Today I Heard My First . . . . .
ChatterBank1 min ago
Live 8, why can Pink Floyd make money but ebayers cant?
25 Answers
Just been on the news and it seems that almost all the artists who participated had seen their sales increase.
Why has Mr Geldof not lambasted them like he did the people who tried to sell tickets on ebay?
If there is an argument that the artists are going to give these extra profits to charity, then whose to say that the ebayers wouldn't have?
Just seems like double standards to me
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Compostella. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Have you ever wondered how much it cost each artist to appear at Live8? I am assuming that they all gave their services for free. Do you know for a fact that the artists that appeared have not donated to various charities already?
Why did so many people text for tickets if they knew they couldn't or didn't want to go, if it wasn't to try and make a profit on Ebay?
Money and profit aside, there are a lot more people in the world who are now aware of the problems in Africa since the concept of Live8
Dave Gilmour once gave �6 million to one charity; we have no idea how much artists give to charity in total, the genuine ones do it without publicity. Yes of course their sales will increase, but to be honest the Pink Floyd guys hardly need the extra money do they, that's not why they did it. The same can't be said for all the artists but I am sure Bob Geldof is not so naive to think that the artists were all being totally philanthropic - as long as awareness was raised it doesn't really matter. As for Ebay, I disagreed with Bob on that one, his arguement was that people who can afford to pay the most shouldn't have the advantage over those who couldn't pay - well welcome to capitalism Bob! It was a little distasteful, but I think people should have been given the freedom to choose to sell their tickets.
I think it matters a great deal. The ebayers gave to charity by trying for the ticket, just like everyone else, and coincidentally profited, not at the expense of the cause. Likewise, the performers did EXACTLY THE SAME. They gave their time to the cause, but profitted from it ENORMOUSLY: Pink Floyd record sales went up 1380 percent immediately. This means that Pink Floyd are profiting off the backs of those who gave over money for charity. WHERE IS GELDOF NOW CONDEMING THEM AS SCUM OF THE EARTH UNLESS THEY PAY BACK EVERY PENNY THEY MADE AS A RESULT OF THIS GIG. HMMMMMM.
Floyd were absolutely brilliant - DSOTM is getting a real hammering on my ipod at the mo..............anyway, Geldof really got on my tits about the whole ebay thing: the fact of the matter is that those people who were successful in getting tickets by texting PAID for the texts, and therefore the tickets were theirs to do with as they pleased.
Where is the problem in that?
I'm happy to be corrected on this, as I just simply cannot see where the problem is.
I think I'm right in saying royalty cheques are issued twice annually. Therefore Pink Floyd will not have yet recieved any of the money their increased sales may have generated and the same for any other bands.
As has previously be mentioned, Fat Dave is a huge donator to charity and as he and the other members of the band have acknowledged, they have absolutely no need for the money whatsoever. It's very harsh to damn them as profiteering given that they do have a history of making large charity donations. We simply have no way of knowing what they might do with the money, whatever we might hope they do with it.
Further to the debate, from today's Independent:
http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/music/news/article296904.ece
"The Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour said he would not profit from the concert. "Though the main objective has been to raise consciousness and put pressure on the G8 leaders, I will not profit from the concert.
"If on Thursday the G8 leaders tick the right three boxes at Gleneagles then the main objective will have been fulfilled.
"If other artists feel like donating their extra royalties to charity, perhaps then the record companies could be persuaded to make a similar gesture and that would be a bonus. This is money that should be used to save lives." "
Case, I feel, closed.
No, my point is not about giving money to charity, my point is really about Bob Geldof and condemnation of the ebayers. Waldo enhanced the parallels even more: many ebayers would NOT need to do it for the money either, and probably give to charity also, indeed some offered to split the profits with a charity. The entire point is that Saint Bob Geldof, eternally wise, utterly condemned these ebayers, publicly, in the very strongest way, specifically because they had made money from this charitable event. Now, a cynic could come forward and say that most Live8 performers did so because they are money grabbing megalomaniacs and performed because their record company pointed out exactly what it would do for their bottom line. Whatever. The point is, that unless the performer gives back every extra penny they have made as a result of this performance, then Geldof is atrociously guilty of double standards. One law for the punter who I got to text for a ticket, one law for me music industry pals, heck they've gotta pay for the bentleys some how.
And while I'm at it, I DO laugh at much of the sentiment of Live Aid/8. The shows are about disproportion, that people in the west (individual people) have far more than they need at the expense of other planetary inhabitants. And this message is shouted at me by a bunch who have greater disproportion than anyone else! Geldoff and the like all live lifestyles which cries out to the West 'THIS IS WHAT YOU SHOULD BE STRIVING FOR, PULL IN ALL THE CASH YOU CAN AND DEVOTE YOURSELF TO PAMPERING YOURSELF'. And it is this sentiment in the common man which they then go on to try and reverse? Don't make me laugh.
MargeB, I agree that Bob was wrong to criticise the people who sold their tickets on ebay - however, I think it is very difficult for him to now come out and insist that all artists donate their "extra" profits to charity. For one, how on earth do we measure the "extra" profit, and for another, we have no idea what the artists give to charity anyway. He was wrong over ebay, and being wrong again over this latest issue isn't going to put anything right.
As for your other comments, it's a difficult decision for an artist - if you don't take part you are seen as selfish, if you do you are seen as self-serving. Yes they have disproportionately privileged lives, but it seems that the only way to get things changed, and awareness raised is by using the cult of celebrity. It may be morally very wobbly, and (as I said above) rather distasteful, but it's how the world is, we have to work with what we've got.
and charity won't change the world, Elton and Bono and Robbie and Mariah et al could give every single penny they own and it would swallowed up in a second. Peole talking about it, like we are though, may change the world (or a little bit of it) so whatever you think of Live8, at least it gets people thinking.
My main gripe about the tickets on Ebay isn't so much that people tried to sell them. It's the fact that the majority of the people must have known before they texted that they either didn't want to, or couldn't go.
I woud have crawled over hot coals with a wasps nest up my ar5e to get my hands on a ticket to see Pink Floyd and there is a chance that one of these ne'er-do-wells stopped me..............humph !
Marge B,
In your diatribe, you criticise those that have a disproportionate amount of (I assume) wealth and fame for shouting at you, about the plight of Africa.
Maybe they should have employed people who were poor and not famous to do the shouting instead. But, thinking about it, I'm sure they wanted all the publicity they could get. Live 8 might have little effect on the situation but at least there are a few more people in the world who are aware of Africas plight, than there were, prior to Live 8.
I agree with that, however there are fundamental separate issues about vast wealth. The person who mentioned the tulips had a point...being wildly lavish with cash is fine, as long as it doesn't happen in a world where thousands die because they can't eat.
I think its easy to miss the corolary here...this is Live 8, not Live Aid. It's about the fact that the West (the leaders are just supposed to represent us) is filled with people who grab more than their fair share while others starve. Promoting this ideal of excess wealth by your lifestyle, while suggesting to others that they conform to a better standard feels wrong to those who know that talk is cheap.
I think Live8 is great, don't get me wrong. But it does raise the question of the celebrity and their approach to wealth. Who stands as vanguard of western vanity if not our rich and famous. Saint Bob Geldof? No. Saint Bill Gates. I know he has enormous funds, but still he give ENORMOUS amounts of cash to doing huge amounts of good in Africa.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.