Band Aid 30

I won't buy this either, just a ego boost for those involved, if they were really interested in this between them all they could probably donate a vast sum of money to actually help.

Tonester0011 said:
Where's the rubbish song to make us donate for the common cold?

All this bs charity stuff makes me bleed from my eyelids.
Click to expand...

I'd see a doctor if you're bleeding from your eye lids, you may have Ebola.
 
Last edited:
Dimple said:
I never said they had a lagging career or that record sales were down, I said it revived their career. There was a real worry at the time they were going to split because they were all going through the hoops but playing Live Aid charged their batteries up.
I've given you quotes from both Roger and Freddie and I know that Brian May felt the same way in an interview but I don't know about John Deacon because he never speaks.
You're just looking at money, I'm looking at how the individuals were reacting at the time and how we Queen fans thought they were splitting.
Click to expand...

So their careers were not revived then, just their feelings about themselves were reinvigorated, which is what they said and not the same as reviving their careers which were not in need of reviving as they were currently extremely successful at the time of Live Aid, it following a hugely successful Tour and Studio album.

And we Queen fans didn't think they were splitting up in 1984, you might have, but I didn't, neither did my Uncle who thinks the same as I do.

You are moving the goalposts now, from 'making lots of money' which is exactly what you initially stated, to something more ethereal now, which is how the band felt about themselves as artists, which is completely different. Given the performace at Live Aid and the reaction to it I can see why they were filled with new ambition and confidence, I can also see why the experience might have reinvigorated Clapton to tour again, if it wasn't for the point that Clapton was already on the Behind The Sun Tour which his Live Aid set was in the middle of, but that isn't what you said initially, which was based on the money...

Dimple said:
And don't forget the first Live Aid made lots of money for all the artists except The Boomtown Rats due to album sales & merchandise and none gave any of the profits back.
Both the careers of Queen and Eric Clapton were revived because off the original Band Aid.
Click to expand...

In that context, Queen particularly certainly did not have their careers revived, in fact Live Aid was the success it was because of Mercuy's outstanding performance, and to a lesser degree Clapton contributed to this memorable performance...which in turn increased the profitability of Live Aid and the subsequent merchandising etc.

Anyway, being as certain infantiles are attempting to inflame things I will leave this here stating that I agree with you in the context that Queen and to a greater extent Clapton took the reactions to their Sets at Live Aid as reinvigorating their attitudes to their careers, but given what you said initially I don't agree that Live Aid revived flagging careers for either as they were both (particularly Queen) hugely successful at the time.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
It doesn't matter whether you agree or not. Queen were hugely successful immediately prior to Band Aid, this is a matter of record (pardon the pun). Live Aid did not revive a flagging career as it wasn't flagging to begin with. It doesn't matter what people say to the media or interviews, even band members as history tells its own story.
Click to expand...

I think your recollection of Queen in eighties is driven by very optimistic documentaries. Nobody outside of UK was taking Queen seriously until Live Aid. They were considered to be a bit of a joke - rock cabaret, riding bicycles, looking for fat bottomed ladies while doing fandangos. "The Works" was doing terribly in US. It didn't even make it into top 20 after release. "Radio Ga Ga" reached number 16 for one week. "I want to break free" didn't even break free to number 45. US leg of "The Works" tour never materialised, they went to promote the album end of August/beginning of September 84, they were back home mid October. Next year they went to play Rock In Rio and on the first night people boo'd and thrown stuff at them on the stage. On day two Freddie reinvented the schtick, stopped wearing fake boobs and leotards and they pretty much did rehersal to what you saw at Live Aid.

Unless you are saying that The Works, Radio GaGa etc and the Tour that accompanied the album were not successful?
Click to expand...

Check it, see how many dates they played on that tour, where they played and when the album became successful outside of UK.
 
v0n said:
I think your recollection of Queen in eighties is driven by very optimistic documentaries. Nobody outside of UK was taking Queen seriously until Live Aid. They were considered to be a bit of a joke - rock cabaret, riding bicycles, looking for fat bottomed ladies while doing fandangos. "The Works" was doing terribly in US. It didn't even make it into top 20 after release. "Radio Ga Ga" reached number 16 for one week. "I want to break free" didn't even break free to number 45. US leg of "The Works" tour never materialised, they went to promote the album end of August/beginning of September 84, they were back home mid October. They went to play Rock In Rio and on the first night people boo'd and thrown stuff at them on the stage. On day two Freddie reinvented the schtick, stopped wearing fake boobs and leotards and they pretty much did rehersal to what you saw at Live Aid.
Click to expand...

My recollection is from personal experience, I was a Queen maniac (still am to some extent). The works tour played to crowds of 300k in Rio (as part of the Rock in Rio). Not being as successful in the US doesn't mean they were not successful globally overall. Besides The Works album went 'Gold' in the US On April 24 1984, and was one of their more successful studio albums in the US, obviously some time before Live Aid. Live Aid didn't really help their popularity in the US which didn't really recover until Freddie died in 1991. His death (ironically) revitalised his career in the US, not Live Aid.

The Tour went from August 1984 to May 1985. In October 84 they were playing a lengthly set of dates in Sun City South Africa, which would be difficult had they been back at home in October as you said. There was never a US leg planned, some speculate due to Mercury's voice not being able to withstand a full on US Tour, but no one really knows why and it's been speculated about ever since.

Equally you are right that some fans (allegedly iron maiden ones, but in reality it was a reaction to his being dressed as a woman and he removed the clothing and continued which calmed it all down, the 1980s not exactly being the most enlightened of decades after all. ) booed and threw stuff at Mercury when he came on dressed in the "I wanna Break Free" drag act, which was not repeated, but again if you watch 'uncut in Rio' it's hardly how you describe and is, as mentioned and it wasn't the first time fans threw stuff at Mercury when he dressed up or changed his appearance. In the main, the crowd are pretty much as they are in most Queen concerts.

I must admit, at the time I didn't like the video and by association the song, mainly due to ingrained common prejudices of the time...men, especially rock gods just didn't dress as women and that is more about common prejudices of the time rather than the popularity of Queen as a whole.

Also again, you are right that I wanna break free and by association The Works were not as successful in the US as in Europe, but given the MTV and Radio Station ban on that particular track and it's obvious effect on sales and exposure in the US that's hardly surprising. It's also not out of step with Queens popularity in the US overall, The Works charted very well for Queen in the US...higher than the album A Kind of Magic which came after Live Aid.

Ironically your recollections seem entirely based on the press reports rather than watching the footage or considering the circumstances at the time.


v0n said:
Check it, see how many dates they played on that tour, where they played and when the album became successful outside of UK.
Click to expand...

I think you need to, your tour dates specifically.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone actually own a recent U2 album, other than the one that was forced on them by iTunes. Rattle and Hum, ok, not bad. The rest... meh!

Preparing to get spanked and owned!
 
Geldoff part-owns the rights to the TV format 'Survivor'.

Maybe he'd make more money if he set the next series in Sierra Leone with the winner being the last one to contract Ebola.
 
Castiel said:
You are moving the goalposts now, from 'making lots of money' which is exactly what you initially stated, to something more ethereal now, which is how the band felt about themselves as artists, which is completely different. Given the performace at Live Aid and the reaction to it I can see why they were filled with new ambition and confidence, I can also see why the experience might have reinvigorated Clapton to tour again, if it wasn't for the point that Clapton was already on the Behind The Sun Tour which his Live Aid set was in the middle of, but that isn't what you said initially, which was based on the money...
Click to expand...

You are taking two things out of context and you know it, you are a horrible poster sometimes.

You know that most of the artists on that day made lots of money from extra record and merchandise sales and that's why when Live Aid 2 happened most (if not all) gave their profits to charity.

You are picking on my words "Revived their careers" which it did and has nothing to do with money or the success they were having. I know that at least 3 of them were in a lull and Live Aid bought them out of it.

I'll let you win because you'll go on and on and on and it really will be pointless debating this with you.
I haven't backtracked on any of my statements and you know it.

Say what you like because I will not respond because you will never back down.
 
It amazes me how much time and effort some people will put into grinding someone down rather than take 5 seconds to admit they are wrong or misunderstood the full intention so were part wrong. It's far from rare on here, do these people have literally **** all else to do?

I know we can all get sucked in sometimes but quite a few candidates do it all over the forums so often. Is it that hard to just walk away from a comment? Or is picking apart a sentence and debating the posters intention on every word what keeps them going. :)
 
Dimple said:
You are taking two things out of context and you know it, you are a horrible poster sometimes.
Click to expand...

No I am certainly not, you said what you said, I even agreed with you on your clarification, which now turns out not to be a clarification after all which is somewhat confusing. You appear to be trying to wriggle out of what you said and that is the long and short of it. You said one thing, was questioned on it, so said something else instead it seems. It didn't revive their careers, their careers were just fine before Live Aid, in fact Queens career was far more revived by Freddie Mercury's death than it ever was by Live Aid. It might have reinvigorated them personally but that is not the same thing.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I'm personally sick of bull **** media commentary. Why don't journalists / forum members just do something productive rather than waste time commenting on the actions of others. You know, like, actually doing something about ebola? No?!
 
Castiel said:
My recollection is from personal experience, I was a Queen maniac (still am to some extent). The works tour played to crowds of 300k in Rio (as part of the Rock in Rio). Not being as successful in the US doesn't mean they were not successful globally overall. Besides The Works album went 'Gold' in the US On April 24 1984, and was one of their more successful studio albums in the US, obviously some time before Live Aid. Live Aid didn't really help their popularity in the US which didn't really recover until Freddie died in 1991. His death (ironically) revitalised his career in the US, not Live Aid.

The Tour went from August 1984 to May 1985. In October 84 they were playing a lengthly set of dates in Sun City South Africa, which would be difficult had they been back at home in October as you said. There was never a US leg planned, some speculate due to Mercury's voice not being able to withstand a full on US Tour, but no one really knows why and it's been speculated about ever since.

Equally you are right that some fans (allegedly iron maiden ones, but in reality it was a reaction to his being dressed as a woman and he removed the clothing and continued which calmed it all down, the 1980s not exactly being the most enlightened of decades after all. ) booed and threw stuff at Mercury when he came on dressed in the "I wanna Break Free" drag act, which was not repeated, but again if you watch 'uncut in Rio' it's hardly how you describe and is, as mentioned and it wasn't the first time fans threw stuff at Mercury when he dressed up or changed his appearance. In the main, the crowd are pretty much as they are in most Queen concerts.

I must admit, at the time I didn't like the video and by association the song, mainly due to ingrained common prejudices of the time...men, especially rock gods just didn't dress as women and that is more about common prejudices of the time rather than the popularity of Queen as a whole.

Also again, you are right that I wanna break free and by association The Works were not as successful in the US as in Europe, but given the MTV and Radio Station ban on that particular track and it's obvious effect on sales and exposure in the US that's hardly surprising. It's also not out of step with Queens popularity in the US overall, The Works charted very well for Queen in the US...higher than the album A Kind of Magic which came after Live Aid.

Ironically your recollections seem entirely based on the press reports rather than watching the footage or considering the circumstances at the time.
Click to expand...
lol pretty good memory there Castiel, remembering that date :D
 
Cant be having this.

I'm another who thinks that we should concentrate more on our own issues such as 20,000+ OAP's a year dying of cold related illnesses than ebola victims abroad. Where's the massive campaign for them?
 
Nitefly said:
I'm personally sick of bull **** media commentary. Why don't journalists / forum members just do something productive rather than waste time commenting on the actions of others. You know, like, actually doing something about ebola? No?!
Click to expand...

What do you suggest we do about Ebola exactly?


Nitefly said:
lol pretty good memory there Castiel, remembering that date :D
Click to expand...

You do not have to remember things that are a matter of public record, simply know where to look. In this case The RIAA Certification database. The date is important as it illustrates the album made its Gold certification prior to Live Aid and not as a result of it as is being claimed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom