No, Mr B, I don't hate Bono at all.
To me he's a face and a name that pops up in the celebrity news from time to time along Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan.
And how he uses his money; personally I couldn't care less.
And I'm well aware you can find ruthless motherfuckers among musicians as in any other group. But I can't really see that being a ruthless motherfucker should give anyone carte blanche to exploit said motherfucker.

Quote: "Well a moral double standard based on whether or not you like someone's art is itself evidence of a cool-o-meter."

I see you're eagerly maintaining the claim that people here criticise Bonos economical dispositions and idealism/lack of idealism solely because they hate his music.
Seems to me that instead of claiming you can read peoples mind, this "cool-o-meter" pops up.
Imo you've delivered some good arguments against the criticism of said gentleman's idealism, and that's why I don't understand why this "cool-o-meter" argument should be necessary.
I'm far from being perfect myself, but I've really begun to wonder about some of the "debating techniques" being used on our beloved HH.

Some quick editing going on here I see. ;o)

Quote: "I have been meaning to reply to your "I believe there are alternatives to blindly succumbing to the rules and dynamics of capitalism" thing. I would like to know what those alternatives are."

From an interwiew with Steve Albini, linked to by anonyqkiernan on Unsung:

"You wrote an article in the early 1990s called "The Problem With Music" that explored parasitism of the music industry and the economic issues with the top-down model—Does that model even exist anymore, in this new era of digital downloads, iTunes, Pitchfork, and viral trends where bands have to shamelessly promote themselves online to get ahead?
This is a terrific time to be in a band. Every band has access to the entire world by default. I know quite a few bands that have been able to establish themselves internationally based on nothing other their web presence. It's an incredible tool. It's also revived the careers of a lot of bands that came before the Internet era and never had enough penetration to find their natural audience. But because the music survived, some people were interested in disseminating it for no other reason than because they like it. People put stuff on YouTube or torrent clients or whatever, not because they're going to make money off of it, which is the only reason the mainstream industry would do something, but because they think it's good. It's a like a worldwide mix tape. An awful lot of bands that had no audience in their first incarnation were able to revive their careers and have a second lap. It's so exceedingly rare that somebody gets more than one bite at an apple like that. I think it's fantastic."

http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-q/2010/09/steve-albini.html

Quote: "I have spent the largest part of my career chasing down money for musicians and song writers and from what I see Rock n Roll is headed back to its Blues and Jazz roots as a music of poverty. The alternative economy for the vast majority of practising musicians and composers is that music will never be much more than an expensive hobby. It's an alternative like homelessness is an alternative to renting and the property ladder."

Yes this is what the record industry has been claiming ad nauseam year after year.
A recent study is perhaps telling a different story:

http://torrentfreak.com/artists-make-more-money-in-file-sharing-age-than-before-100914/

What seems absurd to me is that the record industry refuses to obey one of the basic laws of capitalism: Adjust to the market.

As The Bard wrote:

You'd better start swimming
or you'll sink like a stone
for the times
they are a-changing.