Today, there's an MTV article about the demise of the charity single, and how no benefit song released in the past few years has captured the American population the way that "We Are The World" did in 1985. The piece posits that such singles are seen as "cheesy" now, and that hip-hop's proclivity for cameos made cross-genre pairings more of an everyday pop occurrence. But while running down the lineups of a few recent singles cited by the piece, it wasn't hard to notice a trend:


- Michael Jackson's 9/11 song--that benefited, among others, a Scientology-related charity--featuring Celine Dion, 'NSYNC, Mariah Carey and Destiny's Child--as well as Aaron Carter, 3LW, and Anastacia.
- A 2001 "What's Going On" cover that featured Ja Rule, the bald guy from Staind, Perry Farrell, and Diddy. Because if there's one thing Diddy should be doing, it's getting within 30 feet of the chance of performing a Marvin Gaye song.
- "Come Together Now," a benefit for victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, featured 2/5 of the Backstreet Boys, JoJo, the Game, and Joss Stone. And Celine Dion.
- And finally, a 2005 cover of "Tears In Heaven" masterminded by Sharon and Ozzy Osbourne, which allowed their daughter Kelly to share the marquee with Andrea Bocelli and Robert Downey Jr.
Could it be that these charity singles haven't taken off because, well, the lineups haven't been all that great? Most of the ones that have come out in recent years have always featured some sort of kowtowing to whatever was being pushed hard by major labels at the time (seriously, JoJo?), causing cynicism about the actual motivations behind these "good works." Is it to "help"--or is it to get artists a raft of good publicity after they toss off a verse of a song that they've probably known for years anyway? (At least Hear'N Aid wrote their own song.)
Is The All-Star Charity Single Too 'Cheesy' To Make A Difference Today? [MTV]

</img>


More...