MCD, Clear Channel and Phantom

Raggamuffin

If indeed MCD decides to extend it's business links with clear channel will Phantom decide to break links with MCD.

In my opinion phantom is already associated with corporate radio and therefore ceases to be a station i would take seriously for music.

Bob Sakamano

that is feckin stoopid, You're one of these guys who likes bands when they're unknown and then when they gain a little bit of fame "oh they've become too commercial! bah humbug. Phantom will still play the same music with same DJs.

uma

Bob Sakamano wrote:

that is feckin stoopid, You're one of these guys who likes bands when they're unknown and then when they gain a little bit of fame "oh they've become too commercial! bah humbug. Phantom will still play the same music with same DJs.

you took the words from my mouth !

one of these assholes who only likes abnad when they have 5 supporters !

Its the music that counts.

Raggamuffin

ok i don't know how you got that from what i said...

obviously you did'nt read what i said.

And if you're referring to disliking bands (i don't know where that came from) i did'nt like most of the irish bands when they had 5 supporters and i still don't like them.

Anyway i'm a bit busy writing a press release for this obscure band from south dakota called Cow's Udder so excuse me until you can respond to the point about MCd, Clear Channel and Corporate radio.

dead air

well, with respect to phantom becomming just another channel of promotion for mcd and therefore indirectly clear channel itself, I don't think is likely to be a problem. If anything was to affect phantom listeners from MCD's involvement, it might be along the lines of hearing live shows on phantom or a lot of free tickets being given away through competitions, which as I see it, is not a bad thing.

You have to respect that as phantom is now a commercial business it is going to have to cater for a slightly more diverse and broader listenership. But I don't expect any doomsday scenario where phantom is going to playlist blink 182 fifty times a day because they're playing the point the next weekend. I take Simon Maher's words for it when he said that phantom was granted a rock and alternative music license to play rock and alternative music, to bring to the fore new and emerging talent and continue playing the music that phantom listeners have requested over the last few years. And I think that's exactly why we've all supported phantom throughout its application process, and why it was granted the license.

asp

Im not gonna use a load of big words and try make myself sound bigger then you like most people on this website, but I agree with the Muff'. Clear Chanel has censord alot of stuff over the past few years, and I dont want to see that happed to my beloved Phantom.

As for the "Used to like a band, now their famous, I dont".

Im like that sometimes. But its not that I dont like the music, I just dont see the apeal anymore.

eg. Damien Rice.
I used to love this guy. I just cant stand the smell of prentention of alot of his fans.

Oasis.
I used to idolise these feckers. Now, because of all the scum bag interest. Stupid reason I know, but thats just my opinion.

Guns N Roses
Like most people, used to adore these guys. About 5 years ago, these guys wouldnt get a look in anywhere. Now every Tom Dick and Harry loves them.

Nirvana
Same thing kinda. Im sure most of you will agree.

I realise there is alot of people like me who you people class together as assholes, but we dont choose to be like this. Its just the way things turn out. Kinda like gay people...it aint their fault

Raggamuffin

I just feel that the phantom people idolise is simply not there anymore.

anyway the only show that ever merited a look in was Steve Conway's breakfast show. He kind of set the bar.

polarbelly

surely you liked pearl's show? great show that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

I just feel that the phantom people idolise is simply not there anymore.

anyway the only show that ever merited a look in was Steve Conway's breakfast show. He kind of set the bar.

Tyrrial

Steve's show was really cool, and in Fact the only show that i would set aside time to listen. i'm hoping that phantom don't go mad now they can make money from what they play. i'm optimistic about it.

polarbelly

Tyrrial wrote:

now they can make money from what they play.

ya mean lose money from what they play

gotsta pay royalties and stuff now.

BrianD

Raggamuffin, I would respectfully ask you to read our application in detail before stating an opinion as you have in your posting. In particular, I refer you to the ownership and control section (sections 3 and 4) and our programming service (section 5) of the document. I respect your opinion but I find it both irrational and misinformed and its tone is misleading.

How MCD conduct their business is beyond the realm of Phantom FM just like that of any of the other promoters in the city. If MCD wants to forge links with Clearchannel then that is their business and not ours. MCD run a concert promotion business and Phantom FM runs a radio business. As long as they advertise their gigs on the station and pay their account, Phantom FM will be happy to deal with any promoter. In fairness, Dublin music fans are lucky to have strong promoters like MCD and Aikens who have consistently supported the music scene and made Dublin one of the busiest live music cities in Europe.

In my opinion phantom is already associated with corporate radio and therefore ceases to be a station i would take seriously for music.

This is news to us as we are currently unaware of any associations that we have with "corporate radio" - other than being a newly licenced station - of a nature that could possibly lead to such an opinion being formed. The Phantom consortium consists of a group of independent individuals who through their entrepeurial skills have made a living and a success out of the music industry. They have a vested interest in promoting new music both of Irish and international origin. I would say to you, that Phantom FM is the one of the few radio station that you can take seriously for music.

uma

Raggamuffin wrote:

If indeed MCD decides to extend it's business links with clear channel will Phantom decide to break links with MCD.

In my opinion phantom is already associated with corporate radio and therefore ceases to be a station i would take seriously for music.

your opinion is seriously flawed

A station you would take seriously for music ? it sounds like the only station you would take seriously for music would be the one that you run :rolleyes:


In order to get a licence Phantom had to have some business backing. As neither of these companies has any involvement in the music playlist your argument falls flat on its face.

Far better to have a legal station that people can hear in Fm stereo 365 days a year than one which on a smoky illegal frequency gets shut down every few months.

As for the other homophobic geezer maybe he should go over to madrid and support the spanish national side ? would be in good bigot company

Wheter a band is big or not is immaterial the music is what matters and if it can be broadcast legally so more people hear it ,all the better.

Amz

Thanks for being so predictable Raggamuffin!

Rockiemalt

same as what Amz said..

buellershow

I have full faith that Phantom won't disappoint those who supported their bid for the license. The promises are fully outlined in the application to the BCI and I have no doubts going legal will only strengthen both Phantom FM and the international alternative music community. Keep strong, Phantom gang, we're behind you 100%.

legofsalmon

BrianD wrote:

Raggamuffin, I would respectfully ask you to read our application in detail before stating an opinion as you have in your posting. In particular, I refer you to the ownership and control section ..............

couldn't have been said any better... well done Brian.

Amz wrote:

Thanks for being so predictable Raggamuffin!

Nice to see somepeople never change

Polarbelly wrote:

surely you like pearls show

Or the Amber Necter or Suds n Soda!! excellent shows...

magpie

Some interesting reading here

http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2002/03/27/beltway/

Raggamuffin

Thanks for that bit fo info magpie...

i htought the whole clearchannel thing was obvious but yeah i don't question ownership of phantom but i do have doubts on the intentions of MCD dealing with corporations like Clear Channel.

Phantom are all about "their" own type of music but i doubt MCD see past profits.

SimonMaher

Raggamuffin wrote:

i htought the whole clearchannel thing was obvious but yeah i don't question ownership of phantom but i do have doubts on the intentions of MCD dealing with corporations like Clear Channel.

Phantom are all about "their" own type of music but i doubt MCD see past profits.

Ragamuffin,

Two quick questions for you. First explain "I htought the whole clearchannel thing was obvious". What exactly are you getting at here?

Second question. Am I correct in saying that whoever our partners were in the Consortium to apply for the licence that none would have been acceptable as we were already compromised by corporate influences? Would be interested to see where you stand on this.

Regards,

Pete Reed
reed@phantomfm.com
www.phantomfm.com

Raggamuffin

Pete Reed wrote:

Two quick questions for you. First explain "I htought the whole clearchannel thing was obvious". What exactly are you getting at here?

I thought people had already hear of Clear Channel and their questionable, unethical perhaps, business practices with regards to radio stations in the states. I used the word "obvious" rather vaguely. I meant in regards to the question about "music" and about liking bands with 5 or so supporters and what not. If you want to discuss it with me do drop me a pm as i prefer to write long e-mails rather than long posts.

Second question. Am I correct in saying that whoever our partners were in the Consortium to apply for the licence that none would have been acceptable as we were already compromised by corporate influences? Would be interested to see where you stand on this.

This point has more to do with the shift in the way phantom has conducted it's license application since the start. As you know i supported phantom in their early license applications and see no reason why the BCI thought differently now to then. Whether i like the music or not i still think the idea of more diverse radio stationsaround dublin and ireland is brilliant and the competition may drive profits down but could quite possibly increase quality. ok i'll try and be more brief.

You were not comprimised by corporate influence rather corporate and business backing increased the chances of Phantom obtaining a license. Now i just felt this was entirely wrong. I have never been convinced by the arguments for MCD and such as i really do not feel they have done alot for Irish music except line a few pockets. Essentially it still reeks of self indulgence and always will unless a more critical approach and sychophantic behaviour snubbed.

Doyou run the risk of eventually becoming an addition to the continuing shift towards and more money making approach to music just like MCD. I beleive so. I'm not saying it "will" happen but i do think it's a risk.

It's greta you got your license and all and fair play and all that i just feel that you compromised with the BCI not because you chose to but because you HAD to. And i'm sorry but the music does matter in this sense.

At the moment i'd rathe rlisten to the radio station in grand theft auto now thats what i call choice.

Please pm me for my e-mail address if you actually want to discuss this as i would be interested in more information.

cheers

BrianD

But what has it got to do with Phantom??

I could start going through the inventory of the station and find half a dozen equipment manufacturers and other suppliers that I could find some sort of shady business deal or possible unethical behaviour. Indeed, I could go through the contents of your gaff starting with your play station and find the same.

If we were to insure that everything was squeaky clean, Phantom FM would consist of me standing B*****k naked on commonland screaming out requests through a recycled paper cup and with no music to play. Believe me you don't want that.

The world is far from ideal and the music industry has and always will be a cut throat industry at every level - from garage bands upwards. Get used to it. Almost everything in life is a compromise - it's how you manage the compromise that is the key.

polarbelly

BrianD wrote:

If we were to insure that everything was squeaky clean, Phantom FM would consist of me standing B*****k naked on commonland screaming out requests through a recycled paper cup and with no music to play. Believe me you don't want that.

giv a shout out 2 johnner who luvs sarah 4eva!

Aidan Lynch

Brian D, you know that mental image will haunt me for the rest of my life!! Gotta go and find a bucket...

P. :eek:

magpie

The world is far from ideal and the music industry has and always will be a cut throat industry at every level - from garage bands upwards. Get used to it. Almost everything in life is a compromise - it's how you manage the compromise that is the key.

Indeed!

I've had a look through your proposal and it's good that control of the station rests with Phantom Staff.

From personal experience though, you need to be wary of your shareholders! As it stands both Gaiety Holdings/MCD/Denis Desmond AND Principle Management hold a 14% share each. As you know if someone holds a 15% shareholding (as far as I'm aware) they have a right to appoint a Director to the board, so all it would require would be for Paul to sell Denis 1% of his shareholding and bingo MCD are on the board of directors and influencing decisions about how your business is run, which means that indirectly ClearChannel will have their toe in the proverbial water.

But I know you lot are no idiots and I'm sure you have plans to cover such contingencies (not that it's any of my business).

Good luck with it anyway.

SimonMaher

Hello all,

Please please read our application as is constantly mentioned to just keep facts in check. Gaiety investments are already represented at board level as are Principle Management. Its their experience at board level which makes them so valuable to the Phantom FM project. The ClearChannel connection is exceptionally tenuous at best!

Its funny, but of all the people who have come up to us/emailed/shouted at us etc about the shareholding nobody has been able to answer the questions as to what would happen if the neccessary investment had come from a Pension Fund or a random Capital Speculator with no experience or knowledge of niche media sales.

The parties involved in Phantom FM are their for their knowledge and experience and not just their wallets. All have a vested interest in Phantom FM succeeding which goes way beyond immediate financial return. Of course there are risks involved, but there is great potential too.

And Brian D, for the love of God keep your clothes on! What next, dancing?

Regards,

Pete Reed
reed@phantomfm.com
www.phantomfm.com

McGonagles

Clear Channel are evil, pure and simple.

They are the same Clear Channel who stopped The Pixies from selling
official live CD's after their gigs. It's a long story, and I may have posted
it here at the time, but it boiled down to a cunning patent on a technology
that had lots of prior art, and ended with the Pixies manager saying that
he felt like he had his hands tied behind his back.

I could go on, but I won't.

Knowing a couple of Phantom people personally though, I am confident
that this evil is going to be kept far enough away from Phantom when it
goes on air.

Anyway, Clear Channel already have an operation in Ireland - it's not as if
they are waiting to use "the MCD connection" to muscle in on Irish radio.

Raggamuffin

BrianD wrote:

But what has it got to do with Phantom??

I could start going through the inventory of the station and find half a dozen equipment manufacturers and other suppliers that I could find some sort of shady business deal or possible unethical behaviour. Indeed, I could go through the contents of your gaff starting with your play station and find the same.

If we were to insure that everything was squeaky clean, Phantom FM would consist of me standing B*****k naked on commonland screaming out requests through a recycled paper cup and with no music to play. Believe me you don't want that.

The world is far from ideal and the music industry has and always will be a cut throat industry at every level - from garage bands upwards. Get used to it. Almost everything in life is a compromise - it's how you manage the compromise that is the key.

Thanks alot to you brian after all you are the authority on life.

BrianD

Thanks Ragamuffin, I'll take that as a compliment.

Here's some info on the Pixies story above:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/rnd/1085450364696/has-player/true/id/6066617

http://digitalmusic.weblogsinc.com/entry/6706148614858915/

While it would appear that Clear Channel are the bad guys here, they only seem to be doing what most businesses would do and that is to protect their interests. I find it more bizarre that the US authorities would allow a concept as opposed to a specific technology to be patented. This in itself limits competition. Where there are valid concerns about ClearChannels dominance in the market place there is a lot of misinformation distributed about this organisation - the Pixies case quoted above being an example.

McGonagles

BrianD wrote:

Here's some info on the Pixies story above:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/rnd/1085450364696/has-player/true/id/6066617

http://digitalmusic.weblogsinc.com/entry/6706148614858915/

While it would appear that Clear Channel are the bad guys here, they only seem to be doing what most businesses would do and that is to protect their interests. I find it more bizarre that the US authorities would allow a concept as opposed to a specific technology to be patented. This in itself limits competition. Where there are valid concerns about ClearChannels dominance in the market place there is a lot of misinformation distributed about this organisation - the Pixies case quoted above being an example.

Thanks for the links, but...

Clear Channel are NOT protecting their interests here!

They just bought an existing patent from a small company (I think it was 2 brothers
from Texas) who had nothing to do with the existing (and competing) businesses, and
then they used their existing market dominance to be able to say "use our service or don't
sell any live CD's at your gigs" to major touring artists.

The second URL has an update, with the news that DiscLive's parent company (DiscLive
is the service that Pixies were using) are challenging the patent that CC bought, as it is
apparently not relevant to DiscLive's specific operation.

Offering a one-dollar license to smaller bands sounds nice in a soundbite, but you would
need to see the exact terms of that license, to know if CC were playing fair.

Misinformation? Hey, if Clear Channel are doing good things too, I'd love to hear about
them! So far, all I have read about them has been negative. They probably invented the
"robo-jock" (that so many Dublin Alt. Rock licence applicants said they wouldn't use).


It's true that the USPTO is too generous though: people keep applying for all of these
obviously stupid patents (teasing a cat with a laser pointer, and a few that are too rude
to print in a family newspaper!) and getting them accepted. Apparently the USPTO has a
strong financial incentive to say "yes" to anything that isn't really obvious, like the wheel
or the wheelbarrow.