Thank you, Gazza, sir.

R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> It happens all the time and has BEEN happening for
> years in the states. You Europeans like him better
> than we do anymore. In order to get a crack at the
> this current tour you had to (almost assuredly)
> lose your ass on the Seeger Sessions Tour and the
> solo one before it. Then BruceCo would deign to
> come back with the ESB and play for you so you
> could hopefully make the money back you already
> lost plus some more.
>
> 1985 was a long, LONG time ago.


Surely, you know as well as I do Mr R, that to draw like-with-like comparisons between Solo Springsteen, Seeger Session Springsteen and E-Street Springsteen is utterly absurd; and that only a complete idiot (or an extremely naieve promoter) would expect to make it rich from anything other than when the great man has his old backing band alongside him.

So why criticise the man, and his art, simply because he chooses to spend some time performing on a much smaller scale with what are essentially non-commercial projects? Must everything be about keeping promoters happy?

As you are happy to point out, 1985 was indeed a long time ago, but hey, isn't it wonderful that he decided not to milk that formulae dry by simply bashing out Born In The USA volumes 2, 3, 4 and 5, and then touring them to death?

Indeed, like him or loathe him, Springsteen should be applauded by all, for having the courage to extend the boundaries of his musical accomplishments into different contexts and genres of music, as opposed to playing to the lowest common denominator.

My God, if only US and UK radio would adhere to that same principle (the point surely, of Beelyboy's post).

Or would you like us instead to cry real tears for the greedy businessmen (in this case a few promoters) whose blind ignorance sometimes helps them to get it completely wrong?

Elmo Lewis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Charmed, a couple of different roads really, but a
> nice long road. I like your signature - "No
> Surrender" is one of my favorites.
>
> In fact, my all time favorite couplet is:
>
> I want to sleep beneath peaceful skies
> In my lover's bed
> With wide open country in my eyes
> And these romantic dreams in my head.


Yeah Elmo,I was very happy on night 2 to hear this one. Radio Nowhere and No Surrender (slightly reworked) make a nice strong opening duo.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

Hilarious this. The new become the old and the old become the new. Bruce is officially a rebel!

Everyone who objects to this should go out and buy Magic.

I don't know what all the fuss is about?

Radio these days are mostly financed via commercials - even to the extent that sometimes it seems like commercials with a little bit of music thrown in for good measure.

Therefore they need to maximise the number of listeners - and most people do not like rock('n'roll)

For a short period in the sixties and maybe beginning of seventies rock('n'roll) did rule the waves - but my guess is Motörhead was never big on radio???

Now rock('n'roll) is an old form - and not for the young ones - they need their own music. Once the Beatles and the Stones were for the young ones, and my guess is that they probably pushed a few people off the airwaves back in the day?

All of a sudden nobody wanted to hear Bobby Vee and the rest of them - they were probably not too pleased about that, either ;-)

And mostly radio will play easy listening stuff that does not disturb nobody (funny that they won't play McCartney,then?? And what about the Eagles' new one?) - pap and crap! (IMHO)

But, really - I cannot get too worked up about radio wanting to maximize their profits.

So do those common men Bruce, Mick, Keith, Paul and whonot. (I mean - Michael Cohl does not talk of the last Stones tour in artistic terms but only whether they made the most money - EVER!)

And if you don't like what's on the radio - don't listen to it! I haven't had a radio for the past 25 years - but I still listen to a great variety of music - also new stuff. Probably, the variety is greater for NOT listening in on the wireless ;-)

mofur Wrote:
>
> Therefore they need to maximise the number of
> listeners - and most people do not like
> rock('n'roll)
>
> For a short period in the sixties and maybe
> beginning of seventies rock('n'roll) did rule the
> waves - but my guess is Motörhead was never big on
> radio???
>
> Now rock('n'roll) is an old form - and not for the
> young ones - they need their own music. Once the
> Beatles and the Stones were for the young ones,
> and my guess is that they probably pushed a few
> people off the airwaves back in the day?

>
..but surely popularity is defined by sales, and if a record (regardless of who it is) is #1 and selling about half a million units, then a station playing what is supposed to be the most popular music of the day (ie the music that people like most) should be playing it?

The age of the listener is irrelevant in this case. If a new album by an artist who's 60 is far outselling the new album by an artist who's 20 or 30, then (even if its for a short time) that artist's music is evidently popular enough to warrant airtime ALONGSIDE acts who are a bit younger. To effectively blacklist any artist's music who happens to be popular based on how old they are is simply ageist nonsense.

the argument that "most people do not like rock" is meaningless. ALL music - no matter how popular it is and how many records it sells - doesnt appeal to the 'majority' of people.

Barn Owl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> R Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > It happens all the time and has BEEN happening
> for
> > years in the states. You Europeans like him
> better
> > than we do anymore. In order to get a crack at
> the
> > this current tour you had to (almost assuredly)
> > lose your ass on the Seeger Sessions Tour and
> the
> > solo one before it. Then BruceCo would deign to
> > come back with the ESB and play for you so you
> > could hopefully make the money back you already
> > lost plus some more.
> >
> > 1985 was a long, LONG time ago.
>
>
> Surely, you know as well as I do Mr R, that to
> draw like-with-like comparisons between Solo
> Springsteen, Seeger Session Springsteen and
> E-Street Springsteen is utterly absurd; and that
> only a complete idiot (or an extremely naieve
> promoter) would expect to make it rich from
> anything other than when the great man has his old
> backing band alongside him.
>
> So why criticise the man, and his art, simply
> because he chooses to spend some time performing
> on a much smaller scale with what are essentially
> non-commercial projects? Must everything be about
> keeping promoters happy?
>
> As you are happy to point out, 1985 was indeed a
> long time ago, but hey, isn't it wonderful that he
> decided not to milk that formulae dry by simply
> bashing out Born In The USA volumes 2, 3, 4 and 5,
> and then touring them to death?
>
> Indeed, like him or loathe him, Springsteen should
> be applauded by all, for having the courage to
> extend the boundaries of his musical
> accomplishments into different contexts and genres
> of music, as opposed to playing to the lowest
> common denominator.
>
> My God, if only US and UK radio would adhere to
> that same principle (the point surely, of
> Beelyboy's post).
>
> Or would you like us instead to cry real tears for
> the greedy businessmen (in this case a few
> promoters) whose blind ignorance sometimes helps
> them to get it completely wrong?


Of course there is no comparison between an ESB project/tour and any other way Bruce chooses to present himself and I do applaud him for demonstrating artistic integrity whether I like the work or not. However "holding up (promoters/venues) without a gun" in order to put your vanity project (Seeger Sessions) in front of the public is strong-arm tactic to say the least. The concerts you enjoy would not occur without those "blindly ignorant greedy businessmen" to whom you refer. Perhaps YOU can guarantee Bruce a million bucks for three hours work and not care if you break even. If so, have at it.

For the record I prefer "Devils & Dust" to "Magic" and I've been a Bruce fan since the second album but I'm also not naive to the ways of the world. There's a reason why it's called the music BUSINESS.

Gazza Wrote:

>
> >
> ..but surely popularity is defined by sales, and
> if a record (regardless of who it is) is #1 and
> selling about half a million units, then a station
> playing what is supposed to be the most popular
> music of the day (ie the music that people like
> most) should be playing it?
>
...To effectively blacklist any artist's
> music who happens to be popular based on how old
> they are is simply ageist nonsense.
>
.

"Magic" sold 335,000 units in the opening week. It's sold almost 270,000 units since - worldwide or about a half million total so it's already peaked. That's a mere ripple compared to the tens of millions of folks listening to the radio. And no one is being effectively "blacklisted." Turn on the radio and you'll hear "Born To Run" by 60 year old Bruce Springsteen just as you'll hear "Satisfaction" and "Magic Bus" by 60-somethings Mick Jagger andf Pete Townsend.

"Magic" is #1 two weeks out of the four it's been on the market because the new Britney Spears hasn't been measured yet.

Nikolai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hilarious this. The new become the old and the
> old become the new. Bruce is officially a rebel!

The thing is, he was a rebel from day one. He had his flirtation with mass commercial appeal, but for the most part, he has never stopped marching to the beat of his own drummer. For that alone, he should be applauded.

Bruce Springsteen is NOT A REBEL !

Phil Collins IS A REBEL !!!!!!

Phil Collins was the first to wear sneakers with a Sport Coat. You could not get more rebellious than that in 1983.

Get it through your head everyone!

Sohoe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beelyboy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> ....
> > ever see that video of him in (amsterdam i
> think)
> > some scandinavian country i believe, and there's
> a
> > busker doing 'the river' and springsteen walks
> > right up from the street and starts doing it
> with
> > him right there!! the busker is keeping up with
> > all the chord changes and good
> harmonies...Bruce
> > is a citizen of the world and revered
> everywhere
> > he goes...
>
> Is it this clip?
>

It's
> actually from Copenhagen.

yes! thnx Sohoe. couldn't find it...saw it once several months ago and it really made an impression on me for some reason;
now that you've linked it, i just watched it again and it's really sweet and quite the rush...
yep Copenhagen, not Amsterdam, sorry about that. thnx for link.

R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>>
> "Magic" sold 335,000 units in the opening week.
> It's sold almost 270,000 units since - worldwide
> or about a half million total so it's already
> peaked. That's a mere ripple compared to the tens
> of millions of folks listening to the radio.

You've just endorsed my point. You cant justify it by saying "most people dont like" a certain sort of music (as mofur does above) because the same can be said about every other sort of music. It ALL has minority appeal. Using your yardstick above, radio may as well not play ANY music at all.


And
> no one is being effectively "blacklisted." Turn on
> the radio and you'll hear "Born To Run" by 60 year
> old Bruce Springsteen just as you'll hear
> "Satisfaction" and "Magic Bus" by 60-somethings
> Mick Jagger andf Pete Townsend.

no, you'll hear those songs on an oldies station by a 26 year old Springsteen and a 21 year old Jagger. The 'blacklisting' (and it clearly IS that as quite plain by the CC edict) is against those artists' CURRENT music.

>
> "Magic" is #1 two weeks out of the four it's been
> on the market because the new Britney Spears
> hasn't been measured yet.


..which means it should still be played. The issue has nothing to do with personal opinion on the artist in question, but the absurdity of deciding that the biggest radio stations in the country CANT play songs from an album which is currently a best seller.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To effectively blacklist any artist's
> music who happens to be popular based on how old
> they are is simply ageist nonsense.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, they are not blacklisting these people/groups as such - they do play the old KNOWN songs (e.g. "Satisfaction")

>
> the argument that "most people do not like rock"
> is meaningless. ALL music - no matter how popular
> it is and how many records it sells - doesnt
> appeal to the 'majority' of people.

I believe that people who listen a LOT to the radio do not buy that many records. They use the radio-music - such at is - as background muzak while they go about their business - whether it be cutting people's hair (more people than not would propably prefer that "Rough Justice" is NOT blaring out while getting their hair cut) or whatever.

Therefore the radio goes for the kind of music that does not wake the dead - or the living - in any way. I know - my ex owns a beauty salon and I know what kind of music she would go for - at least at work.

Radio does not play the new Springsteen record because nobody knows it - and only a "handful"(*) knows the song because they've already bought the bloody thing.

But - let's do the math. 500.000 copies sold in the USofA equal roughly 10.000 copies sold per state. I believe that most radios in America cater mainly to their own state - maybe even only their own county?

10.000 people wanting to hear one song is not a lot if 990.000 others are switching to another channel at the same time.

Springsteen had his time where his music matched the zeitgeist and therefore would be played on the radio. So did the Stones. But the times they are a-changing - as they seem to have a habit of doing.

These days they have to contend themselves with the fact that at least radio still plays their old songs ;-)

-------------

(*) You are of course right - even "Thriller" is a minority with its sales of 40 million compared to the 4.2 billion - at the time - possible customers. But I hardly see your counter argument as any better than my original argument? You could also claim that it is a luxury to even have the time and social circumstances to be discussing something like music when millions are dying in Africa. But that would render this site - and thereby both our arguments - pretty obsolete?

R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
However "holding up
> (promoters/venues) without a gun" in order to put
> your vanity project (Seeger Sessions) in front of
> the public is strong-arm tactic to say the least.
> The concerts you enjoy would not occur without
> those "blindly ignorant greedy businessmen" to
> whom you refer. Perhaps YOU can guarantee Bruce a
> million bucks for three hours work and not care if
> you break even. If so, have at it.
>
> For the record I prefer "Devils & Dust" to "Magic"
> and I've been a Bruce fan since the second album
> but I'm also not naive to the ways of the world.
> There's a reason why it's called the music
> BUSINESS.


What's with all this "holding promoters up without a gun" nonsense?

Are you trying to tell me that hardened businessmen, armed with clever negotiating skills, are dumb enough to gamble millions of dollars on the popularity of an artiste because of some "dodgy dealing"? Because if they are that stupid, and cannot even legislate for the risk factors involved in projects of this type, then they deserve to be taken for every penny that they've got. THAT, my good friend, is business!

Just because Bruce Springsteen is planning on coming to town, he shouldn't have to bring with him, a guaranteed license for all the ten-per-centers to start printing money.

We'd all be promoters if it were that easy.

They make lists of what can be played (not what can not be played) Each station is geared toward their own demographics. And some corporate program manager decides what is on the list. Back in the day each station had their program manager who decided what their station would play enabling local considerations to come into it. And DJs had flexibility to play what they wanted too. Those days are long gone from the commercial airwaves (except for the low wattage "college" stations)
This is mainly about making the radio business profitable by keeping the costs down as there are fewer employees and the jobs that don't require creativity don't pay as well. There are superstar DJs who get ratings for whatever their schtick is who get paid well and the people who sell the ads get paid well. The rest of them are paid not much above minimum wage or even are unpaid interns.
There is relatively little competition in the radio business. Each major market tends to have 1 station for each of the dozens of demographic niches or type of programing. They have no motivation to go outside their niche.
I don't agree with it and I used to be frustrated by it too. But I realized that it was not going to change and I just stopped listening to the radio.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> R Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >>
> > "Magic" sold 335,000 units in the opening week.
> > It's sold almost 270,000 units since -
> worldwide
> > or about a half million total so it's already
> > peaked. That's a mere ripple compared to the
> tens
> > of millions of folks listening to the radio.
>
> You've just endorsed my point. You cant justify it
> by saying "most people dont like" a certain sort
> of music (as mofur does above) because the same
> can be said about every other sort of music. It
> ALL has minority appeal. Using your yardstick
> above, radio may as well not play ANY music at
> all.
>
>
> And
> > no one is being effectively "blacklisted." Turn
> on
> > the radio and you'll hear "Born To Run" by 60
> year
> > old Bruce Springsteen just as you'll hear
> > "Satisfaction" and "Magic Bus" by 60-somethings
> > Mick Jagger andf Pete Townsend.
>
> no, you'll hear those songs on an oldies station
> by a 26 year old Springsteen and a 21 year old
> Jagger. The 'blacklisting' (and it clearly IS that
> as quite plain by the CC edict) is against those
> artists' CURRENT music.
>
> >
> > "Magic" is #1 two weeks out of the four it's
> been
> > on the market because the new Britney Spears
> > hasn't been measured yet.
>
>
> ..which means it should still be played. The issue
> has nothing to do with personal opinion on the
> artist in question, but the absurdity of deciding
> that the biggest radio stations in the country
> CANT play songs from an album which is currently a
> best seller.



I've already explained, ad nauseum, why it is what it is. And IT IS. Commerce makes the world go around. Art makes the world better. The former will trump the latter everytime.

BTW, virtually NO radio stations played "Born To Run" when it was new either. A handful through the eastern and midwestern US and Houston is all. No one played "Darkness'" and "The River" much until the latter became a mainstream hit. BITUSA goes without saying and "Tunnel'" rode its coatails a bit. The early '90s albums and "Tom Joad"? Nooooo. "The Rising" saw brief radioplay but nothing from "D&D." This is nothing new except for niche stations in very large markets

Finally, I'm pretty sure the half-million sales was worldwide.

PS - Personally, I don't think radio DOES play any music at all. : - )



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-02 20:36 by R.

Barn Owl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> What's with all this "holding promoters up without
> a gun" nonsense?
>
> Are you trying to tell me that hardened
> businessmen, armed with clever negotiating skills,
> are dumb enough to gamble millions of dollars on
> the popularity of an artiste because of some
> "dodgy dealing"?

The current Bruce/ESB tour has been planned essentially since the last Bruce/ESB tour. If you promoted dates on the last one you get first whack at this one PROVIDED you rolled the dice on the "dodgy," as you put it, tours which were the "D&D" solo tour and the "Seeger" shows which did far better business in Europe than they did here. We're talking about promoter/artist relationships that go back decades. "Too bad you took the burn on this one. We'll help you can make it back the next time" is a common refrain in the music promotions biz. I explained that earlier but you were apparently too busy getting indignant to bother reading my previous posts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-02 20:34 by R.

"sources tell me that Clear Channel has sent an edict to its classic rock stations not to play tracks from "Magic.""

Ah the old unnamed "sources" routine. From a FOX reporter to boot so it's gotta be legit, right?

BTW, the "classic rock" format as it is presented in the US is nothing but FM rock two-plus decades old. Damned few of them played any ABB either and if they did it was briefly, during the tour.

So even IF the reporters sources are correct it's still a non-issue because a new record from the miraculously reincarnated John Lennon wouldn't fit the format either.

Finally, "Magic" has dropped to #12 on the Billboard chart which is the only one that had it at #1 for more than a single week, and not consecutive weeks at that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-02 20:49 by R.

spikey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nikolai Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hilarious this. The new become the old and the
> > old become the new. Bruce is officially a
> rebel!
>
> The thing is, he was a rebel from day one. He had
> his flirtation with mass commercial appeal, but
> for the most part, he has never stopped marching
> to the beat of his own drummer. For that alone,
> he should be applauded.


Springsteen was NEVER a rebel. Dylan was - and still us. Springsteen was pure conformity (irrespective of the pointed leftist message) until Vote For Change. Hell, when The Rising came out he was endorsing Bush's War on Terror (see the Time Magazine interview) he did. His most popular political song (Born in the USA) was widely misinterpreted as Reaganite jingoism because of its bombastic arrangement.

Springsteen slagged off Reagan and Bush 1 on stage in 84-85 and 88 and nothing happened. He didn't lose his audience. He didn't get pilloried in the press.

Post VFC he became an outsider. But, you know what? The irony is that his "rebellious" phase was marked by him playing traditional country-folk music (Devils & Dust and The Seeger Sessions - especially the latter).They want to ban him now? Tokenistic bullshit.

Nikolai Wrote:
They want to ban him now?
> Tokenistic bullshit.


No one is doing any such thing.

Where does this sense of victimhood come from?

R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nikolai Wrote:
> They want to ban him now?
> > Tokenistic bullshit.
>
>
> No one is doing any such thing.
>
> Where does this sense of victimhood come from?


Clear Channel aren't playing him because they say he's "too old" and therefore not relevant. So, basically, that means they won'rt be playing new music by anyone over a certain age. That's ageism. That therefore victimses anyone who, you know, gets tad old.

And you can't say this has nothing to do with Bruce's politics. Clear Channel are major Republican Party donors ....

"And the Bush family's association with many media organisations runs deep and is reflected by the hefty handouts from the likes of NBC network owner General Electric and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, both trenchant supporters of the war."

[www.guardian.co.uk]

R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
If you
> promoted dates on the last one you get first whack
> at this one PROVIDED you rolled the dice on the
> "dodgy," as you put it, tours which were the "D&D"
> solo tour and the "Seeger" shows which did far
> better business in Europe than they did here.
>

In which case, I simply cannot, for the life of me, see what any of these so-called badly-done-by promoters are complaining about.

Whatever amount they may lose on the little gigs will seem like small change compared to what they will make when the stadium extravaganzas kick off next year.

Speculate to accumulate as they say...or do they want it both ways?

I think the "banning" of music from Bruces latest CD will only bring out more people to see him (our American mentality); I wouldn't be surprised if the concert promoters play up the fact that some radio stations won't play the new CD. I wonder if Bruce is laughing at this whole thing, or if it's upsetting him, or most likely he is too busy worrying about it. meanwhile, Clear Channel is on of the largest buyers of Stevies Underground Garage (so I've been told).

Nikolai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> R Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Nikolai Wrote:
> > They want to ban him now?
> > > Tokenistic bullshit.
> >
> >
> > No one is doing any such thing.
> >
> > Where does this sense of victimhood come from?
>
>
> Clear Channel aren't playing him because they say
> he's "too old" and therefore not relevant. So,
> basically, that means they won'rt be playing new
> music by anyone over a certain age. That's
> ageism. That therefore victimses anyone who, you
> know, gets tad old.
>
> And you can't say this has nothing to do with
> Bruce's politics. Clear Channel are major
> Republican Party donors ....
>
> "And the Bush family's association with many media
> organisations runs deep and is reflected by the
> hefty handouts from the likes of NBC network owner
> General Electric and Rupert Murdoch's News
> Corporation, both trenchant supporters of the
> war."
>
> [www.guardian.co.uk]
> dthemedia.rupertmurdoch

You're right. Bruce Springsteen will be the mighty catalyst that will begin the crush of the eeeeeeeveeeel neo-con effort to strip us all of our freedoms!

He must be crushed!

He must be destroyed!

He must be banned regardless of the fact that CLEAR CHANNEL's promotional arm, Live Nation, is producing his tour.

He must be muzzled because eeeeveeel Republican Clear Channel says so even though they are developing left-leaning networks here because they see a viable market, i.e. advertising revenue.

He must be destroyed because Clear Channel is (so you say) an eeeeeeveeel Republican donor. (HINT: IN the US corporations the size of CC donate to BOTH parties. Maybe they forgot that part in your Guardian story).

I don't know how many times I can explain logical reality to some of you folks. You're so invested in your leftist paranoia you can't, or won't, listen to reason.

(R shakes head and sighs...)

Nikolai Wrote:
>
> Springsteen was NEVER a rebel. Dylan was - and
> still us. Springsteen was pure conformity
> (irrespective of the pointed leftist message)
> until Vote For Change.

Read one of the bios on him. I can't change your mind if it is already made up, but the facts surrounding his personal life don't back up your opinion.

Good point R, especially as far as donations go. Corporation, or their officers, will donate to whomever they feel has a chance of winning, regardless of party affiliation. Then when legislation comes around that affects the corporations, they look at who gave the most, and that's usually who will benefit. The political party doesn't matter, in most cases, when it comes to business.

R Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nikolai Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > R Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Nikolai Wrote:
> > > They want to ban him now?
> > > > Tokenistic bullshit.
> > >
> > >
> > > No one is doing any such thing.
> > >
> > > Where does this sense of victimhood come
> from?
> >
> >
> > Clear Channel aren't playing him because they
> say
> > he's "too old" and therefore not relevant. So,
> > basically, that means they won'rt be playing
> new
> > music by anyone over a certain age. That's
> > ageism. That therefore victimses anyone who,
> you
> > know, gets tad old.
> >
> > And you can't say this has nothing to do with
> > Bruce's politics. Clear Channel are major
> > Republican Party donors ....
> >
> > "And the Bush family's association with many
> media
> > organisations runs deep and is reflected by the
> > hefty handouts from the likes of NBC network
> owner
> > General Electric and Rupert Murdoch's News
> > Corporation, both trenchant supporters of the
> > war."
> >
> >
> [www.guardian.co.uk]
>
> > dthemedia.rupertmurdoch
>
> You're right. Bruce Springsteen will be the mighty
> catalyst that will begin the crush of the
> eeeeeeeveeeel neo-con effort to strip us all of
> our freedoms!
>
> He must be crushed!
>
> He must be destroyed!
>
> He must be banned regardless of the fact that
> CLEAR CHANNEL's promotional arm, Live Nation, is
> producing his tour.
>
> He must be muzzled because eeeeveeel Republican
> Clear Channel says so even though they are
> developing left-leaning networks here because they
> see a viable market, i.e. advertising revenue.
>
> He must be destroyed because Clear Channel is (so
> you say) an eeeeeeveeel Republican donor. (HINT:
> IN the US corporations the size of CC donate to
> BOTH parties. Maybe they forgot that part in your
> Guardian story).
>
> I don't know how many times I can explain logical
> reality to some of you folks. You're so invested
> in your leftist paranoia you can't, or won't,
> listen to reason.
>
> (R shakes head and sighs...)

now we're getting all the way to elitist drivel. some people disagree with you; get over it; one man's "logical reality" is highly subjective in this case; i think your arguments are straw man houdini stuff personally...
you're rather quick with 'leftist paranoia' slurs, instead of trying to grasp "context" with respect to others' concerns.

i don't know how many times i have to explain logical reality and facts to you regarding mays and hicks bailing out the failing harken oil disaster that was bush's sweetheart company from dada's pals, as was the PR job he had with the baseball team...sigh...
that's logical reality, boy. take a miserable total failure, killing business after business, all given to him because of the family 'name,' three generations of big oil and war profiteers and the most sophisticated and intentional disinformation mongers since bernays showed himmler the ropes...

not always, as previously stated; some of your perspective is valuable and informed, but increasingly you answer in sweeping generalities as if you were the arbiter of 'reality,' logical or not. you are not. that is neither logical nor real.
someone hits number 1, they should be played...the people have spoken...then the promotion feeds onto itself and the cultural impact, and sales become more significant.
cultural impact R. perception's the game. like fema calling a press conference consisting of fema people asking other fema people questions and pretending it's a press or 'news' conference...this is the same daily 'on message talking point' nonsense that many find objectionable, because it's LIES, not 'logical reality'
i'd say it's neocon uber-right paranoia that keeps some of the greatest of our popular artists off the air...perception, patriotism, the whole oppressive racketeer atmosphere that permeates government.

someone scores #1 they should get played on the radio; you seem to take perverse pleasure with chart moves one way or the other...a little airplay uh, helps a project. I'm not throwing out all your arguments wholesale but rather respond on point re: Clear Channel's clear history, it's the usual 'black helicopter' 'left wing paranoia' slurs, that are really exposed techniques in terms of argumentatitive credibility.

for me, you have blown a lot of your own credibility on this particular issue R, because you are cherry picking what you respond to and then creating a context that fits your pre-determined opinion, and observations, some of them informed, some of them reactionary imo.

as i've said before, (and was responded to with the typical repub 'name calling' copters and paranoia insults)...(i didn't take this personally, i know you are just trying to articulate your feelings about this)...
but as i've said before, the recent FCC history I laid out for you, has put in place mega dangerous deregulations (that are really REGULATING things for their pals and contributors) are dangerous...and they'll be just as dangerous, if not more, if things change and the other party gets dominance for awhile in legislative or exec. branch...
when this crook finally heads off to his new acreage in Paraguay, some other big money person, financed by largely the same special interests, will be president;
all the far right has to do, even tho they are in shambles of jailed racketeers and sex criminals among republican leadership, is just keep the fringe hypnotized to get their 15 to 30% of supporters to keep funding RNC and giving pithy, disingenuous, chickenhawkian soundbites about out troops, and to use as a righteous front for flag waving on television, ALWAYS led by people who never saw military service.
hannity, limbaugh, reagan, dubya (dereliction of duty, disappeared on the cush job he was handed to get out of the draft...rove and limbaugh have like ten deferments between them. the happy warriors. you'd think after four years someone would have put a meter on those trillions in stolen oil...
by your standards, the entire world culture is "leftist paranoia"

guardian UK one of the best papers on the planet.

what u don't seem to understand is i'm just as concenred some pathetic (tho outdoing george will be difficult in this arena) self defined 'progressive' or uber-liberal at the helm, with the same kind of national media message control in place...can start with this kind of seeming innocuous censorship, and the usual cover stories about 'business' etc...of which you have plenty...and then continue to issue fake news, fake press conferences, fake charts, censored artists, the whole orwell thing...i guess orwell and sinclair lewis were not as hip to 'logical reality' as the enemies of freedom at Clear Channel.

the irony is delicious. by the way, i not only covered that these corporations give to both parties, i gave you the direct stats from hicks, mays etc...
the biggies spread it around; only makes sense...but they are overwhelmingly a basic part of the horrifying, historically shameful disinformation campaign that turned this new millienium from a place of hope and surplus and post cold-war conciousness, into a debt ridden bloody evil mess...

yes democrats are culpable as well. i am not a member of any political party.

bascially my point:
freedom = good
censorship = evil

logical rock and roll reality, the only kind that counts...whoooooo

R Wrote:
> I don't know how many times I can explain logical
> reality to some of you folks. You're so invested
> in your leftist paranoia you can't, or won't,
> listen to reason.
>
> (R shakes head and sighs...)



Who's this youre referring to in such generalised terms? Dont make such sweeping assumptions about people you dont even know and who, in many cases, choose not to broadcast any political leanings they may have.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> R Wrote:
> > I don't know how many times I can explain
> logical
> > reality to some of you folks. You're so
> invested
> > in your leftist paranoia you can't, or won't,
> > listen to reason.
> >
> > (R shakes head and sighs...)
>
>
>
> Who's this youre referring to in such generalised
> terms? Dont make such sweeping assumptions about
> people you dont even know and who, in many cases,
> choose not to broadcast any political leanings
> they may have.

See above. It's patently obvious. I'm talking about the reality of the music business and others are parlaying that into boilerplate lefty talking points about a rightwing quest for world domination.

NOBODY is CENSORING anybody.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-03 17:05 by R.

aha nonsense R; your truly right wing agenda shows thru here. all that's missing is strangers in paradise in an airport restroom.

you meant patriot and lover of truth and freedom but you wrote 'lefty' something or other, a sign of weakness of argument and intellectual, and moral, defeat.

i'm not even a member of a political party and, you don't respond on point. just slurs now; and now another one...i won't take the bait, but you've plunged your credibility into the gutter with the slurs, revealing your true self and feelings amidst the crap about 'psychographs' and 'demographics'

i've offered the evidence ad infinitum; and others' have digested it, and have already known about it; so you stay in denial and keep those irrelevant slurs coming. Better than facing the facts, your 'logical reality' is politically inspired; and your name-calling reveals the truth about your motivations.

bruce's rhetorical question gets answered in the negative when he sings it to you: is there anybody alive out there?
i'm quoting for you because you can't hear it on your rahhdio...

the illegalities of these mega racketeers have been specified, as have their agenda. it's alright. there are millions of people rocking and dancing and shaking and shouting and crying and getting off on a good show by someone with a good heart and a rockin' band. What a shame the very youngest kids can't get some of this along with the posh girls or avril or whatever. that is criminal.

i know when i was a little kid of 5 and 6 and started hearing roy orbison and dion and little richard and jerry lee and others...it was a blessing; it meant the world to me...then peter paul and mary and dylan; rocking hard with dion right as the brits gloriously invade....
....and i'd like to think some smart little kid with their radio late at night, tuning into the world, could get a piece of a #1 record that would rock them, entertain them, give them a quality frame of reference amidst the horror of modern day music BUSINESS, and it's cyber-jocks, stilted play-lists, revisionist history, and destruction of culture. AND BLATANT CENSORSHIP by CONVICTED CRIMINALS.

uh, otherwise, you make perfect sense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-11-03 20:06 by Beelyboy.