Jon Bon Jovi has just made a big personal donation to charity.

I have always considered him quite cheap so this was a big surprise to me.

(one million dollars to Sandy victims)

Have you ever heard Mick Jagger or Keith Richards to give any substantial sum of money to charity?

And I don't wanna hear the answer that yes, but they don't want to go public with it.

They certainly should go public with it, everybody who gives substantial sum of money to charity should go public with it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-10 15:22 by rollingon.

Mick started that school or supports the school in Dartford, that was supposedly part of the reason he got the knighthood. Keith publically supported a hospital near Redlands. Those are two public examples, but according to Prince Rupert, the band routinely donated money to various causes while they were on tour as a goodwill gesture. Rupert was in charge of deciding which ones they would support.

The Rolling Stones donated a Million Dollars to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Quote
Jelly Face Joe
The Rolling Stones donated a Million Dollars to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Okay, it's good to hear this! I hope they will do this more!

Quote
rollingon

They certainly should go public with it, everybody who gives substantial sum of money to charity should go public with it.

Why?

They did a gig for Nicaragua in the 70s

And one for the blind in Cananda :-)

Probably lots of stuff.

I'm sure they get requests all the time.

Going public with a large charitable donation risks turning that donation into a publicity stunt instead of a goodwill gesture. The focus of a charitable donation should be on the recipient rather than the donor.

Quote
ab
Going public with a large charitable donation risks turning that donation into a publicity stunt instead of a goodwill gesture. The focus of a charitable donation should be on the recipient rather than the donor.

Very true, ab.

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
ab
Going public with a large charitable donation risks turning that donation into a publicity stunt instead of a goodwill gesture. The focus of a charitable donation should be on the recipient rather than the donor.

Very true, ab.

"Charity is when you do something for people while other people are watching" - Bob Odenkirk

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
rollingon

They certainly should go public with it, everybody who gives substantial sum of money to charity should go public with it.

Why?

Because it gives a great example to everyone else who is able to do the same kind of thing.

And secondly it proves that they actually give money to charity at all.

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
ab
Going public with a large charitable donation risks turning that donation into a publicity stunt instead of a goodwill gesture. The focus of a charitable donation should be on the recipient rather than the donor.

Very true, ab.

I disagree strongly, it gives a lot of publicity to the recipient when someone very well known person makes a big donation.

And Bill Gates is a great example of this, because of his donations some issues have been given a very, very big publicity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-10 15:53 by rollingon.

Quote
rollingon

Quote
latebloomer

Quote
ab
Going public with a large charitable donation risks turning that donation into a publicity stunt instead of a goodwill gesture. The focus of a charitable donation should be on the recipient rather than the donor.

Very true, ab.

I disagree strongly, it gives a lot of publicity to the recipient when someone very well known person makes a big donation.

And Bill Gates is a great example of this, because of his donations some issues have been given a very, very big publicity.

You have a point there - there are one or two worthwhile things I'm glad I found out about because of that kind of publicity. That works when the donor is more famous than the charity. But doing your giving to a fashionable and well-known cause in a blaze of publicity, just to show off that you did it? No.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-10 16:04 by Green Lady.

Quote
ab
Going public with a large charitable donation risks turning that donation into a publicity stunt instead of a goodwill gesture. The focus of a charitable donation should be on the recipient rather than the donor.

i.e. - the aforementioned Bon Jovi

Word in the non-profit world is that Keith has made substantial unpublicized donations to the William J. Clinton Foundation. Therein lies the basis of Bill 'n Keef friendship.

Okay, that's great if Keith has done that and I have also heard that Patti is
involved in some charity work so I've been thinking that maybe Keith has made some donations also.

And Keith certainly seem to the kind of person who has heart for charity work also.

I must elaborate my stand on this charity issue a little bit:

I think everyone who makes a really substantial donation (I mean at least several hundred thousand dollars or something like that) should go on public, because it gives a great example to other wealthy people to do the same kind of thing and it also gives great publicity to the donation recipient.

In the case of smaller donations it wouldn't be a such great idea to make a public thing about it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-10 16:38 by rollingon.

Quote
Roscoe

Quote
ab
Going public with a large charitable donation risks turning that donation into a publicity stunt instead of a goodwill gesture. The focus of a charitable donation should be on the recipient rather than the donor.

i.e. - the aforementioned Bon Jovi

But if you would ask Sandy victims about this thing, I'm sure they don't mind even if it's a publicity stunt on Jon's part.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-10 16:36 by rollingon.

Quote
rollingon

Quote
Roscoe

Quote
ab
Going public with a large charitable donation risks turning that donation into a publicity stunt instead of a goodwill gesture. The focus of a charitable donation should be on the recipient rather than the donor.

i.e. - the aforementioned Bon Jovi

But if you would ask this thing about Sandy victims, I'm sure they don't mind even if it's a publicity stunt on Jon's part.

You could also ask them whether they give a damn if the money comes from a rock star or an investment banker or if they're just glad to have the aid.

Quote
rollingon
Jon Bon Jovi has just made a big personal donation to charity.

I have always considered him quite cheap so this was a big surprise to me.

(one million dollars to Sandy victims)

Have you ever heard Mick Jagger or Keith Richards to give any substantial sum of money to charity?

And I don't wanna hear the answer that yes, but they don't want to go public with it.

They certainly should go public with it, everybody who gives substantial sum of money to charity should go public with it.

"But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing," Matthew 6:3

It's all in the scriptures. You can learn more in there than in this forum.

The "problem" with going public with donations to charity is that if you are a celebrity, once you give a large, public donation to one charity, then suddenly EVERYBODY wants you to give a similar donation to their charity, or donate time or effort or be a spokesperson for THEIR cause, and you get flooded with requests and you end up having to say "no" to a lot of really good people, who may then feel snubbed because you gave to X charity but not to theirs. Which creates unnecessary bad feelings and sort of mucks up the whole spirit of giving to charity in the first place. This is why many wealthy musicians and celebrities like the Stones will give quiet personal donations to various charities, as individuals, but will almost never do anything as a BAND, except for very occasional and rare things like SARS or the hurricane Sandy benefit concert. I don't remember which one, but it was one of the members of Led Zeppelin that said the same thing -- that they all gave to charity personally but would never publicly do anything for charity AS LED ZEPPELIN, because then the minute they did, everyone would be asking and they would be overwhelmed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-07-10 16:37 by Turning To Gold.

Quote
Turning To Gold
The "problem" with going public with donations to charity is that if you are a celebrity, once you give a large, public donation to one charity, then suddenly EVERYBODY wants you to give a similar donation to their charity, or donate time or effort or be a spokesperson for THEIR cause, and you get flooded with requests and you end up having to say "no" to a lot of really good people, who may then feel snubbed because you gave to X charity but not to theirs. Which creates unnecessary bad feelings and sort of mucks up the whole spirit of giving to charity in the first place. This is why many wealthy musicians and celebrities like the Stones will give quiet personal donations to various charities, as individuals, but will almost never do anything as a BAND, except for very occasional and rare things like SARS or the hurricane Sandy benefit concert. I don't remember which one, but it was one of the members of Led Zeppelin that said the same thing -- that they all gave to charity personally but would never publicly do anything for charity AS LED ZEPPELIN, because then the minute they did, everyone would be asking and they would be overwhelmed.

Okay, this is a valid point. So it seems that this is a quite complicated thing after all...

Quote
Turning To Gold
The "problem" with going public with donations to charity is that if you are a celebrity, once you give a large, public donation to one charity, then suddenly EVERYBODY wants you to give a similar donation to their charity, or donate time or effort or be a spokesperson for THEIR cause, and you get flooded with requests and you end up having to say "no" to a lot of really good people, who may then feel snubbed because you gave to X charity but not to theirs. Which creates unnecessary bad feelings and sort of mucks up the whole spirit of giving to charity in the first place. This is why many wealthy musicians and celebrities like the Stones will give quiet personal donations to various charities, as individuals, but will almost never do anything as a BAND, except for very occasional and rare things like SARS or the hurricane Sandy benefit concert. I don't remember which one, but it was one of the members of Led Zeppelin that said the same thing -- that they all gave to charity personally but would never publicly do anything for charity AS LED ZEPPELIN, because then the minute they did, everyone would be asking and they would be overwhelmed.

That's not only true for the rich and famous - all charities keep a "soft touch list" and once you give to one of them, you're on it, and not only they but a host of their fellow-charities will pester you for ever. I can't begin to imagine how much more pressure there must be if you also have star-power to make your celebrity donation highly desirable. I'm fine with the Stones' personal donations being strictly their own business.

Quote
Turning To Gold
The "problem" with going public with donations to charity is that if you are a celebrity, once you give a large, public donation to one charity, then suddenly EVERYBODY wants you to give a similar donation to their charity, or donate time or effort or be a spokesperson for THEIR cause, and you get flooded with requests and you end up having to say "no" to a lot of really good people, who may then feel snubbed because you gave to X charity but not to theirs. Which creates unnecessary bad feelings and sort of mucks up the whole spirit of giving to charity in the first place. This is why many wealthy musicians and celebrities like the Stones will give quiet personal donations to various charities, as individuals, but will almost never do anything as a BAND, except for very occasional and rare things like SARS or the hurricane Sandy benefit concert. I don't remember which one, but it was one of the members of Led Zeppelin that said the same thing -- that they all gave to charity personally but would never publicly do anything for charity AS LED ZEPPELIN, because then the minute they did, everyone would be asking and they would be overwhelmed.

You also get fans wondering why you would donate your time/effort to one thing and not the other. I've seen it on other band forums as well, but have seen a little here. But when a band plays some charity event, like the Stones did with Sandy thing, then whenever something bad happens fans are expecting the Stones to help out. They did it for Sandy, why not the Boston bombing or Sandy Hook? Not here, but I've seen people actually get upset over this. Like they feel snubbed, as if the band has basically said that their city isn't as important as that other city. Or you might get somebody dying of MS wondering why such and such celebrity is donating a million dollars to the SPCA when there's no cure for MS. The point being that some people will see what you didn't donate to instead of what you did. Not that they shouldn't donate, but that being anonymous isn't that silly of an idea.

Then when they do something like the 12-12-12 show, Mick makes some little joke and suddenly he's "insulting the victims" or some shit. As great of a band as The Stones are, they've never really been good at discussing issues or anything like that. I think they're just so used to the same stupid questions and superficial interviews that when it comes to being serious about something it's awkward. Especially when Mick is trying to stay in character and be fun, but discussing a sensitive issue. The Stones music and style is pretty celebratory in nature, a Stones concert is a lavish party, it doesn't really go well with serious issues and things where there are victims families or survivors of a tragedy involved. It's like, "I survived a hurricane but lost my whole family, however Mick pointed at me while doing some pelvic thrusts during Bitch so things are getting better".

Quote
Roscoe
Word in the non-profit world is that Keith has made substantial unpublicized donations to the William J. Clinton Foundation. Therein lies the basis of Bill 'n Keef friendship.

You mean Keef picked up the check for dinner? Very charitable of Keef, to buy dinner for a former world leader.

Keith looks like the Grim Reaper in that photo!

Mick and Keith are both extremely generous with charitable donations and do not seek publicity, for many of the reasons cited above.

Keith was a secret donator to the Isle Of Wight radio station - The Angel Radio, which claims to play any music from 1900 to 1969 and NO FURTHER. The station suffered storm damage, and lost a transmitter after it was hit by lightning.

The station were surprised to receive a £3,000 check in the post, signed by Keith.
Director and programme controller Bev Webster, the stations director and programme controller told the Isle of Wight County Press: “We thought the cheque was a joke. But accountants confirmed it was the real Keith Richards.”

“I don’t know if Keith listens to us on the internet, or maybe he tuned in when the Rolling Stones played the Isle of Wight Festival a few years ago, but we couldn’t believe it when we received his check in the post.”

Keith’s spokesperson ( Jane Rose) has confirmed it was his check.
[www.bbcamerica.com]

keith contributes to charity aid for japan

the official announcement:

“Help Keith Help Japan

For decades, Japanese fans have been some of the most passionate supporters of rock and roll. Now they need our help. Please visit KeithRichards.com now to order a very special limited edition t-shirt Keith is making available. The Japan Relief t-shirt is based on a photo taken by Claude Gassian on the Japanese leg of the Steel Wheels tour in 1990 and is available in both classic and fitted styles.
Keith will be sending all profits from the shirt's sales to the Japan Society's Earthquake Relief Fund. Let's come together now to get our brothers and sisters through this difficult time and help them rebuild as soon as possible.


[www.examiner.com]

Quote
ab
Going public with a large charitable donation risks turning that donation into a publicity stunt instead of a goodwill gesture. The focus of a charitable donation should be on the recipient rather than the donor.

I agree. Charitable donations should be given when you want to help people, give something back etc. not for self publicity.

The only exception is when the celeb giving money will encourage others to give.

To each their own with many valid points. Personaly, I'd rather hear of a rich & famous person donating their time than sitting at home having their publicist tell me how much money they gave. Even including poor people like myself, I won't tell my kids how much their mother and I donate to various charities as I don't want them to see it as a $$$ figure or a way of keeping score. However, when I donate my TIME either personally or through my band, I always encourage my kids to participate with me even if it just means showing up for the gig. A famous example: Although I'm not a fan of Sean Penn and I couldn't tell you how much money he's given away, nothing makes me respect him more than to regularly see pictures of him WORKING to help re-build Haiti. Kudos to Bono & Angelina for raising awareness, but absolute respect to Mr. Penn for picking up a hammer & shovel.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
rollingon
Jon Bon Jovi has just made a big personal donation to charity.

I have always considered him quite cheap so this was a big surprise to me.

(one million dollars to Sandy victims)

Have you ever heard Mick Jagger or Keith Richards to give any substantial sum of money to charity?

And I don't wanna hear the answer that yes, but they don't want to go public with it.

They certainly should go public with it, everybody who gives substantial sum of money to charity should go public with it.

you have always considered bon jovi "cheap" and "dont want to hear the answer that -"yes but they dont want to go public with it" about the stones-

well church lady,how about you go fck yourself and stop counting other peoples money.its theirs,they earned it and can give all of it away or none of it and its none of your business.the sooner you realize that the better.