I didnt see the earlier set with U2, but I think the final set was pretty much all Beatles stuffOriginally Posted by Felix
I didnt see the earlier set with U2, but I think the final set was pretty much all Beatles stuff
Figures how popular McCartney is when he doesn't play his own songs =/
> Figures how popular McCartney is when he doesn't play his own songs =/
He played solo stuff for the Super Bowl this year, IIRC. I'm pretty sure he played Live and Let Die.
> I don't really know this Bit Torrent thing, I've heard some dubious comments about it so am reluctant to get involved.
There's no reason to get all paranoid about BT. It's chiefly used to pirate games and stuff, but there are plenty of legitimate uses for it, too. I'm downloading one of those torrents right now. If it's decent I'll upload it to yousendit or somethign.
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
>>> Robbis Williams could easilly have been cut.
Robbie Williams was ideal for a gig like that. He had the crowd eating out of the palm of his hand. He plays the crowd and the cameras very well, and for a gig like that, it was just what was needed.
If you wanted to make cuts, Mariah Carey was a waste of Oxygen as most pundits seem to agree on. UB40 were commented as being a good backing track for a toilet or burger stand visit, Ms Dynamite was hopeless, (my reckoning).
I could go on, but I didn't see all of it, and what I did see was chosen by others.
Floyd, of course, were just incredible.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity unto the dream.
Well a lot of them are his own songs. They were attributed to Lennon/McCartney, but you can usually tell who wrote what.
Maybe, but I cant stand the guy, and I'm proud of myself for sitting through his set (though it was mainly due to pressure from other people watching it with me). He's still a talentless waste of skin, and you cant persuade me otherwise.
I know they were attributed to Lennon/McCartney n'all, but they're well-known because the Beatles played 'em, most people don't know *his* songs, or atleast less of them than those of Lennon or Harrison.
And Live and Let Die is well known because of James Bond and because of GNR.
> most people don't know *his* songs, or atleast less of them than those of Lennon or Harrison.
You're discounting McCartney because he wasn't as big as the Beatles when he went solo? That's retarded.
> And Live and Let Die is well known because of James Bond
Still, I challenge you to name more than one or two other songs from Bond movies.
> because of GNR.
Please
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
Not hard as many are named after the film: Goldfinger, A View to a Kill, Diamonds are Forever
I didn't mean "Say their names", I meant name well known ones. I've never heard of any of those outside of the movies. The only one I can think of offhand was whichever one Tina Turner did, and I don't even remember which movie that was.
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
That's not what I'm saying. What I think is that I doubt people* would go to a Paul McCartney concert if he didn't play any Beatles' songs, since his own work isn't as well-known (=popular) as the Beatles', or John Lennon's. Or George Harrison' for that matter.
Discarding the option that I could've typed it all in on Google by now, and that Fordy already posted three, Diamonds are Forever (yes Fordy named it, so what? I have the video), Die Another Day, The James Bond Theme, Tomorrow Never dies, Licence to Kill.
You are a bloody retard
* I can be included aswell as excluded from people, kay?
** I didn't mean "You are a bloody retard" I meant that you are a nice fella.
Did anyone else realize that they didn't actually raise money at any of these events??? The whole point was to raise "awareness about the situation in Africa". Yet all I hear about is people talking about the bands that played. Does anyone else care that they had all these people together and didn't really raise a dime for the cause?
The problem isn't really the money, they get enough of that...
It's more like corrupt leaders, civil wars etc. (and AIDS).
Here is a good summary of the current trade situation.
Ironically, doing the "right thing" would benefit most Europeans and Americans with lower grocery bills and lower taxes.Telegraph.co.uk: We'll be watching you
Oxfam recently estimated that if Africa were able to increase its share of world trade by just one per cent, that would generate about £40 billion - about five times the current level of aid.
According to the Africa Commission, rich countries spend around £200 billion a year on agricultural protection and subsidies - 16 times the amount of aid they give to Africa. "We live in a world where every cow in Europe has received almost $2 [£1.13] a day in subsidies - double, grotesquely, the average income in Africa. And Japanese cows nearly $4," said the commission.
Experts believe that opening up western markets, particularly in agricultural products such as cotton, would give Africa a desperately needed opportunity to grow economically while reducing prices for western consumers.
...
Excess Italian tomatoes are dumped on international markets, driving African farmers out of business because they cannot compete in their own markets against cheap European imports.
...
In a testament to the enduring power of "King Cotton", US support to the country's 25,000 cotton farmers was $3.9 billion - more than its aid to Africa. It is estimated that this has driven down world cotton prices by 10-20 per cent. This is calculated to have lost African cotton farmers up to $250 million.
Chicago Tribune: End to subsidies is best aid for Africa
The United States government last year paid 7,500 of the country's biggest cotton growers $3.2 billion in production subsidies - nearly a half-million dollars per farmer on average. The subsidies are necessary, producers argue, because foreign cotton growers, in places like West Africa and Brazil, can grow cotton much more cheaply than those in the United States. Without the help, they argue, they would be out of business.
Europe, similarly, pays about $3.2 billion dollars a year in subsidies to its sugar producers, guaranteeing them prices for their crops that - like cotton in the United States - give them an income three times higher than what they would get selling their products on an open world market.
The subsidies promote overproduction, cost taxpayers billions and artificially push down crop prices worldwide. In Africa, where governments can't afford to give their farmers such assistance, the subsidies create a disaster.
In dry countries like Burkina Faso, Mali and Benin, perched on the southern edge of the Sahara, cotton is about the only viable crop. Growers there can produce it at about a third of what it costs in the United States, according to Oxfam, a British anti-poverty group. In a free-trade environment, the growers would be able to boost their sales, their families' income and the welfare of their extremely poor countries.
But subsidies to U.S., European and even Chinese cotton farmers mean the 10 million people who rely on cotton in West and Central Africa are struggling to survive, hit by unfair competition and artificially low world prices for cotton. They're eager to improve their plight through trade rather than aid, as the wealthy world has long urged. It's just that the rich nations won't let them.
...
One of the ironies of rich-world agricultural subsidies is that they hurt even the rich nations themselves. U.S. taxpayers each year hand over $19 billion in agricultural subsidies primarily to a small pool of already wealthy corporate farmers.
This is being replayed on MTV right now. PF is on near the end.
-Govtcheez
[email protected]
Those dubious comments are FUD. BitTorrent is no more dubious than HTTP.
