Do You Guy's Have A Problem With This? Options

[Hoodstock]

Alright - we're going into the 2012 tour season. Ed has obviously moved on from Live and Live (as we all know) is moving on as a band without Ed. Today I saw this:



It reads "Live's Ed Kowalczyk". Obviously Ed was a huge part of Live but he's moved on and Live is a band that will be active and touring without him.

Because of what he did for the band does Ed forever have the right to claim that he is "Live's" or do you guys think it would be proper for him to indicate "former" in some way?

[OutToDry]

I believe the issue is the concert promoters at the venues are using this as a way to identify Ed to Live.

Problem is, it should be billed as Ed from Live or Formerly of Live.....Not Ed of Live or Live's Ed K.

Heard in the past that this type of billing is 'an issue'.

[SJN1279]

I believe the issue is the concert promoters at the venues are using this as a way to identify Ed to Live.

Problem is, it should be billed as Ed from Live or Formerly of Live.....Not Ed of Live or Live's Ed K.

Heard in the past that this type of billing is 'an issue'.

If LIVE 2.0 every starts up, it will be more beneficial for Ed to bill himself as Ed Kowalczyk, former lead singer of LIVE. Otherwise, people may think he is still with LIVE. Until then, I see know problem with LIVE's Ed Kowalczyk, since LIVE 2.0 has not been officially announced and have no immediate touring plans.

This post has been edited by SJN1279: Jan 21 2012, 8:30 pm

[SJN1279]

Ed Kowalczyk
former lead singer of
LIVE

LIVE's
Ed Kowalczyk

It is basically the same message.

This post has been edited by SJN1279: Jan 21 2012, 8:34 pm

[Aitkens]

Ed Kowalczyk
former lead singer of
LIVE

LIVE's
Ed Kowalczyk

It is basically the same message.

No it's not the same message you moron. "Live's Ed Kowalczyk" implies that he's still a member.

Personally, I would hope that he can't use the name "Live" at all. Let's see how much his dumb ass can make when he's not leaching off of the name "Live".

[SJN1279]

No it's not the same message you moron. "Live's Ed Kowalczyk" implies that he's still a member.

Personally, I would hope that he can't use the name "Live" at all. Let's see how much his dumb ass can make when he's not leaching off of the name "Live".

Ed will always be the lead singer of LIVE that most people indentify with, unless CCP and Shinn have another Throwing Copper up their sleeve.

This post has been edited by SJN1279: Jan 22 2012, 12:09 am

[Aitkens]

Ed will always be the lead singer of LIVE that people identify the band most with, unless CCP and Shinn have another Throwing Copper up their sleeve.

See, he WAS the lead singer of Live. He IS NOT the lead singer of Live any longer. Calling him "Live's Ed Kowaczyk" is a lie, because he no longer is a member of Live.

Just stating the facts here. You should really get those straight.

[SJN1279]

See, he WAS the lead singer of Live. He IS NOT the lead singer of Live any longer. Calling him "Live's Ed Kowaczyk" is a lie, because he no longer is a member of Live.

Just stating the facts here. You should really get those straight.

However he is still LIVE's Ed Kowalczyk. As far as I can see, LIVE 2.0 has yet to get off the ground. Once that happens, they should bill him as Ed Kowalczyk formerly of LIVE, to not confuse the two acts.

Until then, it is a complete non-issue.

[Aitkens]

However he is still LIVE's Ed Kowalczyk. As far as I can see, LIVE 2.0 has yet to get off the ground. Once that happens, they should bill him as Ed Kowalczyk formerly of LIVE, to not confuse the two acts.

Until then, it is a complete non-issue.

He is NO LONGER A MEMBER OF THE BAND, and has NOT BEEN A MEMBER OF THE BAND FOR OVER A YEAR NOW.

Remember, he wanted nothing to do with Live. He left, doesn't want to come back, wants no part of Live. He moved on, it's time to actually move on, and not lie to everyone about it.


In reality all of his shit is a lie, BECAUSE, 3/4 of his sets are Live songs, AND he is still billed as "Live's Ed Kowalczyk".

Talking to you is like talking to a damn brick wall, with the exception being that the brick wall isn't so damn stupid.

This post has been edited by Aitkens: Jan 22 2012, 12:23 am

[Aitkens]

Look I get it, you aren't an English teacher, and likely weren't an English major either.

The " 's " show's possession. In this case that Ed belongs to Live, which he does not, as he is not a member of Live.

[Pokey]

Jesus christ Nick, how hard is it for you to understand? You're really grasping at straws. Ed is NOT in Live anymore. "Live's Ed Kowalczyk" implies a current standing. "Formerly of" is my correct, and I see no problem in that if he's that desperate.

I understand that some of these posters may be out of his control at first, promoters and such putting them together, but IF Ed knew this was how it was being billed and did nothing to correct it, I'd have a problem with that. You'd think just human conscience and honesty would mean Ed would get his management on the phone to the promoters and ask them to change it. Of course that's not going to happen ... again we don't know if it's just because Ed is unaware of it, or because he's a jerk.

Saying that he can bill himself that way "until Live 2.0 officially start up" is just ridiculous. It's like a bald man clinging to the few scraps of hair he has left until it becomes utterly ridiculous looking.

If Joe Blow played for the New York Fudgebuckets and then moved team to the Dallas Knuckledraggers, and the Fudgebuckets brought in a replacement for him ... do you think Joe Blow would still advertise himself as "The New York Fudgebucket's Joe Blow" ? No, because it's not correct. He can say he was formerly of them, because no one can change the past and it is a true statement.

Nick for the love of god, just let this one go.

[OutToDry]

The venues promotions do it, probably w/o eds knowledge. It's a problem though

http://www.fansoflive.com/forums/index.php...ic=3959&st=150#

[SJN1279]

The venues promotions do it, probably w/o eds knowledge. It's a problem though

http://www.fansoflive.com/forums/index.php...ic=3959&st=150#

Why is it a problem?

[OutToDry]

perhaps this statement informs you.

Not true, he is not allowed by law to use that name. He can only saw formerly.

Your passive aggressive nature is amazing. I link a place to recall the reason but you feign ignorance and ask a question.....nuts

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Jan 22 2012, 10:20 am

[SJN1279]

perhaps this statement informs you.
Your passive aggressive nature is amazing. I link a place to recall the reason but you feign ignorance and ask a question.....nuts

If it was ILLEGAL as you say, he wouldn't be able to do it. Especially if their was a pending court case.

My point is, there is no difference between LIVE's Ed Kowalczyk and Ed Kowalczyk formerly of LIVE, when it comes to promotion. Fans just need to know that he was the lead singer of LIVE and will perform LIVE songs.

Most importantly, this poster is from a promoter in Manila. I'm sure no one knows of the alleged LIVE 2.0 in Manila.