The problem is that they get the equation around the wrong way. They seem to think that striving for relevance will beget good music. Rather, striving for good music will, if you're lucky (as U2 were for about twenty years), beget relevance.
This
The problem is that they get the equation around the wrong way. They seem to think that striving for relevance will beget good music. Rather, striving for good music will, if you're lucky (as U2 were for about twenty years), beget relevance.
If you don't think they were relevant during the Vertigo/Bomb era, you're insane.
If you don't think they were relevant during the Vertigo/Bomb era, you're insane.
If you don't think they were relevant during the Vertigo/Bomb era, you're insane.
Yeah. I was 22 at the time of Bomb's release. Everybody was into U2 at that time! My younger brother's high school friends all listened to U2. Vertigo was playing in all the college bars I used to hang out in, and all my friends owned HTDAAB. Moving up in age, my parents also owned the album, as well as ATYCLB. I don't think they bought any of the albums after that. My aunt and uncle were probably 50 at the time, and they owned Bomb and even went to the same Vertigo Tour show I went to. They had everyone from teenagers all the way up through the middle aged crowd. THAT is relevance.
Also thinking 360 was the "height" of their live shows.
My least favorite tour, probably.
It's definitely not hard to find artists of a similar or greater age to U2 with far more grueling schedules. And while a few of the most famous aging rockers will be travelling in luxury on a par with U2, others most certainly won't be. U2 can not only tour essentially when and where they want, but can do it about as comfortably as a band could.
If the band call it quits, it'll be because they've lost the drive or one of them has a serious health problem, not simply because they're no longer in their 20s.
like playing gigs in southern California and then spending the night in Mexico for tax purposes.
They've flown to Canada between shows for this reason... first I've heard of them doing the same on the southern border.?
Is this a real thing that they do or are you busting balls given their tax history.
I can’t imagine Larry doing this for another 10 years; isn’t he the one that touring has taken its biggest toll on physically?
I’m not a doctor.
I’m not a doctor.
?
Is this a real thing that they do or are you busting balls given their tax history.
They've flown to Canada between shows for this reason... first I've heard of them doing the same on the southern border.
If I recall correctly, I remember reading some time ago it had something to do with how many consecutive days they were in thr US and there was some tax benefit to breaking it up?
I ain't no tax expert or anything
There definitely is a reason why they spend a certain amount of time in Canada during the tour.
That's it!On the Federal level, it probably has to do with the Substantial Presence Test to determine if you are taxed as if you are a resident for tax purposes. There is a definite issue on the state level as well, as every income tax state has different rules on residency for tax purposes. Really complicated stuff that makes accountants a lot of money.
Days commuting to work in the United States from a residence in Canada or Mexico for those who regularly commute from Canada or Mexico. The IRS define" regularly" as more than 75% of the workdays in the working period. Days in the United States for the entire day cannot be exempted on this basis.