Yes, so you said. But I asked you what costs Bandaid are subject to that, say, Oxfam are not?
Presumably if I make a donation to, say, Oxfam, then *only the profits* that Oxfam make go to anything as well. My understanding is that Oxfam have operating costs, and doesn't run on pixie dust.
The song is struggling to hold on to number one and is just 1,500 copies in front of take that
However, Take That's first week sales (like the majority of singles in 2014) have had an artificial first week sale because of endless weeks of pre-order sales. They won't have that luxury next week to maintain their singles sales so will inevitably sell about half what the track is likely to sell this week - it's happened to about 85% of singles that entered at #1 or #2 this year.
Band Aid 30 was available to pre-order something like 24 hours before its Monday release.
Also on iTunes, Band Aid 30 have roughly a 15% lead over Take That so I think it's safe to say by the end of the week, DTKIC will have a bigger lead over These Days.
Looking ahead, there is nothing released next week that looks like a strong contender for #1 so even if Take That were #1 this coming Sunday, I think it's safe to say Band Aid 30 would more than likely return to #1. By being #1 this week, the song will get three consecutive weeks at #1 before the CD single is released which is bound to boost sales so a fourth week at #1 also looks more than likely.
It's then a case of which sells better Christmas week. Band Aid 30 or The X Factor winner.
Yes, so you said. But I asked you what costs Bandaid are subject to that, say, Oxfam are not?
Presumably if I make a donation to, say, Oxfam, then *only the profits* that Oxfam make go to anything as well. My understanding is that Oxfam have operating costs, and doesn't run on pixie dust.
I would refer you back to my first post on this thread #267 to avoid a lot of repetition; but there are some assumptions made with regards your collective donations when you purchase this Band Aid single which are misguided.
Firstly, it is worth pointing out the original Band Aid single was an honest, sincere, heartfelt, genuine release; its runaway success at tapping into the World's Zeitgeist resulting in it raising £8m instead of £80,000 resulted in the Charity set up to directly distribute the income raises to causes to reduce famine, death and starvation in Ethiopia. (Never mind Bruce Springsteen told Bob Geldof prior to Live Aid in July 1985 he was not doing it because he had been advised by his contacts in the US Government administration that a significant amount of the money raised would be distributed to Ethopian Government and Rebel groups who would syphon it off for their own means and not for what it was meant to; which a BBC World Service and then a Panorama programme ran with in 2010 which understandably upset Bob Geldof; which of course the UK media made a huge fuss over; the spineless BBC Trust unreservedly apologised; and then (far from the first time this century) a year later an independent (UN) investigation came pretty close to vindicating the original BBC investigations conclusions!
However, what you are donating to this time is the Band Aid Trust, and not the Band Aid Charity.
If any of you are financially minded you may have Unit Trusts Funds which require you to hand over your money to a qualified adviser who will invest your spare £10,000 or so into a variety of different trusts funds with the aim of spreading the risk and maximising the amount of income raised.
In the same way the Band Aid Trust will split the amount of income raised from the sales of the Band Aid 30 single and other related seasonal royalties and split the income across the variety of different relevant charities such as MSF; DEC; Red Cross; Action Aid; Save The Children; War Child; etc.
So what is the harm in that you may cry?
The answer is of course those relevant charities will have to go with their proverbially begging bowl to Sir Bob's Charity Trust to get as big a slice of the pie. All this would mean those charities have to spend time, money and energy producing and submitting a case and report to the Band Aid Trust as to why they should receive the slice of the pie; and therefore the Band Aid Trust not only needs Accountants; Admin Managers; etc; but Trust Managers to review and decide which Charities are deserving of the amounts of money they require and which are less deserving ....... so in short by buying the Band Aid single you are donating to a middle man(ager) rather that directly to the relevant Charities on the ground who will more quickly spend that money.
To give an example of the exasperation of the Band Aid Trust's getting involved as a "player" in the fight with Ebola here is an advert by the Disasters and Emergencies Committee Ebola Appeal: http://weknowitschristmas.com/ And MSF have similarly been unimpressed by the involvement of Band Aid.
As for those of you giving Bob Geldof the benefit of the doubt regarding the business with Adele; then you are either unaware or forgotten his verbal attacks on the Human League for snubbing the original Band Aid single (whilst the "too cool for school" New Order and The Smiths turned it down in advance of being asked) as unlike other acts such as Frankie Goes To Hollywood; the Thompson Twins; Howard Jones; Alison Moyet & Nik Kershaw who were the other end of the world in Far East Asia or Australisia so they could not make it to the recording; they were at home in Sheffield; similarly Tears For Fears did not do Live Aid in 1985 despite being listed to perform on the day due to a number of their promo session musicians having quit due to the expiration of their contracts and they were not being hired for the duo's subsequent World Tour so the group did not have a backing band and felt the wrath of "The Mouth"'s tongue, although he retrospectively back tracked when the truth came out and Roland & Curt did the rather entertaining 1986 Band Aid Charity Sports Aid single: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd2ySIDtXfg
Still the most relevant comparison is to the hideous Band Aid II single; which was the idea of The Sun Newspaper (fresh off the backlash over their heinous coverage of the Hillsborough Disaster); and the Tory supporting producers Stock Aitken & Waterman (fresh of the backlash at their trolling "I'd Rather Jack" single). The problem was The Sun Newspaper and Bob Geldof had already announced that the UK's biggest pop star at the time whose previous album had sold millions, won a shed load of Grammies; and contained 5 USA #1 hit singles George Michael was to be on the single. To be fair to Geldof he had originally confirmed he was up for reprising her role in the single (like two thirds of Bananarama) but then he pulled out when he realised Kelvin MacKenzie era The Sun Newspaper's heavy involvement, not least for their libellous 1987 work of fiction regarding his good friend Elton John having had sex with two underage rentboys. As a result Sir Bob Geldof did an interview with The Sun Newspaper publicly lambasting him; the irony is George Michael's eloquent response is arguably the best thing he ever recorded; and certainly far superior to anything Bob Geldof has achieved in recording history https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goroyZbVdlo
Going forward to 2014, and the logic why Bob Geldof criticism of Adele was perhaps premeditated; Adele's partner went to University with and is still good friends with Comedy writer producer Jane Bussmann who as well as her work on Smack The Pony; Brass Eye; Jam; and most recently South Park; she is also responsible for her darkly comic memoir The Worst Date Ever or How it Took a Comedy Writer to Expose Africa's Secret War and her seminar "Bono and Bob, Get Out of Africa" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXASpoRrx9Q
Hence, with minimal effort he would have known asking Adele to perform on the Band Aid 30 single would be about as productive as McDonalds asking Chrissie Hynde; Sir Paul McCartney and Morrissey to advertise their range of quarter pounder Burgers ...
Still at least the Norwegian comedy show most famous for the duo Ylvis most famous for their crossover viral EDM satire "The Fox"; have not missed a trick to highlight the patronising nature of Band Aid:
Yes, so you said. But I asked you what costs Bandaid are subject to that, say, Oxfam are not?
Presumably if I make a donation to, say, Oxfam, then *only the profits* that Oxfam make go to anything as well. My understanding is that Oxfam have operating costs, and doesn't run on pixie dust.
Well if you donate just money to a said charity without buying anything that charity will get all the money
I heard it on the radio for the first time the other day, the new lyrics are rubbish, lacking the feel and passion of the original, and I doubt anyone who is at risk from Ebola gives a toss that its Christmas.
One line says "Where a kiss of love can kill you" and then in the next line "Well tonight we're reaching out and touchng you"
I would refer you back to my first post on this thread #267 to avoid a lot of repetition; but there are some assumptions made with regards your collective donations when you purchase this Band Aid single which are misguided.
Firstly, it is worth pointing out the original Band Aid single was an honest, sincere, heartfelt, genuine release; its runaway success at tapping into the World's Zeitgeist resulting in it raising £8m instead of £80,000 resulted in the Charity set up to directly distribute the income raises to causes to reduce famine, death and starvation in Ethiopia. (Never mind Bruce Springsteen told Bob Geldof prior to Live Aid in July 1985 he was not doing it because he had been advised by his contacts in the US Government administration that a significant amount of the money raised would be distributed to Ethopian Government and Rebel groups who would syphon it off for their own means and not for what it was meant to; which a BBC World Service and then a Panorama programme ran with in 2010 which understandably upset Bob Geldof; which of course the UK media made a huge fuss over; the spineless BBC Trust unreservedly apologised; and then (far from the first time this century) a year later an independent (UN) investigation came pretty close to vindicating the original BBC investigations conclusions!
However, what you are donating to this time is the Band Aid Trust, and not the Band Aid Charity.
If any of you are financially minded you may have Unit Trusts Funds which require you to hand over your money to a qualified adviser who will invest your spare £10,000 or so into a variety of different trusts funds with the aim of spreading the risk and maximising the amount of income raised.
In the same way the Band Aid Trust will split the amount of income raised from the sales of the Band Aid 30 single and other related seasonal royalties and split the income across the variety of different relevant charities such as MSF; DEC; Red Cross; Action Aid; Save The Children; War Child; etc.
So what is the harm in that you may cry?
The answer is of course those relevant charities will have to go with their proverbially begging bowl to Sir Bob's Charity Trust to get as big a slice of the pie. All this would mean those charities have to spend time, money and energy producing and submitting a case and report to the Band Aid Trust as to why they should receive the slice of the pie; and therefore the Band Aid Trust not only needs Accountants; Admin Managers; etc; but Trust Managers to review and decide which Charities are deserving of the amounts of money they require and which are less deserving ....... so in short by buying the Band Aid single you are donating to a middle man(ager) rather that directly to the relevant Charities on the ground who will more quickly spend that money.
To give an example of the exasperation of the Band Aid Trust's getting involved as a "player" in the fight with Ebola here is an advert by the Disasters and Emergencies Committee Ebola Appeal: http://weknowitschristmas.com/ And MSF have similarly been unimpressed by the involvement of Band Aid.
As for those of you giving Bob Geldof the benefit of the doubt regarding the business with Adele; then you are either unaware or forgotten his verbal attacks on the Human League for snubbing the original Band Aid single (whilst the "too cool for school" New Order and The Smiths turned it down in advance of being asked) as unlike other acts such as Frankie Goes To Hollywood; the Thompson Twins; Howard Jones; Alison Moyet & Nik Kershaw who were the other end of the world in Far East Asia or Australisia so they could not make it to the recording; they were at home in Sheffield; similarly Tears For Fears did not do Live Aid in 1985 despite being listed to perform on the day due to a number of their promo session musicians having quit due to the expiration of their contracts and they were not being hired for the duo's subsequent World Tour so the group did not have a backing band and felt the wrath of "The Mouth"'s tongue, although he retrospectively back tracked when the truth came out and Roland & Curt did the rather entertaining 1986 Band Aid Charity Sports Aid single: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd2ySIDtXfg
Still the most relevant comparison is to the hideous Band Aid II single; which was the idea of The Sun Newspaper (fresh off the backlash over their heinous coverage of the Hillsborough Disaster); and the Tory supporting producers Stock Aitken & Waterman (fresh of the backlash at their trolling "I'd Rather Jack" single). The problem was The Sun Newspaper and Bob Geldof had already announced that the UK's biggest pop star at the time whose previous album had sold millions, won a shed load of Grammies; and contained 5 USA #1 hit singles George Michael was to be on the single. To be fair to Geldof he had originally confirmed he was up for reprising her role in the single (like two thirds of Bananarama) but then he pulled out when he realised Kelvin MacKenzie era The Sun Newspaper's heavy involvement, not least for their libellous 1987 work of fiction regarding his good friend Elton John having had sex with two underage rentboys. As a result Sir Bob Geldof did an interview with The Sun Newspaper publicly lambasting him; the irony is George Michael's eloquent response is arguably the best thing he ever recorded; and certainly far superior to anything Bob Geldof has achieved in recording history https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goroyZbVdlo
Going forward to 2014, and the logic why Bob Geldof criticism of Adele was perhaps premeditated; Adele's partner went to University with and is still good friends with Comedy writer producer Jane Bussmann who as well as her work on Smack The Pony; Brass Eye; Jam; and most recently South Park; she is also responsible for her darkly comic memoir The Worst Date Ever or How it Took a Comedy Writer to Expose Africa's Secret War and her seminar "Bono and Bob, Get Out of Africa" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXASpoRrx9Q
Hence, with minimal effort he would have known asking Adele to perform on the Band Aid 30 single would be about as productive as McDonalds asking Chrissie Hynde; Sir Paul McCartney and Morrissey to advertise their range of quarter pounder Burgers ...
Still at least the Norwegian comedy show most famous for the duo Ylvis most famous for their crossover viral EDM satire "The Fox"; have not missed a trick to highlight the patronising nature of Band Aid:
Bloody heck. Did you write all that yourself? If so well done and good job. Didn't know most of that and if true it paints a whole new picture of Sir Bob
I would refer you back to my first post on this thread #267 to avoid a lot of repetition; but there are some assumptions made with regards your collective donations when you purchase this Band Aid single which are misguided.
First of all, thanks for the detailed post - its certainly more detailed and constructive than some others. To be clear, I'm certainly not saying that Geldof is perfect, or that the the Bandaid Trust (or indeed any charity) operates is perfect. But I still think the bottom line is that the intention is raise money for a valid cause.
Firstly, it is worth pointing out the original Band Aid single was an honest, sincere, heartfelt, genuine release; its runaway success at tapping into the World's Zeitgeist resulting in it raising £8m instead of £80,000 resulted in the Charity set up to directly distribute the income raises to causes to reduce famine, death and starvation in Ethiopia.
Absolutely. And despite the problems in Africa with the distribution of that aid, the bottom line was that Geldof got off his arse and tried to do something positive. That there were issues that complicated that shouldn't take away from that.
I'm not sure if I'm reading between the lines, but are you suggesting that this record isn't an honest, sincere, heartfelt and genuine release?
However, what you are donating to this time is the Band Aid Trust, and not the Band Aid Charity.
If any of you are financially minded you may have Unit Trusts Funds which require you to hand over your money to a qualified adviser who will invest your spare £10,000 or so into a variety of different trusts funds with the aim of spreading the risk and maximising the amount of income raised.
In the same way the Band Aid Trust will split the amount of income raised from the sales of the Band Aid 30 single and other related seasonal royalties and split the income across the variety of different relevant charities such as MSF; DEC; Red Cross; Action Aid; Save The Children; War Child; etc.
So what is the harm in that you may cry?
The answer is of course those relevant charities will have to go with their proverbially begging bowl to Sir Bob's Charity Trust to get as big a slice of the pie. All this would mean those charities have to spend time, money and energy producing and submitting a case and report to the Band Aid Trust as to why they should receive the slice of the pie; and therefore the Band Aid Trust not only needs Accountants; Admin Managers; etc; but Trust Managers to review and decide which Charities are deserving of the amounts of money they require and which are less deserving ....... so in short by buying the Band Aid single you are donating to a middle man(ager) rather that directly to the relevant Charities on the ground who will more quickly spend that money.
To give an example of the exasperation of the Band Aid Trust's getting involved as a "player" in the fight with Ebola here is an advert by the Disasters and Emergencies Committee Ebola Appeal: http://weknowitschristmas.com/ And MSF have similarly been unimpressed by the involvement of Band Aid.
That is all fair comment - although a couple of things might be worth mentioning. Firstly, the BandAid Trust spends far less on fundraising activities than most other charities. So costs involved in pitching for funds will be, at least in part, be offset by more money being available as a result of that.
Also, my understanding was always that BandAid became a trust because it was only ever intended to be a short term effort, rather than a long term, permanent charity. And that was largely because there were other charities with more experience on the ground in Africa. The clue was in the name - BandAid. Literally an effort to raise as much cash as possible to provide as much immediate extra aid as possible.
Nonetheless it existed as an entity which still generated a fair amount of money without really doing any fundraising. And that money has to go somewhere.
Where its a fairly low level ticking over that's not such a big deal, but with something like this where there is a very specific aim, I would wonder if, for expediency, all the money is going straight to the DEC. Do you know for a fact that that isn't happening?
As for those of you giving Bob Geldof the benefit of the doubt regarding the business with Adele; then you are either unaware or forgotten his verbal attacks on the Human League for snubbing the original Band Aid single
I'm not sure the fact that something happened 30 years ago counts as evidence of something else happening now. I don't think anyone here knows exactly what happened, or what was said, other than rumour and hearsay from the media. Which to be fair, isn't usually the most reliable source of information.
Have you not heard anyone mention about charity songs all profits go to charity?
You don't know what these costs area and have been making this up as you go along. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I'm going to assume studio costs were waived.
And you are still ignoring the fact that all charities have some operating costs, because they don't actually run on Pixie Dust.
You don't know what these costs area and have been making this up as you go along. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I'm going to assume studio costs were waived.
And you are still ignoring the fact that all charities have some operating costs, because they don't actually run on Pixie Dust.
Is there a reason you keep ignoring that point?
I cant tell you the exact cost as i dont own a recording studio ir have i ever been in one but what i do know is i like my money to go direct to a charity
Comments
Yes, so you said. But I asked you what costs Bandaid are subject to that, say, Oxfam are not?
Presumably if I make a donation to, say, Oxfam, then *only the profits* that Oxfam make go to anything as well. My understanding is that Oxfam have operating costs, and doesn't run on pixie dust.
However, Take That's first week sales (like the majority of singles in 2014) have had an artificial first week sale because of endless weeks of pre-order sales. They won't have that luxury next week to maintain their singles sales so will inevitably sell about half what the track is likely to sell this week - it's happened to about 85% of singles that entered at #1 or #2 this year.
Band Aid 30 was available to pre-order something like 24 hours before its Monday release.
Also on iTunes, Band Aid 30 have roughly a 15% lead over Take That so I think it's safe to say by the end of the week, DTKIC will have a bigger lead over These Days.
Looking ahead, there is nothing released next week that looks like a strong contender for #1 so even if Take That were #1 this coming Sunday, I think it's safe to say Band Aid 30 would more than likely return to #1. By being #1 this week, the song will get three consecutive weeks at #1 before the CD single is released which is bound to boost sales so a fourth week at #1 also looks more than likely.
It's then a case of which sells better Christmas week. Band Aid 30 or The X Factor winner.
If all the artists are working for free and the distributors are charging nothing, any other costs are going to be minimal?
Precisely.
Firstly, it is worth pointing out the original Band Aid single was an honest, sincere, heartfelt, genuine release; its runaway success at tapping into the World's Zeitgeist resulting in it raising £8m instead of £80,000 resulted in the Charity set up to directly distribute the income raises to causes to reduce famine, death and starvation in Ethiopia. (Never mind Bruce Springsteen told Bob Geldof prior to Live Aid in July 1985 he was not doing it because he had been advised by his contacts in the US Government administration that a significant amount of the money raised would be distributed to Ethopian Government and Rebel groups who would syphon it off for their own means and not for what it was meant to; which a BBC World Service and then a Panorama programme ran with in 2010 which understandably upset Bob Geldof; which of course the UK media made a huge fuss over; the spineless BBC Trust unreservedly apologised; and then (far from the first time this century) a year later an independent (UN) investigation came pretty close to vindicating the original BBC investigations conclusions!
However, what you are donating to this time is the Band Aid Trust, and not the Band Aid Charity.
If any of you are financially minded you may have Unit Trusts Funds which require you to hand over your money to a qualified adviser who will invest your spare £10,000 or so into a variety of different trusts funds with the aim of spreading the risk and maximising the amount of income raised.
In the same way the Band Aid Trust will split the amount of income raised from the sales of the Band Aid 30 single and other related seasonal royalties and split the income across the variety of different relevant charities such as MSF; DEC; Red Cross; Action Aid; Save The Children; War Child; etc.
So what is the harm in that you may cry?
The answer is of course those relevant charities will have to go with their proverbially begging bowl to Sir Bob's Charity Trust to get as big a slice of the pie. All this would mean those charities have to spend time, money and energy producing and submitting a case and report to the Band Aid Trust as to why they should receive the slice of the pie; and therefore the Band Aid Trust not only needs Accountants; Admin Managers; etc; but Trust Managers to review and decide which Charities are deserving of the amounts of money they require and which are less deserving ....... so in short by buying the Band Aid single you are donating to a middle man(ager) rather that directly to the relevant Charities on the ground who will more quickly spend that money.
To give an example of the exasperation of the Band Aid Trust's getting involved as a "player" in the fight with Ebola here is an advert by the Disasters and Emergencies Committee Ebola Appeal: http://weknowitschristmas.com/ And MSF have similarly been unimpressed by the involvement of Band Aid.
As for those of you giving Bob Geldof the benefit of the doubt regarding the business with Adele; then you are either unaware or forgotten his verbal attacks on the Human League for snubbing the original Band Aid single (whilst the "too cool for school" New Order and The Smiths turned it down in advance of being asked) as unlike other acts such as Frankie Goes To Hollywood; the Thompson Twins; Howard Jones; Alison Moyet & Nik Kershaw who were the other end of the world in Far East Asia or Australisia so they could not make it to the recording; they were at home in Sheffield; similarly Tears For Fears did not do Live Aid in 1985 despite being listed to perform on the day due to a number of their promo session musicians having quit due to the expiration of their contracts and they were not being hired for the duo's subsequent World Tour so the group did not have a backing band and felt the wrath of "The Mouth"'s tongue, although he retrospectively back tracked when the truth came out and Roland & Curt did the rather entertaining 1986 Band Aid Charity Sports Aid single: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd2ySIDtXfg
Still the most relevant comparison is to the hideous Band Aid II single; which was the idea of The Sun Newspaper (fresh off the backlash over their heinous coverage of the Hillsborough Disaster); and the Tory supporting producers Stock Aitken & Waterman (fresh of the backlash at their trolling "I'd Rather Jack" single). The problem was The Sun Newspaper and Bob Geldof had already announced that the UK's biggest pop star at the time whose previous album had sold millions, won a shed load of Grammies; and contained 5 USA #1 hit singles George Michael was to be on the single. To be fair to Geldof he had originally confirmed he was up for reprising her role in the single (like two thirds of Bananarama) but then he pulled out when he realised Kelvin MacKenzie era The Sun Newspaper's heavy involvement, not least for their libellous 1987 work of fiction regarding his good friend Elton John having had sex with two underage rentboys. As a result Sir Bob Geldof did an interview with The Sun Newspaper publicly lambasting him; the irony is George Michael's eloquent response is arguably the best thing he ever recorded; and certainly far superior to anything Bob Geldof has achieved in recording history https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goroyZbVdlo
Going forward to 2014, and the logic why Bob Geldof criticism of Adele was perhaps premeditated; Adele's partner went to University with and is still good friends with Comedy writer producer Jane Bussmann who as well as her work on Smack The Pony; Brass Eye; Jam; and most recently South Park; she is also responsible for her darkly comic memoir The Worst Date Ever or How it Took a Comedy Writer to Expose Africa's Secret War and her seminar "Bono and Bob, Get Out of Africa" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXASpoRrx9Q
Hence, with minimal effort he would have known asking Adele to perform on the Band Aid 30 single would be about as productive as McDonalds asking Chrissie Hynde; Sir Paul McCartney and Morrissey to advertise their range of quarter pounder Burgers ...
Still at least the Norwegian comedy show most famous for the duo Ylvis most famous for their crossover viral EDM satire "The Fox"; have not missed a trick to highlight the patronising nature of Band Aid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkOUCvzqb9o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbqA6o8_WC0
If only there was a Charity single:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJLqyuxm96k
Well if you donate just money to a said charity without buying anything that charity will get all the money
and not out till 8th December and costs £3.99 on amazon
So if you buy the Bandaid single where does the money go, if not to the charity?
One line says "Where a kiss of love can kill you" and then in the next line "Well tonight we're reaching out and touchng you"
Bloody heck. Did you write all that yourself? If so well done and good job. Didn't know most of that and if true it paints a whole new picture of Sir Bob
First of all, thanks for the detailed post - its certainly more detailed and constructive than some others. To be clear, I'm certainly not saying that Geldof is perfect, or that the the Bandaid Trust (or indeed any charity) operates is perfect. But I still think the bottom line is that the intention is raise money for a valid cause.
Absolutely. And despite the problems in Africa with the distribution of that aid, the bottom line was that Geldof got off his arse and tried to do something positive. That there were issues that complicated that shouldn't take away from that.
I'm not sure if I'm reading between the lines, but are you suggesting that this record isn't an honest, sincere, heartfelt and genuine release?
That is all fair comment - although a couple of things might be worth mentioning. Firstly, the BandAid Trust spends far less on fundraising activities than most other charities. So costs involved in pitching for funds will be, at least in part, be offset by more money being available as a result of that.
Also, my understanding was always that BandAid became a trust because it was only ever intended to be a short term effort, rather than a long term, permanent charity. And that was largely because there were other charities with more experience on the ground in Africa. The clue was in the name - BandAid. Literally an effort to raise as much cash as possible to provide as much immediate extra aid as possible.
Nonetheless it existed as an entity which still generated a fair amount of money without really doing any fundraising. And that money has to go somewhere.
Where its a fairly low level ticking over that's not such a big deal, but with something like this where there is a very specific aim, I would wonder if, for expediency, all the money is going straight to the DEC. Do you know for a fact that that isn't happening?
I'm not sure the fact that something happened 30 years ago counts as evidence of something else happening now. I don't think anyone here knows exactly what happened, or what was said, other than rumour and hearsay from the media. Which to be fair, isn't usually the most reliable source of information.
They take awat the cost of making the song
And what are the costs of making the song?
Given its charity status, aren't those costs £0.00?
Or did they have to pay One Direction a few million?
They have to pay for general stuff
So its *general stuff* now? I thought it was costs specific to recording a record.
What *general stuff* did they have to pay for?
And how is it different to *general stuff* that Oxfam or the red Cross have to pay for?
(Again, I'm assuming that neither Oxfam nor the Red Cross run on Pixie Dust.
You do realise you cant just turn up to a recording studio and record a song for free?
Are we still on *general costs* or are we back to specific costs of recording a record?
You're right though, I can't.
But I'd be pretty sure that Geldof recording a Band Aid record for charity can.
Whether its for charity or not there are still costs
So what are these costs? And maybe be a bit less vague this time.
Because I'm still pretty sure that costs for something like this would be waived.
That's kind of how *charity* works.
Have you not heard anyone mention about charity songs all profits go to charity?
You don't know what these costs area and have been making this up as you go along. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I'm going to assume studio costs were waived.
And you are still ignoring the fact that all charities have some operating costs, because they don't actually run on Pixie Dust.
Is there a reason you keep ignoring that point?
Well im sure the 2003 one had the 1980's one on it too. Surprised it's just one track singles are hopeless now well CDs most people use itunes.
I cant tell you the exact cost as i dont own a recording studio ir have i ever been in one but what i do know is i like my money to go direct to a charity
When things are for charity, they are usually free.
You think Geldof rang Sarm West about recording the Band Aid song there, and Sarm West said No problem Bob. That'll be £120k per hour.?
Whether for charity or not everyone isnt going to give anything away for free
People give blood for free....start thinking outside the box.