The title pretty much says it all, but just to clarify.
Let’s say Sony signs a garage band (serious band but just starting out) to a multi-million dollar contract.
The band does a few shows, then goes to the studio to record, all hell breaks loose and the band splits up.
How does Sony deal with it? Does the band owe Sony the amount of the contract for breaking it? Does Sony just take the loss and move on?
Depends on the contract but in the case of big names they probably don’t owe anything . For a new band it’s less clear what would happen. If they got money up front they would likely have to pay it all back.
Monty Python once put out an album called “Our contract fullfillment album” because that is what it was.
There are lots of examples of groups who recorded which pretty much have “broken up.” The Go-Gos tell of how on their last album none of them were speaking to each other. The Eagles had major differences and recorded. It’s really not that hard, especially since the members can simply record their own portion of the material seperate and then have the producer mix everything. They don’t even have to be in the same place.
Although they weren’t broken up Darren “Savage Garden” Hayes says on the second album “Affirmation,” he was in New York City and Daniel Jones was in Australia. They wrote the album through emails and voice messages. (Daniel Jones had only wanted to do the one album then quit, but Hayes convinced him to do another).
I think if it’s a big-name band the label would be more inclined to sue for breach of contract, not less. After all, big-name rock stars have deeper pockets than rookie garage bands.
Yes, but a big name band can also get a contract that allows them to walk away owing nothing. For example U2 can pretty much control what is in their contracts now since many labels will want to sign them.
Usually the record company holds the musicians to the contract (especially if they’re successful). The musicians can buy their way out, in theory, but rarely have the money. But generally, an album is put out. Some include:
Possibly, if they’ve got good business sense (or a manager who does) and have signed a contract after becoming famous. But not infrequently you get a rookie band who shoots to stardoom while on their first contract with a major label. For instance, Nirvana weren’t famous when they signed with Geffen, but their first album thereafter made them stars. If they’d broken up immediately afterwards, instead of releasing their contractually obligated follow-up albums, you can bet Geffen would have come after the individual band members for breach of contract.
Yes, when you are starting out you cannot get a deal that is favorable.
We had a local band that had a lawyer as a member so I figured they never got ripped off in their contracts.
And when Decca Records insisted that the Rolling Stones owed them one more song before they could start recording for a new company, the group wrote & recorded the song Cocksucker Blues, which they provided to the record company to fulfill their contract.
Oddly enough, Decca never saw fit to include that song on any album they released.
You forgot the age-old standby of releasing a “Greatest Hits” album. Lots of bands (not just those who have broken up) do this in order to fulfill contractual obligations for an album. One that comes to mind is Tom Petty, who released the Heartbreaker’s Greatest Hits because he had just signed to Warner but still owed MCA one more album.
The members of a band are (usually) individually signed as part of a “partnership” - which means that if members leave, or the band breaks up, the individuals are still contracted to the company.
The record company decides whether they’ll release the individual(s) from the contract or not. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. If you’re signed as an individual, leave a band, and then the record company says you’re not allowed to release any recordings because they still own you - which has happened plenty of times - then you’re in big trouble and better be ready for a serious lawsuit.
Some bands, particularly those that have become successful and then had line-up changes, aren’t equal members of the partnership. In some cases, only the key people are legally members of the partnership, the others are junior members or employees.
Springsteen had legal issues in the 70s after he hit it big with Born to Run, but I think that had to do with his manager. That’s why he went 3 years before the next album came out.
True, but some contracts specify that only original albums count.
I suspect this was also the case with Petty. However, given his well-known history of legal wrangling and public protests against various practices of record labels he believes to be unfair, it’s likely MCA decided to avoid yet another protracted legal/publicity battle by letting him get away with a Greatest Hits album. Whatever the arrangements, they seem to have worked out well for MCA; I think Greatest Hits is Petty’s best-selling album, and had a very successful single (“Mary Jane’s Last Dance”, one of two new songs on the album).
I had a vague recollection that the band Boston was forced into another record. I may be misremembering but found this which is relevant:
Funny story : Tony Orlando put out his first song under a fake name because it was on a different label than where he worked. He worked for a label in their office but they would not give him a recording contract.
I’ve also heard that once a contract ends, record labels often encourage a band’s star to dump the rest of them for the next contract.
Interesting note about Nirvana: when they signed with Geffen to record Nevermind, they were still under contract to their original independent label, Sub Pop and had recorded their first album with them. Sub Pop didn’t usually sign artists to contracts, but Kurt Cobain insisted on one to make sure Sub Pop wouldn’t ignore them when they wanted to record a second indie album. Cobain didn’t think they would get major label attention at that point.
After Nirvana signed with Geffen, Sub Pop was able to work out a deal with Geffen where they received, I think, 1% of the royalties from all future Nirvana albums. That 1% came out of the band’s share, not Geffen’s. That 1% kept little Sub Pop in operation for along time, before then, they were always on the edge of going out of business.
Anyone who has a Geffen Nirvana album can spot the little Sub Pop logo on the back.