A must read article: An Open Letter To U2: What Happened To Your Relevance?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
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
 
I agree with this article, although I would place their relevance up to ATYCLB. All following albums have been patchy at best and if the poor songs were removed you'd end up with at best a decent double LP. From a live point of view, 360 at the moment was the height and it seems to have gone steadily downhill since. Maybe it's just my point of view but I don't feel the least bit excited by this latest album or tour.
 
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.
 
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.

Exact same experience I had. Everyone I knew- my high school class mates up to my parents and even my grandmother, was in to U2 in 2004/2005. Bomb turned me from casual fan to super fan. It turned my Dad from neutral on U2 to a better than casual fan after going through the catalog more and reflecting on how many songs U2 really had.

My Dad is really the most amazing case study to me. He was 54 at the time and U2 had always been in the background. The band was younger than him and had been going since 1980 without making too much of a splash. I mean, he always sang along to I will follow or New Year's Day or Pride when they were played on the radio, but nothing made him buy an album or really explore the catalog. He was big on Chicago, Bob Seger, The Who, The Allman brothers, any kind of jazz/rock fusion, disco.... all kinds of shit. It's amazing that nothing really grabbed him until he started seeing U2 perform "Vertigo" on every late night show. I remember him saying "damn, I love that guitar!"

The Vertigo tour DVD we watched Christmas 2005 made him a bigger fan. I still remember the expressions on his face when he saw Edge rip through the Electric Co solo, Bono take the little boy on stage during "Into the heart," the visceral energy of the LAPOE-SBS-Bullet sequence, the gorgeous Running to standstill and the transcendent experience of Streets live. I could tell he was also touched by their passion, sincerity, class and well informed political statements. I vividly remember copying every album on CD for him after that. He never made it to a show as he passed before the 360 tour, but he'd often ask me how the 2006 leg of Vertigo was going or about what they were up to after the tour ended.

Also thinking 360 was the "height" of their live shows.

My least favorite tour, probably.

I only saw 1 Vertigo show.

Then it was 2 360 shows in 2009 and 2 in 2011.

2009 360 was my least favorite. 2011, I thought they were on fucking fire. Unbelievable. Didn't think it could get better. Then I saw the first Boston I&E show and it was better. More energy, as good or better performance. The next 4 I saw were close but not like that.

Fast forward to JT 30- I saw 5 shows and thought they were all awesome.

Bono's bike injury/other health related issues are noticeable at times. However, overall, since 360, I can't detect any kind of decline in the quality of U2's performances. I'd be the first one to say so if I thought they were going noticeably downhill. The only thing that really jumps out at me when I watch 360 footage is how much older Bono and Larry look now than then.
 
Last edited:
I saw U2 twice in 2015 and twice in 2017, and I can honestly say that they absolutely BROUGHT IT every time! If they're still able to perform at that level, why would they quit? After this year's tour, they'll probably be in their 60's the next time I see them. So what? That in itself is not a death sentence for their career. I fully expect another touring cycle in the early 2020's. But if after this tour they decide to call it quits, I can say that they'll be going out on top. Yes, Bono may not have the same voice he had in his 20's and 30's, but he's still pretty damned good. I actually think he's better now than he was during the Popmart and Elevation Tour.

People say they can't handle touring like this forever. Actually, ever since 2009, they've taken a very relaxed approach to touring. Here's the breakdown;

2009- 44 shows
2010- 32 shows
2011- 35 shows
2015- 76 shows
2017- 51 shows
2018- 59 shows (so far)

So while they've been touring a lot lately, they actually aren't doing many shows. This is not a grueling tour schedule, and I see no reason why they can't continue like this for the next decade or so (as long as their health is still there).
 
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.
 
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.

Right, it's not like they're curled up in a sleeping bag on the floor of a smelly tour bus traveling from city to city, with a gig every night. They definitely had their share of that in the early years. But now during tours they basically set up in one location, staying in either their home (one of many they each have), or in a luxury suite in a hotel, and use their private plane to fly to the gigs. They have sound techs to do the majority of their sound checking. They have as many off days as they have on days, with built in breaks throughout the tour. They never do more than 2 shows in a row. Their spouses and children regularly join them. So yeah, if they cease to tour, it's not because it's too exhausting.
 
And any over-exertion is what they put on themselves, like playing gigs in southern California and then spending the night in Mexico for tax purposes.
 
Short of an Achtung Anniversary Stadium Tour or an effective single-and-marketing-plan, I think we're looking at major market arena residencies for the foreseeable future. They're hitting the random smaller markets in the US this time when the routing makes sense for maximum dollar draw.
 
Do we know that Larry still has back problems? I remember it's well documented that he was having problems during Zoo TV, but then he got surgery during the making of Pop that was supposed to fix him. Also, he had to be trained to play drums in an entirely different way that was not so hard on himself.
 
I’m not a doctor, but it seems to me like if you have had major back problems, you’re going to have them again eventually, surgery or no surgery. Especially when you keep doing what you’ve been doing.
 
I don't understand this tax accusation thing. Going to Mexico or Canada after playing a show in the States is not going to help you avoid paying income tax on the revenues earned on those US shows. There is zero benefit to staying in Vancouver after a Seattle show for example. This is nonsense.
 
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
 
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

if you are present in the US for a certain number of days then you are taxed as a resident. This occurs mostly at a state level, for example the State of New York has a minimum residency requirement.... they go after snow birds (resident in NY but spending winters in Fla) this way.

But that has got nothing to do with avoiding paying tax on a specific show. And they could simply go to another US state to avoid paying California income tax for example.
 
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.
 
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.
That's it!

I think this is the exception that they exploit to avoid being taxed as a "resident for tax purposes"

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.
 
its definitely a complicted issue, but do note that under the SPT, U2 would not qualify for the commuting exepmtion anyway - assuming they were using Canada for that purpose - because they do not commute regularly from Canada (or MX) to the US (they would have to be residents of those countries).

also, Edge is a PR of the US so he would not qualify anyway.
 
Back
Top Bottom