Talk:Song Cycle (album)

old IP comment
Figure here is only $207,144.41 in 2006 dollars, so I highly doubt that it is the most expensive album ever made. 12.219.83.157 21:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

2008 review
As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this review. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits, and hope that an editor will find the time to examine the review and—if he or she sees fit—post it to the professional reviews section. I appreciate your time. Crawdaddy! (favorable) 2008 Asst. Editor, Crawdaddy! FenderRhodesScholar | Talk 17:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Cost of album?
I'd like to respectfully challenge the assertion that Song Cycle was one of the most expensive albums ever made. In light of my recent research on Warner Bros Records, frankly I find this rather unbelievable. Sure it did cost a lot compared to most pop albums of the time, and the 'Q' list does cite it as one of the five most expensive albums ever made, but there is no reference to support that listing and I would strongly dispute it.

According to the infamous 1967 Warner advertisment, Song Cycle cost around $US35,000, which is a considerable sum; however I would suggest that there are many other contemporary recordings that cost at least as much if not more.

For example: although it's not an album of course, numerous references say that The Beach Boys' single "Good Vibrations" alone cost about US$50,000 -- i.e. nearly twice of the cost of the entire Song Cycle album on one song. The figures vary somewhat but it is reputed that the albums Anthem of the Sun (1968) and Aoxomoxoa (1969) by The Grateful Dead each cost far more than Song Cycle - e.g there are citations in Fred Goodman's Mansion on the Hill, among other references, that put the cost of these albums at US$100,000 or more -- each!

I will undertake some more research and if I can find solid evidence to back my view, I will post it here and eventually remove that claim, if there are no objections.

- Dunks (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I just read Peter Ames Carlin's 2021 book Sonic Boom, a history of Warner Brothers and Reprise Records up till the resignation of Mo Ostin at the end of 1994. The $35,000 figure mentioned in the ad was not the cost of the record, but the net loss. The cost was stated in that same ad to be $48,302. In Carlin's book, it says that figure was fudged - the album actually cost between $75,000 and $85,000, making it the most expensive album in Warner Brothers history up to that time. He doesn't state who told him that figure. It may be mentioned in Stan Cornyn's 2002 book Exploding - Cornyn was the writer of the ad. PatConolly (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Release date
I've found two archived sources from the Los Angeles Times and Billboard  in December 1967 that verify Song Cycle was released then instead of 1968. Dan56 (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)