Live Aid

Mudbugclub

From www.thisdayinmusic.com

At 12.01 Status Quo started the 'Live Aid' extravaganza, held between Wembley Stadium, London and The JFK Stadium, Philadelphia. The cream of the world's biggest rock stars took part in the worldwide event, raising over £40million.

TV pictures beamed to over 1.5bn people in 160 countries made it the biggest live broadcast ever known. Artists who appeared included Paul McCartney, Phil Collins, The Who, David Bowie and Mick Jagger, Queen, Tina Turner, Neil Young, Tom Petty, Bob Dylan, The Cars, Bryan Adams, Hall and Oates, Lionel Richie and Led Zeppelin.

What were you doing on this day? Did you go?

irish_bob

Mudbugclub wrote: »

From www.thisdayinmusic.com

At 12.01 Status Quo started the 'Live Aid' extravaganza, held between Wembley Stadium, London and The JFK Stadium, Philadelphia. The cream of the world's biggest rock stars took part in the worldwide event, raising over £40million.

TV pictures beamed to over 1.5bn people in 160 countries made it the biggest live broadcast ever known. Artists who appeared included Paul McCartney, Phil Collins, The Who, David Bowie and Mick Jagger, Queen, Tina Turner, Neil Young, Tom Petty, Bob Dylan, The Cars, Bryan Adams, Hall and Oates, Lionel Richie and Led Zeppelin.

What were you doing on this day? Did you go?

i was a month shy of my 8th birthday and i hadnt a clue that it was happening

Doctor J

I was 10, played tennis that morning and then we watched the whole thing.

Queen's set is still the most kick ass 15 minutes ever recorded

Mint Sauce

was still a couple of months of my seventh b'day, my mum had it on the TV most of the day, wasn't to bothered about it my self, was too busy with my toys and argueing with my brother

although brought the DVD a few years ago when it was released, some fantasic moments on it, bono going into the crowd, collins' bum note, queen, etc

Zaph

I was 17 and watched just about every single minute of it in my parents' living room.

Latchy

Watched the whole event at home from start to finish .Getting status quo to come on first was a good idea cuz they had the whole place 'rockin all over the world ' .The whole thing just gathered momentum as the day went and it was Queen who stole the show . Everybody thought Bonos act was OTT but apparently U-2 record sales went through the roof during the following weeks and months . The first live event to contribute to helping the starving millions in africa and a very memorable day in musical history .

Nailz

Zaph wrote: »

I was 17 and watched just about every single minute of it in my parents' living room.

"Fùck we only have one tele!!!"

mike65

We watched it all at home on RTE, the weather here was crap (typical summer day!) but I think they held on the the dry until Macca (or am I thinking of another chariddy event?)

The highlights were - U2 (hate them but it was an effective slot), Queen and The Who, while on the other side of the ocean - the Pretenders did well. tbh the RFK acts were less than stellar. The week after it Queen had 10 albums in the top 100 and U2 thier whole back catalogue.

Mike.

Dudess

I was seven and kinda interested in having a look at it, but the level of dinosaur-ness put me off. I was nuts about Madonna and pop like Baltimora (Tarzan Boy), Paul Hardcastle (n-n-n-n-n-n-n-Nineteen), A-Ha, Nik Kershaw etc. So the likes of Quo, the Stones, Phil Collins didn't do anything for me. I had hoped for a more poptastic event so was quite disappointed.
I remember it very well though. It was a dull but dry day, and what struck me - even at just seven years of age - was the fact that there were no ads, just occasional cutaways to horrific footage, or even specially made short films. One in particular haunted me. It featured a beautiful, healthy, happy African baby, and then the spectre of famine looms and suddenly he's surrounded by flies (representing death) and the expression on his face changes from contented to frightened. Well that's the way I remember it anyway. It spooked me good...

S.I.R

Mudbugclub wrote: »

From www.thisdayinmusic.com

At 12.01 Status Quo started the 'Live Aid' extravaganza, held between Wembley Stadium, London and The JFK Stadium, Philadelphia. The cream of the world's biggest rock stars took part in the worldwide event, raising over £40million.

TV pictures beamed to over 1.5bn people in 160 countries made it the biggest live broadcast ever known. Artists who appeared included Paul McCartney, Phil Collins, The Who, David Bowie and Mick Jagger, Queen, Tina Turner, Neil Young, Tom Petty, Bob Dylan, The Cars, Bryan Adams, Hall and Oates, Lionel Richie and Led Zeppelin.

What were you doing on this day? Did you go?

wasnt alive for the first one, watched the second one...

the irish where the most helpful with the both giving the most per person ! :O

mike65

Thinking back the event should have been called Rock band Aid, as the event pretty much made U2 globally and gave Queen a massive fillip.

The use of Drive by the cars as the soundtrack to a montage of misery was probably the most outrageous case of yanking at heartstrings ever - designed to make you feel guilty as sin. I bet it was as effective as Sir Bobs "Give us your ****ing money" moment for phone action.

Mike.

ZakAttak

When are people going to shut the fvck up about live-aid?

It was meant to help Africa, but in the end it didn't do anything.

No wait it did, bands like Status Quo and Queen got to display their affection and sympathy towards the terrible situation in Africa- whilst at the same time those bands played venues in South Africa whilst the South African government pursued apartheid policies against native Africans.

Geldof did well out of it though.

Blackhorse Slim

I was 15, and I was in Wembley but not at the gig. (My grandparents lived there, 5 mins from the stadium, and I was there for the summer with my family). I watched most of it on tv. I was a U2 fan at the time, and what struck me was that before Live Aid no-one seemed to have heard of U2, but immediately afterwards they were huge. I had a t-shirt from the Unforgettable Fire merchandise range, no U2 logo or album name, just portraits of the 4 band members. After live aid, people were stopping me on the street to ask about it, where I got it, how long have I been a U2 fan etc. Incredible.

big b

I was on the Bideford Dolphin oil rig, in what is now Marathon Oil's Brae field in the North Sea.

No satellite TV in those days, our entertainment was movies on reels and a betamax video player with TV in a comon-room. A couple of other rigs used to pick up live tv, but they were much closer to shore than us (we were about 150 miles out).
The Radio Op used to try to tune in TV & very occassionally, if the weather was just right, he'd get scratchy sound & a screen full of static.

On the day of Live Aid........yes, perfect TV signal! I'd never seen it before offshore, and never saw it again till we went satellite. Coincidence, of course, but still very weird!
Anyway, the Rig Manager put out an announcement that any non-essential personnel could basically doss off & watch it, so long as we put (I think it was) £50 in a kitty to be donated to the charity.
I remember too, calling my parents the next day & my Mother telling me she had foregone her bingo night & given the dosh to Live Aid.

Whatever the begrudgers & cynics say, people's awareness of the issue, and their wish to help, were greatly heightened. And no-one's going to tell me that all the money raised didn't make any difference to some people's lives.

Dudess

ZakAttak wrote: »

When are people going to shut the fvck up about live-aid?

It was meant to help Africa, but in the end it didn't do anything.

Well at least it took place, do you feel it would have been better if nothing took place at all? And the intention was to help famine-stricken countries in Africa and it raised a lot of money for them, so your point is? Oh do you feel it was a failure because it didn't put money in the pocket of, and food in the mouth of, every single citizen of every war-torn, famine-stricken country in Africa? Yeah, Geldof's a real c*nt for not achieving that :rolleyes:
And Live Aid spawned a bunch of smaller fund-raising initiatives around the world - what a waste of time :rolleyes:

Geldof did well out of it though.

Geldof worked his arse off to raise money for that cause, and he's still creating awareness - it's a lot more than you'll ever do. Your cynicism is boring.

You're always bringing bitter vibes in here - we're just having a nostalgic discussion about our memories of the day. If you're so bad-natured that you can only make snide comments and narky remarks for no reason, go get that anger problem of yours sorted out...

Latchy

Dudess wrote: »

Well at least it took place, and the intention was to help famine-stricken countries in Africa and it raised a lot of money for them, QUOTE]

And people who wouldent otherwise be seen dead at a status quo gig were bopping along to them at the beginning , all 100,000 of them

stovelid

ZakAttak wrote: »

No wait it did, bands like Status Quo and Queen got to display their affection and sympathy towards the terrible situation in Africa- whilst at the same time those bands played venues in South Africa whilst the South African government pursued apartheid policies against native Africans.
h.

I actually agree with you, but people are just remembering the day, nothing else. You sound like an embittered 15 year old.

Dudess

Yeah that was hypocritical sh1te but the cynicism people display about the event itself - "it didn't do much for Africa" etc - is so pathetic. At least someone got their head out of their arse and organised it anyway, and it did make a difference to many impoverished people's lives.

Latchy

It was Geldofs concept,and he and Midge ure wrote and produced ' feed the world ' although according to midge ure in his authbiography ,if he hadsnt told Bob many times to **** off giving the artists the wrong harmonies, the song might have come out compleatly pear shaped and different

Geldof threating a lot of artists he would tell the world they refused to help the strving millions in africa if they didnt show up , had a lot to do with it.

Dudess

Oh yeah, apparently he dragged Boy George to London from New York to perform on Do They Know It's Christmas.

Latchy

He Told a lot of them to ' Be there ' or else but if you think about it what better publicity can you have if your career is on the wain or on pause ? .Geldof by his own addmission said he was a fading pop star on the way out when he got the idea of the song/concert .

He couldent sing for buttons but he made his mark in history with Live Aid

ZakAttak

Dudess wrote: »

Well at least it took place, do you feel it would have been better if nothing took place at all?

==>I would like to have seen something different take place. Not something that distracted from and trivialised what was and still is a very serious issue.

Whats going on in that continent is too serious and disturbing to be given the telethon treatment- but thats exactly the view of the world that some of these rock/pop stars have, they don't really live in the real world.

There are many journalists and commentators in Africa who can't speak out because of the regimes which they are forced to live under- these are the people who should be given a platform from which to speak out. Instead we get boy bloody george and Wham!

Geldof placed the guilt of African poverty on working men and women in the U.K. and Ireland, he never said anything about the arms cartels who cause half the problems in Africa (many of whom have their H.Q.s in England). Thatcher's government wanted to improve trade with Apartheid South Africa, but he never anything about this- in fact, he went around telling the world he thought she was great. He then went on to criticize the Trade Union movement, claiming they were causing half the problems in Britain.

You can praise Geldof and Bono all you want- just remember that they are both people with a very right-wing outlook on the world.

Latchy

I was never a fan of either Geldof or Bono .Geldof siezed his moement with live aid .He achieved what he set out to and his 'scruffy paddy image ' was used to good effect .Hughie green was exasperated when he heard geldof swearing on tv asking for money the Africa appeal saying '' that bog scruffy paddy has just swore on daytime television when nobody swears on television anytime ''.

This was the 80s when swearing on tv was still frowmed upon from and the irony was geldof was in a relationship with greens daughter Paula Yates

Dudess

ZakAttak wrote: »

I would like to have seen something different take place. Not something that distracted from and trivialised what was and still is a very serious issue.

Whats going on in that continent is too serious and disturbing to be given the telethon treatment- but thats exactly the view of the world that some of these rock/pop stars have, they don't really live in the real world.

Who gives a sh1t what way it was done? Using pop music trivialised and distracted from the plight of those people? If anything, it highlighted it. Think of all the young people who got involved because a love for music was something they were all united in. I think it was an ingenious idea to use something universal like music.

There are many journalists and commentators in Africa who can't speak out because of the regimes which they are forced to live under- these are the people who should be given a platform from which to speak out. Instead we get boy bloody george and Wham!

Sadly Boy George and Wham! would have created more interest and awareness than some journalist and father from Ethiopia, to whom people would have turned a blind eye. But does that make it wrong to use the likes of Boy George and Wham!?

Geldof placed the guilt of African poverty on working men and women in the U.K. and Ireland, he never said anything about the arms cartels who cause half the problems in Africa (many of whom have their H.Q.s in England).

Well that IS true. It's something that got to me. Morrissey put it brilliantly:

Moz wrote:

The whole implication was to save these people in Ethiopia, but who were they asking to save them? Some 13-year-old girl in Wigan! People like Thatcher and the royals could solve the Ethiopian problem within ten seconds. But Band Aid shied away from saying that — for heaven's sake, it was almost directly aimed at unemployed people.

Thatcher's government wanted to improve trade with Apartheid South Africa, but he never anything about this- in fact, he went around telling the world he thought she was great. He then went on to criticize the Trade Union movement, claiming they were causing half the problems in Britain.

Hmmm... I think he did a certain amount of plawmawsing Thatcher in order to get her on side. I don't honestly believe he would have had time for her, but to expose her for the **** she was would have perhaps jeopardised any chance of him getting money from her. This was a woman who didn't give a ****. In fact I heard that one of her prominent aides advised her to just ignore the situation in impoverished African nations and let them starve...

You can praise Geldof and Bono all you want- just remember that they are both people with a very right-wing outlook on the world.

I'm not particularly a fan of either - I'd take 'em or leave 'em - but right-wing is not an appropriate description for them to be fair...

grumpytrousers

@Zakattack

look at the sodding name of the project, laddie. Band Aid. Remind you of anything? A Bandage, that's right. Does a bandage cause the cure for the most serious of problems? Nope. Might it offer some class of relief. Yes it might.

That was the reason. Geldof realised from the get-go that a pop concert with Freddie Mercury mincing about in a white tank top wasn't going to save the worlds hunger issues any more than my typing this will change your Kevin The Teenager outlook.

What he did think was that doing something was better than doing nothing. As a pop singer he knew bog all about dismantling international arms cartels or personally persuading Mrs Thatcher to stop engaging with Bothas South African government. He did realise, however, that by heading up the project, that he might gain access to the next breed of leaders.

He did, and he has.

Has it done any good? I dunno. In the grand scheme of things, it's quite possible that Bob Geldof has done bog all for world peace or solving hunger issues. But his efforts undoubtedly saved lives and these are lives that would *not* have been saved if he didn't get off his hole and do something.

Those who can do; those who can't criticise.

For the record, i was on holidays in Rosses Point in Sligo and we didn't have a telly. I went fishing with a few mates and was back for around 3pm where i heard most of the gig in the background. I know i wasn't too interested in most of the acts, but I was dying to hear the Beatles get together. The papers had been rife with speculation that George and Ringo would join Macca towards the end. They didn't.

ZakAttak

grumpytrousers wrote: »

@Zakattack

look at the sodding name of the project, laddie. Band Aid. Remind you of anything? A Bandage, that's right. Does a bandage cause the cure for the most serious of problems? Nope. Might it offer some class of relief. Yes it might.

==>The public perception of Band aid is that it did alot of good- look at how much publicity that one event has gotten ever since. Although this is mainly centred around discussions relating to the performances of certain bands rather than the African crisis which it was meant to publicise.

It didn't do anything.

Africa, and its problems, should not be the plaything of rich white men.

ZakAttak

[
Sadly Boy George and Wham! would have created more interest and awareness than some journalist and father from Ethiopia, to whom people would have turned a blind eye.

==>Thats the real issue for me- why do the general public respect the opinions of white Europeans more than they do that of Black Africans?

Dudess

ZakAttak wrote: »

It didn't do anything.

Of course it did something. And it led to a whole bunch of smaller events (Farm Aid and Self Aid among them). Lionel Ritchie and his buddies were inspired (pushed into probably) by Geldof to set up USA For Africa which raised a fortune with the single We Are The World.
I hate the cynicism surrounding initiatives like the above - "oh it just gets them more publicity", "it's schmaltzy and condescending". So what? Would the detractors prefer nothing so? How obnoxious of them really - they think they're being so honourable by pointing out how condescending such projects are. Say that to me when you're reincarnated as a starving, impoverished African parent or child. It's those types of attitudes that are far more condescending.

Africa, and its problems, should not be the plaything of rich white men.

More of it. Why shouldn't Africa be the plaything of rich white men anyway? Because it's kinda "PC" and oh-so-Marxist to think that? Being right-on and ensuring never to be condescending - well that's not gonna put food on anyone's table.
And who should help Africa so? Wannabe commies in the West (many of whom grow up leading comfortable middle-class lifestyles) bitch about capitalists having all the money... then when they give away that money to deserving causes they're seen as do-gooders etc. I'm not saying they deserve a medal - I believe they should give a good chunk of their money to the poor - but they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

ZakAttak wrote: »

Thats the real issue for me- why do the general public respect the opinions of white Europeans more than they do that of Black Africans?

Well that's a completely separate issue to the ins and outs surrounding Live Aid. Point is, the West (where most of the world's wealth is) does pay more attention to white Europeans, and Geldof was exploiting that for the benefit of thousands of starving people, which I cannot understand could be a bad thing.

If Geldof and Midge Ure and all the others who followed (willingly or not) hadn't got their arses in gear once those awful pictures were aired on BBC news back in 1984, people would have been shocked and upset and so on... and then they would have become oblivious and there would have been no Band Aid, no Live Aid, no USA For Africa, no smaller initiatives.

Would that have been better?

ZakAttak

And who should help Africa so?

==>God Forbid the Africans might help themselves, no we couldn't have that- we'd never get to see another white european visiting an orphange ever again.

Well that's a completely separate issue to the ins and outs surrounding Live Aid. Point is, the West (where most of the world's wealth is) does pay more attention to white Europeans, and Geldof was exploiting that for the benefit of thousands of starving people, which I cannot understand could be a bad thing.

==>Unless it encourages people to this in the future, which it has.

If Geldof and Midge Ure and all the others who followed (willingly or not) hadn't got their arses in gear once those awful pictures were aired on BBC news back in 1984,

==>Pictures like that have been aired on BBC news since the 1930s. Incidents of famine and war have always been there, but the British have been very selective of which ones they've chosen to take an interest in.

Blisterman

ZakAttak wrote: »

[
Sadly Boy George and Wham! would have created more interest and awareness than some journalist and father from Ethiopia, to whom people would have turned a blind eye.

==>Thats the real issue for me- why do the general public respect the opinions of white Europeans more than they do that of Black Africans?

You're missing the point completely. The purpose of the rock bands was to attract people watch it in the first place, then in between them, they would show videos to get their message across and try and get people to donate money. Which they did. A lot of it.
If it were 10 hours of non stop footage of the situation in Africa. It'd be depressing and noone would watch it.

At the end of the day, thousands of people are alive today, who wouldn't be were it not for Bob Geldof and Bono, organising this concert.

mike65

and they all carry guns and are under the control of Chinese "agents".

Mike.

ZakAttak

If it were 10 hours of non stop footage of the situation in Africa. It'd be depressing and noone would watch it.

==>I never suggested this.

At the end of the day, thousands of people are alive today, who wouldn't be were it not for Bob Geldof and Bono, organising this concert.[/quote]

==>And there are thousands who are dead because the real issues of Africa aren't being addressed- they're being ignored in favour of rock concerts such as Live-aid.

Dudess

"...They're being ignored in favour of rock concerts such as Live Aid"... Right. How did you figure out that concerts like Live Aid, which raise awareness of, and money for, the plight of these people... are causing them to be ignored?

Oh, and people who think those in desperately impoverished circumstances under dictatorships and in the throes of war can help themselves and live happily ever after in some agrarian paradise... are naive, deluded idiots. If you believe these people can help themselves, how are they gonna go about it without help from outside? Enlighten me please.

Colonialism has made a fuk-up of Africa, nothing wrong with the West cleaning up its own mess.

Latchy

School children in ireland were putting their pennys in the black babys box at school as far back as the 60s .Helping Africas starving was going on long beore Live Aid

Dudess

I've a feeling ZakAttak is an idealistic and naive teenager/early 20-something who likes to indulge in pseudo-Marxist rhetoric every so often without having much to back himself up. I was the same once.

grumpytrousers

+1 - read the 'what was so different about the beatles thread' for more of the same...including the iffy formatting/quoting

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055307214

---

Now playing: Kaiser Chiefs - Oh My God
via FoxyTunes

Dudess

And the Amy Winehouse thread. Jeez - now there's a headache if ever there was one...

damonjewel

Dudess wrote: »

I've a feeling ZakAttak is an idealistic and naive teenager/early 20-something who likes to indulge in pseudo-Marxist rhetoric every so often without having much to back himself up.

Or possibly drunk?

ZakAttak

Colonialism has made a fuk-up of Africa, nothing wrong with the West cleaning up its own mess.[/quote]


==>Don't you think Globalisation is another form of colonialism?

ZakAttak

Dudess wrote: »

I've a feeling ZakAttak is an idealistic and naive teenager/early 20-something who likes to indulge in pseudo-Marxist rhetoric every so often without having much to back himself up. I was the same once.

==>Not once did I mention Karl Marx, I don't know where you've gotten this from. I didn't even suggest that Marxist philosophy was a good thing. I said that Bono and Geldof have right-wing outlooks, and I don't think you can dispute that- they are both wealthy businessmen outside of the entertainment world, how many marxist-capitalists do you know?

and even if I was a Marxist (which I am not), what would be wrong with that? are you an Adam Smith-ist? 'cos I reckon thats worse.

Blisterman

I'd hardly call Bono and Geldof Right Wing.

Ok, they're not communists, but they both believe that it is the west's obligation to try and help poorer countries, which I'd consider to be a relatively socialist view.

ZakAttak

Blisterman wrote: »

I'd hardly call Bono and Geldof Right Wing.

Ok, they're not communists, but they both believe that it is the west's obligation to try and help poorer countries, which I'd consider to be a relatively socialist view.

==>They want Africa to have open trade with the west. In effect this means they want to allow western companies to exploit African resources, which is whats happening at the moment. This is how they get invited to all those diplomatic events with Bush, Blair etc.

Socialism promotes self-sufficiency, this is not what western leaders want. They want Africa to be dependent upon a number of products which only they (western governments) supply, such as; arms, certain medicines and certain electrical goods.

adox

Zakattak , hw about respecting the OPs point and not dragging threads off into random sweeping rants.


To answer the thread question, I was at band rehearsal in Litton Lane and then dashed back home to my parents house to watch for the day.

Dudess

ZakAttak wrote: »

==>Not once did I mention Karl Marx, I don't know where you've gotten this from. I didn't even suggest that Marxist philosophy was a good thing.

I'm using the term "wannabe marxist" in a generic sense - in reference to those who whinge from the comfort of their bedrooms and behind their Dell laptops about the oppression by the West of the Third World - and who include the West's genuine attempts to help the Third World under this umbrella of "oppression". Not all people from the West who give aid to Africa are cynical businessmen/women dangling carrots before these impoverished people in order to own them. Some of us from the West are simply trying to help in whatever small way we can. Self sufficiency is the ideal but not always achievable - it would have been downright impossible in Ethiopia back then. The government mercenaries would have put a stop to such projects.

I said that Bono and Geldof have right-wing outlooks, and I don't think you can dispute that- they are both wealthy businessmen outside of the entertainment world, how many marxist-capitalists do you know?

Ok, but they're not right-wing in the neo con sense, which is how it came across. Right-wing isn't always a terrible thing. They may be capitalists technically, but philanthropic capitalists with a degree of social conscience - nothing wrong with that.

and even if I was a Marxist (which I am not), what would be wrong with that? are you an Adam Smith-ist? 'cos I reckon thats worse.

I don't know why the hell you're asking that but seeing as you are: I don't think anyone in the West is in a position to criticise a certain amount of freedom within the market. Even small entrepreneurs - e.g. those who open a shop, a pub - would not be able to do so in a state-regulated economy.

ZakAttak wrote: »

Don't you think Globalisation is another form of colonialism?

ZakAttak wrote: »

They want Africa to have open trade with the west. In effect this means they want to allow western companies to exploit African resources, which is whats happening at the moment. This is how they get invited to all those diplomatic events with Bush, Blair etc.

Socialism promotes self-sufficiency, this is not what western leaders want. They want Africa to be dependent upon a number of products which only they (western governments) supply, such as; arms, certain medicines and certain electrical goods.

These are all valid concerns, but again, what the hell do they have to do with Live Aid? And how do these problems mean Live Aid shouldn't have happened?