I'm sorry....but didn't Live used to be a rock band? Options

[jimmatz]

I've been listening to the new album for the last couple of days and I have to say I'm quite disappointed. Didn't Live used to be a rock band? All of their songs have now become Pop songs. What happened to songs like the Stage, White Discussions, Lakinis Juice, Feel The Quiet River Rage, Where Fishes Go, actual rock songs? Live seems to have lost all of it's edge.

I will always love Live but this album seems to be a big step back to me.

Just my opinion.

[flaterik]

It's fun reading how people tear this apart. I have a new found admiration for critics that actually put their opinions to print.

Anyway, as a life long LIVE fan I have to get it off my chest too. So many things have already been posted here, so I'll try not to repeat and just pick up on the good stuff:

1) Do any of the songs on SFBM make you stop and listen? NO! I still remember exactly where I was when I first heard Operation Spirit come over the airwaves. Not many bands can do that over and over again. LIVE did a few times for the first 10 years. But not since.

2) The discussions about "too pop or not too pop" are rediculous. The real problem I see is that the new label is getting in the way of the music to the same degree as the last label neglected the band. Anybody who has the early leaks of some of the songs would have to be def to not hear what has happened. They killed some really good songs by trying to make them too appealable to a broader audience, i.e. to fit into a mold, i.e. to get them on the radio and get more records sold!!! I for one believe that anybody who sets out to make music in that way is destined to fail. In the Dual Disk interviews they talk about how they tracked the whole thing in 3 weeks. YIKES!! And then it has taken them almost a year to release it? That says loads about the amount of post production that took place! What a shame.

3) I think somebody already mentioned it, but it has to be said again: this album is not a LIVE album. It is the Ed K. album with backing by the artists formerly known as live. I don't know how they wrote music earlier. I have always understood that Ed comes in with the lyric and the songs worked to some degree, but then they evolve into the album. But not this time. It's all ED! Why else is he travelling the world promoting it alone with his acoustic and not the rest of the band? And it is because of that that I think it also sounds so different to the past. Everybody talks about SS. Well they went off to Jamaica for 6 months and jammed and got friendly with the gardner back then ..the result was some really freaky stuff that rocked. SFBM does not have that quality and I believe never was intended too. Those are just different eras!! Then (young guys blown away by massive commercial success and pissin' in the wind of the mainstream - I really liked that quote!) and now (mature artists trying to make a living doing what they love).

4) A famous legendary artist once said: "You can make one crap album and get away with it. If you make two, you're out!" Well, in terms of commercial success, LIVE should now be "out" but they are NOT! Their longevity and following still means something, but they won't be on the cover of Rolling Stone ever again!

Summary? I think it is all about expectation management. I will listen to SFBM, but more often then not I will revert to other albums that I like better. It has it's moments, but it does not blow me away with amazing new sounds that convince of something greater.

I give it a 5 Dick!

PS Sorry about the length of the post but if you no likey, then just skippy