Tuesday, July 05, 2005
More on Live8
I guess everyone knows that appearing at a mega-concert like Live8 gives a huge boost to album sales of the artists involved. In some cases, some bands are literally *made* by the concert. For instance, U2 was just an Irish band with a unique sound until it performed at Live Aid to great acclaim. The Joshua Tree followed. I also think Queen reached their zenith at Live Aid. So, it's no surprise then that Live8 would be just as beneficial to the artists who performed, never mind that charity and awareness was the stated goal of the concert. According to Reuters, album sales of most of the bands rocketed after their performances at Live8. Pink Floyd saw a staggering 1343% increase in album sales (over the last week), followed by The Who with a 863% increase and Annie Lennox with a 500% increase.
How do you deal with these increased profits and sales from a charity gig? I think Pink Floyd has done the right thing. David Gilmour has promised to give every extra cent from these increased album sales to charity and called on other bands to do so as well.
At a pragmatic level though, it does not matter even if the band were being cynical, since it serves both Bob Geldof's (and Africa's??) interests and it serves the band's interests too. The bad PR is a different issue altogether. The last thing a rock band wants is for critics to trash their Live8 appearance as a publicity stunt meant to generate sales for themselves.
In other Live8 news, it seems like I wasn't the only person pissed about the TV coverage in the U.S. So was Tom Johnson. So was the Chicago Tribune. So was the Daily News in Philly. In a way, it'll be ironic if Live8 marks the moment when Internet coverage of live events blew TV coverage away. Ironic because Live Aid played a critical part in the global emergence of the then fledgling MTV.
How do you deal with these increased profits and sales from a charity gig? I think Pink Floyd has done the right thing. David Gilmour has promised to give every extra cent from these increased album sales to charity and called on other bands to do so as well.
"Though the main objective has been to raise consciousness and put pressure on the G8 leaders, I will not profit from the concert," he said in a statement. "If other artists feel like donating their extra royalties to charity, perhaps then the record companies could be persuaded to make a similar gesture and that would be a bonus."
At a pragmatic level though, it does not matter even if the band were being cynical, since it serves both Bob Geldof's (and Africa's??) interests and it serves the band's interests too. The bad PR is a different issue altogether. The last thing a rock band wants is for critics to trash their Live8 appearance as a publicity stunt meant to generate sales for themselves.
In other Live8 news, it seems like I wasn't the only person pissed about the TV coverage in the U.S. So was Tom Johnson. So was the Chicago Tribune. So was the Daily News in Philly. In a way, it'll be ironic if Live8 marks the moment when Internet coverage of live events blew TV coverage away. Ironic because Live Aid played a critical part in the global emergence of the then fledgling MTV.
