what did you think of live 8

[.:jono:.]

i reckon the artist were awesome

[Techno Destructo]

I love how it's shown by Channel 9, with all the usual commercials. I wonder how much they sold the advertising spots for and how much profit it made Channel 9.

For Channel 9, this is about nothing more than commercialism and making a buck. If they actually cared about Geldof's and Live 8's message and purpose, they would have shown it commercial free and not worried about making money off it.

And from the little I saw, I thought it was pretty funny.

"Oh look! There's Madonna! She must have taken time out from her Versace photo shoots! I wonder how her Kallabalah is going?"

I mean, sheesh! Madonna has to be one of the MOST shallow, superficial, commercial pop stars ever! I'm sure she probably sees this as a way to boost her publicity more than anything else....

They should have had artists with some real credibility up there, like Michael Franti and Spearhead... people who actually walk the walk and talk the talk!

But good on Bob Geldof. He's doing a good thing.

LOL! And who was "singing" the Beatles "Come Together"?!? Holy smokes, they DESTROYED that song! I love how the usual whiney R&B style covers of tunes usually make a complete mockery of the original great tunes.

[tu plang]

I love how it's shown by Channel 9, with all the usual commercials. I wonder how much they sold the advertising spots for and how much profit it made Channel 9.

For Channel 9, this is about nothing more than commercialism and making a buck. If they actually cared about Geldof's and Live 8's message and purpose, they would have shown it commercial free and not worried about making money off it.

And from the little I saw, I thought it was pretty funny.

"Oh look! There's Madonna! She must have taken time out from her Versace photo shoots! I wonder how her Kallabalah is going?"

I mean, sheesh! Madonna has to be one of the MOST shallow, superficial, commercial pop stars ever! I'm sure she probably sees this as a way to boost her publicity more than anything else....

They should have had artists with some real credibility up there, like Michael Franti and Spearhead... people who actually walk the walk and talk the talk!

But good on Bob Geldof. He's doing a good thing.

amen... not to mention that michael franti rocks.

i too found it a little ironic that all these incredibly rich artists are up there telling other people to give their money away while they are sitting pretty.

[S.]

Strikes me as another "Hi, I'm ____ and now I'm in front of you again and I appear to be helping other people. No, it's not just a piss-poor facade to stop you thinking that I just want the publicity."

It's kind of ironic that they find some of the world's richest people to do a concert to eliminate poverty... wankers. Also, eliminating "poverty" is never going to happen, because poverty is defined RELATIVE to other incomes (lowest 10% I believe).

That said, at least they're helping somehow. Which is more than can be said for me. Although I do have a solution for poverty: let them die out. That way, there aren't any more poor people!

[Techno Destructo]

not to mention that michael franti rocks.

No DOUBT! Hell, get Jello Biafra up there, too! But I guess it'd be tough to get the DK's to reunite after what's gone down with those guys... (And that the rest of the DK's have really "sold out"). :(

[tu plang]

tina arena and craig david, i cant think of two people who's music i despise more.

rob thomas and barry white's rendition of higher ground was infinitely disappointing, i ran to my room so i could hear the chili pepper's cover of it.

and finally, in hindsight im amazed that bob geldof ever made money singing.

[pilot]

It just reeks of hypocracy and conflicts of interest. I agree with most of what has been already said and my view is that this is just another way for us rich folks to lessen our guilt about our opulence. I mean what better way to help the starving masses than put on a massive party for ourselves, i'm sure these so called poor people are all watching their village television set and thanking us for being so generous.

Enough sarcasm, this is a pretty serious issue and it is pretty frustrating seeing the usual multi millionaires parade around and complain about income inequalities but maybe its the sad truth that it is this sort of commercial and large scale event that is the only way to educate the masses, or at least make people think about those less fortunate. However patronising that may be will this sort of event change anything??

[S.]

However patronising that may be will this sort of event change anything??

Out of spite towards the performers and the media, I sure hope not.

(sorry Africa... although I know you won't see this because you can't afford teh intarnet).

[wtr]

I'm poor and the televised concert didn't help me at all..:(

[topher]

Some of the artists i personally think were in it to boost there "social status", or to say look at me i performed at live 8 arent i great. However the majority of artists did care about geldofs message and live 8 message, you could see this when u2 played, we all know bono is a decent bloke, but they really bought across the message of live8.

Madona(i cant spell her name) and mariah carey were in it for there social status, do they even know what is going on in africa? there probably to busy in there bloody private shopping sprees spending $20,000 on a farkin hand bag.

I must say though Pink Flyod huge effort not speaking for 25 years and coming out and sounding that great was pretty damn good. Hats off to U2, dido, pink flyod, and everyone else who wasnt in it for there "social status".

Fox 8 did it live, for all of you who have pay tv, they did it how it should be done. Channel 9 just want to make money greedy sods! They can show other things ad free but when it comes to helping a whole continent they cant seem to get off there arse's and make the whole thing ad free.

Another thing in 1985 all the venues were donated at no cost for the performance, this time they venues were not donated! Shame on the venues owners and such. This means with all the ticket sales perhaps on 5 cents of the dollar will actually go to helping africa. What the fark is going on there?
Well thats my $0.02
Chris

[wtr]

Well said...makes me wonder where did all the tsunami rescue funds went..:rolleyes:

[danv]

God damn bunch of synics here.

I thought the idea was pretty good, hopefully it will achieve something significant.
I only watched a quarter of it or so, maybe more, but I thought alot of the acts were pretty shit. But I don't know how you can definitively say that any of them were just in it for publicity, how the fuck would you know? Hopefully the mainstream pop identities will/did achieve something in terms getting people interested.

S. you're being a dickwit, if there's a joke in saying that people should die out, I can't see it (maybe you could explain this).

The penultimate biggest fuck off of all goes to CH 9, but of course the ultimate fuck off and die should be punched into the face richard wilkins (why must he linger insultingly). The impression I got from CH9, starting with the big 60 min lead story/promo really pissed me off. They were just broadcasting another spectacle for ratings that you can watch from the comfort of your lounge room. The irony of the 2 or 3 worldvision/stop poverty etc. ads every break was beautiful - 'let's not get ahead of ourselves this is still just a commercial spectacle.' The least they could have done is donated some of the money they made (i'm assuming they didn't, because they would have told us about it ad nausesm). Maybe somebody should have told them they have droughts in Africa.

When I first tuned in, I didn't realise what a mainstream affair the music was going to be, and had the exact same thought as TD in Micheal Franti, exactly the kind of artist that should play something like this. I know I said earlier that having really pop stars could be advantageous to the cause in getting more people interested, but maybe it also really took away from the energy of the whole thing.

You've gotta hand to Geldhoff though, he such a champ and a battler, he won't give up. I really hope he acheives his ultimate goals.

[bradmc]

I do not really know or care what the motivation of the artists or media were for performing/promoting the Live 8 concerts.

If the concerts were not held, would we even be talking about Africa? Would the attention of the world be on the upcoming G8 conference? Would there be pressure on the G8 nations to deal with world poverty? I think not.

Good on Sir Bob Geldof for trying to better the quality of life to those who need the help and attention of us all.

[scblack]

and finally, in hindsight im amazed that bob geldof ever made money singing.

I've got one of his old CD's, not bad stuff (but to be honest certainly not special either, and I did buy it second hand). :)

But he also owns the Survivor concept, seen on TV in many countries round the world. That would be making him a few dollars.

[Misplaced]

I must say though Pink Flyod huge effort not speaking for 25 years and coming out and sounding that great was pretty damn good. Hats off to U2, dido, pink flyod, and everyone else who wasnt in it for there "social status".
Chris

yarrrr, must say that was the highlight for me, seeing them back together again.

But as mentioned by almost everyone, some strange inclusions/exclusions of artists, dropped a fair bit of credibility IMO. Byt then again, Geldofs a smart man, he'll be running this like a business, give the people( masses) what they want and bring out the big guns to get the G8 leaders to pay attention.

Unfortunatly they are much more likely to know Madonna than Spearhead...

[johnny]

Also, eliminating "poverty" is never going to happen, because poverty is defined RELATIVE to other incomes (lowest 10% I believe).



Bapbooowwww.

Wrong. there are two types of poverty:
Relative poverty is those who are bellow a countries poverty line. In otherwords the criteria for poverty say in Australia is relative to what we deem as quality life. In otherwords you are living in poverty compared to those around you.

ABSOLUTE poverty is starving to death. No food,water and shelter.

I cannot see us doing away with the relative, but we can certainly lessen the absolute dramatically.

S. I know much of what you say is not 100% serious, but the part that is should probably not be so concrete in it's opinions at a relatively young age. When you've both seen and experienced absolute poverty your views are shifted a good deal.

I fed a Lithuanian street kid yesterday. He followed me for half an hour, not to ask for more but to thank me. It was one of the most rewarding things I've ever done.

I think you have your views because they are easy to have when you're the one in a privelidged position. You're not the one who has to suffer from your ideas.

[Elbo]

I mean, sheesh! Madonna has to be one of the MOST shallow, superficial, commercial pop stars ever! I'm sure she probably sees this as a way to boost her publicity more than anything else....

I'm sure i heard the channel 9 host guy refer to madonna as the 'queen of rock'.. whats going on there! She doesn't even sing rock.

U2 was good, and man when they crossed to craig david and tina arena - i wanted to throw away my television. It sounded so shocking.
I think Bob Geldof is doing something worthwhile in the live 8 thing, but they are tageting the G8 or whatever... its not jsut them, its also the governments in the african nations that are spending all the money on themselves, not on helping their citizens

[S.]

Bapbooowwww.

Wrong. there are two types of poverty:
Relative poverty is those who are bellow a countries poverty line. In otherwords the criteria for poverty say in Australia is relative to what we deem as quality life. In otherwords you are living in poverty compared to those around you.

ABSOLUTE poverty is starving to death. No food,water and shelter.

I cannot see us doing away with the relative, but we can certainly lessen the absolute dramatically.

S. I know much of what you say is not 100% serious, but the part that is should probably not be so concrete in it's opinions at a relatively young age. When you've both seen and experienced absolute poverty your views are shifted a good deal.

I fed a Lithuanian street kid yesterday. He followed me for half an hour, not to ask for more but to thank me. It was one of the most rewarding things I've ever done.

I think you have your views because they are easy to have when you're the one in a privelidged position. You're not the one who has to suffer from your ideas.

And what ideas would they be? I'm not the most civically-minded, charitable person on earth (though I do donate to charity from time to time, have bought lunch for beggars on the street more than once), but my ire is definitely aimed at the obvious pretentiousness of the media and some of the performers, not at people who are suffering. Me saying that eradicating poverty is never going to happen was intended to be a stab at the economic (relative) definition of poverty, not the fact that other people are starving to death while I fuss over what foods I like/dislike.

As I said though, at least the people organising/promoting the concert are actually doing something that may result in a major change rather than throwing a few dollars towards charity tins now and then.

[Tommygun]

I watched the live 8 concert on normal television and cable, i much rathered watching it on cable, which was at my friends lol! At home i just have normal free to air and it sux! Im struggling half the time to find something to watch, it seems were all goin to be forced to watch cable... By having nothing to watch on free to air...

[Techno Destructo]

S. you're being a dickwit, if there's a joke in saying that people should die out, I can't see it (maybe you could explain this).

Just put him on your ignore list. It's been doing wonders for me!

The penultimate biggest fuck off of all goes to CH 9, but of course the ultimate fuck off and die should be punched into the face richard wilkins (why must he linger insultingly).

Fully! I hate that self-obsessed dweeb. I avoid the major networks like the plague, but whenever I see this guy, it just makes me cringe. He always acts like he's as big a celebrity as anybody he's interviewing me. He deserves to be covering Live 8 as much as Madonna deserved to be onstage.

Apparently, when Madonna finished her set and was walking through all the people backstage back to her trailer or whatever, Wilkins tried to get words in with her, and asked her "So Madonna, how did it feel performing in such an incredible experience?" (or something like that), and Madonna shot him a quick glance, said "Fine." and didn't break her stride at all! heheheh :D The funny thing is, Channel 9 is such a try-hard station grasping whatever sensationalism they can, that they actually bothered to keep this for their edited broadcast! Looooooooosers! :D

[at the drive in]

I think its ironic how the aim of live 8 was to get the message across to as many people as they could yet in australia the only full telacast was shown on pay tv. Channel nines version was cut down and shown almost 24 hours later.

[Commander Dilsnikk]

Hats off to Geldof for standing up and doing something.
To my mind, though, I can't see the whoe extravaganza doing much in real terms. Sure, a few more of us can now get a hand up off couch and point to Africa on a map, but ending poverty, I think not.

From what I read, the whole thing had three aims;
- cancelling third world debt
- procuring a rise in aid funding
- establishing 'fair' rather than simply free trade

The first two have been succeses, but they mean absolutely nothing when not coupled with the third. I'll save you all the spiel about the inherent capitalist inequities in neo-liberalist trade relations but think about it this way...
These days, aid is mixed up in the big bad world of trade. On the upside, African nations no longer have to use a large portion of aid money to pay off foreign debt, but in our society, nothing comes free. The new aid money comes with conditions, ie. in general, industrial/ economic development requires foreign investment which, because of the conditions it sets out for its aid package, comes directly from the aid-giving country .
In other words, without 'fair' trade practices, the money gets invested straight back into the aid-giving country. Expansion of the rich-poor divide anyone? In my opinon, the increase in aid funding is meant to look like a gesture of goodwill, but is really western economic strategy at its most subversive.

So Live8 is a great idea which, in an idealist's world, could actually help the situation, but in reality does the opposite.

[zen_rider]

Hats off to Geldof for standing up and doing something.
To my mind, though, I can't see the whoe extravaganza doing much in real terms. Sure, a few more of us can now get a hand up off couch and point to Africa on a map, but ending poverty, I think not.

From what I read, the whole thing had three aims;
- cancelling third world debt
- procuring a rise in aid funding
- establishing 'fair' rather than simply free trade

The first two have been succeses, but they mean absolutely nothing when not coupled with the third. I'll save you all the spiel about the inherent capitalist inequities in neo-liberalist trade relations but think about it this way...
These days, aid is mixed up in the big bad world of trade. On the upside, African nations no longer have to use a large portion of aid money to pay off foreign debt, but in our society, nothing comes free. The new aid money comes with conditions, ie. in general, industrial/ economic development requires foreign investment which, because of the conditions it sets out for its aid package, comes directly from the aid-giving country .
In other words, without 'fair' trade practices, the money gets invested straight back into the aid-giving country. Expansion of the rich-poor divide anyone? In my opinon, the increase in aid funding is meant to look like a gesture of goodwill, but is really western economic strategy at its most subversive.

So Live8 is a great idea which, in an idealist's world, could actually help the situation, but in reality does the opposite.

Good point about the trade issues!!!

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the proceeds from live aid go directly to buying aid, and didn't geldoff personally make sure every cent of the proceeds went to those who needed it?

I hear some people say it won't make a difference...i mean africa is probably more messed up now than it was 20 years ago, but how do you define 'a difference'? I think too many people get drawn into the trap of thinking 'well if it isn't gonna fix the problem once and for all, then why bother?'....but you can't deny that the aid raised from live aid saved lives. how many? who knows...but IT DID SAVE LIVES!!! Try imagining yourselves in their position...and then hearing someone say it makes no difference. In addition, i don't think there is one solution that is going to fix it all. It sounds like a fricken mess over there.

another thing, i am sick of these people who say it doesn't make a difference while they do absolutely nothing. even if it does nothing, don't you have a moral obligation to keep on trying? at least bob geldoff can lay on his deathbed and say to himself 'well at least i tried'...that's all we can ask of ourselves.

They have successfully raised awareness about the G8 summit, they reckon over 1,000,000 people are expected to protest.....

so yeah, it might be a drop in the ocean, but without it, the ocean would be one drop less. Death to the WTO, IMF, and World Bank!!! The real axis of evil.

[Commander Dilsnikk]

Good point about the trade issues!!!

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the proceeds from live aid go directly to buying aid, and didn't geldoff personally make sure every cent of the proceeds went to those who needed it?

I hear some people say it won't make a difference...i mean africa is probably more messed up now than it was 20 years ago, but how do you define 'a difference'? I think too many people get drawn into the trap of thinking 'well if it isn't gonna fix the problem once and for all, then why bother?'....but you can't deny that the aid raised from live aid saved lives. how many? who knows...but IT DID SAVE LIVES!!! Try imagining yourselves in their position...and then hearing someone say it makes no difference. In addition, i don't think there is one solution that is going to fix it all. It sounds like a fricken mess over there.

another thing, i am sick of these people who say it doesn't make a difference while they do absolutely nothing. even if it does nothing, don't you have a moral obligation to keep on trying? at least bob geldoff can lay on his deathbed and say to himself 'well at least i tried'...that's all we can ask of ourselves.

They have successfully raised awareness about the G8 summit, they reckon over 1,000,000 people are expected to protest.....

so yeah, it might be a drop in the ocean, but without it, the ocean would be one drop less. Death to the WTO, IMF, and World Bank!!! The real axis of evil.


Very good points mate! I always love hearing learned yet less cynical ideas!

I hadn't heard it, but I'm sure Geldof has ensured that all of the proceeds go directly towards aid. Pity that sort of money is insignificant in comparison to the conditional aid being handed out by countries.

On your other point, I certainly wouldn't be saying 'why bother?', but I've always been a fan of long-term strategy ahead of 'band-aid' fixes. Aid can certainly make a difference in the short-term and in doing this, prolong lives. For my money, though, a fixation with it as a development strategy misses the bigger picture; that development needs to come from societal change (both locally and globally). It's all very well to throw money at a problem and, in doing so, help some people out, but countries can build up a reliance on it and this means that too few resources get put into sustainable strategies.
I only wish there was a way to make long-term stuff work. The outgoing head of the World Bank had the right idea, but if you saw him speak, he was horribly disechanted with all of the obstacles that the interests of first world countries were presenting him.

It's a damn thorny issue and the more I look into it, the more frustrated I get and the more cynical I become.

[zen_rider]

For my money, though, a fixation with it as a development strategy misses the bigger picture; that development needs to come from societal change (both locally and globally). It's all very well to throw money at a problem and, in doing so, help some people out, but countries can build up a reliance on it and this means that too few resources get put into sustainable strategies.
I only wish there was a way to make long-term stuff work. The outgoing head of the World Bank had the right idea, but if you saw him speak, he was horribly disechanted with all of the obstacles that the interests of first world countries were presenting him.

It's a damn thorny issue and the more I look into it, the more frustrated I get and the more cynical I become.

Yeah i agree 100%, i am starting to agree with einstien who said 'to solve a problem we must arrive at a higher level of thinking than the level of thinking that produced the problem' or something like that. Somehow, i think the act of throwing money at the problem isn't going to solve it as it was the love of money that has caused it (possibly). But then again what would i know?!@

[Commander Dilsnikk]

Yeah i agree 100%, i am starting to agree with einstien who said 'to solve a problem we must arrive at a higher level of thinking than the level of thinking that produced the problem' or something like that. Somehow, i think the act of throwing money at the problem isn't going to solve it as it was the love of money that has caused it (possibly). But then again what would i know?!@

Bingo!
Have a read of this if you feel like it. It's a stream of consciousness style essay I wrote a few weeks back which goes into depth about you last point. I didn't realise I could be so Marxist!

[at the drive in]

Hats off to Geldof for standing up and doing something.
To my mind, though, I can't see the whoe extravaganza doing much in real terms. Sure, a few more of us can now get a hand up off couch and point to Africa on a map, but ending poverty, I think not.

From what I read, the whole thing had three aims;
- cancelling third world debt
- procuring a rise in aid funding
- establishing 'fair' rather than simply free trade

The first two have been succeses, but they mean absolutely nothing when not coupled with the third. I'll save you all the spiel about the inherent capitalist inequities in neo-liberalist trade relations but think about it this way...
These days, aid is mixed up in the big bad world of trade. On the upside, African nations no longer have to use a large portion of aid money to pay off foreign debt, but in our society, nothing comes free. The new aid money comes with conditions, ie. in general, industrial/ economic development requires foreign investment which, because of the conditions it sets out for its aid package, comes directly from the aid-giving country .
In other words, without 'fair' trade practices, the money gets invested straight back into the aid-giving country. Expansion of the rich-poor divide anyone? In my opinon, the increase in aid funding is meant to look like a gesture of goodwill, but is really western economic strategy at its most subversive.

So Live8 is a great idea which, in an idealist's world, could actually help the situation, but in reality does the opposite.

The chances of the third aim happening are slim. The american farmers lobby group are the most powerful lobby group in the world,there is no way they will let thier farmers be told they will not be paid to make a surplus. They will start with the crap about if we feed africa we starve the heartland of america. Then willie nelson will be on TV saying america must protect thier own and no one wants that. America would never allow another country to dump thier surplus on thie market, which wound threaten thier local products. Australia in the same they have been stopping new zealand apples from being imported into australia for year claiming the imported apples could introduce an apple diesease called black spot i think to australia. This is an load of crap as importing standards are so high and even if an infected apple got though it would be near impossible for the apple to spread the diesease. The real reason is that new zealand apples are suprieor and would probably be chaper.

[bryce]

amen... not to mention that michael franti rocks.

i too found it a little ironic that all these incredibly rich artists are up there telling other people to give their money away while they are sitting pretty.


mate i think you would probubly find that guys like Bob and Paul and Elton and :eek: Madona (or is it esta) sp. probubly give quiet a lot of money to these causes. not to mention their endorsement which would be worth millions and millions of dollars. the idea of the concert was not primarerly (sp) to get the G8 nations to forgive debt to these countrys, which is not just a few million... more like billions... it was to try and get these countrys to allow free trade with the poorest of african nations thus helping them to try and be self sufficient thus being able to survive without foreign debt!

i loved it buy the way... how good was it to see paul (definetly one of the greatest artists of all time) fronting U2 (definetly THE GREATEST band of all
time)!!!! im not a massive fan or anything but holy shit they are a great band!

just thought i would voice my opinion...

[bryce]

sory forgot to say also... did anyone see the part of the london gig where they showed footage used in the live aid concert of the girl who bob said was "10 mins from death" and then went on to say that she had just finished a degree... and was at the concert!! now that was amazing and for me that totally showed what these concerts were all about... HOPE! something the people of africa must surley be lacking

[at the drive in]

mate i think you would probubly find that guys like Bob and Paul and Elton and :eek: Madona (or is it esta) sp. probubly give quiet a lot of money to these causes. not to mention their endorsement which would be worth millions and millions of dollars. the idea of the concert was not primarerly (sp) to get the G8 nations to forgive debt to these countrys, which is not just a few million... more like billions... it was to try and get these countrys to allow free trade with the poorest of african nations thus helping them to try and be self sufficient thus being able to survive without foreign debt!

i loved it buy the way... how good was it to see paul (definetly one of the greatest artists of all time) fronting U2 (definetly THE GREATEST band of all
time)!!!! im not a massive fan or anything but holy shit they are a great band!

just thought i would voice my opinion...

No way is u2 the greatest band of all time, anything after joshua tree was shit except for maybe achtuing baby. They sold out and fell in love with themselves plus they dont know when to give up. Havent you heard of band like ACDC , led zeppelin, the rolling stones and the ramones. These bands had much more of a musical influence and wrote many more songs than u2 which were of a better quality. There is no way u2 could make a greatest hit cd which would compare to led zeppelin's remasters.

P.S paul Mcartney was probably the worst beatle and no where near being one of the greatest artits of all time. Hears 10 that are way better. Bob dylan, bruce sprinsteen, elton john, david bowie, Iggy pop ( huge influence on many bands), john lennon, Micheal jackon( you cant fault his songs), Simon and Garfunkel ( thats 2) and jemi hindrix.

[bryce]

sorry have to agree to disagree on u2... as i said im not really a fan but i stand by what i said
on paul... he was on of the writers in one of the most influential bands ever (i cant stand them by the way)... that in my book makes him one of the greatest. although i dont disagree with you that all those other artists are in the same league, infact i totally agree.
on ACDC... i totally love them but they have nothing on u2 for song writing ability

[konasaurus]

No way is u2 the greatest band of all time, anything after joshua tree was shit except for maybe achtuing baby. They sold out and fell in love with themselves plus they dont know when to give up. Havent you heard of band like ACDC , led zeppelin, the rolling stones and the ramones. These bands had much more of a musical influence and wrote many more songs than u2 which were of a better quality. There is no way u2 could make a greatest hit cd which would compare to led zeppelin's remasters.

P.S paul Mcartney was probably the worst beatle and no where near being one of the greatest artits of all time. Hears 10 that are way better. Bob dylan, bruce sprinsteen, elton john, david bowie, Iggy pop ( huge influence on many bands), john lennon, Micheal jackon( you cant fault his songs), Simon and Garfunkel ( thats 2) and jemi hindrix.


The ramones hahahaha the just wrote one song and gave it about 1000 different lyrics

[at the drive in]

sorry have to agree to disagree on u2... as i said im not really a fan but i stand by what i said
on paul... he was on of the writers in one of the most influential bands ever (i cant stand them by the way)... that in my book makes him one of the greatest. although i dont disagree with you that all those other artists are in the same league, infact i totally agree.
on ACDC... i totally love them but they have nothing on u2 for song writing ability

No i would disagree that ACDC arent in the same song writing leaguem as U2. Angus bring's blues to rock and roll. Creating a hard rock sound, which even though is fill of huge chords was still minimalist in its natures. They pionereed the hard rock sound. They may have lacked the political lyrics which U2 had but musically there song writing was way better.

[bryce]

yeah i prob was a bit harsh there. you hit the nail on the head there when you mentioned politics. i spose i base my opinion of good song writing largley on the overall content of the songs... and that includes lyrics. i have to say that songs written about nothing (although to the writer they probubly meant everything) give me the shits. it seams to me that popular songwriters have a public voice and just writing songs sbout lost loves and getting way pissed seems a waste... guess i cant really say that writing those songs doesnt still put the writer in the league of writers of songs substance (couldnt think of another word) :confused:

[johnny]

Although I do have a solution for poverty: let them die out. That way, there aren't any more poor people!

that idea. I'm sure it was *mostly* tongue in cheek though
:)

[S.]

that idea. I'm sure it was *mostly* tongue in cheek though
:)

Oh, *that* concrete idea :p

[danv]

Fully! I hate that self-obsessed dweeb. I avoid the major networks like the plague, but whenever I see this guy, it just makes me cringe. He always acts like he's as big a celebrity as anybody he's interviewing me. He deserves to be covering Live 8 as much as Madonna deserved to be onstage.

Apparently, when Madonna finished her set and was walking through all the people backstage back to her trailer or whatever, Wilkins tried to get words in with her, and asked her "So Madonna, how did it feel performing in such an incredible experience?" (or something like that), and Madonna shot him a quick glance, said "Fine." and didn't break her stride at all! heheheh :D The funny thing is, Channel 9 is such a try-hard station grasping whatever sensationalism they can, that they actually bothered to keep this for their edited broadcast! Looooooooosers! :D
Haha yeah, I lauged out loud when I saw that. Just the tone and attitude he opened the question with, with an air of self importance, and Madonna just shuts him down with a dissmissive one word reply.
Heheh. Stupid Richard Wilkins.
Oh, and for those who haven't heard about it- Really stupid Richard Wilkins (http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/30years/stories/s1305229.htm).

[Octane_Matty]

If you split Bill Gates money apon the world everybody would get $10
Then how about you give none to people in first world countries and now all those people in africa have a small fortune.

[zen_rider]

If you split Bill Gates money apon the world everybody would get $10
Then how about you give none to people in first world countries and now all those people in africa have a small fortune.

I seriously doubt that america would let that much money, just leave their shores.

Anyways, the dude who owns ikea has more money, supposedly.

[blt2ride]

I love how it's shown by Channel 9, with all the usual commercials. I wonder how much they sold the advertising spots for and how much profit it made Channel 9.

For Channel 9, this is about nothing more than commercialism and making a buck. If they actually cared about Geldof's and Live 8's message and purpose, they would have shown it commercial free and not worried about making money off it.

And from the little I saw, I thought it was pretty funny.

"Oh look! There's Madonna! She must have taken time out from her Versace photo shoots! I wonder how her Kallabalah is going?"

I mean, sheesh! Madonna has to be one of the MOST shallow, superficial, commercial pop stars ever! I'm sure she probably sees this as a way to boost her publicity more than anything else....

They should have had artists with some real credibility up there, like Michael Franti and Spearhead... people who actually walk the walk and talk the talk!

But good on Bob Geldof. He's doing a good thing.

LOL! And who was "singing" the Beatles "Come Together"?!? Holy smokes, they DESTROYED that song! I love how the usual whiney R&B style covers of tunes usually make a complete mockery of the original great tunes.

Good point! Although, when it comes to the entertainment industry, everyone is looking for the all mighty dolllar...