The Deal With Music And Benefits
I've struggled with this.
It has been easy to watch some benefits over the years and think (or say): Stop. Please stop the madness. Enough. Go away.
Then again, some benefits have been inspiring, unique, and unbelievable. Most are probably in the middle...which by the way, is still better than nothing (even the worst of these benefits are better than nothing).
My recent cynicism can be directly traced to a Tsunami benefit concert, which featured, as the last-song grand finale, a huge group of completely mis-matched artists singing an absolutely horribly unprepared version of Lennon's "Across The Universe." It was painfully obvious that the musicians in tow did not know the song. Also...the song is arguably inappropriate and was thereby misappropriated. The original lyrics contain the refrain "nothing's gonna change my world", which by the end of the televised performance was changed to "something's gonna change my world" or some shit. If you read the lyrics in the first place, they are psychadelic and abstract. I think they are beautiful and genius, by the way, but if you can tell me how they make me feel better about the Tsunami or motivate me to give money, well, I'd love to hear it. And, by the way, watching freaking Duff McKagan sloth his way through an unrehearsed version of a very difficult song is not my idea of inspiration.
I think the other reason I've become cynical is that the end-of-show jam sessions at these events get confused with the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame jam sessions (do we need to see Paul Schaefer and Anton Fig and Eric Clapton do another jam session? no.) and other self-congratulatory industry events. That, plus I want to hear honest music and musicians, and not see commercials (be they televised ones or simply artists doing their new songs). I want inspiration and message. Not Velvet Revolver. (Nothing against Velvet Revolver. They seem like good guys that can rock just fine and I'm sure they care about these things. But do I look for them for "message?" No. I look to them to vicariously have sex, take drugs, and be a rock star. You know? I mean, not really. But that's what they're there for. I think. I digress.)
Anyway, I won't give Bono any shit for being a humanitarian, nor Sting for being intellectual, nor Dylan for being weird, and I guess I'll not give Clapton for being there...again. Just keep it real and honest. And bring out Neil Young and I wanna see Aretha and let Bruce do a song from the heart and keep Bob Geldof around to be nice to him. Bring out Stevie. Keep your finger off the censor button. Not sure that we need Richard Gere again, but he's a good looking guy and he probably has his heart in the right place, so okay. And if Clapton has to be there at the end, well, I'll just have to live with that.
posted by Teodoro Callate @ 8:50 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
you know what? i don't watch that stuff, cause normally i'm not around for prime time tv. i'm lucky if i get home to watch the daily in time.
but, that time i actually watched that 9/11 thing...i thought the best thing in the world was richard gere. telling people that war and violence was not the answer. watching someone stand up and say what he believed (i don't know if people knew that he's a buddhist or not) regardless of how incredibly, ridiculously unpopular -- (i don't even know if UNPOPULAR covers it right then) it was going to be -- not to mention in front of cops and firemen.
i loved that. i really did. and i was behind him 110%. especially, since like katrina, when faced with huge disaster and tragedy, it's so much easier for me to go intellectual and talk politically rather than deal with the soul pain. (i don't think gere was even talking politically so much as urging people not to retaliate ... reminding people that violence was not going to be an answer to violence.)
anyway. i loved that. i thought it was a great moment of courage -- of speaking one's truth, no matter what. much like kanye west just did. i applaud those men. i think both of them have proven or will prove to be absolutely and prophetically right.
i hope people are paying attention and seeing that gere was right after all. i hope it won't take as long to see kanye wasn't being bombastic, but just calling it like it is.
I think the problem is that a lot of celebrities, or maybe just by merit of being a celebrity, the perception is that it's just no matter how in the right place their heart is, there's the danger of it looking self-serving to them. I watched Harry Connick give the shirt off his back to an old dude on his porch and carry the guy away through the water to safety, and a genuine tear came to my eye, but then I wondered if I should feel manipulated somehow just by merit of him being famous. What I think would be great would be, in addition to benefits, would be if some big movie stars would give a million or two of their own dollars totally anonymously, and then we heard about it in the papers anonymously, thirty big name stars gave a million dollars, or something, so we'd know but we wouldn't know who they were, so they wouldn't get this extra glory, so we wouldn't have to sit around wondering if we were legitimately sad, or manipulated. I'd like to believe the Federlines are just such people, what with Britney being from Lousiana and all.
All due respect to Harry Connick, actually, because it is his hometown, and I think he deserves a little extra slack on that front.
Please excuse my grammar issues. This is why I have editors.
And also my lack of clarification on any number of points.
Forget I was ever here, really.
Grammar shmammar. My grammar in this very post (the original one) is fo' shit. So be it.
I know I swing back and forth on this issue (celebrity and charity, not grammar). On one hand, Richard Gere, go away. On the other, Right on, brother. I think Harry Connick is nothing less than a shining example of how celebrities should act. I mean...get in there and help out. If one has the means and ability to do so...and can bring some attention to those in need, then I'm all for it. And that goes for throwing a charity concert, too. (Just get the lyrics right and pick an appropriate song...that ain't that tough.)
Some people want it both ways. Lots of hipsters will say, "Bono, shut up about politics and sing, ya sell out." I disagree with that. (The same people would complain if he did nothing. Damn hipsters.) He's got a platform, and I'm glad he uses it. You don't have to buy his records if you don't want to...but if he's helping people, then that's A-OK.
That said, just because you are a celebrity, I'm not sure you are mandated to join the UN.
Wouldn't hurt to show up and distribute some life preservers, though.
Except Clapton.
(kidding!)
i'm always confused about this... why people are inclined to sort of give celebrities the heave ho as if they aren't supposed to have opinions, political beliefs, wants and desires other than acting, singing, etc.
i mean, in my grandeur-ous (i love making up words on the spot) wishes, part of the reason i WANT to become rich and famous is SO i can help forward my political ideas and help the causes i deem worthy...both on a private (anonymous) and public level, when needbe.
these people are citizens of america (schwarzenegger be damned), and they should be allowed the benefits of this country without us rolling our eyes, right? in fact, we should all be getting out there, giving money, and MUCH more importantly, imo, -- using our voices, pens, and computers and modes of free speech to support or dissent the issues we feel are important.
i don't know. i'm all about free speech (and i'm not saying that anyone's against it) -- and if someone has the power to get a message out there, why not? why is that self-serving? it seems so much more meaty than gathering around the set to watch the red carpet walks for the oscars or the emmys or something.
i'm very tired today, so excuse this if it's not quite coherent.
I'm late to the party as usual. Been quite busy. Sorry.
All of you have much more thoughtful and coherent insights than I can offer. I'm just sort of fried on benefits, but mostly because I'm exhausted by the notion people have that they're actually doing something by attending these concerts. At Live8 - which supported a wonderful thing (debt forgiveness, primarily) that I very much support - I eventually shut off the TV because one too many fans in attendance said that they wanted to "send a message" and/or "show their support". Oh, come on, you wanted to see Green Day. Just be honest. It's okay to just admit that you were there to see Linkin Park break one off with Jay-Z.
I used to buy into that sort of thing, back when the big concerts were for Amnesty International and buying a copy of "The Secret Policeman's Ball" on cassette kicked a few bucks their way. But let's be honest - I wasn't sending a message of support, I was really desiring to get a copy of Sting doing a solo version of "Message in a Bottle". And so my "buying into it" was really just sort of youthful delusion? Not sure.
Attending benefit concerts isn't a way of demonstrating noble intent. (Just look at the footage from the end of Live8 - those people left more garbage strewn around the place than was believable.) I think the artists have good intent, but it's just such a stacked deck. They look good and noble, they put on a free show, people attend and have a good time, and everyone goes home feeling like they actually did something good for the world. Did anything good get done? Maybe yes, sure, I guess. And that's alright by me. I suppose I'm more impressed by people who get off their butts and do something. Like build a house for someone or something like that. And many artists (and athletes and lots and lots of everyday normal folk) do that, so right on to you all, I say. I guess I'm just crabbing about the people who believe they're social activists because they went to Live8.
It's late and I'm probably being unfairly critical. I'd rather say something funny, but I'm out of funny right now. I gotta go to the store and get some funny. And one of them there yellow "Live Strong" bracelets.
Teo: You made me laugh out loud with the Duff McKagan reference. Well done.
I've never been quite sure how wearing a bracelet constitutes charity or activism. Seems more like a fad that you paid a buck to join. Which is fine if you did it (good God, I'm probably pissing off 5 of our 7 readers, here).
Building a house? That's about as charitable as you get, I'd think. Kev, I love the fact that all of the Habitat houses survived Hurricane Andrew back in the day.
Duff McKagan is always good for a laugh. Which isn't fair. But true and fair (and nice) are not always the same thing....
Post a Comment
<< Home