Live Aid - What if it never happened ?

[adam1]

As a teenager in 1985,  I did'nt know much about U2. Liked 'New Years Day' & 'Pride' but that was it. However the first thing I remember about Live Aid was seeing a lot of U2 flags. 'They must have loyal fans' I thought. A few hours later me, my dad and sister sat mesmorised as Bono blew everyone away. My sister was a 'Spandau Ballet' fan and was upset as she knew U2 had stolen the show.

A few weeks later and all of U2's album's had re entered the charts. There was a buzz about them they had got a whole lot of new people interested. Bono even managed to get 'Clannad' into the charts.  I bought their four albums and loved them. Live Aid had given U2 breathing space to spend as long as they wanted on their next album. Three years after UF, JT came out, record shops opened at midnight around the country. They broke America and became the biggest band in the world.

However would all this have happened if Live Aid did'nt happen ? The millions of fans that saw Live Aid and became instant fans (like me) would'nt have happened. Their record company may have given them deadlines of one or two years, so JT may not have been a classic. There certainly would'nt have been record shops opening at midnight. Clannad getting into the charts, forget it. Thank god for 'Saint Bob'.

[berol]

They had a sizeable US following before Live Aid.  War hit #12 I think and Under a Blood Red Sky was all over MTV.  The Amnesty tour was the big buzz before Joshua Tree came out.  The air was such before the release that a horrible album would have hit #1.  Though, it wouldn't have stayed there long.

[Johnny Amsterdam]

I remember that day real clear. I knew about U2 and that they were really good. My brother used to play them alot. I really was waiting for them to come. Was a great day in rock history. If I recall clearly I recorded it on video and on tape. and set placed the on the map. Great days great band in those days.

[suitoflights]

it was an iconic era-defining performance.

[tohydroman]

I'm gonna come out and say it... They were making a name for themselves no doubt but "Bad" made U2 what they are today. That performance live solidified U2 as the "band of the 80's" by Rolling Stone magazine and showed millions of people at the same time that there was something very special about this band, something we all knew before the masses realized it.
It showed everyone what a live act should be like. Bet you it even made Freddy and Queen take notice as they were huge that day too.

[jick]

If it never happened, U2 would never be as big with the Joshua Tree and would not need to reinvent themselves with Achtung Baby.  And we would never hear a mess that was POP.

Cheers,

J

[Joe90usa]

It was Queen's day. I know sometimes U2 fans go back and rewrite history to say it was U2's day, but that's not what happened. Put on the DVD and watch. No band had more crowd response than Queen did on that day.

[j2736 (i'm not a boy ! )]

i would have not been a fan if i had not seen the boys play Sunday Bloody Sunday in Live Aid. it was my first time to see them play, and even, heard about them. i'm so grateful to God Live Aid happened.

[daveyg]

I was 12 when Live Aid came out, and not yet a U2 fan. When I came round to liking U2 a year or two later, I remembered them as the "Live Aid band" despite knowing them before from New Years Day and Bad on the radio. For me as a 12 year old, it made little difference, but for anyone who was slightly older than me, it might have. Would JT be less successful without Live Aid? probably. AB/ZooTV as big? probably not.

[Jazz]

Cynics say a lot of rock stars used Live Aid to promote themselves - as U2 have NEVER engaged in cynical self promotion I would suggest Live Aid had nothing at all to do with their rise to mega stardom.

[tohydroman]

Live Aid had everything to do with what U2 are today. With Live Aid U2 would never had received the amount of time needed to make their masterpiece JT.
They didn't use it to promote themselves but the just did what they normally did but with the exception of 1.5 billion people realizing it at the same time.
Queen had a fantastic performance but I'm willing to bet they realized that day who their only live act successor was going to be. Remember... Queen was at their prime while U2 were just starting to emerge as a very serious contender for their spot.
Also Queen had everybody rocking but I'd say U2 had everybody in a more subdued and emotional state.
I read that Bono thought he ruined the bands career that day with the "Bad" performance and was seriously thinking of dibanding but then came in all the reviews around the world about this special "heart tugging" performance that changed a lot of people worldwide.

[daveyg]

Cynics say a lot of rock stars used Live Aid to promote themselves - as U2 have NEVER engaged in cynical self promotion I would suggest Live Aid had nothing at all to do with their rise to mega stardom.

Disagree - intended or not, every artist at Live Aid were promoted by attending and performing at the show. It wasn't a purely altruistic act by the bands.

The fact that Nik Kershaw is probably only remembered by people who were alive when it was on and that U2 have fans who see them live that were born years after Live Aid just shows how much U2 used the platform to "show how much they care" and sparked an interest in the band.

An interest that gained fans that wouldnt have neccessarily got into the band otherwise, and the JT wouldn't have had as much sales without Live Aid.

[Jazz]

Cynics say a lot of rock stars used Live Aid to promote themselves - as U2 have NEVER engaged in cynical self promotion I would suggest Live Aid had nothing at all to do with their rise to mega stardom.

Disagree - intended or not, every artist at Live Aid were promoted by attending and performing at the show. It wasn't a purely altruistic act by the bands.

The fact that Nik Kershaw is probably only remembered by people who were alive when it was on and that U2 have fans who see them live that were born years after Live Aid just shows how much U2 used the platform to "show how much they care" and sparked an interest in the band.

An interest that gained fans that wouldnt have neccessarily got into the band otherwise, and the JT wouldn't have had as much sales without Live Aid.

I think to be fair, for most artists (U2 included), it was a mixture of a charitable act AND a chance for massive exposure.

U2 are masters of self promotion, cynical or otherwise.

[indiansummer]

I think the idea of self-promotion is something new and a product of the time we are in now so pretty irrelevant to Live Aid , in 1985 things were a bit more genuine. All the bands that were on the bill at Live Aid were asked to perform. It was a first, a unique ground breaking concert and for a cause that gripped millions of people around the world thanks to Sir Bob.
 ALL the greatest performers of that era were there.

[Jazz]

I think the idea of self-promotion is something new and a product of the time we are in now so pretty irrelevant to Live Aid , in 1985 things were a bit more genuine. All the bands that were on the bill at Live Aid were asked to perform. It was a first, a unique ground breaking concert and for a cause that gripped millions of people around the world thanks to Sir Bob.
 ALL the greatest performers of that era were there.

I think that's a very naieve view - in the case of U2 they have never made a secret of how big they wanted to become and money was a big part of that.

Nothing wrong with it but 1985 wasn't any more or less genuine that 2009. People were still hungry for success and money - self promotion is obviously a big part of that.

I'm not a cynical as some observers about Live Aid - I'm just making the point that inevitably, some or all artists would have seen it (in part) as a vehicle for greater exposure.