From
http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news426.htm
October 2003


In today’s rhythmically globalised world, record production and sales are controlled almost entirely by five fat cat multinational companies intent on selling an easy-for-your-ears, empty-of-substance commodity. Why don’t we take a quick run through the hit parade of corporations trying to monopolise our ‘entertainment’: There’s AOL Time Warner (who own Atlantic, Elektra, Sire, Maverick among others); Vivendi Universal (MCA, Polygram, Geffen, Interscope, Motown); Sony (CBS, Epic); Bertelsmann (BMG, Arista, RCA), and EMI (Capitol, Chrysalis, Virgin, Parlophone). It’s the new monsters of rock.

Vivendi Universal are about to merge with US TV network NBC, who happen to be owned by General Electric - manufacturers of engines for war planes used to bomb Afghanistan and Iraq, and donors of $1.1 million to our much-loved Republican Party. Vivendi Universal also has links to Espelsa who develop mission planning systems for arms manufacturers Lockheed Martin and British Aerospace. And the latest is that their music division isn’t doing so well, so they might soon be flogging it off to another corporation.

Keeping it in the corporate family, AOL Time Warner are currently negotiating with EMI to sell off Warner Music (Madonna, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Missy Elliot). And of course, AOL is involved in the arms industry through Hughes Electronic Corps and bombmakers, Raytheon Industries. AOL and Time Warner, who together have donated $1.6 million to the Bush administration, merged in 2000 to form the fourth largest company in the world, generating more income than the output of Russia or the Netherlands. Meanwhile, Sony is in joint venture with the US Army to develop advanced training simulations equipment, and The Power Corporation of Canada, a major shareholder in BMG, is involved in the production of parts for fighter aircraft and other military vehicles. So the arms business is the new rock’n’roll then.

Simple figures would have done, thanks.

LIVE 8 STARS' ALBUMS BOOST
1 Pink Floyd - Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd - 1343%
2 The Who - Then and Now - 863%
3 Annie Lennox - Eurythmics Greatest Hits - 500%
4 Dido - Life For Rent - 412%
5 Razorlight - Up All Night - 335%
6 Robbie Williams - Greatest Hits - 320%
7 Joss Stone - Mind, Body and Soul - 309%
8 Sting - The Very Best of Sting & The Police - 300%
9 Travis - Singles - 268%
10 Madonna - Immaculate Collection - 200%
Source: HMV

that's really cheered me up

I'm pretty sure that most of them are.

from that link

"Sir Paul McCartney's rendition of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band with U2 topped the iTunes chart in several countries after being made available to download an hour after its performance."

Will mr Michael Jackson be giving his royalties (he owns the beatles back catalogue)??? Or is he beyond the cynicism because he did not perform?

and why didn't p diddy turn up in philly? maybe he got my email ;)

cynicism has a heart - though admittedly not enough joy

I think that most of them did it because it's a cause that's going to get worldwide publicity, which is good for the cause (make poverty history, in a sense), and also for themselves. I do believe that some of them, in their minds somewhere, were trying to help the concerts get off the ground and do something postive if you will, but I do also think that they knew it'd have personal benefits for themselves, at the same time.

One band out of the entire line up of 9+ shows promote ONE idea, out of the many that are in conjunction with the issues inhibiting Africa's wealth, health, and future.

very well said

very well said

Agreed. They need to be supporting the MANY methods of erradicating poverty, not just the cause.
I find it amazing that there's a HUGE contrast between rich and poor in South America especially, where the countries are neither LEDCs or MEDCs in some cases.

Whatever you think or U2 and/or Bono, to call him a bandwagon jumper is... uncharitable. I don't doubt that a lot of musicians do get involved for profile reasons... but in spite of everything, I really don't get that with Bono. He's an easy target, and a lazy one.

But why must we focus all our efforts on Africa? Don't we have enough poor people in our own communities? Do they not need help too?

Oh that's right, we just label them as workshy chavs

Wiping out debt would not do anything to eradicate the problem. Governments would just borrow more, because they have to in order to run their countries.

Another question (sorry) but in order to remove corrupt governments and fascist dictators, do we not have to invade said country?

In my opinion you can't be one minute against the war in Iraq and supporting the Make Poverty History campaign the next.

When you analyze what actually has to be done in order to make poverty history, you'd be going against everything you stood for in the Iraq war.

Just my two cents

sorry if someone else said this but ... coldplay only saw an apparent 3% rise in sales - the reasons being, everyone in the world already owns their albums (probably)

So "Geldolf and Bono are always harping on the easy stuff" and "didn't have the balls to speak up about the more controversial stuff"?

You may have a point there but at least they're speaking up about it at all unlike most other pop stars (and indeed people in general).

It really depresses me the way that, as soon as people make some attempt to make a difference, everyone dives in and starts complaing that they're not doing enough, being hypocrites etc.

For all his faults Geldolf is one of the few people who, having seen problems with the world, has got off of his apathetic arse and at least tried to do something. And maybe it's not entirely worked, maybe there are flaws and maybe they're going far enough. But he's gone far further than virtually at least 95% of the rest population by at least trying. I'm baffled why he gets criticised whilst all the musicians who don't make any effort at all to promote awareness are let off scott-free.

And I sincerely doubt that everybody posting on here about the things Geldolf did wrong or should have done better is making plans to promote these issues themselves. And maybe they shouldn't be (although I know I should do a damn sight more. In the two minutes I've written this 40 people have died from poverty and I've just sat here typing a message for a messageboard) but I don't see why they need to criticises somebody for trying.