L. Bird pkeets at hotmail.com
Wed Jul 21 12:52:14 CDT 2004

>>You might make a case that employees represent their
>employers and might be terminated for saying things that reflect poorly
>(e.g. Ronstadt, Goldberg), but I think Clear Channel is asking for an
>anti-trust suit with its attempt to control The Dixie Chicks.

>Quick thoughts here.
1) The Government is not directly responsible for what happened.
2) A company (or an artist) should have the right to conduct it's business
anyway it wants, including a decision to not associate with each other exept
by contractual obligation. Why? Because if that company's (or artist's)
decision pisses off its customers, they can take their money elsehwere.

Hmmm.  Are we understanding one another here?  What I'm saying is that Clear 
Channel (a large corporation that owns many of the radio stations and 
concert venues in the US) apparently tried to make it seem that fans had 
reacted negatively to the Dixie Chicks comments against President Bush's war 
agenda.  They promoted this idea sufficiently that most people you ask will 
tell you The Chicks suffered a loss in popularity or in sales.  However, 
this was not the case.  It all appears to be manufactured.  What am I to 
make of Clear Channel's efforts?  Shoudl the Chicks sue for damages?

It's unclear whether the government was involved.  The press inquired, but 
Clear Channel denied it.

>But what if customers have no other choice? There's the crime my friends.
This administration appears to be no friend to the capitalist spirit, which
to me is built on the freedom of choice by consumers, not freedom of choice
to control the market. Who's freedom should be protected?

By "no choice" do you mean the Clear Channel monopoly, and that the 
government is encouraging it?  Capitalism, by definition, refers to the 
owners of businesses who supply the capital for start-up and operation.  In 
its pure, unregulated form, this means that both workers and consumers 
should beware.  Monopoly is the natural tendency of any segment of business, 
as larger corporations buy up smaller ones and run others out of business to 
eliminate competition.  Capitalism in the US is supposed to be regulated to 
prevent some of the evils associated with it--that's why we have consumer 
laws and anti-trust measures.

>That's one of the themes in Lifehouse see? Total control of experience must 
>be rebelled against. (just keeping my foot on base there)

Okay, that sounds great.  :)

Mostly, I want to keep up with these things as they supply the background in 
which our favorite band operates.  I notice they sold the 2000 tour to Clear 
Channel, but they didn't seem to care for the association. Since then, I 
believe they've put the individual shows out for bid.  Clear Channel also 
filed for a patent recently for on-site manufacture of show CDs, but The Who 
has avoided this conflict with their Encore set-up.  And BTW, I think House 
of Blues has already filed an anti-trust action against Clear Channel.


Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 

More information about the TheWho mailing list