Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Bit of a rant here I'm afraid folks.

Essentially, I feel quite disgusted at the need for a Charity single, when the scale of the disaster in Haiti is as clear as the nose on your face. Whilst on one hand, it is nice to see people grouping together to aid those less fortunate, I very much question the motivations of those involved. I find it genuinely hard to believe that the 'Artists' featured on this sub-Live Aid effort are even dimly altruistic. Far more likely those who have lent their voices thought 'hey, free entirely positive publicity, and right before we launch our own entirely for-profit works. WOOHOO!'

And the same for those who have bought it. Has humanity really sunk so low we feel the need for some kind of material recompense for acts of Charity toward our fellow man? Or is it just something to stick on your shelf to show how much you care.

I say sod all that. If you really give two hoots about what's happening in Haiti, and the terrible suffering caused, step away from your PC, walk PAST the Record Shop, pull your head out your arse and GIVE DIRECTLY, and give MORE. Give £5 or £10 directly, and opt out of this wanksnobbery Mr Cowell has seen fit to dish upon us. Charity begins at home, and ends where the money is needed most. This single is like an unpleasent additional stop over, which is entirely superfluous to the cause.

And no, I don't feel the same way about Live Aid. That to me is, and was a totally different beast. At least originally. The first and easily greatest charity single of all time was about raising money, AND awareness, when the Governments of the world were doing little about an entirely controllable disaster. Seriously, nobody need starve in the modern day, so a famine is ridiculously easy to sort when those with the big bucks (which are often earned exploiting the poorer nations) decide to do so.

Nevertheless feed the world was indeed "free entirely positive publicity" for those involved, so not so much "totally different."

And yet it is documented that several artists were going to decline involvement, until Bob Geldof threatened to name and shame those who felt other matters more pressing.

However having said that, the two subsequent rehashes of Feed The World were entirely wanksnobbery of exactly the same calibre as this needless publicityfest. Better to re-release the original (which is quite the classic sound and song) than record it again just so the latest batch of goons can be seen on screen a bit teary.

If the artists featured really did give a toss, perhaps they'd like to show us the donations made from their stacks of money? Or do they feel that simply giving up an afternoon to record a couple of lines is enough from them? Yes Bono....I mean you. Give give give, unless you're a Millionaire in which case a couple of talking points is all that's needed.

Yeah feth the fethers. Charity single.. what a load of bollocks. Its all just for publicity. Why dont they just quietly give a few million away instead? Its not like Simon Cowell cant afford to triple whatever his gakky single makes and not even feel it anyway.

Bingo! Big happy banana badge for Mattrym on this one!

To throw a reverse image on this, it's like Superman hearing about a natural disaster, and feeling that simply giving a few dollars is his fair share, when he's more than capable of giving far more practical help. If that makes sense?

Yeesh, damned if you do and damned if you don't if you're a celebrity trying to help

I've got no problem with celebrities trying to use their fanbases and media to generate money for those in need especially for a situation like Haiti. Does it help their image? Sure it does as it should since its a bloody good thing to do. They're the ones with the media at their fingertips unlike most of us here.

You bloody brits really HATE this kind of news? :

Simon Cowell's Haiti song featuring Leona Lewis and Mariah Carey, has become the fastest-selling charity single this century.
The Official Charts Company said the record has topped the 200,000 sales mark in just two days.

The proceeds will be split between the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) and The Sun's Helping Haiti campaign.

REM, who recorded the original song in 1992, are waiving royalties to the track, while the government has said it will not collect VAT on the record.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8506650.stm

As far as Haiti is concerned I'm sure as long as they're getting help and $$$ they could care less if someone bought a CD to do so.

I've got no problem with stuff like this Charity CD or the 9/11 Concert for the policemen/firefighters/etc and their families who lost loved ones during tragic circumstance. Do we really need The Who to persuade us to donate money for 9/11 victims? Not for most. Does it help? Of course it does.

Every incentive helps; hopefully we can all at least agree that when the government does something like this it good:

Haiti Donations Are Tax Deductible: Obama Signs Bill For 2009 Taxes

Taxpayers will be able to write off charitable donations to Haiti earthquake relief efforts when they file their 2009 taxes this spring under a bill President Barack Obama signed Friday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/22/donations-to-haiti-are-ta_n_433867.html

Or I can take the approach in this thread: feth Obama and Obamanation. Do we really need tax deductions to get people to donate? What have we come to?!

Seems like a strange thing to feign outrage for.

I think the Tax Break is more about encouraging higher value donations from Corporations etc. I don't really understand Tax beyond knowing that it sucks and I don't like it!

But seriously, I think it's bloody pathetic that we need Charity Singles in this day and age. Events like the Haitian Earthquake are kind of hard to miss, given the 24 hour, all permeating media machine, so you can't really claim they are 'mobilising their fan base' as if they really gave a flying arse, they'd be mobilised already.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I think the Tax Break is more about encouraging higher value donations from Corporations etc. I don't really understand Tax beyond knowing that it sucks and I don't like it!

But seriously, I think it's bloody pathetic that we need Charity Singles in this day and age. Events like the Haitian Earthquake are kind of hard to miss, given the 24 hour, all permeating media machine, so you can't really claim they are 'mobilising their fan base' as if they really gave a flying arse, they'd be mobilised already.

Sales figures and history say otherwise. The more incentive to help, the better.

Still a crap state of affairs. And I'd far rather see these 'Stars' helping an altogether more practical way than just warbling a line or two, pretending to really really care. Like I dunno, offering to fund relief flights and aid workers to get out there, where they are needed? That would go down much better, as rather than using their fame for their own ultimate ends, they are using the result of their fame to make a genuine difference.

Like John Travolta. If I be right at thinking, during one Disaster Relief appeal, he lent his private Jumbo and his skills a pilot? Might have made that bit up?

What that Charity Single has done for Haiti > everyone else's efforts on this site combined to the tenth power.

Cowell and Co. have used what they're best at in order to make the world better for Haiti and at a record-breaking pace. They're doing a hell of a lot and Haiti needs $$$ just as much as it does people flying in to help like Travolta.

Could they donate all their money and a kidney while they're at it? Sure Just like we could volunteer for a humanitarian organization and get shipped out to Haiti in order to help. And sell our plastic toy soldiers to help in the effort to boot.

And in these tough economic times I've been nothing but impressed at the worldwide public reaction in trying to help Haiti. For the USA and many of its allies this is the worst economic period we've faced in decades with millions jobless and yet they still are making a helpful impact.

Whats been said in this thread really isn't that different from what Rush Limbaugh said of Obama - claiming that he's trying to capitalize on the situation mainly for his image. And while those figures do potentially gain in favorable publicity then so be it if it helps those who need it.

I'm pretty cynical myself but charity events seem like a hard one for me to take such a stance on.

Whilst I agree that needing a charity single is a sad state of affairs, if it helps in even a small way then it's a good thing. Yes it helps to raise the public image of the artists involved but it seems to be a case of they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

It is important to remember the target "audience" for these singles. The vast majority of people who buy and download singles are young teens who don't tend to watch the news or read papers, therefor they are relatively unaware of the plight of these people beyond knowing that some people a long way away have had some bad gak happen. By using popular acts to spread the word more people are being reached and more cash generated. It also encourages younger people to think of more than themselves.

Whilst it would be nice if said artists could donate significant sums of money it should be done anonymously, otherwise this could bring about a feeling of "if Elton John has sent 2 million then why should I bother, my 2 quid wont make a difference". By releasing a single everyone is seen to do their bit and get something for it. The artists give up their time, services and fee's, but gain good PR, the government gains brownie points for waving a relatively insignificant amount of money in tax and the people feel good because not only have they donated money but they are now the proud owner of a feth awful cover version which will soon become a coffee coaster.

And yet as MAttrym said above, Cowell could easily dwarf the amount raised by this publicitycentric single out of his own pocket, without even feeling it. It's a shame, and I think it says more about the Record Buying Public than the artists. Let the single raise awareness, but for the love of God don't actually buy it.

Doc, chill the feth out mate.
Your no mind reader.
You dont know if said people made this for publicity or to help.
So really, its not your place to comment on it is it?


However, you do raise a good point about a direct donation instead.
But watch out, since one of the charities helping takes 50% of funds lol.

Out of all the 'stars' on the single, only Jon Bon Jovi doesn't seem to be trying to revive an otherwise flagging career. But he does however have a World Tour to plug....

So your saying leona and JLS are having problems with thier careers? lol
Doc, dont take the piss mate, alot of them are doing fine, and some even better.

If anything, its jovi and rod that are trying to revive a dead career, but both of which can do so easily.


Also, lets face it mate, leona lewis is hardly one to gain publicity from such a thing, she tends to be a pretty decent person.


You cant really tell who is doing it for publicity, and who is doing it to help.

OK so lets put this in perspective.

Simon powells manager calls Mary J. Bliges agent and says:
"Hey were doing a fund raising record for Haiti, is Mary down with it?"

The agent says "I'll have to ask Mary".

Agent: "Mary you want to do a fund rasiser?"

Mary:"Yeah that sounds like a great idea!"

Agent:" Oh wait MDG from DAKKA DAKKA thinks your a hypocrite if you do"

Mary," Ohhh then nevermind"

Sheesh the cynicism in this thread is palpable.

GG

ten bucks is ten bucks. doesnt matter why they give it.

Point still stands though. The persons on the record are doing it to scratch their own backs with a nice pile of free publicity, and the people buying it are jerks, as they could have simply given the money to a Charity directly, but instead wish to see some of it wasted.

As for the proceeds going to two seperate Charities, both working toward the same thing, what's the bloody sense in that? Surely giving it all to a single charity achieves more, as less work is duplicated, thus more money can be spent on Aid Materials?

Just one large public wankfest.

Squilverine wrote:
It is important to remember the target "audience" for these singles. The vast majority of people who buy and download singles are young teens who don't tend to watch the news or read papers, therefor they are relatively unaware of the plight of these people beyond knowing that some people a long way away have had some bad gak happen. By using popular acts to spread the word more people are being reached and more cash generated. It also encourages younger people to think of more than themselves.

This is the truth. Hell, just the other day I asked my fiancee what she thought about 'all that stuff going on in Haiti' - her response:

HER: "What stuff? What do you mean?

ME: "Y'know... earthquake 'n that..."

HER: "Oh."

ME: "You have no idea where Haiti is, do you?"

HER: "No. What time's Desperate Housewives on?"

ME: "(sigh)"



She has two degrees, believe it or not.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Er, my fiancee isn't a young teen by the way!

She just doesn't watch the news.

Like most women.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Point still stands though. The persons on the record are doing it to scratch their own backs with a nice pile of free publicity, and the people buying it are jerks, as they could have simply given the money to a Charity directly, but instead wish to see some of it wasted.

And this point still stands too: They're still helping out a worthy cause when its all said and done. Sure they could do more and some will due to getting motivated or influenced by the experience.

And if the people who support such charities are "jerks" than what does that make the person who is cynical about 'em

Its a win-win-win situation for the celebrity, their fans, and Haiti.

Live strong..Stillerstrong:

I just think it's scandalous that there had to be a natural disaster costing hundreds of thousands of lives before anyone actually sat up and took notice of the huge humanitarian problems in Haiti.

Would this collection of 'Artists' have released a charity single had there not been the free publicity generated by the media to tie into? Fat fething chance. Consider this:

"After the Earthquake, the UN estimates that it is trying to get food to 2million people.

Before the Earthquake, the UN estimated that there were 2million people without a sustainable supply of food".

We can try to throw as much money as we want at Haitit to help relieve the effects of the quake, but the fact is that it just won't help in the short term. It's unlikely that even flying out there to help in person will be much use either thanks to the damage to the transport infrastructure.

I agree that the money will help the people of Haiti in the longer term, and for this i applaud anyone raising money. A charity single is entirely unnecessary though; these 'artists' could have had the same effect by simply putting their mugs on TV and in the papers asking their fans to donate directly to the cause, as MDG says, a charity single smacks of egotism and only paints these celebs in a cynical light regardless of their intentions.

Off the top of my head, the US celebrity telethon featured 75 or so celebrities and raised $58 million or so I believe. What annoys me is if these celebrtities had each donated $500,000 of their own money they would easily surpass anything they could hope to raise from the public. And please don't try and argue that George Clooney or Jack Nicholson can't spare $500k. Millionaires against hunger indeed.