rock club question

[Mick]

Manny, if you do not need to dig around to prove something, why should I?

But I bet you love those vinyl records, don't ya.



You have a problem with Clear Channel? Why were you not making a stink about 
this before it was too late? And yes, it is too late. They have the 
mainstream in the clutch. And why do you care if they do? They have little 
to do with shows you put on, or the bands you would listen to. Mainstream 
radio is cliché and boring, isn't it? Or at least that is what you think 
seeing how you so readily bash people for listening to it.  Mainstream is 
what Clear Channel buys. Let them have the mindless flock. Convert the 
strays and let them bring others to your side.



Just so you know Clear Channel has it set so that technically they are not a 
monopoly. They allow enough of the market to be owned outside their 
interest.  They bought out those stations and media outlets fair and square. 
Why not give shite to the people who sold them? They helped Clear Channel 
more than listeners. The people who sold did not need to sell but did.  Why; 
M to O to N to E to Y!



You want to change what is heard on mainstream radio or what is seen at 
bigger venues, start one up. I am willing to bet you or your partners will 
sell when Clear Channel comes knocking with the millions they will offer for 
it. That is if you can get enough people to listen to the station or attend 
the shows.



Also, my mind is freer than yours will ever be, homey.

--Mick



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <manny at telerama.com>
> Sure if you talk pure financial size I don't doubt it.
> But I'm not talking about other industries.
> I'm talking specifically about media and entertainment.
> Clear Channel clearly is the largest single owner of both radio stations
> and of large venues. That makes it as 'large' as you can get in that
> field where those areas cross over. And it's in a business that affects
> this list more than most other corporations would.
>
> So by the way, what are these other, larger rightwing companies that I
> am currently colluding with and shouldn't be?
>
> And why do you, and Dee, insist on playing a devil's advocate when you
> have only generalizations and vagaries to state? After all, you are not
> coming out and saying, "Manny, you are wrong. People shouldn't boycott
> Clear Channel. They should give money to Clear Channel to see KMFDM."
> You're not saying that. So what's yr point really?
>
> "Freed minds", indeed.
>
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Mick wrote:
>
>> Manny, Manny, Manny... if you want to draw a line of "Zero Collusion"
>> between you and the right wing there are many other, larger companies you
>> should be worried about.
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: <manny at telerama.com>
>>
>> >
>> > Please do not attend Clear Channel shows, especially mid-size ones.
>> > If a band that you like plays a Clear Channel show, you need to muster
>> > the resolve to steel yourself to boycott the show, and tell the
>> > band (by e-mail, letter, etc) that you disagree with their choice,
>> > or the choice of their booking agent, to work with Clear Channel.
>> > If dozens of people that I know personally had the sense to NOT
>> > attend the Fantomas show and to find other shows to go to that
>> > night, you can easily do the same. I sent a letter to Ipecac Records
>> > with more than fifty signatures, you can easily send your own to
>> > that band you like.
>> >
>> > It is disgraceful to see the female singer from KMFDM - as documented
>> > in Deek magazine's new issue - try to justify taking money from Clear
>> > Channel. At least to their credit, Deek readliy exposed KMFDM's
>> > hypocrisy to anyone who is reading carefully, You can't say the same
>> > about the City Paper and Post-Gazette, who totally allowed their
>> > hero-worship of Steve Earle to blind them to the fact that Earle was
>> > railing against Clear Channel in print, yet taking their money. There 
>> > was
>> > no mention of Earle's blatant hypocrisy (nor that of Le Tigre, Yo La
>> > Tengo, Ministry, or anyone else who protested against Bush on the
>> > one hand but took money from Bush's Clear Channel buddies with the
>> > other) in either paper.
>> >
>> > Skinny Puppy did not play a Clear Channel show. Not in Philly, and
>> > not in Pittsburgh (I don't know about elsewhere). Neither did Legendary
>> > Pink Dots. Pigface won't either. There's no reason why bands that are
>> > their exact peers need to play Clear Channel venues. Other than
>> > money and sheer laziness and collusion on the part of booking agents.
>> >
>> > A line in the sand of Zero Collusion needs to be drawn now while it's
>> > possible and relevant to do so. You wouldn't send a contribution to
>> > the Republican Party, so why would you contribute to Clear Channel?
>> > If bands stick to a network of independent non-Clear Channel promoters
>> > they can still set up tours, at least on the mid-size and small-size 
>> > venue
>> > levels.
>> >
>> > BTW did you notice how Clear Channel in Pittsburgh recently turned
>> > into a 'friendly face' as an obfuscating tactic? As of 3
>> > weeks ago, their ads in the City Paper started listing the URL of
>> > 'pittsburghconcerts.com' instead of 'cc.com', as if to identify 
>> > themselves
>> > more closely with the region, as well as to try and claim the mantle of
>> > 'all concerts in Pittsburgh that you'd want to see are now ours'.
>> >
>> > Plus, they've removed the Clear Channel logo from the ads and replaced
>> > it with Belkin Productions to make it look like they're an independent
>> > promoter. Meanwhile, ironically, Belkin (swallowed up by Clear Channel
>> > years ago as was Dicesare Engler) is not based in Pittsburgh, they are
>> > based in CLEVELAND. 'pittsburghconcerts.com' indeed!
>> >