By acooolcat (61.58.181.63) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 07:23 pm:

Does anyone have a copy of an artist's recording contract? I would like to compare one of Motown's to any other independant recording company - preferably a Detroit company. I know that Motown didn't allow their contracts to be taken outside of Hitsville, but guess someone here has one.
People have often told me that they didn't want to sign with Motown back in the 60s as their contracts were unattractive (my word).
What was the big difference?
TIA,
Graham

By 1Wicked (24.126.64.120) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 07:59 pm:

Graham: I don't know about Motown contracts in general...but a good friend who once worked there in "legal" told me this story.

Writers were under contract to produce XXXX number of songs within a given time span (2 weeks or a month)...and their pay was based on that productivity. He discovered that some of the writers were not producing that magical number within the given time period (but still being paid as if they were) and felt compelled to take the matter to a "higher source". The writers were read the riot act (for "ripping off" the company...so to speak), he thinks they were docked, and new checks and balances were implemented.

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 08:15 pm:

Graham:
According to Berry Gordy's autobiography, the Motown contracts were based on the recording contracts United Artists Records used for their artists.

This would make sense since Marv Johnson was signed to UA here in the States and BG was his producer.

Respectfully,
Kevin Goins - KevGo

By acooolcat (61.58.181.63) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 08:19 pm:

Thanks Wicked - I haven't heard about that before, but I obviously want to focus on "facts" and not spawn a Motown-bashing thread. I would have thought that writers would focus on any possible royalty payments, and not on a salary.
Anyway - What I specifically want to know is the usual length/duration of an artist's contract, royalty % of sales, live performance obligations and payments, and so on.
Thanks again,
Graham

By RD (65.150.228.147) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 08:45 pm:

Not to disagree with you KevGo but I always heard the early Motown contracts were based on Chess Records contracts. Berry dealt with Chess via the Miracles ("Bad Girl")before he did United Artist with Marv Johnson.

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 09:16 pm:

RD:
My information came right from Berry's autobiography. In the chapter where he wrote about an artist disputing their contract and lawyers would come around, he said that Motown's agreements were based on United Artists contracts so that the label was in synch with other companies at that time (early 1960s).

It's right there in the book from The Man himself.

Kevin Goins - KevGo

(PS - Keep in mind also RD that Berry's agreement with Leonard Chess was for licensing the Miracles' singles - BG maintained ownership of the Miracles' masters so "Bad Girl" remained a Motown recording. Marv Johnson was signed directly to UA & Berry wrote/produced Marv's recordings)

By RD (65.150.228.147) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 09:35 pm:

No argument Kev, the latest (Berry's Book) may be correct. Earlier accounts, however, before Berry's book always said Chess. Also, Berry's sister Gwen and Billy Davis' Anna Records was a subsidiary of Chess so those contracts were identical to Chess's. Davis became the head of A&R at Chess when Anna then Checkmate Records (also a subsidiary of Chess) folded.

I understand that Motown's contracts had a clause stipulating that if a record was not released in a given year the artist could ask out of the contract.

By Eli (151.197.183.125) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 09:40 pm:

I was told by a MAJOR Motown act back in the day that their original contract was based on 1 and 1/2 % of 90% of the NET sales.
I have heard that on several occasions.
Total ripoff.
The average artists' contract at that time, if negotiated propperly was around 5 or 6% of90% the GROSS sales.

Gordy may have based his contracts on the language of the contract but not the royalty structure.

By KevGo (64.115.26.80) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 09:49 pm:

RD:
I hear ya', amigo. Anna was actually owned by both Gwen Gordy & Roquel Billy Davis but it wasn't a subsidiary of Chess - Leonard & Phil Chess distributed Anna (prior to Chess, George Goldner's Gone label in NYC was Anna's distributor).

Roquel Billy Davis has an office around the corner from mine & I see him from time to time. He told me that the Checkmate deal came about when Leonard Chess sent him a note after hearing some of Davis' productions with the Four Tops. He went to Chicago, met with Leonard & Phil and they offered him a label deal (Checkmate) and a publishing partnership (Chevis). After Checkmate folded Billy became the head of A&R, a position he held until he was hired away into the advertising world. Before Leonard Chess died, the label chief gave Roquel his share of Chevis, which Mr. Davis still owns to this day.

Kevin Goins - KevGo

By RD (65.150.228.147) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 10:13 pm:

Right Kev, Chess acquired a part share in Anna, Checkmate was the subsidiary. Anna Gordy also had a piece of Anna Records.

Motown royalties were miniscule, often less than 2 percent, and they stayed that way for a long time. The Jackson Five royalty was 2.7 percent (according to Peter Benjamin's book) and they signed in the late sixties.

By Soul Sister (65.43.167.42) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 10:36 pm:

Hey Bobby;
In the 50's when most crooks were paying 4 or 5%, Herman Lubinsky's contracts were only stipulating 1% and Jimmy and others didn't even get that, they received zero royalties from Savoy!
Soul Sis

By Ron Murphy (68.42.89.162) on Wednesday, July 09, 2003 - 11:24 pm:

Hello Graham you should know I have many contracts on artists,master purchases from Palmer,Top Ten,Swan,Impact,Gold Soul<Viney and etc. most are based on "The Standard New York Contract" as you used to say, labels would use it as is or customize it. a standard artist contract will guarantee to record maybe at least 4 sides a year, the word around Detroit back in the mid-60,s was that Motown had a 7 year contract that guaranteed nothing.

By acooolcat (61.222.95.58) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 12:44 am:

Thanks Ron. Why don't you tell folks here about the Marv Johnson - UA story?
I'll call you soon.
Graham

By Rich (162.33.235.126) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 09:51 am:

Great questions Graham. Bobby, what do you mean by NET sales, after what types of expenses?

Didn't JJ Barnes get out of his Motown contract because the label didn't release the minimum number of recordings after his artist-contract was purchased from Golden World? There must have been some guarantee that wasn't met giving him an out to sign with Ric-Tic.

By acooolcat (61.58.181.63) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 09:55 am:

Rich - J.J. simply asked Berry to release him - and he did. I'm sure it had nothing to do with what was written in his contract.
(I interviewed J.J. and asked him about this.)
Graham

By Scratcher (65.238.127.184) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 10:23 am:

If you guys visit Bob Dennis's site (ex Motown engineer) you'll find in one of his articles that Motown did have a clause in their contract that stated if they didn't release a record by an artist in a year the artist could get a release from the contract.

By TonyRussi (68.18.227.45) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 10:29 am:

While living with Mary Wells & Cecil Womack in the 70's I came across her Motown contract...the one she did not sign.Her previous royalty rate had been 2.7% of 90% of the retail the new rate in the unsigned contract was still 2.7% plus something about $12.00 per recorded side (whether released or not).The contract from what I remember was a lot of legal talk about what she was expected to do for the label NOT what the label would do for her.I don't doubt that most recording contracts were the same in writing.I was appalled when I read years later that the Jackson 5 royalty rate was the same 2.7% that Mary Wells was suppose to receive from 60'-64.

By Scratcher (65.238.127.184) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 10:38 am:

David Ruffin had the highest royalty of any of the Temptations at 1.7 percent. He had been signed to an individual contract prior to joining the Tempts. The rest of the Tempts were probably dividing 2.7 or whatever their group royalty was. David's ego in a way was fostered by the company via the different royalty.

By Eli (151.197.6.175) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 11:15 am:

Rich,"net sales" refers to the amount of money left after recoupment of recording costs,
advances, and a host of bulls**t deductions such as "breakage" and other antiquated mumbo jumbo found in most recording cintracts of the time.
I am sure that the agreements were cross collateralized, meaning that money could be deducted from advances given form any and all areas including song writing etc if applicable.

There is an old Yiddish colloquial term, "Goniff".
It was and is still used in the biz by "those in the know" to describe a thief. Capice?????!@#$%^&*()

By Scratcher (65.238.127.184) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 11:43 am:

Here's a recent (5/03) legal review by the SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE concerning recording company contracts. Cross-collateralized clauses are still around.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1001-1050/sb_1034_cfa_20030529_104857_sen_floor.html

By TonyRussi (68.18.227.45) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 11:51 am:

Oh yea, you are right Eli, cause I do remember in Marys' contract the deductions for recording cost, recording tape ect.ect.Mary says her vocals were always done within just a few takes but she thought she was being charged with different takes that the producers would do of the tracks.I don't think this practice was unique to Motown...I mean wasn't that standard practice of most at the time?My gosh, think how much a Phil Spector session would set an artist back!

By Eli (151.197.6.175) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 12:06 pm:

T.R....
Producers did not charge "by the take".
That would be ludicrous.
I seriously doubt if Motown gave advances to producers based on their dubious practices otherwise.


It wasnt until the very late sixties that independent, established producers started demanding advances per song or a flat rate per project.

Production agreements usually run concurrently with the artists agreement although IMO that practice is not kosher either, capice?$%^&*(

By Scratcher (65.238.127.184) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 12:16 pm:

Duson's version came out a few months before Stevie's and was doing well in Detroit. Ron Miller sought Jean out to do the song because, as he said, he wanted a more professional voice to interpret it. It came out on Cadet, a subsidiary of Chess.

By Scratcher (65.238.127.184) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 12:21 pm:

Oops, I posted that last post on the wrong thread.

By TonyRussi (68.18.227.45) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 12:31 pm:

Eli, what I meant was that the company was charging for the recording time, not the producer.Yes sir, I capice what you are saying.

By Eli (151.197.6.175) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 12:43 pm:

Thanks T.R. I capice!!!!#$%^&*()

By Rich (162.33.247.243) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 01:19 pm:

Bobby, what happened if the advances exceeded the artists percentage? Particularly where the "debt" kept increasing with each release? Also, would a recording company keep a running-tab of the recording costs & related expenses of an unreleased session, to later offset against the percentage of a released recording?

By Fury13 (12.2.196.17) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 01:28 pm:

I believe Fortune Records' contracts for artist royalties were for 1 to 1.5 percent of the net. Fortune was notoriously cheap. Perhaps Ron Murphy would know for sure.

By Fred (64.12.97.7) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 01:39 pm:

Scratcher,

No one said that cross-collateralization no longer happens. The specific practice of cross-collateralizing publishing income against royalty debits, which was the point raised in the other thread, is thankfully history, but crossing recording royalties from one release against another is a standard practice.

By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 02:00 pm:

Rich,
The record company keeps tabs on all session costs and they do accumulate. An artist can be into a company for quite a bit of money and concievably never see any royalties.

By Scratcher (65.238.128.229) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 03:44 pm:

Whatever Fred. And you know this to be the fact in every instance?

By Rich (162.33.234.35) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 04:08 pm:

Thanks Ralph, would the artists typically have to get their debt cleared with one company before they could sign a deal with somebody else?

By Fred (64.12.97.7) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 06:35 pm:

Scratcher,

I know it has been over 40 years since the clause disappeared from major labels' and bigger independents'. There may be some thieves still out there signing naive bands to such a deal (there are some nickle-and-dime outfits that offering eternal indentured servitude in return for vague promises of fame and fortune that are amazingly bad for artists), but none that I have heard actually get signed once a sane individual reads it.

The Murray hearings dealt only with cross-collateralization of recording royalties from one project to another, and then only in passing. The statement in the bill analysis about cross-collateralization influencing renegotiation of a contract is based on about five minutes of questioning of one witness out of about 20 hours of testimony. There were far stronger examples given of how bad label accounting puts an artist at a disadvantage in negotiation, so I was a little surprised to see this specifically mentioned in the formal analysis of the bill, which I put down to the strong possibility that the staffers who wrote the statement found this one simplest to talk about.

By Scratcher (65.238.127.82) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 07:18 pm:

Fred, what made you think I was only talking about the majors?

I dispute your 40 years timeline. Are Brenda Holloway's songwriting royalties from "You Made Me So Very Happy" being cross-collaterized with her recording debt? Is this why she stated to someone a few years ago that she was still in the red?

YMMSVH is a very successful copyright; it was published after 1963. Its income alone should have her out of the red by now unless she has received some humongous advances. Or, could the problem be her percentage of the song is very small. It does have five writers credited. And even you don't believe the percentages are split evenly among the five.

Do Mary Wells kin get any mechanicals from "Bye Bye Baby," or was that signed away when she left Motown? Or, is it being crossed with recording expenses.

I know we were talking about cross-collaterization as it refers to the artist/writer but someone else made a broad general comment about it being extinct and didn't specify what aspect of CC he was referring to.

This stuff is not as black and white as you appear to imply. If it was artists and writers could get good lawyers to work for them on contingency at the drop of a hat. As it is there are only a few guys like you around doing what you do with the expertise it takes to do a halfway decent job. To most lawyers what you do and what you collect from doing what you do is not worth their time unless they get a big retainer upfront. This is not a knock on you and others like you, just a fact. Unless a big name is involved the amounts recovered are modest.

Attorneys like you are a nuisance more than anything else to the majors so they throw you a bone every now and then to get you out of their faces.

What is needed is some top law firm to get on the case of the majors and find them guilty of fraud, robbery, extortion and other crimes; then through legislation institute laws with teeth that will change the way the majors are allowed to operate. You're essentially a one man band. The majors don't fear you or what you can do to them because they know your money ain't long enough.

Even that big case the Chi-lites and other artists won recently have little effect over how the majors conduct their business because no major was involved in that case. Not directly anyway. Have any of the participants (or winners) in that one collected yet? The Billy Paul case will help if it's not overturned or severly modified in appeal.

By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 07:29 pm:

Rich,
Not usually. The debt is the company's gamble that the artist will sell records. If the artist lucks into a hit, everybody wins. If the artist's contract should expire and there is an unsatisfied tab incurred on the behalf of the artist, the company just eats the loss.

By Fred (64.12.97.7) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 08:04 pm:

Ralph,

Of course, even after the artist leaves, the label still owns the masters and still owes an obligation to the artist to credit royalties from sales of those recordings against any existing debit balance.

By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 08:07 pm:

Fred, Absolutely!

By acooolcat (61.58.181.63) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 08:12 pm:

Ralph, and Rich
I can remember talking to Edward Hamilton, who sang lead with a Detroit group called The Arabians. When Edward wanted to leave Lou Beatty, the owner of LaBeat Records - Lou stated that the tens of thousands of dollars incurred on Edward's recording sessions would have to be paid by his prospective employer. It never happened.
Graham

By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 08:17 pm:

Graham,
I'm sure that wasn't unusual. If the artist simply wanted out of their contract it was fair for the company to expect some sort of compensation from whatever company was wanting to sign the artist.

By Bob Olhsson (12.93.84.70) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 10:50 pm:

According to Dean Taylor, Mike Valvano and Mrs. Edwards, the original Motown contracts were based on list price of the records and nothing was deducted except for salary money advanced to the artist and AF of M scale for the musicians. No studio time charges, no producer's royalty, no promotion, none of the common things that artists get charged for today. The percentage numbers were low but the actual cash they received was better than most labels. Of course the lawyers had a field day with the smaller than Hollywood royalty rates.

By Ron Murphy (68.42.89.162) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 12:17 am:

it would have been nice if Marv Johnson would have had that deal, Berry charged $80 per hour for Hitsville studio time aqaist Marv's UA royalties and I have all the statements from 1959 and up to prove it. After all the recording costs Marv NEVER MADE ANY ROYALTIES and as everyone know Marv's records sold a lot of records. He owed $30,000 which EMI ageed to forgive the balance and upgrade the royalty after I informed them if they didn't issue a greatest hits package so that Marv's catalog could make income they might lose control of the masters that Marv paid to make. it's a long story but in my opinon he was mis-managed

By Chad (152.163.252.68) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 12:54 am:

Could it be R Dean Taylor and Mike Valvano had that deal cause they were both white? The Temptations and others sure didn't.

By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 10:11 am:

No Chad. I wasn't aware of the Marv Johnson situation, but as a rule studio time was not charged to artists,

By Chad (152.163.252.68) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 11:24 am:

In Otis Williams book, Ralph, he said one main bone of contention they had with Norman Whitfield was that he was late for sessions and they were the ones paying for the sessions. He also complain about the many tracks they recorded that were not released but were charged to their account.

By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 01:27 pm:

I'm not sure if he was refering to studio time though. Could have been musician costs. Yes, an unreleased track is still charged to the artist.

By Bob Olhsson (12.93.84.170) on Friday, July 11, 2003 - 11:57 pm:

I was told unreleased tracks were charged back to the producers.

FWIW Eddy Arnold's RCA contract paid him 1/2 a point with him being charged for studio time! Mrs. Edwards told me that they believed that their contracts were totally in line with what every other label was paying at the time and better than many.

By Ralph (209.240.198.62) on Saturday, July 12, 2003 - 10:50 am:

Bob,
I'm not too sure about that. I remember one of the beefs Gladys Knight had was that she was open to every producer and many of them were recording things that would never be released and only served to run up her tab. It was Harry Balk who stepped in and closed her off to all but a select few producers.

Regarding Motown's contracts, I agree with Mrs. Edwards.

By Bob Olhsson (12.93.84.226) on Sunday, July 13, 2003 - 12:07 am:

I remember GK & the Pips being subjected to a lot of what we used to call "track dumping." It also happened to the Originals and the Spinners.

When QC (or an artist) refused to allow a producer to go ahead and overdub the intended artist on a track, that track was charged against the producer. Some producers would then ask QC to switch artists. If QC and the new artist went along with this, they could end up with a whole catalog of what amounted to "b-sides." To HDH's and Norman Whitfield's credit, I understand they never did this to artists and always ate the cost of any tracks that didn't make it.