Did not know this until recently, but Columbia Records dropped Chicago in 1981 because Chicago XIV stiffed on the charts. Columbia apparently thought Chicago's hit-making days were over. Yes, they actually thought that. Chicago then signed with Warner Bros. -- and you probably know the rest. Has to rank in the Top 10 of all-time goddawful music business decisions, if there is such a thing. What else would fill the list? Elvis sticking with Col. Parker? Badfinger not ditching their ripoff manager?
Warner were on the other side of the equation when they let Rod Stewart go...they saw no potential in him doing the Songbook...he went on to have s9me of his career best album sales during a decade with J records. (Not commenting on the artistic merit).
Usually when artists start their own label they regret it soon afterwards. There's one big example but if I mention the band's name, the butthurt haters will complain as usual, but said band's label launched the career of James Taylor - to give you a clue of what I'm talking about. In spite of signing a few succesful acts, the label was mostly a money ripping machine.
I honestly don't know the rest. I lost interest and drifted away from them sometime in the mid 70's. Never bought another LP by them. I'm guessing that's when they became more of a successful ballad pop band centered around Peter Cetera.
I don't think it was a bad decision to drop Chicago at the time, since if they had continued the way they were their hitmaking days would have almost certainly been over. What turned things around for them was David Foster. As producer, he told them the songs they had written for their first WB album were simply not good enough. He then co-wrote a new batch of songs with the band members and they also did some songs by outside writers for the first time. Arguably other things helped - like placing heavier focus on Cetera as lead singer and toning down the prominence of the horns over the next decade. Basically the band was pretty heavily re-tooled from what they had been on Columbia. If they had stayed on Columbia instead, just continuing to do things the way they always had, then the downward slide in popularity and hits would have likely continued. Plus it wasn't just their latest Columbia album that had flopped when they were dropped - the album previous to that had underperformed as well (no hit singles on either album).
________ (fill in the blank) getting involved with drugs. Take a pick because it's the error that keeps getting made, from managers like Bill Aucoin or Doc McGee to producers like Dave Jerden or Andy Johns to more musicians than we can count.
Only in retrospect. Just going by the actual quality of their Decca audition tape, Decca made the right decision. It was hardly indicative of great things to come.
That was not the case. He felt it was only fair that he ask Yoko if she wanted to buy in as well since both he and John wrote the songs. There was some wrangling going in between the two and MJ then swooped in on the purchase.
well that's what I read...please prove me wrong as I must have read fake news. If so, I'd like to know the TRUE story...
Hendrix staying with Michael Jeffreys. In fact, tons of bad decisions were made by Hendrix. The whole Yamata saga can be a book on its own.
I have no qualms about mentioning THE BEATLES on any thread if it's applicable. And so it is here. THE BEATLES Apple label could have been great but it was somewhat mismanaged and then fell prey to its own mismanagement. But , speaking of THE BEATLES , let me just throw Allen Klein's name into the mix.