Reviews of "Alive" from media, Post reviews here Options

[SJN1279]

Alternative Addiction:

http://www.alternativeaddiction.com/newmus...iews.asp?id=966

Ed Kowalczyk’s debut solo record isn’t the acoustic album that many of us anticipated after he went out on the acoustic solo tour. It is very much a rock record, with some huge instrumentation and the Live sound that Ed helped make famous. If you’re judging this from the standpoint of a Live record, it’s different from what we’re used to hearing from Ed. It’s even more spiritual, and although it does rock... it just doesn’t hit as hard. This album does not have what made Live great in its early stages. There was a lot of maniacal passion in that stuff that’s never been duplicated. The band couldn’t even match it later in their careers. That’s the only knock that you can give this album. For being a new project, it doesn’t always present that type of energy. What’s always made Kowalczyk special is his ability to write songs. It sloped off slightly at the tail end of Live, but it was still very special. This is some of the best material that he’s written in years. Making a solo record has brought out some of his best stuff and the song writing makes this record a good record. It’s a shame that all good things have to come to an end, though it can be productive if it happens at the proper time. Live is no different. Yes relationships between Ed and his former band mates have been damaged. But who knows what the future will hold. For now, Ed has a great solo debut he can stake claim in.

This post has been edited by SJN1279: Jul 28 2010, 9:51 am

[Pokey]

The other reason I like the bad Alive reviews and wish there were more was because I had hoped it would be a reality check to Ed to get his ass into gear and make good music again.

I honestly think there are less bad Ed reviews than their should be as unless you're already warm to him then to the average joe blow he's not worth writing a review over if you think nothing of it. He's not a big enough name to garner attention from people who would take the time over him to write a negative review. This could also ring true for TGF too. If Live got back together for example and made another shit album like SFBM then there would be more negative reviews for that then both Alive and TGF's negative reviews combined. So i think unless you're really someone major, the positive reviews will always outweigh the negative.

[Badman]

The other reason I like the bad Alive reviews and wish there were more was because I had hoped it would be a reality check to Ed to get his ass into gear and make good music again.

I echo this sentiment. I really believe Ed still has it in him to write good music somewhere. He needs to feel failure's harsh touch in the fullest way possible before he breaks down and opens his eastern philosophy books again.

I also don't think he can continue down the blatantly christian road with the current trends away from religion in america.

[Sakhmet2]

I honestly think there are less bad Ed reviews than their should be as unless you're already warm to him then to the average joe blow he's not worth writing a review over if you think nothing of it. He's not a big enough name to garner attention from people who would take the time over him to write a negative review. This could also ring true for TGF too. If Live got back together for example and made another shit album like SFBM then there would be more negative reviews for that then both Alive and TGF's negative reviews combined. So i think unless you're really someone major, the positive reviews will always outweigh the negative.

Are you shitting me? Do you actually believe this?

[Pokey]

Are you shitting me? Do you actually believe this?

Well yeah, think about it. If U2 release an album (just as an example) then it's a pretty major deal (god knows why, they're shit) but it's going to get a lot more coverage from people who are just there to review whatever is on the table, be it positive or negative. If bands with lesser notoriety make a release then they are generally going to be getting less reviews than a band with a larger release due to slipping under the radar. Sure your average reviewer for major publishing sourses will review it but you gotta figure for the most part it's gonna be people who are looking out for the release and that are in the know about said artist that will review it. Just a numbers game. And I'm sure the people doing that are more likely to put their time into something that they like than don't like. Hence more positive than negative reviews. This isn't a pick on Ed, like I said it would go for TGF too.
It's just a theory, but it holds as much water as anything Nick's come up with

[thefunkyredcaboose]

Well yeah, think about it. If U2 release an album (just as an example) then it's a pretty major deal (god knows why, they're shit) but it's going to get a lot more coverage from people who are just there to review whatever is on the table, be it positive or negative. If bands with lesser notoriety make a release then they are generally going to be getting less reviews than a band with a larger release due to slipping under the radar. Sure your average reviewer for major publishing sourses will review it but you gotta figure for the most part it's gonna be people who are looking out for the release and that are in the know about said artist that will review it. Just a numbers game. And I'm sure the people doing that are more likely to put their time into something that they like than don't like. Hence more positive than negative reviews. This isn't a pick on Ed, like I said it would go for TGF too.
It's just a theory, but it holds as much water as anything Nick's come up with

Usually web writers and bloggists get to pick what they review (even if they partner with a label) so this is actually fairly accurate.

Ed hasn't really been reviewed by a major site yet, so that would be interesting.