From the Daily Mail.



www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13941...legacy-Live-Aid.html

What a totally biased article, a feeble attempt to get a story out of nothing. Live Aid was a massive operation put together very quickly so I'm sure some things could have been done better but under the circumstances it achieved a lot and has left a legacy of awareness and giving that couldn't have been achieved otherwise. It is headed "The corrosive legacy of Live Aid" yet the main criticism seems to be the lack of African artists on the bill yet doesn't make any suggestions on which African artists could have been included. The object of the event was to attract as many peoples attention as possible and use that as a means to get donations. In 1985 there were no African musical acts for a big enough stature to justify inclusion on the bill. It was a pop/rock concert and I think if a genuine African artist was put on the show they could have suffered greatly as their music would have been completely out of line with everything else on show that day. Nobody is disputing that African music is good, but there wasn't any that would have been suitable for those shows on 13th July 1985

The author is using Live Aid as a reason to challenge the whole concept of charities and the process of the giving money to help those that don't have adequate resources or have suffered from an unexpected event. Live Aid started because of a news item about a famine taking place in Ethiopia and one persons desire to help. What was done after that should be applauded, the alternative of doing nothing wasn't something that appealed to Bob Geldof nor should it appeal to anyone else with an ounce of compassion. If the author wants to critise someone then maybe he could look at the government and examine if enough support is coming from that source to ensure aid is distributed as efficently as possible. Without central help then every charity is on its own when making decisions.

I totally agree with blue boy, Live Aid raised £13million on the night, which in 1985 was a lot of money. It raised people's awareness and saved millions of lives. The Daily Mail provides little evidence that the money was given to corrupt people. Many people in Live Aid and Band Aid personally oversaw the distribution of food and supplies, as seen in the documentary, "Food and trucks and rock and roll".

As for the lack of African Artists, well that is fair enough. If there were any African Artists that were popular in the uk, then I'm sure they would have been on the bill. They could have made it a niche event with just African artists, however that wouldn't have raised anywhere near as much money or awareness.
You have to remember that this is the daily mail, a newspaper whose purpose seems to fill people with hatred.

Blue Boy wrote:
yet the main criticism seems to be the lack of African artists on the bill yet doesn't make any suggestions on which African artists could have been included. The object of the event was to attract as many peoples attention as possible and use that as a means to get donations. In 1985 there were no African musical acts for a big enough stature to justify inclusion on the bill.

Spot on Blue Boy

The whole point was to attract an (extremely large) audience - not drive them away !

I actually think a few class African acts peppered throughout the event would have been great.

And there were plenty of great African acts around at the time. Just a year or so after Live Aid Peter Gabriel and Paul Simon would both use major African acts to great effect on their new albums, and both albums would go on to sell millions.

I appreciate the fact that the show needed big western acts to get western audiences to dip into their pockets, but a scatterring of class African acts such as Youssou Ndour would have gone down well, and added a great vibe.

Here's a wonderful clip of Peter Gabriel with Youssou Ndour

was the absence of African/Americans on the day.

Michael Jackson and Prince were the biggest acts in the world. Along with Lionel Ritchie, Diana Ross,Kool and the Gang, Marvin Gaye, The Jacksons, Luther Van Dross, and a plethora of other talents were basically not invited becuase the organisers in the USA new the Red necks would turn off, preferring dinosaurs like Crosby Stills and Nash and terrible sets by the Who and Led Zeppelin.