The Saints Are Coming...

[Crybaby Bunting]

I don't understand, i spend 2 years waiting for a new green day album, or at least ANY new material and they come up with this?

First verse is ripped straight from another song...not just any old song but a classic. With all those songwriters you'd think that they'd come up with something good and ORIGONAL as opposed to this shite, hell you can't even buy it as a single, it can only be purchased through itunes.

That fucking sucks

[Ananas]

One guy donating his entire fortune doesn't go as far as that guy spending money on projects that properly raise consensus on important issues, or specifically in this case, benefit a Hurricane Katrina charity. You can argue about just how effective a corny music video is, but I don't doubt that the attempt to help is quite genuine. Well, at least with Bono it is. I'm all for some well placed rich-bashing, but I'm not going to extend that to people who are at least trying to help.

[YI]

I must say, this video is a lot less worse than "Ready To Fall" by Rise Against. A video which features numerous PETA stock footage and the like, to help get over the bands vegetarian views, even though the song has absolutely nothing to do with that. Now that pisses me off.

And what was said above is pretty much right. A celebrity raising the profile of a charity, will do more for a charity than one lump sum from said celebrity.

[Lord Nibbler]

First verse is ripped straight from another song...not just any old song but a classic. With all those songwriters you'd think that they'd come up with something good and ORIGONAL as opposed to this shite,

[Skummy]

One guy donating his entire fortune doesn't go as far as that guy spending money on projects that properly raise consensus on important issues, or specifically in this case, benefit a Hurricane Katrina charity. You can argue about just how effective a corny music video is, but I don't doubt that the attempt to help is quite genuine. Well, at least with Bono it is. I'm all for some well placed rich-bashing, but I'm not going to extend that to people who are at least trying to help.

I'm fully aware of that, but I don't see why the two can't go hand in hand. The video could have easily stuck to the stock footage of Katrina aid efforts and of the bands in the studio, thus allowing the best of both worlds, rather than spending huge sums of money on the video itself that could have gone towards the cause they're aiming to help.

[Psicosis]

The video could have easily stuck to the stock footage of Katrina aid efforts and of the bands in the studio, thus allowing the best of both worlds, rather than spending huge sums of money on the video itself that could have gone towards the cause they're aiming to help.

[Liam]

Plus, they already (asummedly) give lots of money to the causes that they are fighting for, along with time. Just because people could live easily on £25,000 a year doesn't mean U2 or Bono should donate the rest of his fortune to a cause for the sake of it. It's not like the charity went without because they spent money on a video, I'm sure.

[SwantonEdge]

Putting aside all the bickering and the backstory to it, I think it's a pretty cool song.

[Skummy]

This was a fucking Skids song? Christ...I don't know if I want to hear the original to reinforce how terrible this is, or if hearing it would disprove my theory that the Skids can do no wrong...

I'm not, and have never said, that U2 or their ilk should give their entire fortune to charity, by any stretch of the imagination. But when your entire public image is one of concern for the impoverished, spending all your money on sunglasses and music videos, and charging more than what most of said impoverished earn in a month for tickets to your concerts, it smacks of hypocrisy a little bit.

Not to mention that if they really want to raise a fuckload of money (I'm going to assume that the proceeds of the single go to charity), why only release it through your biggest corporate sponsor? Surely the idea of raising the profile of a charity is to reach everyone, not just the ones who use Apple software?

And as for the price issue, so, the video was filmed in the Superdome. I had no idea it was or anything, I wasn't really paying attention to the video when I saw it on TV, I just saw it was dark with lots of lights and clearly filmed using several top-of-the-range cameras, all of which were presumably forked out for by U2, or at least by their lackeys. Not to mention that computer animation, presuming they employed a professional suite to create it (which I'm almost certain they will have done) don't come cheap.

You could easily create an effective music video for next to, if not, nothing. There's plenty of unemployed cameramen, plenty of media students, plenty of active camera operators who would jump at the chance to work with U2 for peanuts, especially on a charity record.

Edited November 7, 2006 by Skumfrog

[lafunky xxvii]

I dig what Skummy is saying. It's like the time I saw a kid with 'Down With Capitalism' handwritten on his shirt...then I looked and saw he was wearing a pair of Adidas Stan Smiths.

[Ananas]

We can all be very principled... and poor... and without the means to do anything for anyone. There's nothing wrong with working with corporations, if one is using those corporations to do good. And if an exclusivety deal with the biggest provider of digital music in the world is necessary, then so be it. As for these bands "spending all (their) money on sunglasses and music videos", is there any indication that it was actually the bands that forked over their money to finance the video? Could have easily been the record label. And really, who suggests that these people aren't spending any of their own money in giving to charities? I'm certain they're more than pulling their weight in that right. They're just probably not calling a press conference to announce it like some celebrities.

[Skummy]

I think the fact that Bono asked the biggest countries in the world to pay off third world debt, meaning that said money would have to come from taxes, after having already moved all his business dealings to a tax haven (thus removing the massive amounts of taxable income that Bono as an individual, and U2 as a band and as a business entity makes from being included in said payments to the third world) shows that he's not quite the charitable soul he'd love the rest of us to be, really.

[Ananas]

Got an issue with Ireland's tax issues, take them up with Ireland. He neither bends nor breaks any laws, and although I can't stand the various loopholes given to corporations and the wealthy with regards to paying their taxes, it's an issue for governments to deal with. And hey, if these countries aren't willing to take the next step and make any positive steps towards fighting poverty in Africa, why shouldn't Bono have more of his own money to reinvest into pro-active programs?

[Skummy]

It's not a problem with Ireland's tax issues, it's a problem with Bono's tax evasion. If he really thinks that the wealthier companies should be paying off the debts of the poorest countries, he must realise that the money can ONLY come from the taxpayer, a group that he has been enough of a shrewd businessman to remove himself from, so he can't even plead naivety.