Live Aid: Classic or dud?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (20 of them)

Live Aid is a big ideological brick in the image of Africa as that place where people can't feed or govern themselves. It perpuated the Victorian missionary notions of Christian charity for the improvement of the savages. It did nothing to offer any explanation as to why the famine in Ethiopia was taking place, why so many Africans live in such poverty or offer any practical long-term solutions. (Look at the way dedicated charities like Oxfam have continued to focus on the politics of the situation, spending as much time and effort now in campaigning for effective change in the West as they do alleviating temporary crises in the Developing World.)

Some lives were undoubtedly saved, that's good. The cost in terms of helping Western governments avoid their long-term responsibilities was terrible. If Live Aid was such a force for change, why are the usual suspects gathering now to record another photo opportunity (oops, sorry, I mean single)? And why have there been so many charity records in the intervening period (with increasingly diminishing returns) - not produced by serious aid agencies, but by chancers on the way out of show-business or with moribund careers desperate for a bit of free publicity?

― noodle vague (noodle vague), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:11 (nineteen years ago) link

what he said.

(and Bob Geldof is a total asshole.)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:18 (nineteen years ago) link

well reasoned nv

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Tuesday, 9 November 2004 20:39 (nineteen years ago) link

Gosh you are all very cynical aren't you? If anything it exposed people to the famine in Africa whereas before it would never have been noticed. Lives were saved and your opinion is ghouslish.

― Cynical, Wednesday, 10 November 2004 08:04 (nineteen years ago) link

definately a dud.

― Savin All My Love 4 u (Savin 4ll my (heart) 4u), Thursday, 11 November 2004 03:07 (nineteen years ago) link

It could (and should) have been so much better. But, like Cynical said, as far as showing the world about how horrible the famine in Africa was, Live-Aid was anything but a failure. It raised an absolute shitload of money, so OF COURSE it was a good thing.

It's just, why in God's name did all those charity songs have to suck so goddamn much? "Do They Know It's Christmas?" and "We Are the World" are like two of the worst singles of all time!! Apparently I'm not alone on this, because those are two songs that you absolutely NEVER hear on the radio anymore (even on those "80s flashback" weekends that my local pop station has!).

― Mr. Snrub, Thursday, 11 November 2004 03:24 (nineteen years ago) link

is it truth or rumor that the money bought food that then rotted at the docks while the corrupt Ethiopian goverment kept it away from the people?

― kyle (akmonday), Thursday, 11 November 2004 03:25 (nineteen years ago) link

The tide is turning, my ass.

But Roger Waters sung for YOU, man.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 11 November 2004 03:26 (nineteen years ago) link

haha led zeppelin reunites, with phil collins on drums is some monkey paw shit at work there

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 11 November 2004 03:35 (nineteen years ago) link

It's just, why in God's name did all those charity songs have to suck so goddamn much?

Appealing to as many record buyers as possible, you know...

Btw. "We Are The World", in spite of awful lyrics, wasn't all that bad.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Thursday, 11 November 2004 10:11 (nineteen years ago) link

Yes it was. And Michael Jackson rewriting it a decade later as "Heal The World" didn't make it any better either.

― Marcello Carlin, Thursday, 11 November 2004 10:13 (nineteen years ago) link

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.