I know this is an old story, but it is still a hot issue brewing on every youtube page that has a U2 video on it, and I can't ignore it.
Let me start by saying I am a huge U2 fan. They are the reason I love music so much. They are still far and away my favorite group and have been ever since I first heard "Beautiful Day" in 2002. I have found a majority of other artist I enjoy through their songs and interviews.
To the best that I can fathom it they have had the largest pop culture effect on my life.
I am a huge Bono fan as well. He has inspired me to become an International Affairs major, to work in college NGOs, and to even travel to Africa. I know that he himself gives a lot of money to this cause. I listen to him, and I am convinced he is not a phony and that is genuinely committed to his cause and a person who follows their heart and their faith in God.
So will it may sound like I am one of those people that perpetuate the so-called "U2 myth," I genuinely believe in these four bandmates and what their music stands for. However, I am unsure of how to look at this tax move issue.
I defend every single U2 album and have always believed they did even their most commercial-friendly music for the love of music and not for money.
I defend a majority of their business moves. I think it is naive to think that the industry won't squash young talent that isn't good at the business aspect of the music world.
I defended their move to put themselves in the Ipod commercial. I enjoyed. I thought it was an innovative way to reach the audience in a post-radio media world. I never bought the argument that it was "selling out." The arguments in that whole concept are pretty stupid in my mind anyway.
I defended them when people ranted about their ticket prices saying that it was somehow all about the money for them. The cost of a U2 ticket is still so much less than many other arena acts. The truth is they could easily charge upwards of a $150 a ticket for the worst seats in an arena. Many older acts do just that. Plus, I paid just as much for the U2 concert as I did for a Bruce Springsteen concert and if Springsteen is charging it I'm convinced it's a good, honest deal.
That's why I am so confused about this tax move deal. It just doesn't seem like them talking when they defend it. It sounds like the kind of business venture that The Clash or the Sex Pistols would rail against, two of U2's main influences.
The bottom line is this in economic terms. Bono has asked the Irish government to spend more on aid for Africa. U2 has opted out of paying more taxes. In order for Bono's goal to be met some other taxpayers will have to foot the bill. Bono asks for a tax increase while decreasing his own tax input. That doesn't set a very good example no matter how much Bono may add to make up for it.
Bono often talks about how the Irish don't like super celebrities because their culture has a long history of suppressing megalomaniacs. This makes U2 business-first rationale hard to understand for me.
It doesn't even need to put in an economic light, however. Songs might say more. I guess in the end I cannot imagine the protagonist in "Van Diemen's Land" singing fondly of this business move. It doesn't seem to be what U2 have ever been about.
Anyone have any thoughts? I don't think U2 meant to screw taxpayers, and I do believe Bono when he says he wouldn't ask people to do something he wasn't up to doing himself.
I don't want to believe that U2 have taken on the hurtful and disgusting practices of the super-rich that we see from so many rock stars. Does anyone have another angle on this story that might put it in a different light?
Let me start by saying I am a huge U2 fan. They are the reason I love music so much. They are still far and away my favorite group and have been ever since I first heard "Beautiful Day" in 2002. I have found a majority of other artist I enjoy through their songs and interviews.
To the best that I can fathom it they have had the largest pop culture effect on my life.
I am a huge Bono fan as well. He has inspired me to become an International Affairs major, to work in college NGOs, and to even travel to Africa. I know that he himself gives a lot of money to this cause. I listen to him, and I am convinced he is not a phony and that is genuinely committed to his cause and a person who follows their heart and their faith in God.
So will it may sound like I am one of those people that perpetuate the so-called "U2 myth," I genuinely believe in these four bandmates and what their music stands for. However, I am unsure of how to look at this tax move issue.
I defend every single U2 album and have always believed they did even their most commercial-friendly music for the love of music and not for money.
I defend a majority of their business moves. I think it is naive to think that the industry won't squash young talent that isn't good at the business aspect of the music world.
I defended their move to put themselves in the Ipod commercial. I enjoyed. I thought it was an innovative way to reach the audience in a post-radio media world. I never bought the argument that it was "selling out." The arguments in that whole concept are pretty stupid in my mind anyway.
I defended them when people ranted about their ticket prices saying that it was somehow all about the money for them. The cost of a U2 ticket is still so much less than many other arena acts. The truth is they could easily charge upwards of a $150 a ticket for the worst seats in an arena. Many older acts do just that. Plus, I paid just as much for the U2 concert as I did for a Bruce Springsteen concert and if Springsteen is charging it I'm convinced it's a good, honest deal.
That's why I am so confused about this tax move deal. It just doesn't seem like them talking when they defend it. It sounds like the kind of business venture that The Clash or the Sex Pistols would rail against, two of U2's main influences.
The bottom line is this in economic terms. Bono has asked the Irish government to spend more on aid for Africa. U2 has opted out of paying more taxes. In order for Bono's goal to be met some other taxpayers will have to foot the bill. Bono asks for a tax increase while decreasing his own tax input. That doesn't set a very good example no matter how much Bono may add to make up for it.
Bono often talks about how the Irish don't like super celebrities because their culture has a long history of suppressing megalomaniacs. This makes U2 business-first rationale hard to understand for me.
It doesn't even need to put in an economic light, however. Songs might say more. I guess in the end I cannot imagine the protagonist in "Van Diemen's Land" singing fondly of this business move. It doesn't seem to be what U2 have ever been about.
Anyone have any thoughts? I don't think U2 meant to screw taxpayers, and I do believe Bono when he says he wouldn't ask people to do something he wasn't up to doing himself.
I don't want to believe that U2 have taken on the hurtful and disgusting practices of the super-rich that we see from so many rock stars. Does anyone have another angle on this story that might put it in a different light?
Last edited: