Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
corriecas
guess they were there for a meeting,and/or signing the contracts for some gigs.

jeroen

Or some album?

Quote
StrawberriesBlueberries

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
corriecas
guess they were there for a meeting,and/or signing the contracts for some gigs.

jeroen

Or some album?

I hope so! A new album would be exciting news.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
corriecas
guess they were there for a meeting,and/or signing the contracts for some gigs.

jeroen

Or some album?

Quote
ROLLINGSTONE
Charlie immaculate as usual but OMG he looks more and more like William Hartnell (the original Dr.Who) as time goes by. Some day he's gonny regenerate!

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
StrawberriesBlueberries

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
corriecas
guess they were there for a meeting,and/or signing the contracts for some gigs.

jeroen

Or some album?

I hope so! A new album would be exciting news.

There is nothing more exciting than the notion that they'd do a new album. I don't believe it will happen; I just be wishin' and hopin.

Quote
24FPS
Charlie went from prematurely bald, with an exposed crown, to a magnificent lion in winter mane. I'm assuming he could afford the best and had decent implants.

Quote
jlowe

On a more serious note, I thought it unlikely they would record in the States, because of tax reasons.

Quote
liddas

Quote
jlowe

On a more serious note, I thought it unlikely they would record in the States, because of tax reasons.

Just as a matter of curiosity, why so?

C

Quote
jlowe

Quote
liddas

Quote
jlowe

On a more serious note, I thought it unlikely they would record in the States, because of tax reasons.

Just as a matter of curiosity, why so?

C

Because they would be hit by a tax bill, greater than say from recording in Paris, or other more exotic locations.
And we all know that any ruses to decrease taxation will be considered, Prince Ruperts book confirms that.
OF course final production work eg mixing etc is ok, as is solo recording.

Quote
jlowe

Quote
liddas

Quote
jlowe

On a more serious note, I thought it unlikely they would record in the States, because of tax reasons.

Just as a matter of curiosity, why so?

C

Because they would be hit by a tax bill, greater than say from recording in Paris, or other more exotic locations.
And we all know that any ruses to decrease taxation will be considered, Prince Ruperts book confirms that.
OF course final production work eg mixing etc is ok, as is solo recording.

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
jlowe

Quote
liddas

Quote
jlowe

On a more serious note, I thought it unlikely they would record in the States, because of tax reasons.

Just as a matter of curiosity, why so?

C

Because they would be hit by a tax bill, greater than say from recording in Paris, or other more exotic locations.
And we all know that any ruses to decrease taxation will be considered, Prince Ruperts book confirms that.
OF course final production work eg mixing etc is ok, as is solo recording.

Umm, I think you've got it wrong. Recording costs money, taxes (except for sales and property tax) are collected on income. There is no income generated by the recording process. I seriously doubt the sales tax on recording services is going to influence the Stones on their decision of where to record. peace

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
jlowe

Quote
liddas

Quote
jlowe

On a more serious note, I thought it unlikely they would record in the States, because of tax reasons.

Just as a matter of curiosity, why so?

C

Because they would be hit by a tax bill, greater than say from recording in Paris, or other more exotic locations.
And we all know that any ruses to decrease taxation will be considered, Prince Ruperts book confirms that.
OF course final production work eg mixing etc is ok, as is solo recording.

Umm, I think you've got it wrong. Recording costs money, taxes (except for sales and property tax) are collected on income. There is no income generated by the recording process. I seriously doubt the sales tax on recording services is going to influence the Stones on their decision of where to record. peace

I'm thinking that I heard/read somewhere that it has to do more with their work visas than tax or economic costs that now keeps their recording and/or rehearsals outside of the USA. That being said, with the fact that they aren't planning on a tour with dozens of shows, they're probably not on that tight of a schedule anymore. Back in the days of large numbers of US shows, I think they started making sure that days of rehearsals and recording wouldn't be counted as "work days" inside the USA.

Note: I could be wrong about this but am pretty sure I remember hearing something along these lines years ago.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
jlowe

Quote
liddas

Quote
jlowe

On a more serious note, I thought it unlikely they would record in the States, because of tax reasons.

Just as a matter of curiosity, why so?

C

Because they would be hit by a tax bill, greater than say from recording in Paris, or other more exotic locations.
And we all know that any ruses to decrease taxation will be considered, Prince Ruperts book confirms that.
OF course final production work eg mixing etc is ok, as is solo recording.

Umm, I think you've got it wrong. Recording costs money, taxes (except for sales and property tax) are collected on income. There is no income generated by the recording process. I seriously doubt the sales tax on recording services is going to influence the Stones on their decision of where to record. peace

I'm thinking that I heard/read somewhere that it has to do more with their work visas than tax or economic costs that now keeps their recording and/or rehearsals outside of the USA. That being said, with the fact that they aren't planning on a tour with dozens of shows, they're probably not on that tight of a schedule anymore. Back in the days of large numbers of US shows, I think they started making sure that days of rehearsals and recording wouldn't be counted as "work days" inside the USA.

Note: I could be wrong about this but am pretty sure I remember hearing something along these lines years ago.

Peace,
Mr DJA

I recall that they had some legal/union issues about recording at Muscle Shoals. Wonder if there were ever any repercussions when those songs came out and were documented to be recorded there?

As far as work visas and such I imagine they would have no problems getting the proper permits and paperwork together with all their resources. Touring the USA isn't much different that recording in the USA, both are work, but these days I imagine it probably costs them more to record and market than they get from record sales.

peace

Quote
Koen
Charlie probably looks so grumpy because he had to wait for hours in line at immigration.

Quote
mighty stork

Quote
2000man2000
[www.dailymail.co.uk]

"Happily strolling through the terminals, the British stars appeared to be in great and relaxed spirits following their flight."

Yeah Charlie looks happy as hell:

[/quote ronnies minder wearing an allblacks rugby jersery cool

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
Naturalust

Quote
jlowe

Quote
liddas

Quote
jlowe

On a more serious note, I thought it unlikely they would record in the States, because of tax reasons.

Just as a matter of curiosity, why so?

C

Because they would be hit by a tax bill, greater than say from recording in Paris, or other more exotic locations.
And we all know that any ruses to decrease taxation will be considered, Prince Ruperts book confirms that.
OF course final production work eg mixing etc is ok, as is solo recording.

Umm, I think you've got it wrong. Recording costs money, taxes (except for sales and property tax) are collected on income. There is no income generated by the recording process. I seriously doubt the sales tax on recording services is going to influence the Stones on their decision of where to record. peace

I'm thinking that I heard/read somewhere that it has to do more with their work visas than tax or economic costs that now keeps their recording and/or rehearsals outside of the USA. That being said, with the fact that they aren't planning on a tour with dozens of shows, they're probably not on that tight of a schedule anymore. Back in the days of large numbers of US shows, I think they started making sure that days of rehearsals and recording wouldn't be counted as "work days" inside the USA.

Note: I could be wrong about this but am pretty sure I remember hearing something along these lines years ago.

Peace,
Mr DJA

I recall that they had some legal/union issues about recording at Muscle Shoals. Wonder if there were ever any repercussions when those songs came out and were documented to be recorded there?

As far as work visas and such I imagine they would have no problems getting the proper permits and paperwork together with all their resources. Touring the USA isn't much different that recording in the USA, both are work, but these days I imagine it probably costs them more to record and market than they get from record sales.

peace

I wasn't trying to insinuate that they had a problem with getting the work visas, just that the visas they get, only allow for a certain number of work days. I wish I could remember where it was I had read that. As I brainstorm and try to remember, if I had to guess, I'm thinking it was something to do with why they moved the VL/B2B/Licks/ABB rehearsals to Canada after having rehearsed in the US for many of their prior tours.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
beachbreak
Maybe they will release a new song or two on a deluxe reissue?

Maybe Keith had one or two new songs in the bag when he recorded his solo album that are perfect for the Stones?

Charlie and Ronnie are in the US to add their parts?

Quote
BILLPERKS
THIS IS SOME OF THE LAMEST SPECULATION EVER POSTED.

KEEP IT UP, POSTIES !

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
beachbreak
Maybe they will release a new song or two on a deluxe reissue?

Maybe Keith had one or two new songs in the bag when he recorded his solo album that are perfect for the Stones?

Charlie and Ronnie are in the US to add their parts?

No, no and no. What deluxe reissue?