Skip to main content

The Death of U2

The other day, the world's biggest popular rock band, U2, played the UK's greatest summer festival, Glastonbury; the event, historic for some, was marred - or improved - depending on your perspective - by a small group of protesters, who want U2 to pay taxes in Ireland, rather than avoid them.  The response, from the group's manager was that U2 was "a global business" and had an international tax profile.  Fine and dandy - but that admission, to me, signals the death of U2 as a band of singer-songwriters I want to have in my earphones.  When I listen to music I don't want to listen to BP or Exxon.  If U2 is now a global business they can't have my business, because I don't want to think of music that way.  Would we still love and respect Heaney or Ashbery if they were incorporated?  The Pogues are not a multinational corporation; they are geniuses.  What makes matters worse is that Bono swans around with world leaders, claiming to want to improve things.  He should keep his own house in order.  In a time of austerity, he might start by cutting ticket prices.  These lads are multi-millionaires, they can afford to stop stashing away so much loot under their rainbow.  Their passports may be green, but U2 needn't be about the green stuff.  It used to appear to be about so much more - or were they always just looking for that perfect tax haven in the sun, in a bank with no name?

Comments

martine said…
Well said.
Martine
I fully agree. Let us assume that U2 is not about the music anymore: that they are indeed a "global business". Where is their spirit of CSR or Corporate Social Responsibility?

As a company, they are not only accountable to their stakeholders (themselves, record labels, tour organizers, lawyers, etc), but to their shareholders as well (the fans, the communities where the concerts are held, the environment and their employees to name a few).

Beppe
Anonymous said…
In fairness to U2, their ticket prices are rather reasonable compared to other 'big' bands.
Anonymous said…
U2 have worked their way to the top so I think they deserve to be a bit greedy. And if people are willing to pay great amounts of money to watch the best rock band in the world, then why not let them?

Screw all that and listen to the music!
Anonymous said…
What if you only cared about their music?
Naomi said…
very nieve if you don't mind me saying, pretty much all music record labels are now global as we live in a global music appreciating society, if not your label then certainly your distributer will be! Equally do u know what percentage of their income they give away to set up projects and support ones they have been running for years? No, because no member of the public does, as they do not shout/boast about it..
Russell said…
A poorly written analysis. U2 has done more good than 10 bands put together. Why give your money to a government so they can blow it. The writer lacks basic understanding.
Poetry Pleases! said…
Dear Todd

It's not just U2. Most rock stars are unbelievably greedy, selfish and hypocritical. I am always astonished that ordinary people treat them with such reverence.

Best wishes from Simon
EYEWEAR said…
So Russell, you'd rather U2 tax you and use your money for their good causes, than a government?

Popular posts from this blog

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".

THE SWIFT REPORT 2023

I am writing this post without much enthusiasm, but with a sense of duty. This blog will be 20 years old soon, and though I rarely post here anymore, I owe it some attention. Of course in 2023, "Swift" now means one thing only, Taylor Swift, the billionaire musician. Gone are the days when I was asked if I was related to Jonathan Swift. The pre-eminent cultural Swift is now alive and TIME PERSON OF THE YEAR. There is no point in belabouring the obvious with delay: 2023 was a low-point in the low annals of human history - war, invasion, murder, in too many nations. Hate, division, the collapse of what truth is, exacerbated by advances in AI that may or may not prove apocalyptic, while global warming still seems to threaten the near-future safety of humanity. It's been deeply depressing. The world lost some wonderful poets, actors, musicians, and writers this year, as it often does. Two people I knew and admired greatly, Ian Ferrier and Kevin Higgins, poets and organise