Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Not gonna translate but here goes:

Are you sick of artists telling you to give money to charity?

Brian says he just wanna go to the show and not be talked down to and told what to do.
He says he don't involve the press when the donates himself.

He says it makes him angry when people tries to use politics or charity to make themself known.

"I do it myself, I don't tell everybody I'm doing it," Johnson said.

"I don't tell everybody they should give money - they can't afford it.

"When I was a working man I didn't want to go to a concert for some bastard to talk down to me that I should be thinking of some kid in Africa.

"I'm sorry mate, do it yourself, spend some of your own money and get it done. It just makes me angry. I become all tyrannical."


http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/kultur/1.6975970

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/acdc-singer-brian-johnson-blasts-bob-geldof-bono/story-e6frewyr-1225826175157

Haha, so true. Brian rocks.

Amen!

I remember Axl saying something similar a while back

if u want to do great things, don't get publicity for it back.

like all those bands rushing to get on that Live 8 bill to promote themselves

u really think 99 percent of famous people give a shit?

would they do the same if it were anonymous.... doubtful

i understand his point of view, but theres a reality that some people can help make a difference by convincing others to help.

maybe some do it for promotion, but i think people like Bono have a genuine desire to help out(and i hate U2)

The whole talking down to people.

Couldn't the same be said about anything people on stage tells the audience?

"How are you doing (insert city)?"

What? Like we wouldn't be doing great! What does he think of us....  :hihi:



As soon as you use your spotlight to bring attention to issues, people like Brian will be there to comment.

Can he honestly say that nothing good has ever come out of musicians bringing attention to issues?

By that I mean anything from punk bands singing about things that are important, instead of singing about rock n' roll trains or how she likes rock n' roll, to musicians bringing attention to an election.

Yes, some people use charity to promote their careers. But don't think everybody is like that.




/jarmo

whether your discreet about donating or a total media whore, the charities still gain so it doesn't matter.

It's the whole implicit flock-mentality.

So, ok telling people/sing about care is cool, but specific events? It's similar to lobbying.

I've never liked Bono and other guys like him. "I'm doing charity whooohooo!".. well good for you! Can't be that hard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNPSzLwcghE

you've just done it.

Exactly what I was thinking lol

Your employer did the same thing back in the day.


Lots of good has come, but the problem is that these "musicians, stars, whatever you want to call them" are hiding under the thin veil of charity to stay relevant and in the mainstream.


Your argument falls apart when you try to prove a point by bringing someone's craft down.


Not everybody, but 90%.  All these stars that went on the television to further their careers support Haiti can't even locate it on the map.

I get what he's saying but I think there are some who genuinely care or want to use their fame to help a cause. Of course, the only ones who really know how much they care are the stars themselves.... If they really don't feel affected, the best thing would to just keep out of it.

I'm not a real big U2 fan but I've never actually seen Bono as having an "I'm a saviour" kind of attitude. That's what lots of people seem to think of him but has he ever claimed that doing charity stuff makes him better than anyone??


PS. Ain't nothing wrong with singing 'bout rock 'n' roll trains. :headbanger:

Not really.


Brian and those who think like him need to realize people are different. Not everybody wants to write songs about nothing and talk about "partying" the whole time.

Sure, for some rock n' roll is an escape from the daily life.

You go to a concert to party! Hell yeah! WOOOOOOOO!


Ironically, some of the same people who go there to party get upset if the party doesn't end on time...  :hihi:


So, as I was saying. For every band that writes songs about "nothing", there are bands who do bring up real issues.

For every person in the spotlight who likes to talk about how great they are, there are persons who like to talk about things they feel are important. Including charity.



And I don't include media whores in the last group.

I mean people who have a career and don't need to appear on every other charity show just to be seen and stay in the spotlight.







/jarmo

Jarmo is a big fan of U2 btw ;D


Some use it as an artistic agenda tho. ;)

To use the oposite example: Some bands in the norwegian black metal genre did "200 000 dead in Haitii...HURRAH!" to further their image in the public, so maybe Bono and Geldof as the artists they are wants this kind of promotion specificly. Just a thought...

And Pearl Jam.

I also like The Clash, Rage Against The Machine and plenty of other bands who write songs that aren't necessarily about partying all night long.

GN'R is one of them.  : ok:





/jarmo

I'm not a big fan of bands getting involved in politics (too much in the case of U2) and I agree when Brian says they shouldn't preach to their fans. I'm not looking for singers to tell me when to donate to charity and people who do so only because their favourite band told them to are probably missing the point. However celebrities do have their uses, especially when they organize appearances / shows for charity etc. That's where it should end. Any donations they give should be in private, but I'm guessing only a few actually do that.

I will just give my example....being Pearl Jam.  I love them, always have, supported them during their war with Ticketmaster like no other!  Now that was a cause.

However 12 years later I'm paying $85 a person to see them , purchased the tickets through ticketmaster, paid outrageous ticketmaster fees, pay $20 to park......if I wanted a T-Shirt I think they were like $35/$40 minimum.  Not that it's the band on this but pizza was $8 a SLICE, water was $4 a bottle, beer was $10......plus the travel to get there.

Now it was a great an Amazing show, but Eddie went on a ten minute rant about much of a monster President Bush is and then how horrific offshore drilling is and how DNA can make convicted felons innocent and who knows what else.  There's ten minutes of that show I feel was wasted over something I already know.  Fuck I know Bush was bad, I know the oil companies were raping the world and I know people can be exonnerated by DNA testing, hey....I didn't spend over $200 of my hard earned money to be bummed out and preached to.  That's two more songs I could have heard.

The Boss is the same....my favorite artist of all time, but during his encore he goes into this rant about a food drive for like 10 minutes then plays an obscure song Hard Times to emphasis it!  C'mon, just play music!

And to add, if the song is about something political then fine, whatever, but let the music do the talking, just don't over indulge it!

^ Exactly. We get enough of politics, war, crime and other nonsense through newspapers, the web and everything else. Please spare the music.

I didn't want to say this, but U2 does the same thing, only about a different subject matter.

Love this.
Love that.
Woe is me.

Maybe you've noticed?  I have.  I love U2, but they are exactly like AC/DC in that regard.


GN'R thinks more highly of its fanbase without having members go on CNN to discuss tell people which candidate to vote for, which charity to donate to, and which bracelets to wear.


The music is what suffers. 

Rage is a one trick pony.  If it wasn't for a political agenda, those guys would be begging for spare change on the corner to buy something off the dollar menu at McDonald's.

I agree with Johnson all the way.
Its not like they dont have the extra cash to throw around.
They just want that to be known for that image of giving and bullshit where I bet he could have donated more then the amount that he would send from one of those concerts.




Joe

like that ridiculous concert for Global Warming

bet the Northeast would love some Global warming with their 20 inches of snow


also, all the pollution etc Al Gore causes with his jet rides etc to these conferences.

so much bullshit with these causes. It is great awareness and brought but I can see 90 percent of these artists on the phone with their managers "U have to get me this we are the world gig"


so half is great half just isn't very genuine

I prefer axl and prince who do things anonymously and don't try to get publicity for things of this nature.

even Jon Bon Jovi gets on my nerves with some of this type of stuff.

D, I'm with you on people shutting up and doing the right thing anonymously...that said, just causes really do benefit from a lot of these shows, so that makes it a tough call.

That said, just because the northeast United States is experiencing colder than avg. temps. doesn't mean a damn thing when it comes to the reality of global warming.  The issue (if you want to argue it realistically) isn't whether global warming is real (it is) the debate is how much of the warming is anthropogenic (caused in part by man's activities). 
While I firmly believe mankind's actions have contributed greatly to global warming, I don't believe that at this time we are in the financial position to start remedying the problem...sure, in the long run my attitude may not be so good for the Earth, but we need to get our fiscal feet on the ground in the short-term.

i don't want to make this another political topic.. my feelings and thoughts on it are pretty firm and on the record.

Sure it may be real but I don't think it is this huge cataclysmic event that will destroy mankind.

I think there are way more important things to spend time and money on at the moment.

I am a firm believer in things being cyclical.. Dinosaurs got wiped off the face of the planet, did they pollute? Stone Age, Ice Age...

we are going to be the "fire age" and I'm not sure that can be stopped.

 

D, I don't think this can be looked at "apolitically."  The topic itself is political by nature.  That said, we are in agreement that at this time we've got bigger fish to fry (no pun intended!).  We agree on this!

Humans and dinosaurs though don't quite equate...besides, the dinosaurs were comfortably living on earth for 180 million years (from about 235 million years ago to about 65 million years ago...unless you ask Sarah Palin ;))  There was a massive die-off of life around the time the dinosaurs bit the dust.  Mass extinctions don't occur with gradual cyclical climate change...it was a cataclysm and from what scientists have found at that giant crater in the Yucatan Peninsula, it was at least partially responsible for the dinosaurs extinction.
 
...man is roughly 200,000 years old, and we were on the brink of extinction several times in our short history.  Don't forget the industrial revolution has given us the capacity to really fuck up the world in a remarkably short period of time (less than 200 years).  The greenhouse effect is real...it's the extent of its effect upon the environment that's up for debate.

Yes, there have been many ice ages, hell, even polarity reversals back and forth where the north and south poles switched polarity, but the difference in the equation is now mankind playing an active role in warming the earth at a very rapid rate.  With the exception of cataclysmic events (like the proposed asteroid impact that helped do in the dinosaurs about 65 mill. years ago) the earth doesn't experience dramatic change overnight (and I say overnight because a couple hundred years is a blink of the eye in earth time).  That said, when compared to ice core samples that allow scientists to compare current climate to thousands of years old climates, the acceleration of the warming is disturbing.   

Unfortunately, since we are pretty much broke as a nation, unfortunately it's probably not the best time to launch an offensive on global warming...it will be interesting to see how nations with cities at or below sea level deal with the rising sea levels in our lifetimes. 

   

i think we are in a very scary situation. I can only hope that, if my generation cannot do anything about it....that ill at least get to live a long and normal life before all hell breaks lose.

Mrlee, we'll be okay...as long as we don't live at or below sea level on a coast...and even then, it will be a fairly gradual rise. 
I have faith scientists will devleop cheap, clean energy sources...I just hope they hurry the hell up.   :yes:

There is no 'global warming'. Don't let the IPCC who loves to exaggerate (they get more funding and even got a Nobel Prize for their efforts) fool you.
The time when you have to start worrying is when all the scientists agree and their decisions are not based on doctored data.
In the meantime, do your part, reduce pollution,live healthy and worry free.

The report was heavily edited by politicians before it became public.

A big issue is that captial intrest benefits from this, like with the swineflu, so a lot of info is made for profiting.

Our activity may contribute and things should change, -
-but the climate changes in cycles, species die and new species are made as adapts to the enviroment.

In a lot of the graphs were these people show the climate-changes they take out things like the small ice age.

Even some places, historical facts like that are edited out of schoolbooks cause it doesn't serve the purpose of getting people making a change (or get money), thats wrong imo, and also it's pretty scary if you ask me. The funny thing is, few politicans dare say the words "population growth" as a part of the problem...cause we must be economicly sustained. ::)

They probably already have developed such methods. Im told they invented a water consuming car engine years ago but Shell bought it n locked it up.

Problem is, big corporations dont wanna lose their business or money and they will stop us from making the right changes.

Norway, you stated:  "-but the climate changes in cycles, species die and new species are made as adapts to the enviroment."

That's correct, but don't forget to include the very important aspect of time.  Scientists have clearly shown that rapid climate change as a result of cataclysms are different than regular, cyclical changes in climate.  There have been times in Earth's history where sudden, massive changes have occurred, but there have been cataclysmic causes...what other cataclysm has occurred in the last few years (yes, less than 200 years is a blink of the eye in Earth time) other than humans pumping out gobs of CO2 into the atmosphere?  Temps are rising, sea levels are rising, and ice shelves are melting...true, all have occurred before, but not at this fast a rate...not without an asteroid impact killing off 70 to 90% of all life on earth...not without massive volcanic eruptions clouding the atmosphere for decades...something has been happening and we're the primary climate-changing force in action currently. 

btw, don't get too comfy thinking flu is benign...all it takes is a strain similar to 1918's to develop (and eventually it will) and for people to not take it seriously...and in 1918, you had 50 to 100 million people dead from the flu, young healthy people were huge targets of that flu.  Just imagine what those numbers could be in a world that's just a little more crowded.   :nervous:

We need it, we're too many. This is how nature heals itself.

Enjoy it while it lasts. :P

I think it is important for celebrities to use their fame and fortune to help promote something bigger than themselves.  There is nothing worse than say a Lindsey Lohan or Britney Spears who have all the notoriety in the world and millions of kids who listen to them and do NOTHING with it.

That being said there is a time and a place for everything.  The truth is we can never know which celebrity is involved in a cause for self promotion and which one actually gives a shit.  So to accuse any them of either is pretty pointless, none of us knows what goes on in their heads.  Brian Johnson brings up a good point that it gets a little too "preachy" when we have these celebrities telling us what to do and how to think.  It gives off the appearance of being holier than thou, even if some of them really do mean well.  Anybody getting on a soapbox will seem like an arrogant prick at least some of the time.

Where do some of you think the line should be?  Should there even be a line?

Bodhi..."Anybody getting on a soapbox will seem like an arrogant prick at least some of the time."
I sound like an arrogant prick ALL the time.   :hihi:

thats true, you do love that soapbox!  Thats the truth though, anytime anyone says "hey donate some money to this cause" or anything like that, it can come off as self-serving and pompous, even if its not.  We are just desensitized to it because of television and the internet.  The SECOND anything goes wrong in this world we have a bunch of celebrities spiting out websites to go to and numbers to text.  The never ending quest to patch up their bleeding heart.    Brian Johnson had a point in telling some of these celebrities to can it and donate the money themselves, don't make a spectacle out of it.  Axl Rose visited  children with cancer in I believe it was 2006, he didn't go bragging about it or tell everyone else what they should do.  I think this is what Brian Johnson was saying, he was more against how celebrities make it all about THEM not the cause.

Dale Earnhardt.

He would write checks left and right to different charities, but those checks came with an asterisk.  He threatened to cancel the check if those contributions became public.

That's the right way to do things.

I agree its all about the actual charity not the good public relations and stuff. He who gives and does not ask for a reward or anything like that is a truly a good person.








Joe