Live should not continue without Ed Options

[ch81]

Doesn't get any simpler. Just caught wind of this and feel the need to rage against the notion. I hope Mr. Taylor and crew read this.... Moving forward without Ed is a bad, bad, bad, BAD idea. I don't care if the music you make without him is 23676x better than anything before -- it's not Live. It's some other band pretending to be Live. Such endeavors are embarrassing and insulting to a long-time fan, and REEK of COMMERCIAL concerns. Get over yourself. Don't accuse us of dwelling on the past -- it's an easy thing for you to spout in defense of YOUR ill-advised idea, but is really meaningless. Don't hijack the brand just because there's more of you than him, make something new. At least you'd gain respect from this fan....

[PillarOfDavidson]

The OP was mostly concerned that CCP shouldn't use the name Live without Ed, saying that it doesn't matter if the music is 28273x better. He's saying that the combination of members should be essential to how they come up with their name, with Ed included.

What if the OP built a house for his family of four, but one of the family of four chose to leave the house? Should he be forced to bulldoze the house because that one person doesn't want to live there anymore, even though it's a perfectly good & livable house, with an exceedingly strong foundation? What logic would there be in that?

I know what the OP said. But the OP needs to realize that he doesn't own the rights to Live's catalog, that his name isn't on Black Coffee's publishing, that he didn't write all those songs, and that he didn't spend 20+ years writing/recording/touring to make the band work. What right does he have to say that CCP shouldn't use the name Live? They built the friggin thing, even if it was with Ed. Ed made his choices and did what he did. He chose not to be apart of Live both verbally and by his actions. CCP didn't want to end Live, even though they were very close to doing that, but they ultimately chose not to. That is their RIGHT as the owners.

Building on the idea that a band should be named based on their members, it seemed you were countering by saying that CCP should still use the name "Live" because CCP would have been "Live" by this standard, before Ed was involved.

Now you're saying the split is best, which I agree. But were you making an argument still for keeping the name Live, without Ed?

I'm making the argument that we (meaning all of us) have no argument. It doesn't matter two shits what we think either way because Live belongs to CCP. It's simply a choice of whether or not you want to come along for the ride to see where it goes. Don't want to ride? Get out and pitch a thumb.

This post has been edited by MrSheptical: Oct 19 2011, 3:01 am

[Bremang]

What if the OP built a house for his family of four, but one of the family of four chose to leave the house? Should he be forced to bulldoze the house because that one person doesn't want to live there anymore, even though it's a perfectly good & livable house, with an exceedingly strong foundation? What logic would there be in that?

I see what you're saying. These guys built their music in this thing known as Live, why leave it just cause a part of it is missing. That may be one of the main reasons Live kept their name.

I guess, however, that there could be some logic in changing a band name. A name is a little different from a house. It's more of a representation of your art, which might change dramatically with the absence of a collaborative artist. Opposed to a house, whose functionality as a house does not change despite missing an inhabitant/family member.

I know what the OP said. But the OP needs to realize that he doesn't own the rights to Live's catalog, that his name isn't on Black Coffee's publishing, that he didn't write all those songs, and that he didn't spend 20+ years writing/recording/touring to make the band work. What right does he have to say that CCP shouldn't use the name Live? They built the friggin thing, even it was with Ed. Ed made his choices and did what he did. He chose not to be apart of Live both verbally and by his actions. CCP didn't want to end Live, even though they were very close to doing that, but they ultimately chose not to. That is their RIGHT as the owners.

You're most likely right when you say that the OP doesn't know what it is like to be CCP, or know exactly what its like to have gone through the breakup, and all their career. But since you asked the OP's rights, the OP is just stating an opinion, which is his right.

Also, you pointed out that CCP have the right as owners to do what they want. That is true, and nobody, not the OP, is disputing that. I think we're just discussing what it means to choose the name Live, just for discussion sake. Is it the best choice?

I'm making the argument that we (meaning all of us) have no argument. It doesn't matter two shits what we think either way because Live belongs to CCP. It's simply a choice of whether or not you want to come along for the ride to see where it goes. Don't want to ride? Get out and pitch a thumb.

Of course our discussion isn't likely to affect CCP's direction. I hope opinions don't really change a thing about how CCP want to go about their art, and that they truly don't give two shits. In fact, I dislike whenever the band responds to a fan's opinion on Facebook. It's ridiculous. Anyway, we just talk about the band here. Why so much diversion when discussing the band name?

It is silly that so many here suggest that if you question the band, that you should resort to not following the band. Can't we simply talk about your opinion on the band name? It would be more accurate to say that anyone who is so sensitive about the subject that their only answer is to shut people up and tell them to move on, should be the ones to move on from the discussion. If you don't want to talk about Live's name on the Live discussion board, then why be here in this thread?

This post has been edited by Bremang: Oct 19 2011, 3:25 am