Aren't they the enemy?

Yeah, they're the enemy, but there's not exactly a world of choice in the matter. As I understand it, you either have people w/ limited resources that you can work with when you're on a smaller, indie-band scale, or you have very limited choices when you're on a larger scale, and a lot of those choices have been eaten up by the Clear Channel evil empire. It's messed up. Bowie's working with them on his current tour also.

Anxiety said:

I figured that it was something like that, Anx, but isn't there some other alternative? Touring smaller venues, maybe?

I think that for his int'l portions of a tour he uses Clear Channel's involvement, most likely because they run most of the venues (often exclusively) and present a convenient marketing / booking agency for foreign countries that Prince's own organization simply can't manage.

As far as the U.S. portion of his tour last year, I believe it was mostly if not totally independently booked and promoted by Prince and NPGMC, which is not surprising since his organization would be more familiar with U.S. venues and have some long-standing relationships with radio station programmers who could assist in promotions. Plus, he chose performance halls that were more than likely independent.

Even though he has been critical of industry behemoths like Clear Channel, he has always recognized that sometimes he doesn't have a choice and still must engage them. Same with letting Universal administer his publishing rights. Of course he could independently do it, but it's too time consuming, requires too much oversight, and is too complicated to calculate royalties for radio play, etc.,--something he knows his shop couldn't handle.

It's not unusual for artists (or even activists) to heavily criticize even those institutions in which they are involved in or from which they draw benefit... it's one of the contradictions that capitalism embodies--by swallowing up dissent, capitalism makes it difficult to be 'bout it 'bout it and still survive independently of the system.

Good explanation, NuPwrSoul, though it should be said that Clear Channel was indeed involved for at least SOME of the ONA tour...it would be great if some alternative to CC popped up, but it's gonna take some folks with a LOT of mu$cle...

Anxiety said:

Thanks. Indeed Clear Channel has been swallowing up venues wholesale all over the place. Venues are afraid to go independent cuz CC will often muscle them out with bookings for CC owned venues, supported by promotions on CC owned radio... so venues are flockin to sign up with CC. And artists are also afraid to go independent, especially if they depend on CC promotional channels.

Thank you both so much for your input.

Clear Channel's own website shows that they currently own or have exclusive booking rights to over 130 major venues across the US and Europe (as well as manmy more venues of a smaller size in the US), and representation in over 60 countries worldwide including Australia and Hong Kong