Charity gigs: music to your ears?

Music-lover Hollie McNish thinks that charity events need to drop the do-gooder label if they want to attract the masses.

''The entertainment ranged from jazz to belly dancing and from reggae to guitar rock at Teenage Riot night.'' ''Expectations are of no alcohol, no sexy lyrics and no swearing - which, judging by Amnesty’s festival, is simply untrue!'' ''Around 60 per cent of the Amnesty crowd had their faces painted, which I can’t help finding a little embarrassing when the cause is such a real and important one.''

Last month Amnesty Cambridge held a two-week music event comprising of over 50 voluntary bands. The entertainment ranged from jazz to belly dancing and from reggae to guitar rock at Teenage Riot night. Aside from the dancing, laughing and immense support raised for Amnesty, the event brought up an issue I’ve been questioning for some time: if you’re putting on a charity gig, should you advertise it as such, or keep schtum?

It seems strange to me but the label itself might put people off. For example, when shopping some people choose not to go to charity shops. I think that when people see an advertisement for a charity gig, many immediately think of the Flanders-from-the-Simpsons type image: un-explicit lyrics, fizzy pop, and a group of people with painted faces preaching at you. Though I don’t agree with this attitude, I do understand it and think we’ve got to accept it if we want everyone, even those who seem quite ‘anti-charity’, to get involved.

Even I sometimes find gigs advertised this way off-putting, and I want to work with charities. My reason is less due to expectations of no alcohol, no sexy lyrics and no swearing - which, judging by Amnesty’s festival, is simply untrue! - and more due to the often quite ‘samey’ audience they attract.

This year, I’ve attended loads of charity events, my favorites being Amnesty’s gig and Rawganics, both held in Cambridge. Rawganics was started by the Delegates crew to raise money for a local cancer charity. It’s now one of the biggest UK hip-hop nights, raising massive monetary support for the local hospice, yet it never advertises itself as being a charity event. On the night it mentions charity whilst the voluntary rappers pass buckets around. Though I’m sure people will disagree, I sometimes think that this works better.

Amnesty’s gig was also advertised for its music with very little talk about Amnesty during the gigs - the Declaration of Human Rights was simply handed out. Yet even the mention of the cause on flyers drew in a very different crowd. Rawganics attracts a mix of students, hippies, hip-hoppers, skaters, long skirts and gold hot pants, whilst the majority of the Amnesty crowd was made up of people who were already charity-active. Even though I respect these people immensely, I think that they could seem intimidating to other people and could stop them going to such events. For example, around 60 per cent of the Amnesty crowd had their faces painted, which I can’t help finding a little embarrassing when the cause is such a real and important one.

Rawganics seemed to attract a much more diverse crowd and, more importantly, a crowd whose attitudes to charity seemed to shift the moment the likes of the Wu Tang Clan’s Ghostface mentioned the non-profit element. Sceptical kids who ‘wouldn’t be seen dead in a charity shop’, were now dishing out beer money into a bucket.

I’m not saying that either gig was better than the other - they both provided loads of support, money and brilliant nights out – but not everyone is into Fairtrade and street fundraising. I think that if we’re going to make big changes we need to cater for the cynical kids and lure them in to the do-gooder scene!