|
U-Know! Forum » More Bono bashing (never enough IMO) |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
IanB 6761 posts |
Edited Oct 12, 2010, 09:18
Oct 12, 2010, 09:16
|
||
|
PMM wrote: Don't blame Bono. Blame a system that condemns millions to poverty, and makes such charity necessary. Amen and if he gets a big fat ego kick out of doing the right thing and walking the biggest of big stages with the billionaires and the presidents then that would be entirely human. And if all this is partly about seeking the next biggest adrenalin rush (when a stadium full of fans just wont do it for you any more) then at least it is all chanelled towards the best of causes. For fuck's sake what would we rather - that he was doing what he is doing or selling butter, car insurance and Bono Bonds? People need to wake up and see who the real greedheads are in rock n roll.
|
|||
|
IanB 6761 posts |
Edited Oct 12, 2010, 09:42
Oct 12, 2010, 09:29
|
||
|
keith a wrote: I can only think you're taking the piss, Sanshees. I've said what I didn't understand. I copied and pasted it and put it in inverted comma's lest there be any misunderstanding. However...there clearly was! It really doesn't matter. And what you do with your money is your concern. Differing sources say he has helped between two and four million people. They're huge numbers but that's not the point. If he's helped one person that he didn't have when he could have been getting off his tits like many other musicians we like, then I take my hat off to him. Me too. Anyone who doesn't think rock n roll is a competetive sport at anything above semi-pro level doesn't know rock n roll. Charity is the same way. Some of the most gifted and driven business people I have met have been in the charitable sector and they get off on the big numbers as much as anyone with a string of number one records. Point being that the instinct that makes Bono the biggest star of his generation is the same instinct that makes it possible for him to make 2m lives a bit less horrible. As an aside people forget how neck-and-neck it was between U2, Simple Minds and the Bunnymen for world domination in the early 80s. Up to Joshua Tree it could have gone either way but Bono worked harder than his competitors, they had the best manager, the best plan, the most unversally appealing record when it mattered and no snobbery whatsoever about laying out their stall for the parts of the US between the coasts. If Simple Minds had released a decent studio album in 87 or the Bunnymen's eponymous album had sounded anywhere near as good on the radio as the Joshua Tree then we might not even be having this conversation.
|
|||
sanshee 1080 posts |
Edited Oct 12, 2010, 12:49
Oct 12, 2010, 12:42
|
||
|
I'm not takng the Piss, Keith. You waded in with a very rude response to my first post, other than just explaining why you disagree with/or even don't understand it. FWIW, I find loads of 'charitable organisations' a bit questionable. Deepinder's recent post about the RSPCA was an eye opener, but then you'll say if they save one dog who cares, perhaps. Donate to allow Bono to sit next to Ban Ki Moon if you want, I'll save my donations for where I think they'll matter. keith a wrote: Differing sources say he has helped between two and four million people. Yeah, which differing the sources? No one has actually properly countered the original post from AQK here. Certainly not the organisation itself. x
|
|||
|
machineryelf 3681 posts |
Oct 12, 2010, 13:03
|
||
|
sanshee wrote: I'm not takng the Piss, Keith. You waded in with a very rude response to my first post, other than just explaining why you disagree with/or even don't understand it. FWIW, I find loads of 'charitable organisations' a bit questionable. Deepinder's recent post about the RSPCA was an eye opener, but then you'll say if they save one dog who cares, perhaps. Donate to allow Bono to sit next to Ban Ki Moon if you want, I'll save my donations for where I think they'll matter. keith a wrote: Differing sources say he has helped between two and four million people. Yeah, which differing the sources? No one has actually properly countered the original post from AQK here. Certainly not the organisation itself. x http://www.one.org/c/international/pressrelease/3523/ none of the publics money has been used, they can't contribute, as D1 pointed out this is redtop muck raking If Bono & Bill gates want to spend millions on politics let them, the money to frontline charities that the public give to may well have been spent there before ONE took up this mantle so everyone wins
|
|||
|
sanshee 1080 posts |
Oct 12, 2010, 13:12
|
||
|
Yeah, I know how it's funded, didn't mean to allude to them standing outside shop doors with charity tins. x
|
|||
drewbhoy 2554 posts |
Oct 12, 2010, 15:16
|
||
|
IanB wrote: keith a wrote: I can only think you're taking the piss, Sanshees. I've said what I didn't understand. I copied and pasted it and put it in inverted comma's lest there be any misunderstanding. However...there clearly was! It really doesn't matter. And what you do with your money is your concern. Differing sources say he has helped between two and four million people. They're huge numbers but that's not the point. If he's helped one person that he didn't have when he could have been getting off his tits like many other musicians we like, then I take my hat off to him. Me too. Anyone who doesn't think rock n roll is a competetive sport at anything above semi-pro level doesn't know rock n roll. Charity is the same way. Some of the most gifted and driven business people I have met have been in the charitable sector and they get off on the big numbers as much as anyone with a string of number one records. Point being that the instinct that makes Bono the biggest star of his generation is the same instinct that makes it possible for him to make 2m lives a bit less horrible. As an aside people forget how neck-and-neck it was between U2, Simple Minds and the Bunnymen for world domination in the early 80s. Up to Joshua Tree it could have gone either way but Bono worked harder than his competitors, they had the best manager, the best plan, the most unversally appealing record when it mattered and no snobbery whatsoever about laying out their stall for the parts of the US between the coasts. If Simple Minds had released a decent studio album in 87 or the Bunnymen's eponymous album had sounded anywhere near as good on the radio as the Joshua Tree then we might not even be having this conversation. Simple Minds didn't try to be the world's biggest band and more accurately they didn't want to be. (best band in the world, maybe) What they did want to be was a vehicle to highlight various campaigns as in South Africa, Amnesty, peace in Northern Ireland etc etc. Street Fighting Years is the album you refer to.
|
|||
Loopy Lumbago 95 posts |
Oct 12, 2010, 15:44
|
||
|
Quote: "Anyone who doesn't think rock n roll is a competetive sport at anything above semi-pro level doesn't know rock n roll." I've always thought "rock n roll" was about music. Are you sure you're not confusing "rock n roll" with "the record industry"?
|
|||
|
keith a 9572 posts |
Edited Oct 12, 2010, 15:48
Oct 12, 2010, 15:46
|
||
|
sanshee wrote: I'm not takng the Piss, Keith. You waded in with a very rude response to my first post So calling somebody a reactionary isn't rude then? sanshee wrote: other than just explaining why you disagree with/or even don't understand it. Er, I have! Repeatedly FWIW!! sanshee wrote: FWIW, I find loads of 'charitable organisations' a bit questionable. So do I. But this was about Bono's. sanshee wrote: Yeah, which differing the sources? Try googling it like I did. sanshee wrote: No one has actually properly countered the original post from AQK here. Yes they have. sanshee wrote: Certainly not the organisation itself. Not here they haven't. But then Morrissey hasn't replied to Tone Stone on Unsung either. But they have issued a statement which I think is quoted here. If not, again, google it.
|
|||
|
IanB 6761 posts |
Edited Oct 12, 2010, 15:58
Oct 12, 2010, 15:57
|
||
|
Loopy Lumbago wrote: Quote: "Anyone who doesn't think rock n roll is a competetive sport at anything above semi-pro level doesn't know rock n roll." I've always thought "rock n roll" was about music. Are you sure you're not confusing "rock n roll" with "the record industry"? The most competetive people in the record industry are the artists themselves. That they pretend otherwise belies how they behave towards eachother - not least their own band mates!
|
|||
|
drewbhoy 2554 posts |
Edited Oct 12, 2010, 15:58
Oct 12, 2010, 15:57
|
||
That is a good point!
|
| Pages: 14 – [ Previous | 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
