When actually will U2 make a gratis concert in Africa?

[babyman]

At 80 quid a head.....

(I ask only for the sake of discussion, any U2 gig there should be a charity/donation only/free gig open to the full public)

u2fp

i say this, peter, it would be maybe a beginning. do you really want to erase extreme poverty until 2015? so, why not start by these smallnesses? a smallness called "the very beginning of a real integration".........................otherwise just let fall all the speeches about the asphalting of extreme poverty. who, in music, better than U2 would truly make a real first step?
how many other bands would probably follow them? just reflect.............

 

[U2FanPeter]

wow. you must believe all africans live on trees.

Am I an expert? No. But for one thing this was sited as a major problem in several of the Live Aid Africa documentaries about just getting food to places.

Also, read the back of the Sydney Zoo VHS package. There may only be a couple metropolitan areas that would have athe capability to power a full outdoor u2 show. I don't know.

u2fp

 

[Jamila]

U2 does not need to do a concert in Africa to show their concern for the future of the Continent.

They do more good for Africa trying to raise awareness of Africa's current challenges and hope for its future by trying to organize people in the developed world to get their governments to keep the promises that their countries have made to Africa.

That, of course, is the ONE Campaign and the international white band movement (http://www.whiteband.org).

There is an international petition to get U2 to play again in South Africa again on the Vertigo tour.

I hope it's successful.

And for that event that was mentioned before - in November 2003, Bono and Edge participated in an AIDS awareness and fund-raising concert on behalf of the Nelson Mandela Foundation in Cape Town, SA.

 

[Liesje]

i wasn't talking about solving problems, a rock show remains a rock show. all the things you're listing are unfortunately no novelties, and will remain the same for who knows many years. of course a u2 show isn't an immediate thing that african need. anyway, i wasn't referring to the dying people "living" in the smallest villages to attend a concert, this would have no sense. i was referring to cities, capitals specifically, where people have a "better" niveau. i mean, there are people who have a very little little bit more luck than the extreme poor ones.

.... what would matter if they' d go to dakar, for example, (or any other capital) and play a gig in front of 5-6-7.000 persons? even when the majority would neither know where u2 come from, that would count nothing........

Then what are you talking about? You've still not given one GOOD reason why U2 should do concerts in Africa. There are a zillion good reason why they shouldn't and why they simply can't.

Do you know of any venues in these "capital" cities that could support one of the Vertigo shows? Just because a city is a capital and might have an arean or two doesn't mean much. There's just no space, there's no security, there's no infrastructure like even a decent highway needed to move U2's fleet full of equipment, or the electricity to power such a spectacle. What you're suggesting is not only unreasonable, it's impossible. You want them to bring the entire show, as is? It won't happen. There's hardly any place besides South Africa or Egypt where such a show, physically, would even be possible, and that's not even taking into account the security risks and all the additional expenses it would take to make it possible.

I understand what you're saying, but so far you're not giving any support as to how a show like Vertigo would even be possible anywhere in Africa at this point in time.

Of course, it would be cool, nice, a kind gesture, whatever - I think we can all agree on that - but there's just no way...

 

[timothius]

do white people belong to that per cent?

Without being familiar with the exact survey - I can see no reason why not. South Africa since 1993 has been trying to abolish these kind of racially devisive census taking.

how many interests have the multinationals in southafrica?

Well in the cities (J'Burg, CT, PE, Durbs, Pretoria, Bloem) you have all the comforts of a western city - although crime, AIDS and poverty rates are much higher. But there is multinational presence in the cities, but that isn't too say Coke isn't available in parts of Ivory Coast either.

the same like in burundi?

My knowledge of Burundi is limited. I will hazard a guess of no though. What that proves is a mystery to me.

how much money bring multinationals to the southafrican government?

I don't quite understand what this means.

Again, my point isn't that South Africa could sustain a tour. They very well could, mainly because they have the infrastructure bought by the aparthied years (mainly Rugby stadiums etc) to hold Football World Cups and U2 Tours. My point is that saying "South Africa doesn't face the same problems as black africa" is sheer craziness and complete ignorance of the country.

 

[babyman]

My point is that saying "South Africa doesn't face the same problems as black africa" is sheer craziness and complete ignorance of the country.

south africa doesn't face the same problems of black africa in the same proportion. if south africa has at least 10 or 15 cities where many people have a work, a house, a car, everything they need, how can you say it's the same problem that the inhabitants of adis abbeba have?? if there's at least a bank in cities like pretoria, durban, johannesburg, marysburg or whatever other city, and people are able to bring money there what does this mean?? happens this in adis abbeba, in freetown or in yaoundè, too?? this is what you don't understand i'm meaning, southafrica isn't facing the problems of black africa in the same proportion. southafrica, in its overall, has a major rank of civilization of all the black africas nations together. i'm not saying southafrica is rich, but in its overall, it isn't as poor as black africa. in the big southafricans cities you find at least an industry, in black africa you don't. this means that certain people are able to have a salary. there's a clear gap. in southafrica you find the rich and the poor, maybe the poor are the majority, but you find the rich, and they're not a few. in black africa, you just find POOR.
and if i want to share my opinions, i don't say to someone he's crazy just because my opinion is different.....................balance your words

 

[Axver]

Where's GibsonGirl? Considering the fact she's SOUTH AFRICAN, I think she can settle this little RSA argument once and for all.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

U2 don't play anywhere that they can't make a shit load of money, so no.

 

[timothius]

south africa doesn't face the same problems of black africa in the same proportion. if south africa has at least 10 or 15 cities where many people have a work, a house, a car, everything they need, how can you say it's the same problem that the inhabitants of adis abbeba have?? if there's at least a bank in cities like pretoria, durban, johannesburg, marysburg or whatever other city, and people are able to bring money there what does this mean?? happens this in adis abbeba, in freetown or in yaoundè, too?? this is what you don't understand i'm meaning, southafrica isn't facing the problems of black africa in the same proportion. southafrica, in its overall, has a major rank of civilization of all the black africas nations together. i'm not saying southafrica is rich, but in its overall, it isn't as poor as black africa. in the big southafricans cities you find at least an industry, in black africa you don't. this means that certain people are able to have a salary. there's a clear gap. in southafrica you find the rich and the poor, maybe the poor are the majority, but you find the rich, and they're not a few. in black africa, you just find POOR.
and if i want to share my opinions, i don't say to someone he's crazy just because my opinion is different.....................balance your words

In South Africa you have the rich and the poor, correct. But from my experience (actually being to the country for what I would deem a considerable amount of time) the poor in South Africa face very similar problems to the rest of poor Africa. Just because some people in a country have wealth does not mean this spreads, nearly every country in Africa has a rich dictatorial aristocracy as well as a large poor underbelly.

Again from personal experience in Soweto, and taking a train from Johannesburg to Bloemfontien I can attest that there is minimal industry in Soweto. Although I am not denying that somewhere in their steel shanties they keep a bankbook that gives them acess to their R5,000 share portfolio on their weekly trip to one of "South Africa's big cities".

I'm sorry, but when my comments have personal experience and statistics backing me up I find it hard to rationally decipher you points.

 

[timothius]

Where's GibsonGirl? Considering the fact she's SOUTH AFRICAN, I think she can settle this little RSA argument once and for all.

*signals for third umpire*

*awaits ruling*

 

[babyman]

Then what are you talking about? You've still not given one GOOD reason why U2 should do concerts in Africa. There are a zillion good reason why they shouldn't and why they simply can't.

Do you know of any venues in these "capital" cities that could support one of the Vertigo shows? Just because a city is a capital and might have an arean or two doesn't mean much. There's just no space, there's no security, there's no infrastructure like even a decent highway needed to move U2's fleet full of equipment, or the electricity to power such a spectacle. What you're suggesting is not only unreasonable, it's impossible. You want them to bring the entire show, as is? It won't happen. There's hardly any place besides South Africa or Egypt where such a show, physically, would even be possible, and that's not even taking into account the security risks and all the additional expenses it would take to make it possible.

I understand what you're saying, but so far you're not giving any support as to how a show like Vertigo would even be possible anywhere in Africa at this point in time.

Of course, it would be cool, nice, a kind gesture, whatever - I think we can all agree on that - but there's just no way...

i know, you're saying nothing wrong. but it's the word impossible that i cannot stand. why should it be impossible? maybe such a thing would need years of organization, why not start to do it at least? they're talking about the ERASURE of extreme poverty in Africa..........how much things does this target imply? if many don't claim this as utopic, why should it be a concert? but in the end it's not just about a concert in itself, it could be any other thing. the problem is, when do you want to start a real integrating process? i think U2, because of their engagement, and because of their resonance which would carry not a few people together, could be the first to give a real shake. if you build a structure for a concert for example, it will stay there after you've done it. then a nigerian city would have a structure, too. wouldn't it be a begin? and anyway, i was not speaking of a concert just to capture a big venue from all around africa. even 100 people would be worth. it's the message you must give, directly from the place................
audioslave did something like that in cuba. (but they had a larger attendance) wasn't it a success? don't you think other bands will start to go to cuba? just to make a first step, that's it.
personally, i'm amongst the ones who think nothing is impossible before you try to make concrete things. sometimes it's just the will that matters. i like to fail after i tried, not to lift my hands before starting to make even the thought

 

[babyman]

In South Africa you have the rich and the poor, correct. But from my experience (actually being to the country for what I would deem a considerable amount of time) the poor in South Africa face very similar problems to the rest of poor Africa. Just because some people in a country have wealth does not mean this spreads, nearly every country in Africa has a rich dictatorial aristocracy as well as a large poor underbelly.

Again from personal experience in Soweto, and taking a train from Johannesburg to Bloemfontien I can attest that there is minimal industry in Soweto. Although I am not denying that somewhere in their steel shanties they keep a bankbook that gives them acess to their R5,000 share portfolio on their weekly trip to one of "South Africa's big cities".

I'm sorry, but when my comments have personal experience and statistics backing me up I find it hard to rationally decipher you points.

i trust your experience, it is reasonable that you may know a few things more than me if you were there for a while, and i pay respect to your personal testimony.
but look, how can it be that southafrica is going to organize the football championship in 2010? how much money does it cost? billions.
so, my question is, if southafrica is that poor, where do they take the money for it? of course not all of their banks. there must me any subventions, yes or no? don't they bring money? (i'm talking about the government, not of the poor people of course.)
the problem is the that "maybe" the money go only in the richer's bags.............
while the poor remain poor.

 

[LJT]

South Africa is probably the only place they could do on the African continent and since they have done so before, i see no reason why not other than a financial aspect

Someone mentioned Egypt...but umm i think the terrorist threat would be too big there, terrorists would see a U2 concert in Cairo like a moth sees lightbulb or at least it would be very high risk.

 

[Halup]

I think BB king may have extensively toured Africa. I only know he has played in 90 different countries, whereas u2 is likely still in the 25-30 range.

u2fp

By my count U2 have played in exactly 30 countries, counting the UK as 1 country:

Europe: Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greece

Africa: South Africa

Asia: Japan, Israel

Australia, New Zealand

North America: Canada, United States of America, Mexico

South America: Chile, Argentina, Brazil

 

[U2FanPeter]

Denmark?

Have u2 never played Luxonburg?

The group also had tentative plans to bring the Popmart tour to Cairo, Egypt and Singapore in March 1998.

u2fp

 

[soonerfan61]

Are all of you complete fucking morons? Do you not get what this guy is saying? Do you really not feel that a few concerts would benefit Africa? Do you reaaaaaaaaly not understand his apparent point that U2 is not putting up in this situation? Come on!

 

[babyman]

Are all of you complete fucking morons? Do you not get what this guy is saying? Do you really not feel that a few concerts would benefit Africa? Do you reaaaaaaaaly not understand his apparent point that U2 is not putting up in this situation? Come on!

 

[ramblin rose]

Are all of you complete fucking morons? Do you not get what this guy is saying? Do you really not feel that a few concerts would benefit Africa? Do you reaaaaaaaaly not understand his apparent point that U2 is not putting up in this situation? Come on!

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

 

[gvox]

Then what are you talking about? You've still not given one GOOD reason why U2 should do concerts in Africa. There are a zillion good reason why they shouldn't and why they simply can't.

Do you know of any venues in these "capital" cities that could support one of the Vertigo shows? Just because a city is a capital and might have an arean or two doesn't mean much. There's just no space, there's no security, there's no infrastructure like even a decent highway needed to move U2's fleet full of equipment, or the electricity to power such a spectacle. What you're suggesting is not only unreasonable, it's impossible. You want them to bring the entire show, as is? It won't happen. There's hardly any place besides South Africa or Egypt where such a show, physically, would even be possible, and that's not even taking into account the security risks and all the additional expenses it would take to make it possible.

I understand what you're saying, but so far you're not giving any support as to how a show like Vertigo would even be possible anywhere in Africa at this point in time.

Of course, it would be cool, nice, a kind gesture, whatever - I think we can all agree on that - but there's just no way...

Maybe not the full Vertigo tour.

But Bob Marley did major stadium shows in Africa. If he can do it, U2 certainly can.

 

[gvox]

hmmm

Actually, Im thinking that there may be a few really good reasons to do this, and maybe even more than one city.

A concert of any kind brings a huge influx of cash to a city in terms of wages for local labour, infrastructure etc. People would also gain valuable skills for later projects.

Think of it, if 50 major artists donated a tour of 6 major African cities in a one year period - one artist per week in 6 African cities - the spinoff for local economies would be in the billions. Corporations could also lend sponsorship and increase their exposure there. Actually my number of artists likely doesnt compute, but you get the point.

As far as Africans not knowing or liking U2, bollocks. Other nations have proven time and time again that even though the majority of people in that country do not possess the albums, it is 'American' music and as such is recieved and enjoyed, even if they've never heard it before.

And, as far as whether Africans need a rock concert, well of course they do! They need all the spinoffs and they need western civilization to put faith in them as valid human beings who would enjoy a concert or two..

Do Africans need $300 jeans and $150 tshirts? Hell no, but that didn't stop Ali from opening a factory and making them there. U2 is a product, and a concert is a revenue generating business. We havent even touched on the tourist dollars to those major cities if U2 was to touch down there.

They should do tickets like: if you can prove you live below the poverty line, you get a free ticket. If you live well, you pay for your ticket.

I know this is all a rough idea and alot of particulars and logistics would have to be thought through....but think of it! I think its an amazing idea!!

 

[snowbunny00774]

I love it gabrielvox...and just to make it even better...those going who get ticket in advance (paid or not), if they have heard of U2 they get to pick one song each, and the top 25 picks make it to the setlist!!...

 

[snowbunny00774]

haha, line up and don't fall all over each other trying to jump on me for that one!!

 

[Axver]

By my count U2 have played in exactly 30 countries, counting the UK as 1 country:

Europe: Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greece

Africa: South Africa

Asia: Japan, Israel

Australia, New Zealand

North America: Canada, United States of America, Mexico

South America: Chile, Argentina, Brazil

You're missing Denmark. I did a count a few days ago and my total was 31. I wish I had forgotten somewhere but I sadly think I haven't.

And to these people proposing some kind African tour - except in a select few countries, there's no way in hell the thing's going to be profitable. Whether that's a legitimate reason or not to not do it is up to you. Even in countries like Egypt, Kenya, Morocco, and South Africa, I have a hard time imagining them breaking even. Anyone here got the Popmart South Africa statistics? Was it profitable?

 

[Utoo]

Africa! Africa!! Africa!!!

U2Man---your posts crack me up!

I've got many thoughts on this topic, but I'm too lazy to write them all right now. Here's one:

I wonder if doing concerts in Africa for poor people would actually hurt U2's image. Yeah, yeah, image isn't important--but hear me out. Back when they did Rattle & Hum, the band caught a lot of heat for many reasons. Besides the misguided view by the press that the band were placing themselves on the same level as BB King, Elvis, Bob Dylan, etc., one criticism they got was that they seemed to have a rather patronizing attitude toward black people. The scene in which they perform ISHFWILF with the gospel choir was interpreted as "Hey, look how cute this is! These people can sing our song! Let's grace them with our presence and do it with them!" The scene where the whole band stops and stares at the two guys playing in the street was interpreted by many as "Aw, shucks! Look at that guy--he's giving it his best & he ain't bad--[I/and[/I] he's poor!"

Obviously, these are stupid conclusions & wrong interpretations. Still, they were out there & were part of the reason that Rattle & Hum the movie killed U2's image at the time. In a similar manner, playing for "poor people in Africa" might be seen in a similar way. In a recent interview, Bono discussed how difficult the decision to take no money for the iPod deal was, knowing that he could take all those millions and bring the money to Africa. He said that the band talked about it for a long time & decided that doing something as grandiose as that would be seen by some (or many) as a blatant "Look at us! We're good people!" stint instead of the purely good act it would be. The band thought that if that opinion were to spread around, it would effectively do great damage to the band's image. Whether you agree or disagree with that conclusion, that's what the band thought. Because the band's image is important both to the future of the band and the effectiveness of all of the band's charitable works, they decided to preserve their image and do their good works in other ways.

I think that those other ways have been wonderful. I honestly believe that without the tenacious, heartfelt work of Bono & the prestige brought to the issue by the band, the success of Live8, the G8 summit, and the amazing progress on 3rd World Debt Relief would never have happened.

So, babyman--I think that your thoughts on an African tour are good & such a tour would do some good for Africa. However, I wonder if more good would be accomplished without it..

 

[chiso]

i was thinking about this last night. i mean, we know how much they care for africa and africans, why don't they do a gratis event in black Africa?? Kenya, Nigeria, Camerun...............just once a time, bring the vertigo tour down in Africa!!

I wonder if they even know who U2 are in the poor African countries... or if they care.

 

[U2FanPeter]

Have pearl Jam played more countries than u2?

Also, someone mentioned allowing those who prove they live under the poverty line get in free. U2 did this, with 7,000 accepting, with the second last Wembley date on the Zooropa tour.

u2fp

 

[gvox]

there's no way in hell the thing's going to be profitable. Whether that's a legitimate reason or not to not do it is up to you. Even in countries like Egypt, Kenya, Morocco, and South Africa, I have a hard time imagining them breaking even. Anyone here got the Popmart South Africa statistics? Was it profitable?

Hardly a legitimate argument in the context of a charitable event wouldn't you say???

The cash to stage the event comes from the U2 camp, from private philanthropists and corporate sponsorships, who foot the bill for the production costs which in turn means hired labour in each of the respective cities etc.

As for the Wembley argument, good god thats a silly comparison. Entire townships are well below the poverty line in Africa. It wouldn't be a stretch at all to imagine that the amount of people that would apply for free tickets would be roughly proportionate to the statistics noted in previous posts.

Far as I remember, Popmart was barely breaking even on a daily basis, but it still went on...I think U2 could break some new ground here I bet Pearl Jam and others would follow suit...some out of embarrassment, others out of genuine altruism.

 

[gvox]

Utoo some points to ponder...

I think RnH was a movie that the critics were just waiting to pick on U2 about...

But I wonder if the whole iPod thing was because of the fact that simply dumping the loot on Africa doesn't solve the problem.

I dont see the concert idea in the same light...its a project that gets Africans involved, much as Ali's Edun line does on a smaller scale. I think there is a psychological component too, where western artists can send a real message that not only do they care, but they believe that Africans deserve to enjoy the same music we do, even if they can't afford to wholly subsidize it yet.

I dont know, Im just dreaming aloud...at this point Im not sure U2 really needs to worry alot about image...I know they still do...but they are always either getting royally roasted or acclaimed...

 

[babyman]

Re: hmmm

Actually, Im thinking that there may be a few really good reasons to do this, and maybe even more than one city.

A concert of any kind brings a huge influx of cash to a city in terms of wages for local labour, infrastructure etc. People would also gain valuable skills for later projects.

Think of it, if 50 major artists donated a tour of 6 major African cities in a one year period - one artist per week in 6 African cities - the spinoff for local economies would be in the billions. Corporations could also lend sponsorship and increase their exposure there. Actually my number of artists likely doesnt compute, but you get the point.

As far as Africans not knowing or liking U2, bollocks. Other nations have proven time and time again that even though the majority of people in that country do not possess the albums, it is 'American' music and as such is recieved and enjoyed, even if they've never heard it before.

And, as far as whether Africans need a rock concert, well of course they do! They need all the spinoffs and they need western civilization to put faith in them as valid human beings who would enjoy a concert or two..

Do Africans need $300 jeans and $150 tshirts? Hell no, but that didn't stop Ali from opening a factory and making them there. U2 is a product, and a concert is a revenue generating business. We havent even touched on the tourist dollars to those major cities if U2 was to touch down there.

They should do tickets like: if you can prove you live below the poverty line, you get a free ticket. If you live well, you pay for your ticket.

I know this is all a rough idea and alot of particulars and logistics would have to be thought through....but think of it! I think its an amazing idea!!

many highbrows say it's craziness. you've added really many interesting points. i agree with everything.

 

[Axver]

Far as I remember, Popmart was barely breaking even on a daily basis, but it still went on...

Not true. Popmart grossed US$171 million and cost about US$70 million to run. U2 themselves made a profit of $100 million as promised by the promoter, who took home a cool million for himself.