What’s (Likely) Going On with Charley Crockett’s New Album “Clovis”

Random Notes 84 Comments


Charley Crockett’s latest album Clovis was surprise released on Tuesday, April 28th, and then was surprise pulled off of streaming platforms on May 6th. Crockett pulled no punches talking about how after releasing his “Sagebrush Trilogy” of albums through Island Records (Lonesome Drifter, Dollar a Day, Age of the Ram), he was unhappy with the label, and alluded to how releasing Clovis just three weeks after Age of the Ram was a way to undercut the label.

In a now-deleted Instagram post, Crockett said, “Every time I find out I signed a deal I don’t like, and I go to these fuckin’ business people, and tell them I don’t like the deal, I don’t think it’s fair, they say ‘Tough luck kid, you shouldn’t of fuckin’ signed it.’ As soon as I hold them to that same standard, I’m the fuckin’ bad guy,” (laughing).

As Crockett released Clovis, Island Records was still promoting Age of the Ram to radio, the press, and the public. In fact, the album currently sits at #1 on the Americana Radio Albums Chart, while the album’s single “Kentucky Too Long” sits at #2 on the Americana Singles Chart.

The next morning after Clovis disappeared from streaming, Crockett posted the image of an old TV test pattern to his social media accounts, along with the song “I Fought The Law” written by Sonny Curtis of The Crickets, and made a hit by Bobby Fuller. The song holds some significance to the situation since The Crickets were Buddy Holly’s backing band, and they recorded at the same Norman Petty Studio in Clovis where Crockett’s new album was cut.

But that’s not the only thing the use of “I Fought The Law” tells us. Some wondered if the album disappeared due to some technical issue. After all, since Crockett was not working with a conventional record label to release Clovis and instead used independent service TuneCore, this could have caused some sort of glitch. TuneCore has been linked to artists having their albums pulled due to fictitious claims of streaming fraud in the past.

But now that seems unlikely to be the case with Charley. This is likely a legal issue with Island Records, which is the reason the album has not returned, Crockett has said nothing, and he’s pulled his previous social media statements about the album and his former label as well.

So what exactly got Charley Crockett on the wrong side of the law?

We don’t know for sure since nobody is talking in either the Charley Crockett camp, or at Island Records. But talking to numerous individuals within the music industry, there is a handful of likely reasons that Clovis was pulled.

Most any music recording contract is going to come with multiple stipulations that Charley Crockett could have violated when he released Clovis. The first is called an “exclusive term.” As music lawyer and former Rounder Records CEO John P. Strom explains, “Typically it lasts 6-12 months after an album’s release, assuming the contract ends with the last album.”

In other words, even if Charley Crockett successfully fulfilled his contract with Island Records with the release of his last album Age of the Ram, he might have been obligated to not release new music that could run the risk of undercutting the label’s promotion and investment—just like Crockett could have been trying to do by releasing Clovis so closely after.

The second provision that Crockett might have run afoul of might have have to do with the fact that he recorded Clovis while he was still under contract with Island. Most major labels will say that irrespective of however many albums the deal might be for, if the artist records additional music while on the label, that music is also under the label’s domain, or they might have a “first right of refusal,” meaning they get first dibs on that new music before it can be pitched to someone else or released independently.


Both the “exclusive term,” and the rights to any music recorded while under contract are extremely common, standard copy for most any recording contract. That doesn’t mean all record deals include them. While negotiating with a record label, an artist or their lawyer can request these stipulations be removed, the “exclusive term” shortened, the “first right of refusal” struck, etc. Since Charley Crockett is so prolific, this wouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility. But it is likely one, both, or all of these common provisions is what gave Island Records the legal authority to demand streaming services pull the album.

Charley Crockett fought the law, and the law won.

Charley Crockett could have also been in violation of a non-defamation clause in the Island contract, meaning he couldn’t disparage the label, though this would more likely result in fines and penalties, not the pulling of Clovis.

Just to underscore, we do not officially know why Clovis got taken down. It could be something completely unrelated to Crockett’s Island Records contract. But there’s a good chance it was one of these contractual issues or something similar, and the reason Crockett hasn’t spoken on the matter is because it’s become a legal matter, and people are being told to not speak publicly until its resolved, lest something they say ends up working against them, if a judge hasn’t instituted a gag order.

For Island Records, they are running somewhat of a risk coming across as the bad guy by getting Clovis pulled. But they’re in an unenviable position. If they simply let Charley Crockett violate their contract and undercut Age of the Ram, they set a bad precedent. If another artist in the future decided they wanted to violate their “exclusive term” or “first right of refusal” and they didn’t prosecute Charley Crockett, that could be used to claim selective enforcement of the contract stipulations.

Nonetheless, Clovis was being very well-received by Crockett fans before the takedown, and Charley Crockett remains a pretty popular performer with the type of strong, grassroots fan base that generally doesn’t look kindly upon corporations pulling the art of performers off the internet. It’s not out of the question that Clovis could have been headed toward another Grammy nomination for Charley. Now we don’t even know when the album might return for public consumption.

What could be the resolution to the Clovis impasse? It could be that Island Record claims ownership over the album, or at least the right to distribute it. Crockett might have to wait until the “exclusive term” is up before releasing it again, or any other music he might record in the meantime. Island Records could show Charley some grace and perhaps some sort of fine or revenue share situation could be negotiated so the record could be re-released relatively quickly.

But there’s also the distinct possibility that the story of Clovis and the legal battle surrounding might just be beginning. As fans trade bootleg copies and those few who actually downloaded the album pat themselves on the back, the album’s true born-on date and where it will rest in the pantheon of releases in the Charley Crockett catalog and albums released in 2026 remains up in the air.

– – – – – – –

If you found this article valuable, consider leaving Saving Country Music A TIP.

© 2025 Saving Country Music