Clive Davis responds to Kelly Clarkson’s charge that he’s spreading false information about her music via Twitter.

As anyone who has read “The Soundtrack of My Life” knows, I think Kelly Clarkson is a tremendous vocal talent and performer. In the book, I provide an in-depth look at our years together during which we shared major multi-platinum success, as well as a few creative differences. I am truly very sorry that she has decided to take issue with what I know to be an accurate depiction of our time together. Before the book was published, I had every fact checked with five independent individuals who were present on a daily basis throughout it all. The chapter as it is written was thoroughly verified by each and every one of them. I stand by the chapter as written in my book. At the same time I wish, and will always wish, Kelly’s talent and her career to soar to ever new heights.

So. Clive Davis had his sycophants  employees fact check his book, and that proves what he wrote is accurate? This is a dude, whom I have no doubt is surrounded by yes people. I hope Kelly just let’s it go at this point. She’s really made a much better case for her side than he has for his.

Tagged with:
 
  • abbysee

    Oh Clive, I totally believe your sycophants will back you up, after all you do sign their checks.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NDYOWBIIPZU6PBRHGOPT2ZZJXQ sweetmm

    Kelly should just drop this; don’t fight the industry moguls.  Just focus on her talent.  Its not worth the head & heart aches.

  • sporkle

    I hope Kelly just lets it go at this point. She’s really made a much better case for her side than he has for his.

    Yep. She’s made the best of an unfortunate situation twice over and still triumphs in the court of public opinion. She is talented and highly respected, and does not need to dabble in such nonsense. Case closed.

  • http://twitter.com/KobeAnd8 Kevin

    Whenever you write a memoir and need up to 5 people to fact check YOUR OWN story, I mean….. need I say more? (-.-’)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Li-Wright/100001622678180 Li Wright

    Well it’s now time for Kelly to write a song (ala Taylor) or write a book.  This has gotten ridiculous.  Normally an artist will wait until they change labels or are older when they take on a record producers & label owner.
    So Kelly should have said something more “discreet”….like, “Clive has a different rememberance of the events than I do” and let it go.
    Believe me, Aretha or Carrie or any other person who has worked with Clive and wants to be in good graces would have taken a different tack.
    To add: We know who won’t be invited to the pre-grammys next year.

  • windmills

    Clive’s version of events could be 100% accurate and it wouldn’t change anything for me. The important thing out of all of this is Kelly grew from these experiences and she’s proven herself way beyond that. Like I said in an earlier comment in a different thread, Clive was a vehicle for Kelly getting to where she needed to be: in a healthier working environment where her humanity and her priorities are respected. 

  • Goodvibes27

    I think the court of public opinion is clearly on Kelly’s side.

  • http://twitter.com/lufflyness Jenna

    You can tell something is fishy in the way he phrases things… “what I know to be an accurate depiction”, and of course he doesn’t specifically say Kelly is lying or wrong, just that he’s sorry she “decided to take issue” and that he has people that “verified” the section.

    I do hope Kelly let’s it go as well though. I’m so glad she laid it all out on the table, but now there’s not much else she’d be able to do except entertain this “he said she said” back and forth.

  • Kirsten

    Before the book was published, I had every fact checked with five
    independent individuals who were present on a daily basis throughout it
    all.

    Clive constantly has five toadies present for all his meetings? I’d be interested if he introduces these important individuals in his book.

    Dude, that doesn’t even pass the sniff test.

    I read the excerpts at THR. Total Mary Sue representation of everything. Nobody is Mary Sue. Surely, even Clive made mistakes. Otherwise, all of RCA’s albums would be megahits.

  • Miz

    Clive has 5 ‘independent’ individuals with him at all times to fact check his life? That must be smothering. 

    I’ll stick to believing Kelly.

  • http://kristentheyellowlab.blogspot.com/ ZsusK

    Oh, if I were someone as wealthy and influential as Clive Davis, I’m sure I’d have a team of attorneys advising me to hire a crew to have every sentence “fact-checked” (aka: determined to be lawsuit proof.) 

    I agree with MJ. At this point, Kelly has absolutely nothing to gain by continuing to respond to Clive’s comments. She’s said her piece and has painted a clear picture of her version of things. 

  • fuzzywuzzy

    “Before the book was published, I had every fact checked with five independent individuals who were present on a daily basis throughout it all.”

    lmao! “5 independent individuals”? WTF does that exactly mean? And they are with him in all of his meetings? Oh sure. That’s believable. At any rate, I agree with those who think that Kelly should just let this go now.

  • curly_yenta

    Kelly has a LOT more to lose here than old Clive, so she should just drop it.  There’s nothing to be gained from a public feud.  People are going to read the book and come to their own conclusions regardless of what each say publicly.

  • MyDailyComment

    “independent individuals” is the new catch phrase following wardrobe malfunction.

  • http://twitter.com/Sassycatz Sassycatz

    Wow. We have two wealthy, successful people arguing with each other! Who should I choose in my make pretend identification with someone who has nothing to do with my life and can buy me over and over? Hmm.

  • mtlfan2

    I still believe Kelly.
    yeah yeah sure sure that he had 5 other persons for every meeting :p
    I was sure he wasn’t to retract … what credibility would he have had for the rest of it lol
    Kelly can drop this thing if not asked furthermore; she made her point

  • roarpen

    “Whenever you write a memoir and need up to 5 people to fact check YOUR OWN story, I mean….. need I say more? (-.-’)” <-LMAO. Good one!

  • http://twitter.com/MissGolightly22 No Thanks

    Wasn’t most of the stuff that Kelly took issue with was the stuff Clive deliberately LEFT OUT of the story to spin things in his favor?  He reminds me of Mr. Gold/Rumpelstilskin on “Once Upon A Time” who always has a way of saying things where he isn’t TECHNICALLY lying but he still worded statements in a way where he could easily interpret things however he wants.

  • fuzzywuzzy

    From Twitter:

    Adam Lambert ?@adamlambert
    Team @kelly_clarkson
    9:34 PM – Feb 19, 2013

  • tomr

    Bottom line…they both need to grow up!

  • bridgette12

    I have to give it to him, the old guy is pretty smart. He stands by what he says and have people who are willing to back up what he said and all the while smiling like a sly fox, wish Kelly well in her future endeavors.

    If she’s smart she will let it go because it’s a battle she can’t win and after a while of her complaining about Clive, it starts to sound like whining. He told his side, she has told her side, so both should let it go.

  • http://twitter.com/erinholdwright Erin Holdwright

    I think that’s the last place she would want to be invited to so it works out well for her. So much respect for Kelly for speaking her mind and doing it with such class!  Maybe those other artists wouldn’t have said the things she did, but she is not them and I applaud her for doing what she felt was the right thing!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/7JTO2ZWH7CHEUP7DI5ZAQLDTW4 kcfan

    Kelly does not need to grow up.

  • http://twitter.com/MissGolightly22 No Thanks

    I’m sure at this point Clive don’t give a f&&*ck.  This is just publicity for his book.  At 80 years old the old Sarcophagus is pretty much untouchable.  He made his money.  He place in history is secured.  I’m sure he views Kelly as an insignificant gnat that he can’t quite swat away.

  • bridgette12

    That’s what I think also, he’s mega rich and he don’t give a damn about Kelly. So her feelings got hurt, he probably figures that she had plenty of time to get over it. If she’s not over it by now, that’s her problem.

  • http://twitter.com/MissGolightly22 No Thanks

    Notice Clive doesn’t dispute anything Kelly said.  He just said he stands by what he wrote in his chapter.

  • bridgette12

     I didn’t think Clive was going to waste time going over everything that Kelly disagreed with him about in his book. He made it easy on himself by saying he stands by what he wrote.

  • standtotheright

     

    People are going to read the book and come to their own conclusions regardless of what each say publicly.

    This may overstate the case. After a Big! Katie! Interview! and a Big! Factcheck! Controversy! it’s moved all the way up to…45 on the Amazon bestseller list.

  • fuzzywuzzy

    Well, of course he’s going to stand by what he wrote. He can’t retract anything now. lol

  • http://twitter.com/cara_lee pj

    Exactly. Clive is probably salivating at this controversy because it will sell more books. 

    I hope Kelly lets it go and he can keep on making a fool out of himself.

    I am on a waiting list to get the book from my public library.  Don’t give him a dime, folks!

  • parsenip

    This is just publicity for his book.

    Yep.  It’s all just meaningless bickering with a high-profile artist.   How convenient.

  • weareallinnocent

    Convenient indeed. Girl just sang live to inaugurate the POTUS, at the Grammys to honor music royalty, and accepted her Grammy live and adorably on the televised show. What a hateful, greedy ass. He not only sabotouged her efforts due to their differences, now he seeks to profit from them.

    My December remains my favorite Kelly Clarkson album, btw.

  • http://twitter.com/KariannHart Kariann Hart

    Going way back, I recognize the power and the ability Clive David has, but I still think he’s a creep.  Yes, it’s best if Kelly just drops this.

  • CB40

    She has every right to defend her name and tell her side, which she did in very articulate fashion.

  • irockhard

    Everyone who said that she should let it go, uhm, if this tweet is to be believed, don’t bet on it:

    Debra Lynn Lazar ?@debralynnlazar
    Kelly Clarkson is about to speak her mind about Clive Davis on@GMA. THIS should be good. #GMA

  • arkboy

    It’s simply amazing how everyone immediately comes down on the side of Kelly Clarkson. Perhaps she is a bit of a spoiled & petulant artist that didn’t want to be told that My December was bad & she is taking this opportunity to turn the tables? Well, history has proven on thing My December was bad & perhaps Clive was correct.

  • abbysee

    How so? It did almost as good as her next Cd!

  • Miz

    THanks for the heads up! Changing channels so I don’t miss it.

  • ST7

    The bill publicity was supposed to be his coming out as gay… I mean bisexual… Kelly has just put herself into the story. Several interviews I’ve seen with him never even mention Kelly

  • http://twitter.com/desireechick Kesia Monteith

    Tuned in about 8:24pmET on GMA, haven’t seen Kelly yet, so did I miss it?

  • waitingforthe1

    It’s simply amazing how everyone immediately comes down on the side of Kelly Clarkson. Perhaps she is a bit of a spoiled & petulant artist that didn’t want to be told that My December was bad & she is taking this opportunity to turn the tables? Well, history has proven on thing My December was bad & perhaps Clive was correct.

    How has history proven that My December was bad?  It sold just under what her All I Ever Wanted Album sold and it only had ONE single released. 

    I took a listen to My December last night after this whole this blew us and honestly it’s musically NO DIFFERENT than any of her other albums.  Any one of the songs on My December would fit into her other albums and vice versa. 

  • fuzzywuzzy

    I’m watching the show and it’s all about the return of Robin Roberts. I haven’t seen or heard anything about the Kelly/Clive dispute. I have a feeling that if Kelly was scheduled to appear, she may have been bumped, because today’s entire episode is focused on Robin’s return to the show.

    While I can understand anyone’s desire to set the record straight if they feel they are being lied about publicly, I’m not sure if it’s good for Kelly to continue this dispute.

    Here’s a great article discussing the feud between Kelly and Clive from the L.A. Times back when it was all happening:

    http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/26/entertainment/et-clarkson26

  • fuzzywuzzy

    From a report on Twitter, it sounds like Kelly wasn’t on the show, but they discussed it. I didn’t see anything on the show, but I didn’t tune in until a little after 8:00 AM.

  • woodchuck25

    Not the biggest fan of Clive, but come on, how can people ignore how obnoxious Kelly was during the My December-but-I-want-to-be-a-real-artist era? Gotta go with his side of the story. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/IDXVM7NCMXZVHX4M2RFBYOTYDA Robert

    Ok, Clive I am sure that those five people were totally independent and not five people who followed you around like puppies.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/IDXVM7NCMXZVHX4M2RFBYOTYDA Robert

    Ok, Clive I am sure that those five people were totally independent and not five people who followed you around like puppies.

  • abbysee

    I must have missed that. Truthfully, Clive’s record speaks for itself. For every great discovery is a story about him being an arrogant prick. Kelly just wanted to control her own destiny. Sometimes the road to that isn’t pretty. But considering she overcame that and wound up on her feet, and is receiving more than the benefit of the doubt speaks volumes to me.

  • irockhard

    Eh I’m not in the US so I have no idea, like I said IF that tweet is to be believed.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R37UM43PITK7QU5SHTDWSU7SNA emme

    Translation:  Oh crap! She’s right…but it is too late now to say I was wrong.  And besides she’s a girl that can’t write and I’m a bigshot…now one will believe her. Hopefully.

  • mmb

    I doubt that Kelly is going to say more on this.  She gave her side of the story, Clive gave his.  The end.  Apparently Kelly isn’t the only artist he knocks in his book — he also takes aim at Taylor Dayne, Melissa Manchester and Toni Braxton, claiming their careers all took a turn for the worse when they insisted on writing their own material.  The timing of that may be true, but I’m not so sure there is a straight cause/effect correlation; times change, trends change, pop music is fickle etc etc.

  • http://twitter.com/tinawinabina Tinawina

    I tend to give Kelly the benefit of the doubt on this just because Clive has a history of these kind of complaints against him, plus she’s telling the same story she told back when it happened. She’s been remarkably consistant over the years when recounting her battles with the label.

    I’m almost positive Clive had almost the exact same story with Tayor Dane, a singer from the 80s, down to the “Sit down shut up and sing the songs I give you little girl” type speech. She wanted to write as well.

    I think Clive is a guy who hada great ear and it lead to a huge ego with associated asshole tendencies, not an uncommon story in the entertainment industry with people who are good at what they do. Heis far from infallible but they tend to forget that once they get big. The truth is probably someowhere in between the 2 stories.

  • http://www.facebook.com/pedro.c.s.guida Pedro C. S. Guida

    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).

    Shmelkin 

  • waitingforthe1

    so it seems Clive thinks the girls should shut up and sing and not write their own music.  I have to wonder if his controlling way didn’t lead to the downfall of his two most successful discoveries, who also had notorious drug problems and untimely deaths, Whitney and Janis?

  • iani

    From a report on Twitter, it sounds like Kelly wasn’t on the show, but they discussed it.

    I think Kelly’s reaction to Clive Davis’ chapter about her third album on her blog is rightfully and humanly understandible as the frustrated  artist fighting for the right of expressing her artistic point of view also after 2 successful albums. And is fine I think that her response, again on her blog, has got some media and blogs attentions, but I think going publicly on TV to support something that happened some good years ago and now refueled by CD’s octogenarian thoughts in his book, it might be too much for her future business relationships and let it be like in her blog  well said “Anyway, I love my job. I love my music. I love my fans. I love my label and all of my professional relationships… now. And I am grateful for Clive for teaching me to know the difference.

  • fuzzywuzzy

    I don’t think that we’ll ever know for sure, and whatever Clive writes in his memoirs will be his own spin/version of events, and even from the brief excerpts that have been posted, I can already see how he is portraying himself (kind, caring, nurturing “father figure”). 

    It’s my own opinion that Clive did Whitney no favor by pushing her into a comeback that I think that she wasn’t ready for. Getting her clean and sober was what she needed, not the pressure of a comeback with all of the huge expectations that Clive orchestrated.

  • fuzzywuzzy

    Thanks for that report. I don’t think that Kelly can gain anything more by prolonging this dispute. Her response was fine, gave her side of the events very clearly, and I think that she’s made her point.

  • http://twitter.com/tinawinabina Tinawina

    I have no doubt there are people in the industry who think exactly that way. I remember these types of guys. Everything you need to know is in the tone; Kelly is a “completely manufactured and disposible pop-star” who should shut up and be grateful for what she’s given and has no rights to want anything more, and this part “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.” presumes that Kelly wanted to continue her career at the same level and wanted to be “rock”. Neither of which seems to be true from her interviews at the time. Basically, this is the attitude she’s talked about facing from her label, that she was a dumbass who should let the the label men handle everything, and she should be grateful they gave her a career and not have an opinion or fight for a say, since they knew everything and she didn’t. Also, the fight over Miss Independent and Because of You is not mentioned, just the supposed fight over Since You Been Gone, not a song Kelly ever said she didn’t want on her album once it was done. She was very clear about not liking the demo and not liking the lie that got her into the studio with Max and Luke, but she’s never said anything about not liking the finished song. But once again, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

    Keep in mind her “image” after the first album was sassy R&B-pop star, the pop-rock makeover for Breakaway came from her, because that was the kind of music she was actuallly into. Of course after the project hit big everyone wants to take full credit for its success when really it was a collaborative effort. It wasn’t all Kelly and it wasn’t all Clive and it wasn’t all Max/Luke or David Hodges or the marketing department. Everybody did thier job well and it hit.

    There is an industry worship of Clive that forgives all his mistakes and miscalls because he got it right so many times, his batting average is still better than most even with his goofups. He deserves his legendary status but that does not mean he’s never wrong and was never an asshole to anybody.
     
    As for what Clive said at the convention, he may be right, that may have gotten blow out of proportion. Who knows? That’s why I say the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

  • fuzzywuzzy

    I agree with everything that you wrote, and will add that the poster also wrote that Kelly had no “creative soul”, again showed a bias from the start due to Kelly’s jump start from idol. 

    The story about SUBG is interesting because there was a similar story about Barry Manilow and the song “Mandy” which Clive insisted that Barry record and release as a single. Apparently (according to Barry), the original demo for “Mandy” was entirely different than the final version of the song that he recorded (he hated the demo), and that was due to Barry’s own arrangement and artistic vision for the song and not Clive’s. Yet, not surprisingly, Clive took credit for that success. lol 

  • standtotheright

    Basically, this is the attitude she’s talked about facing from her label, that she was a dumbass who should let the the label men handle everything, and she should be grateful they gave her a career and not have an opinion or fight for a say, since they knew everything and she didn’t

    This is why this is problematic. Can any music fans out there seriously imagine this kind of “shut up and sing” attitude being directed toward Justin Timberlake and JC Chasez? They were cute boy-banders, but when they wanted to write, they got to write and had success with it. And nobody objected (at least not loudly enough that I remember) when Timberlake wanted to take the reins on his solo career.

    There’s a pattern of behavior, not just from Davis but certainly most obviously, in establishing the power differential between male music executives and female artists who weren’t signed exclusively for their songwriting. It would be unacceptable in any other professional environment but in the creative world audiences seem to accept that as “the way things are” and anyone who objects is an entitled brat.

  • Holden17C

    I work in the publishing industry and I have some news for you: ALL NONFICTION TITLES published by major houses go through a fact-checking process, INCLUDING MEMOIRS. This is standard practice. Considering that Davis’ book covers a 50+-year career and runs 600+ pages (most likely edited down from 1,200+), five fact checkers is hardly out of line.

    Having done fact-checking work in the past, I take GREAT EXCEPTION to being identified as a sycophant or a lackey. The job involves such tasks as confirming dates of noted events, corroborating timelines, and ensuring that names are spelled correctly. It does NOT entail determining how the author or anyone else “felt” or “experienced” certain events. A fact checker can determine when a scheduled meeting took place. He or she cannot confirm what actually occurred at that meeting unless audio/video recordings were made. The only people who know what was said at a certain meeting are those who attended it – and their accounts do not always jibe.

    Did Davis hire his own fact checkers? Probably, but I have no doubt that Simon & Schuster Publishing commissioned its own fact checkers, who probably worked their tails off on this title and deserve some respect. They certainly don’t deserve to be called derogatory names.

    I like Kelly Clarkson just as much as all of you, and I think she speaks with integrity. She saw it one way and Davis saw it another. The complete truth probably lies somewhere in between. Everyone will believe whatever suits their
    needs.

    In his 600+ page book, it’s likely that Davis’ spends less than 5 pages talking about Kelly Clarkson.

    Everybody move on.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R37UM43PITK7QU5SHTDWSU7SNA emme

    This man has “old man” view of women..he was born in a different time.  I imagine that he butts heads with many women he works with unless they conform to his view of how women should be.

  • Incipit

     

    There is an industry worship of Clive that forgives all his mistakes and
    miscalls because he got it right so many times, his batting average is
    still better than most even with his goofups.

    Clive has been doing this long enough to accrue a batting average, but I think some areas of the ‘industry worship’ is slightly misconstrued, Tinawina. He’s also been around long enough to know a lot of things about a lot of people – and vice versa.

    Releasing the excerpt of the chapter where Kelly is mentioned is probably the safest tidbit he can offer the press for book publicity and still involve a current public figure for the press cycle, where his competition is Idol’s new season, and the Grammys – which makes using Kelly relevant. And he is, once again, using her.

    …if I were Clive I would be always waiting for the other shoe to drop on a few other items from his checkered history – but maybe he still has all his insurance…and keeps his Teflon Suit cleaned and pressed.

    I think when people who were there get to read the content, more than the few bits that Clive and his publicist released for the calculated PR angle…they will see the same kind of spin put on some much heavier occurrances…or maybe he won’t mention them at all, except as a footnote. I don’t know how much the Dark Lord thinks he can still get away with…he has survived a lot of the other players in his personal Drama Rama. And if no one cares to speak, it won’t matter – eventually Clive’s version goes into the sepulcher with him, his money goes where it goes, the industry does a big tribute that cherry picks his history, and the world keeps turning.

    As for Kelly, she’s on record, then and now – I think the best retort is to live a happy and successful life that Clive has nothing to do with, and get to planning that wedding. IMO. Of Course.

  • Incipit

     

    Everything you need to know is in the tone; Kelly is a “completely
    manufactured and disposible pop-star” who should shut up and be grateful
    for what she’s given and has no rights to want anything more…”

    Wow. Talk about unconscious irony (at least, I think it is) – there’s an example, right down to the language, which is a dead give away,  of the attitude under discussion; it really couldn’t BE more perfect as an object lesson.

    Anyone who didn’t quite ‘get it’ could read that, and understand. Or, listen to the lyrics from “Mr. Know It All”….that would work too. *snerk*

    IMO.

  • http://www.facebook.com/maria4hitz Maria Jose Lopez

     16 pages.

  • http://twitter.com/RonnieDRocks Ronnie D

     Janis had issues way bigger than Clive lol. I’m a huge Joplin fan and have read her bios, which Clive was never mentioned in besides the fact that he signed her.

  • fuzzywuzzy

    “I work in the publishing industry and I have some news for you: ALL NONFICTION TITLES published by major houses go through a fact-checking process, INCLUDING MEMOIRS. This is standard practice. Considering that Davis’ book covers a 50+-year career and runs 600+ pages (most likely edited down from 1,200+), five fact checkers is hardly out of line.”

    Well, the publisher of James Frey’s book spoke publicly, on national television, that the standard for memoirs for fact checking is far less than for autobiographies, so no offense, but this person was identified on the show, was a representative of the publishing firm, so that has more credibly than some anonymous person on a blog.

    Plus, the way the Clive’s “defense” is worded, it sounds like those “5 independent individuals” were present during all of Clive’s meetings with Kelly and verified Clive’s version of the events, which I very much doubt happened. OTOH, I can totally understand having “independent individuals” (= lawyers), edit the book from the POV of avoiding any libel suits, but I don’t believe that there were 5 people who witnessed all of the events between Clive and Kelly which are under dispute and who verified Clive’s versions as the “truth”.

  • fuzzywuzzy

    I know. That poster was clearly defending Clive, but in the process, they actually verified as true what Kelly has repeatedly said over the years about how she was regarded by the label executives (including Clive). That person unwittingly gave a lot of credence to Kelly’s statements. lol

  • http://twitter.com/tinawinabina Tinawina

    Well, its an old story. That’s why its not hard to believe her. That attitude prevails, or used to, for people not signed for their songwriting, or for pop types signed very young, epsically pretty girls with nice voices.

    The ironic part is that everyone involved had valid points, but it sounds like everything was carried out in such an antagonistic and disrespectful way that it made the situation worse than it needed to be. If people had been more repsectful on all sides they likely could have reached a happy compromise.

  • heartly

    In his 600+ page book, it’s likely that Davis’ spends less than 5 pages talking about Kelly Clarkson.

    Except she gets her own chapter (+little AI talk of which he takes credit for) that spans 19 pages.

    I don’t doubt he had it fact checked… certain parts of it. How can one fact check a conversation that occurred between you and one other party, by 5 people no less?  I’m a fan of Kelly (to say the least) but I’m not going to say she’s 100% in the right here, although I heavily lean in her favor regarding this. As others have already mentioned, she has never wavered with her story on these issues through the years which also leads me to believe her portrayal of this.  There’s other things that he recalls in this chapter that also don’t mesh with what’s been said over the years that she didn’t even touch on in her post yesterday.  

    How many people has he interacted with? How many stories have been shared with him? How many songs and projects have passed through him? His accounts of all these happenings are bound to be jumbled up, especially if he wasn’t documenting this stuff as it was happening. These things happened directly to Kelly. You have a tendency to remember when someone belittles you or says hurtful things or affects your job in many ways more than someone who just has you slotted on his calendar for a meeting. 

    Taylor Dayne was mentioned and… 

    Taylor Dayne ?@taylor_dayneAMEN RT @HuffPostEnt Kelly Clarkson SLAMS Clive Davis in new post http://huff.to/132ifIe https://twitter.com/taylor_dayne/status/304228275864076288Taylor Dayne ?@taylor_dayne
    Sooner or later truth RT @bayercruz @taylor_dayne I always believed Clive Davis ended U @ Arista cuz U bumped … http://tmi.me/Lbcg5 
    https://twitter.com/taylor_dayne/status/304129215555575808Taylor Dayne ?@taylor_dayne
    Lies amd bullying RT @bayercruz I read in Time?… Clive Davis said that @taylor_dayne + M Manchester would still … http://tmi.me/LcjTg https://twitter.com/taylor_dayne/status/304228275864076288How about Steve Lillywhite?Steve Lillywhite CBE ?@Sillywhitegood on Kelly Clarkson for calling out Clive Davis for lying. He always reinvented the truth..https://twitter.com/Sillywhite/status/304154690453663744

    As I said in a different thread last night, there are numerous other tweets by people in the industry backing her in this too.

  • Holden17C

    I’m sure that’s just a short list of people Davis has p.o.ed in 50 years. What’s your point?

    Oh…16 pages in a 600+ page book? Be still my heart.

    My point is that real fact checkers who work in the publishing industry are NOT sycophants who kiss authors’ butts. They comb through reams of submitted text to confirm that which can be confirmed. People’s opinions cannot be confirmed as facts because they are NOT FACTS. If Davis is citing people who happened to be hanging around or who merely agree with him, they cannot be identified as fact checkers.

    The publisher, however, did employ fact checkers of its own, and given that the content contains the names of many people who are living, famous, and have have high-powered lawyers, the checkable material was probably thoroughly examined.

    That doesn’t mean Davis is telling the complete truth. Once you hit “he said/she said” territory, it’s every man and woman for him or herself. You can’t blame that on the fact checkers.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/7LS7KC5AHEOV5R27XD7GCWBHFU J

    There are so many ignorant and misleading comments in that post that I can’t even begin to list them all.  Clearly this person did no digging for actual facts about Kelly and went with the superficial and non-thinking argument that being on a talent show automatically makes you manufactured and worthless as a artist.

  • fuzzywuzzy

    I don’t think that anyone is impuning genuine “fact checkers” as you have described, but Clive’s misuse of the term in relation to verifying his account of his events (probably not just with Kelly) is what is at issue, at least for me and it appears some others. The “5 independent individuals” whom Clive refers to as “fact checkers” are most likely people on his payroll who are willing to support his account of any events in his book, not just those involving Kelly, and unless they were witnesses to the events (which I highly doubt), then they probably can’t verify anything.

  • MV007

    I’m really not sure how you fact check a conversation from 5-10 years ago.  Is there a tape recording?  Video of the meeting?  What we have here is two different people giving two different versions of events.  Clive’s “fact checking” only means one thing, he got people who worked for him to back his side of the story.  If you want to believe that then thats your preogative but lets not pretend that the people who back Clive’s version don’t have their own reasons for doing so. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/7LS7KC5AHEOV5R27XD7GCWBHFU J

     He has always been a sexist pig.  I have no respect for women who support his neanderthal attitudes and treatment of other women.

  • http://www.facebook.com/beaugard.stevens Beaugard Stevens

    I can’t believe he wrote that.  So there were 5 people in the room when she started crying?  Just unbelievable.  Can she sue him to get that info out of the book if it’s false?  It seems like defamation to me- although this is taking it kinda far.  

  • ohreli

    I would strongly believe Kelly’s memory over Clive’s memory for one specific reason: age.   I  am only 49 and my memory is already getting really bad.  I wouldnt trust Clive’s memory for a minute!

  • Tom22

    I saw Kelly perform a live show about 3 months ago (took my 12 year old and her friends to a full free show in Marin County CA with the bill footed by Microsoft).  I got a good feel for Kelly as an artist and through out the show,  in her banter she expressed her love for songs that she wrote that the little girls singing along didn’t know as well as her big hits, and she sung some old rock and roll/southern rock kinda country songs that she said she just loved.

    It was clear to me that she was a musician and loved performing.  She mentioned enjoying music always.. listening to other artists out of joy in her spare time.

    She’s made millions.  If her advisers have put her money into broad index funds and if she isn’t doing hair brain things like most entertainers investing in resataurant chains in an attempt to be more rich than she needs at the risk of almost certainly losing her money.. she should be very comfortable the rest of her life, even if she chooses to perform in small country bars etc.

    She didn’t seem like the type that needed big money to be happy… only really music.  She repeatedly referred to being the fat unpopular girl going to watch music and local dance clubs and seemed really happy with the memory but only wished she didn’t enjoy the teasing .

    I think she knows that the songs she didn’t really feel vested in made her the big money but that she still feels deeply about putting songs she enjoys as an artist on her albums an really feels touched when people like them.  She made almost directly those comments to the girls and audience back in November.

    So ?  maybe they’re both right… Clive is about money and might be right and Kelly is about following her heart.. and it is always right to follow your heart in life if it is enough to put a roof over your head, food on the table and provide for your childrens (future) healt care and education.

  • usedtobelucy

    “Did Davis hire his own fact checkers? Probably, but I have no doubt that
    Simon & Schuster Publishing commissioned its own fact checkers, who
    probably worked their tails off on this title and deserve some respect.
    They certainly don’t deserve to be called derogatory names. ”

    Was he actually talking about fact checkers in the publishing industry, though?

    If he was, I guess I completely missed it.

    I thought he was talking about five people in the music industry who were present at all the events that he discussed in the book regarding Kelly. Didn’t he say that these five people were *present* for the events and agreed with his account? These wouldn’t have been fact checkers, personally hired or otherwise, because when the events took place, he wouldn’t have been fact checking a book already. He wasn’t writing it at the time; he was living it.

  • irockhard

    That attitude needs to go. The music biz is supposed to be hip/cool, current and most importantly always changing and evolving, there shouldn’t be any place for rigidity. And yet Clive, who is 80 years old is creative director of Sony deciding what’s relevant? That seriously makes no sense to me at all.

    The public buys into the artists, they are the “faces”, the majority of music buyers have no idea who these behind the scenes tycoons are and don’t care about their opinions.

  • http://twitter.com/RonnieDRocks Ronnie D

     How do you know Clive is a sexist pig? Do you know him personally? None of us know what TRULY happened. You are sexist for saying he is  misogynistic  just because he is a MAN. If it was a women, I doubt you would be calling her a sexist.

  • Abner4President

    There should really be ‘Dislike’ buttons for individual comments.

  • mmb

    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.

  • fuzzywuzzy

    ” 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) ”

    Is there anyone who he doesn’t “take swipes” at? lol Does he criticize any artists who are very commercially successful?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=579290324 Michael Bishop

     History has proven no such thing.  Album sales do not equal quality (even if they did, Clive would still be incorrect- it sold well).  My fave Kelly song “Sober” is from the album.   I find it unfortunate that a man of Clive’s stature couldn’t write about his life experiences, and had to resort to this low level.  That being said, I’m not surprised- he was quite the jerk during his appearances on AI.  He does not know how to effectively deal with people who don’t bow down to him.

  • marcoUpstate

    Like every story with two sides, the “truth” is usually somewhere in the middle.  Based on the excerpts in THR, Clive’s story around “Since You’ve Been Gone” and “Because of You” seem exaggerated.  

    But, regardless of whether I think it is a “good” record, I agree that On My December sounds less “pop” in comparison. The resulting sales and tour were not what one would have hoped after the phenomenal success of Breakaway.   

    I don’t understand the record industry or Clive’s motivations but I’m just not sure that any statements that he may have said at a convention led to the album having less success.  I don’t think that Sony-BMG is the type of company that would permit Clive Davis to direct his label to affirmatively tank the album just to prove a point.

  • fuzzywuzzy

    Now, TMZ is supporting Kelly. lol The discussion starts at around 11:00 min. of this video.

    http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_otygpyc1/

    They are ridiculing Clive’s statement about the “5 independent individuals” who “fact checked” his recollections. lol They talk about how Kelly is never in any scandals, etc. and it was a “cheap shot” for Clive to take such a swipe at Kelly. 

  • fuzzywuzzy

    Interesting tweet:

    Don Silver ?@notwhatuthink@pageturner I did A&R 4 Clive in the 80s & take Kelly @ her word. Clive’s bottom line was never the same as artists who weren’t abt the $.