(no answers)
1 September 2005, 10:24 amI got nothing insightful or useful to say about Katrina and its aftermath. I can’t begin to get my head around the magnitude of it. I will almost certainly continue to blither about things that seem trivial by comparison because, you know, that’s what blithering idiots do — we blither.
The band and I are kicking around the idea of putting together a benefit show with a mess of Beantown bands (like the shows I used to help put on in DC) and donating the proceeds to (most likely) the Red Cross. I’d like to do something that’s at least the tiniest bit useful, and the big answer seems to be “send cash,” which I completely ain’t got. I’m a bit worried that it could be seen as intrinsically self-aggrandizing or bandwagon-jumping (like a lot of the stuff that went on roughly 4 years ago). Or just plain silly and not even the tiniest useful.
Worth pursuing? Bad idea? All input welcomed.
I say go for it.
The need is so severe that I think it really dwarfs any concerns about appearances of … anything. Your intentions seem genuine; if you keep focused on that, appearances will take care of themselves. (I don’t know if I believe that axiomatically, but the more I think about it, maybe I should).
After I had some very bad experiences with charities, I went through a long period of my life turned off to the whole idea. I’ve since recovered, but I learned that there can be a very fine line between genuinely offering a hand to someone who needs it, and getting an ego boost out of being good and wonderful and generous, and that that can be actually damaging to the people you think you’re helping.
Here are some questions I ask myself:
* Do I care if the person is grateful? Or would I be content knowing they were helped and didn’t know I did it?
* Do I care if anyone else knows what I did?
* Is the help long-term (i.e. making someone more self-reliant) or will they be no better off when the money (if it’s money) runs out?
* Am I trying to help with a symptom or a problem?
In the case of a natural disaster like this, especially on this scale, a lot of those concerns just don’t apply (e.g., the short-term really matters; it’s a symptom, but unless you’re going to sue God or control the weather, you don’t really have much of a shot of fixing the problem).
I don’t see how a benefit show could be construed as self-aggrandizing unless the people putting it on treat it that way. Did you feel that the DC benefits were all about self-promotion? How about stuff like Respond, The Bridge, the Sweet Relief projects, et al.? I didn’t think so. I say good on yer, and I hope you get a lot of interested musicians on the bill.
Well, no, but in DC we were usually benefitting organizations for which a thousand bucks or so could make a real difference in the annual operating budget, and which didn’t enjoy a high media profile.
And Sweet Relief et al were put together by artists whose names would intrinsically add credibility to a project, not by nobodies.
Thanks much for the thoughts. I’m still a little ambivalent, but I’m relieved neither of you folks think it’s patently ridiculous/offensive.