Live Earth

mos dan

fact music
Better bands than the Diana concert, a better cause than the Diana concert, and most importantly of all (lol) I've written a couple of related pieces on bilingual eco-site chinadialogue.net about climate change and the music industry:

http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/1123-Power-chords
(About Europe's first solar-powered recording studio - in Hackney)

http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/1097-Taking-the-first-step
(Interview with Live Earth's official spokesman)

http://www.chinadialogue.net/debate/show/2
(Includes pieces about the concerts from the p.o.v. of Shanghai and London)

So who caught Genesis a couple of hours ago? Who thinks the concerts *will* help shift the attitudes of the CD-buying public? Who thinks Geldof's a bona-fide 100% twat for jealously criticising Live Earth?
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
News from the front:

Black Eyed Peas are a shambles.

Simon Le Bon can't sing.

Paolo Nutini can't stand up straight.
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
I think the 'save the planet' schtick was a condition of entry, don't you. ;)

Madonna's set was more entertaining than the others by an order of magnitude.
 

Kuma

The Konspirator
I think the 'save the planet' schtick was a condition of entry, don't you. ;)

Madonna's set was more entertaining than the others by an order of magnitude.

In hindsight, yes. Because whatever crap I could've given her was immediately removed by her bringing Gogol Bordello onto the stage. Of all the things I never expected in my lifetime..
 

gek-opel

entered apprentice
Ridiculous, unimaginative, pointless. More spectacle, and not even an interesting one at that. Perhaps some limited good may be done by raising awareness in China/India and America. But really I think the solution that is required is not accessible through these means-The very idea of mass spectacle event requires an energy-intensive technological underpinning. Stadium rocking popular music is innately against sustainability, which ultimately requires not some miracle technology (not going to happen fast enough) or carbon offsetting (I'm incredibly dubious about the veracity of these procedures as anything other than a moral fig leaf- and indeed recent reports that up to 60% of offsetting basically had negligible positive environmental impact seem to confirm this) but rather to reconfigure the way we live our lives, how we organize them around technology and to re-organize them on the basis that all excess is to be avoided. Working patterns need to be shifted, infrastructure, the designing of cities etc.
 

bruno

est malade
i agree, it's obscene. they spend whole careers contaminating the world with their private jets and idiotic music, saving africa over their diamond encrusted phones, and now having thousands of people inhaling and exhaling for the environment, excelent idea. i think we should get used to the idea that it's too late, particularly with china in full throttle. there are too many people on the planet as it is, in a few years time there will be lots more, no amount of cutting back will stop the path to oblivion.
 

gek-opel

entered apprentice
I think its too late to avoid the 2 degrees of cooling that triggers catastrophic accelerator effects. However- even if this is the case there are several reasons to change our way of life: firstly to arrest even more damage, secondly to reduce fuel consumption to avoid as much of the resource-crisis pain that is to come and thirdly to plan to avoid the worst effects of climate change by taking future shifts in climate into account...
 

bruno

est malade
but there will come a time when people will start asking why is it that we have to pay for the mistakes of our predecessors, why do we have to live constrained? between this and the minute temperatures go down and memory fades away everything gained will be undone. completely unrelated but i found a website called prison planet, what an apt name for this monstrosity. it's like these bands are covering the earth in a tight mesh, not even antarctica was spared.
 
Last edited:

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
I wouldn't worry too much about global warming - it's just the latest apocalypse myth.

Funny that the scientist talking head they had on mentioned a coming cooling period - I remember going to a conference lecture a couple of years ago that had a glaciation specialist telling us to pump out *more* pollutants - to counteract the imminent coolth. It all gets rather confusing.

Yet I suppose we should still worry about the accelerator effects, as they could be quite catastrophic, especially with us being at the tipping point and all.
 

bruno

est malade
what it boils down to is: is there money to be made? the answer is yes. you have to have two have two t-shirt designs, one that says i heart global warming, another that says i hate global warming, you can never be too sure where the wind blows.
 

gek-opel

entered apprentice
Even if global warming is a myth, and I contend that its not, resource crisis will be hitting us this century too. That will probably trigger (along with the excesses of current global capital) massive economic collapse all on its own. We need to radically alter our ways of living, our expectations of how far we can travel, and the design of our habitats. But Capital, whilst claiming to be a flexible system, is anything but- in a similar way to the music industry, with their fixed business model they aggressively enforce even when the market, technology and consumer demands have changed irreparably- the expectation being that a wunder-technology will arrive to solve our problems, or that consumer choice combined with carbon trading for business will somehow arrest the crisis. But of course the real solution is to change the life-model. The point where people (I believe Tony Blair was one of them) say "we could NEVER give up cheap air flights", even when the phenomenon only emerged in the last 10 years or so, you know that we are totally and utterly fucked.

I will welcome the crisis. We need it. Although my hopes for what might emerge are probably laughably naive, and a return to feudal capitalism is likely.
 

mms

sometimes
The point where people (I believe Tony Blair was one of them) say "we could NEVER give up cheap air flights", even when the phenomenon only emerged in the last 10 years or so, you know that we are totally and utterly fucked.

I will welcome the crisis. We need it. Although my hopes for what might emerge are probably laughably naive, and a return to feudal capitalism is likely.

well yes, the idea of choice becomes no choice as any choice is withdrawn in the march of progress/ market forces etc.
 

gek-opel

entered apprentice
But anyway- to return to these concerts- does anyone get the feeling they failed to make much impression? I mean they were just one event amongst many this weekend in the UK certainly (what with the tennis, motor racing, cycling etc etc)... there was no sense of event- which is surely the point of such spectacles? How did it play elsewhere? Is the idea itself tired (of course in my view such events can never work when dealing with problems caused by the same mechanisms as the ones which regulate rock/pop- ie capitalism)... is it actually going to create any breakthroughs in "awareness" in the US? Also was there a single act who was actually any good on?
 

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
The problem with the global warming message is that the issue has been live for many years now and all the advice that can be given has already been given. It's just a question of nagging people now until they change their ways - which can, of course, end up being counter-productive.

It's also hard for the spectator to feel that they can live up to the sense of great urgency that the concert attempted to communicate when our personal contributions are, in the main, going to be minor and, considered in isolation, terribly unheroic: changing a lightbulb, cycling into work, turning off the telly at the socket at night.

Extinguishing the Wembley illuminations was an attempt to add grand resonance to our humble gestures but, of course, it was 'them' doing it, not us, and they soon came back on - as did the blazing stage lights and megawatt amps.

I was a little surprised that all the guest comedian were resolutely off-message.

I thought Madonna put on a brilliant show. The others were pretty flaccid imho, save the Foos and Beastie Boys.
 
Last edited:

swears

preppy-kei
The idea that individuals can make a difference by turning off TVs on standby, taking showers instead of baths, carpooling, etc is laughable. It's there to make people think they are "doing something". There have to be heavy regulations imposed by governments globally on businesses that produce CO2. The problem is that governments are terrified of the effect this will have on their economies, so things are going to have to get a lot worse before any real progress is made, so depressing.
 
a complete non-event in terms of spectacle - i dont know one person who watched/gave a shit about this concert - climate change has been drummed home in this country to the death now - why dont they take their tent and pitch it up in india/china/far east where the message really needs to be heard

re any acts participating in this joke - a complete hypocrisy which undermines not only their personal integrity, but also that of the cause

we just had the diana thing last week - why do we need more shitty concerts
 

gumdrops

Well-known member
theres too many massive super gigs at the moment. i watch bits of them just cos i like watching music on tv but its all a bit grating. the same old corporate affair that you can barely tell apart from the one the week before (the diana one, glastonbury, live earth, etc etc). the acts yesterday barely looked like they cared about the cause but were just there because they were asked and thought it might do their careers some good. i applaud their honesty but half of them didnt even bother trying to cover up the fact they knew/cared fuck all about the environment. and alan carr being interviewed at the start - first time its funny that he knew so little, the 3rd and 4th time, its more 'what an idiot'.

id like to think some people might do something after the show - recycle more, get new long lasting lightbulbs, etc, *something* but im sure many wont. the fact it was so hard to ascertain some real sort of commitment from anyone involved (supergig fatigue maybe) or some real heartfelt cohesion over the cause doesnt help. this was really lacking much in the way of 'heart'. i dont think anyone except madonna mentioned the environment in their sets. maybe thats better - theyre just there to 'attract' ppl to the cause who otherwise wouldnt care, and maybe thats the best we can hope for, but it seemed a shame - like, if the artists (who people 'look up to' and listen to etc etc) dont care, why should anyone else?

as far as everyone saying the shows wasted enviromental resources, they did, but naively maybe, id like to think that that waste would be worth it in the long run if it gets people thinking. who knows though. would have been more effective IMO if they just showed al gores film. that would have hammered the point home much better.

why dont they take their tent and pitch it up in india/china/far east where the message really needs to be heard

they are but it seems a bit rich when the west has happily been fucking the environment over for years and suddenly when some asian countries are looking like competition, theyre told to think about cutting production down, reducing carbon emissions, etc etc. the west has more clout and money to be able to experiment with new energy sources, etc etc than their 'challengers' yet they have to be the ones to act (not saying they shouldnt be forced to think responsibly though - they should) and get most of the blame.
 
Last edited:

DJ PIMP

Well-known member
they are but it seems a bit rich when the west has happily been fucking the environment over for years and suddenly when some asian countries are looking like competition, theyre told to think about cutting production down, reducing carbon emissions, etc etc.
Eco-imperialism.

Kyoto seems like a scam? Underdeveloped countries are paid to stay underdeveloped, or at least their growth is curtailed in the name of sustainable development. The rich get richer from tax-funded carbon trading (the new gold rush).

I saw a clip of David Gray being interviewed backstage and he was quite candid, admitting the show was more emblematic of the problem than the solution.
 

muser

Well-known member
isn't their a whole argument that volcanoes give off more CO2 Gas then us anyway and that this is a natural peak we are in at the moment of earths temperature change? Or is that bollocks? I would of thoguht sustainable fuels and minimizing pollution/waste stites is more important then CO2 but that seems to get overlooked..
 
Top