, this is consistently true: take a walk through the Billboard Book of Number One Albums and you'll find piles of examples of albums that shot to number one based on pent-up demand following a long-lived previous record. (My favorite example: AC/DC's only #1 album is the good-but-nothing-special For Those About to Rock - the album after Back in Black.)

For what it's worth, yesterday I received the ubiquitous iTunes "because you've downloaded music by Kelly Clarkson in the past" email prompting me to pre-order her new album. They're offering standard and deluxe versions.

I wish people would stop refering to Kelly "American Idol" Clarkson's apparent 'quest for artistic integrity' with such reverence. Objectively speaking, what is so remarkable about a chick whose "insistence" on creative independence yields nothing but a bunch of tepid versions of the exact same kinds of songs she did before?

Subjectively speaking, let's cut the shit: the reason the new stuff sounds like typical filler is that the whole writing-her-own-material "battle" was actually about money and publishing. You'd get sick of forking over 80% of your paycheck to Clive Davis and his legions of hired guns at the end of the day, too. Musically speaking, it wasn't so much that Clakson was trying to go in a brave new direction, per se, but more that she just can't afford the same kind of pre-fabricated guaranteed radio smashes that Clive Davis can...especially when Davis is controlling the budget. He'll make damn sure. Because to an industry vet like him, you're being a snot-nose. And he's probably seen this before.

But then a funny thing happens when the new singles don't scale the charts like your old ones did: when risks don't appear to pay off, people get impatient and blame is inevitably assigned. The first neck on the chopping block is, surprise, that of the person who advised taking the risky path in the first place -- in this case Clarkson's manager, whose whole motivation was likely that he was similarly tired of getting the shaft from David & Co. on the financial front.

Kelly Clarkson is doing exactly what any pop star with cold feet and aspirations toward career longevity would do: she's running back crying to Uncle Clive, her career guru.

I don't blame the artist for admitting to a misstep, seeing that something isn't working and deciding to return to where she was. Rather, it's the reverent attitude of this weird little crossover fanbase she's amassed, prescribing an air of quality and integrity to music that, let's face it, never really had any. I wish these people would just admit they like corny 3-minute radio-baked bubble gum pop songs and stop being so pretentious about it. It is exactly what it is.

Roger Friedman is such a hack and a blatant schill for whichever celebrity camp is currently kissing his ass or paying him off. My favorite story of his -- from August of '06, mind you -- describes how healthy and clean living Lindsay Lohan is, and how LA celebrity cokeden Hyde is a place where people sit around talking and, I shit you not, eating chocolate chip cookies:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207386,00.html

@KingHater: Excellent analysis of the probable behind-the-scenes maneuvering (esp. the publishing theory). Lousy assessment of Kelly Clarkson's recorded output.

Seriously, you clearly know your shit industry-wise, but I can't completely trust anyone who places "corny" next to "3-minute...pop songs." Next you'll tell me the only real "artists" are '70s prog guys releasing 20-minute jams.

@Audif Jackson Winters III: You're right about Friedman generally, but even a stopped clock is right two times a day.

@KingHater: Good thread! I think that KingHater's assessment is probably correct, but agree with Dennis that he doth protest the pop song too much.

Either way you view things, you have to admit that someone in one of the camps or both made a hugely disastrous fuck-up by basically coming out and saying that the album is boring. Even if it is Breakaway-lite, they should have kept their mouths shut. Overall sales will not ultimately be affected by the battle of "Kelly is a real artist" vs. "Kelly is a pop tool," but it was sheer idiocy to be so dire about the album's chances before it even hit the illegal download circuit. This was more likely Clive Davis & Co.'s fault in their greedy power-seeking manuveurs, and for that I say fuck Clive Davis. Just shut up and fucking sell it!

Her album will sell well out of the box. Maybe not the numbers of the last one, but a lot better than most of this year's new releases. She has a lot of fans and no other high profile female artist is putting out the "I've been dumped on by my man" music now.

@KingHater: The first paragraph you wrote is the best and most concise analysis of the situation I've read. But do you really think the whole thing is so cash-driven? I read it as Kelly getting headstrong, and the manager (merely fulfilling his duty as official keeper of the artist's ego) fueling the fire. The songwriting money being a nice bonus but not the heart of the matter.

addendum: to further push the point, I don't think Clive Davis would get a cut of royalty money based on a professional writing the song, the professional songwriter would. So I don't think he has any motivation to push Clarkson towards using pro songwriters other than getting hit songs, which will help sell albums that he DOES make money on.

@gregcoff:

I don't know. But you have to take into account that revenues in the music industry -- particularly when it comes to album sales -- are suffering. I doubt an act like Kelly Clarkson makes consistently good money on touring and merchandise (young pop audiences are fleeting in many aspects) so I imagine there is more emphasis placed on record sales.

"Breakaway" was an unprecedented commercial smash -- deftly engineered and marketed (just look at the rebranding/"Idol"-snubbing statement implied by the album's title) -- but still probably an unexpected success, to an extent. It was a project Clive Davis had his hands all over -- the record was buoyed by really strong singles purchased from some of the best pop songwriters money can buy. Given Davis' meticulous involvement, it's not out of line to imagine that a big percentage of the back-end profits likely bypassed Kelly completely -- it's virtually a rule-of-thumb that the artist always gets paid last, and in an age where the monster-selling album is becoming a rarer commodity, you can bet Clive took as big a chunk as he possibly could for his efforts...he's got an entire label of under-selling artists to balance the budget for. He probably thought the stake was rightfully his: in essence, Kelly Clarkson was a former talent show winner whose new image and sound he cultivated.

Suffice to say, she was probably nonplussed by this -- yeah, she's probably headstrong, as you say, but it's only natural to be pissed about getting short-changed when your record posts such huge numbers. And as a newly-minted marquee artist, she no doubt had some leverage in the matter. So she struck out against the Clive Davis' hit machine, made this record, Clive was displeased with the results -- egos bruise, after all -- and in the end, "Never Again" only makes it to #8 on the charts. And that lands us here.

I doubt an act like Kelly Clarkson makes consistently good money on touring

She has a basic set-up with no big light show or set and plays giant venues with seats going for $200 apiece. I kinda think she does.

Some of you creeps have way too much invested in this particular story.

Kinghater:

I have to agree with Dick Malone on the tour money issue. She's playing 5,000+ venues, charging an average of $70 a ticket, and doing like 100 shows a year. So you're looking at a gross of about $35 million, at least. And that's before merch, which no one else gets a cut of. Basically, I don't think she's hurting for cash.

That being said, I think your argument is very nuanced and basically on the mark. I just think that it's a mistake to place too much emphasis on the financial aspect of it. Kelly Clarkson is not going to think "I'm going to write my own songs because someone else is edging me out of a percentage of the profits." She might see more profit it as an additional bonus, and other people around her who stand to benefit (read: her manager) are going to egg her on for financial reasons. But if she doesn't genuinely believe that she can do a great job writing her own songs and steering her own ship, she's not going to suddenly buck the trend and not go with pro songwriters. Because the risk is too great.

All of that I applaud and support. The problem is, as you pointed out, independance qua independance has no value. It's what you do with it. So I throw my chips down on Clive. It was a major fuckup to let the whole thing go public, but his basic position is sound.

@riverrun: I'm with you. Personally I thought my Dr. Eugene Landy bit killed, but I didn't know that it was "Be way serious about Kelly Clarkson" day here at Idolator.

Miiiiiiight be a little too harsh to call everyone "Creeps" though.

Eh. I'm over it.

@joshservo: Slow day at work, what can I say?

And the Landy bit was tasty.

@riverrun:

Creeps?

I'll never get the almost reflexive impulse some people have to run their mouths when protected by the veil of anonymity afforded by the internet.

I never knew your legal name was KingHater.

@Ned Raggett: Yeah but he wasn't running his mouth.

Although, it would be pretty great if that was his real name. He should definitely start a band. Beats "Ferraby Lionheart" by a longshot.

Oh, wait, so wasn't the whole deal with winning AI that you get a contract with Simon Fuller's management company? 19 Management or whatever? When did she fire them? I think you're required to use them once you win, at least for a certain amount of time.

I don't know. I'm going to have to side with Kelly here. We're all assuming that the music biz is some sort of science and not a huge game of chance. A lot of work by talented, smart people can create total flops.

Sure, Clive's camp can say he's right, and the album would be a huge hit if she had taken his advice (and proffered leftovers from "Best Damn Thing"). If I were her and was expected to just let Uncle Clive take care of me and he's sending me Lindsay Lohan's cast-off songs, I might just roll the dice. Why not? Are we so sure this is a case of the Monkees turning down Sedaka and Diamond songs? The other songs might have sucked.

@KingHater: You write like a man without a comment history.

@gregcoff "And that's before merch, which no one else gets a cut of."

You wouldn't believe the cut that the merch company gets, actually. I don't remember the exact percentage but those guys hocking t-shirts (the ones inside the venue, not the skeezy guys in the parking lot) were taking home up to $1,000 a night - each - on the first Breakaway tour. They don't sell CDs because that gets sticky, but there's a lot of money to be made for other people on glow sticks and fake laminates.

@annab: Damn! That's nuts.

Still, I would assume that she has her own, officially sanctioned merch booth that probably does a pretty brisk business?

@gregcoff: It's a third-party company that they hire. I believe the company creates/orders the gear they sell (i.e. the laminates) and then whatever trucker hats, t-shirts, etc. are also sold. Another separate company also does poster sales. The business they do is, as you said, pretty brisk.

[idolator.com]