Kelly Clarkson Slams Clive Davis

[Outcast]

Well this bit of Idol news is blowing up all over twitter and the blogs today.

Anyone remember the very public feud between Kelly and Clive Davis (the then chairman of Sony) over her My December album?

Well Clive has decided to dredge his (new revised) side of the story up again in his new autobiography about his life as a bisexual in order to sell his book, cause no one really cares about his sex life.

Kelly, understandably, is livid about what he wrote and decided to give the dude a piece of her mind.

Story here: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/idol-wo...vis-422397

I'm team Kelly BTW, just like I was back then.

[Himm2]

Clive Davis was just on "The View" today.

[My Alter Ego]

Hmmm -- this has the beginnings of a "he said; she said" (or vice versa) scenario. Aren't memories (particularly those of the selective variety) wonderful?

[Outcast]

And now Clive has fired back at Kelly standing by what he wrote:

http://www.mjsbigblog.com/clive-davis-re...e-book.htm

I don't think there's anything else Kelly can say otherwise it will indeed turn into a "he said; she said" battle.

[Outcast]

These 2 posts at MJs are a fascinating read:

I found this very enlightening post from 2007 on a insider's forum:

used to post here all the time, back in the day. Used to post in the moving folder on AOL. Been lurking for years, thought I would jump back in to post (odd that it would be a Kelly Clarkson thread that would do it!).

First, anyone who says that Walter was a record man is either a complete outsider to the industry or is basing an opinion on the legend of Walter or his book. He was not ever a record man. When he tried (VelVel anyone???) he failed. Q is one of the greatest producers of recorded music ever to exist. A fabulous nurturer of talent, a person with incredible artistic vision, a true music titan who will long be remembered through his catalog of work. But he is not a "record man". Ahmet was, Mo was, Goddard was, Berry was, Clive is. LA has a shot but needs a better P&L on his hits and misses (how can you be a great "record man" if you have hit after hit but never turn a profit?). Jimmy, like Walter, uses relationships to further himself. When the artists love you, you can go far. But Jimmy's not a "record man" and would probably wouldn't tell you he his if you asked him. His ego would claim he is on a higher plane than the "record men", he wants to be a visionary like Steve Jobs.

Second, I find it amazing that a thread about a completely manufactured and disposible pop-star and a music industry titan can create a discussion about the merits of the titan. How many "Kelly Clarksons" has Clive outlasted? His merits as one of the, if not the top, "record man" of all time really should be in its own topic, one with nothing to do with a Kelly Clarkson. But as long as it is, let's look at the history of these two (using only information that is widely discussed among industry insiders, nothing beyond what we chatter about).

Kelly Clarkson is not an artist who created an image and persona over years of polishing her art. She won a talent show. She was thrust into the public's eye with no artistic vision, no crafted image, no creative soul. She sang covers. If you watched that season, there was never any talk of her ever singing her own material. She won, landed a deal with one of the greats, was given A-list producers and material and had a successful first album. When it came time for the second album, Kelly went and recorded her album. She did not want Clive involved. At this point, a little bit of success had given her the idea that she was actually a self-made talent. The fights were big. Kelly recorded "Since You've Been Gone" begrudgingly, but when it came time to select the tracks for the album, she didn't want it on the album. When Clive pressed for it to be the first single, she fought even harder. Kelly's creative instincts told her it was not a hit. As we know, that song launched her to a leval of sales rarely seen in today's market. A massive worldwide hit. The most played song on radio that year. She was able to tour and make a fortune (despite a mediocre live show to this day).

Empowered further by the gigantic success of her second album, Kelly and her manager recorded this third album behind Clive's back and without his input. Going so far as to make an insulting point to him and the label that her success was solely her own efforts. From what I hear, Kelly Clarkson in 2006 was responsible for over 50% of the music management collections of The Firm (some say 2/3s). Kwatinetz is not rocking the boat. He blindly backs her to protect the cash-cow that allows his business to stay afloat. So, we have Kelly's album. The same creative instincts that told her that "Since You've Been Gone" was not a hit song have crafted this album. The chatter is that it is not very good. The single is getting a lot of airplay because Kelly was so huge at pop radio on the last album. Its legs are already weakening. After the curiosity dies down, this song is not a monster. She has created a real problem for herself if she wants to continue to be one of the largest selling artists in the world.

At the end of the day, Kelly and Clive have two different agendas. Kelly wants to broaden herself from being a girl with a great voice who won a pop talent show. She must truly believe that her career will last longer and that she will continue to sell concert tickets at the level she currently is, by becoming more of the rock-girl she thinks she is. By becoming more of a true artist than just a singer. Clive wants to sell albums. He does not participate in her touring revenue, the most important part has to be the here and now. These two agendas can peacefully co-exist if Kelly did not take a ton of BMG's money. Then Clive and BMG would not be as invested in a high-return as they are now and Kelly could go and make her flawed "art". However, by taking the huge check, she is getting in bed with their agenda of selling as many albums as possible, and here, I don't believe, Clive is wrong in looking at her past history of having flawed hit song sensibilities and wanting to be a part of the process to guarantee the hit. Kelly is not just gambling her money and her future on her ability to write a hit song, she is gambling with BMG's money.

As for Clive's supposed statements not supporting Kelly's album at the convention, that is a complete misstatement of what occured (from numerous sources). "dondat" who posted about Charles going up to move things along for Jennifer Lopez is exactly what happened, as I have heard now from numerous sources (yes, the Velvet Rope can still cause industry insiders to call around and verify a story). Clive did say that Kelly was the creative vision on what was being played, but nothing further. I surmise that the poster was simply furthering an agenda of Kwatinetz and The Firm who hope to strike back against Clive claiming that Kelly never got a fair shot for when the single stalls (which it is going to do).

Clive's book is an interesting and entertaining read. He is definitely of the "I am always right" school of thought, lol. There is a whole chapter about his dealings with Kelly. And another chapter about his work with Ruben, Clay, Fantasia, J-Hud, Daughtry and Kelly (I think the last Idol he had much of anything to do with was either Daughtry or maybe Blake Lewis). Anyway, he takes swipes at Ruben, Clay, Taylor, and Kat, (don't worry -- he takes swipes at lots of non-Idol artists too) and criticizes his successors and Simon Fuller for giving post 2008 Idol alums too much leeway in the creative process at a time when their careers are in infancy. Overall, Clive doesn't seem to have much use for pop singers who want to write their own material. He thinks that most pop artists are better off focussing on singing and performing; that often the desire to write has the potential to derail their careers and is better off left to professional writers because writing pop hits is hard. The book is solely his own point of view and recollection and I am sure that there are artists other than Kelly who will take issue with his version of events.... But he definitely has a very specific point of view.

http://www.mjsbigblog.com/clive-davis-re...e-book.htm