You're smoking something, What is it? Options

[Arizona_Skies]

Everclear without Art Alexakis
Pumpkins without Billy Corgan
Bush without Gavin Rossdale
3EB without Stephan Jenkins
Nirvana without Kurt

But, don't worry... LIVE has a new singer.

This is a joke right? Complete with a Karaoke singer, how about that?

Peace

[themaestro]

Everclear without Art Alexakis
Pumpkins without Billy Corgan
Bush without Gavin Rossdale
3EB without Stephan Jenkins
Nirvana without Kurt

But, don't worry... LIVE has a new singer.

This is a joke right? Complete with a Karaoke singer, how about that?

Peace

Obviously you have no idea what it means to be "Straight Outta York". I suggest you go back into Live's history to learn what inspired them, what they stood for, the subject matter they tackled, their idealism. If you're still hung up on who's singing, or what the singer sounds like, then you don't understand what this band was all about before someone took over and changed their direction. To anyone that does understand, they'll give it a chance to see if it captures the essence of what they once were. To you, you can still have 3EB. I think they are still making shitty pop music. Or you just substitute whatever shitty ass flavor of the month rock band you'd like if they aren't. How about that?

Peace.

[FishOutaWater]

I think that once again, we all need to be thinking realistically about the commercial success of new Live. As much as I would like to see live become successful again, I don't believe that Live will become a commercial success again, especially without Ed, who was the bald, eccentric, identifiable spiritual front man of the band. Nobody besides people who belong to the fan club and message board could name the guitarist, bassist or drummer of Live.

On the other hand, I totally get the Straight Outa York thing and the Spirit of Live vibe and I fully support it living on and evolving forward without Ed if he does not want to join the other three members of Live in a mutually agreeable way. More than any other band, I see Live as representing something bigger than the 4 members of the band. That's why most of us are here.

So there are two ways of looking at new Live. And I think that ultimately, new Live will be for the second way of looking at it. It will be for the small group of hard core fans who come to the clubs and buy the records. But I don't think that it will be widely successful in the commercial sense. It is way too hard to make money in the music industry these days unless you are on the Voice or American Idol. And it is even harder for a 90's band to come back from the dead.

And eventually, I fear that it will draw to a close under the weight of its financial infeasibility, just as I suppose the pressure took its toll on TGF. Whenever I saw TGF perform in a small venue with 100 to 200 people in atendance, with a tour bus and Matt Gracey doing sound check and Bill running around doing tour manager stuff, and a crew setting up lights and sound, I thought to myself - these are seasoned professionals and perfectionists that are used to performing a show in a certain way. They aren't going to put on a show with half-assed sound and stage. And it is that level of overhead that they demanded which ultimately was the undoing of the band from a financial perspective. Maybe the same happens with Live. I am guessing it will. But I hope not.

[themaestro]

I think that once again, we all need to be thinking realistically about the commercial success of new Live. As much as I would like to see live become successful again, I don't believe that Live will become a commercial success again, especially without Ed, who was the bald, eccentric, identifiable spiritual front man of the band. Nobody besides people who belong to the fan club and message board could name the guitarist, bassist or drummer of Live.

On the other hand, I totally get the Straight Outa York thing and the Spirit of Live vibe and I fully support it living on and evolving forward without Ed if he does not want to join the other three members of Live in a mutually agreeable way. More than any other band, I see Live as representing something bigger than the 4 members of the band. That's why most of us are here.

So there are two ways of looking at new Live. And I think that ultimately, new Live will be for the second way of looking at it. It will be for the small group of hard core fans who come to the clubs and buy the records. But I don't think that it will be widely successful in the commercial sense. It is way too hard to make money in the music industry these days unless you are on the Voice or American Idol. And it is even harder for a 90's band to come back from the dead.

And eventually, I fear that it will draw to a close under the weight of its financial infeasibility, just as I suppose the pressure took its toll on TGF. Whenever I saw TGF perform in a small venue with 100 to 200 people in atendance, with a tour bus and Matt Gracey doing sound check and Bill running around doing tour manager stuff, and a crew setting up lights and sound, I thought to myself - these are seasoned professionals and perfectionists that are used to performing a show in a certain way. They aren't going to put on a show with half-assed sound and stage. And it is that level of overhead that they demanded which ultimately was the undoing of the band from a financial perspective. Maybe the same happens with Live. I am guessing it will. But I hope not.

I believe they have enough to work with to make it financially feasible and maybe even nicely profitable to carry on with Live. I have no doubt that they will work every angle possible to make it work all while doing their best to honor the type of music and statement that Live made during its heyday. It's certainly a new business model in which they are working but it also provides more creative freedom and the ability to branch out into multiple mediums without having to run everything through a major label. In other words, if it makes sense for them to do something, they should be able to do it. Those sorts of freedoms give them their best chance to sustain any sort of future for their band. They probably won't be showing up on any charts but charts are no longer the barometer for a band of their type being able to continue making music for a living.

[Good_Pain]

I believe they have enough to work with to make it financially feasible and maybe even nicely profitable to carry on with Live. I have no doubt that they will work every angle possible to make it work all while doing their best to honor the type of music and statement that Live made during its heyday. It's certainly a new business model in which they are working but it also provides more creative freedom and the ability to branch out into multiple mediums without having to run everything through a major label. In other words, if it makes sense for them to do something, they should be able to do it. Those sorts of freedoms give them their best chance to sustain any sort of future for their band. They probably won't be showing up on any charts but charts are no longer the barometer for a band of their type being able to continue making music for a living.

I couldn't agree more topping the charts and selling millions of albums or even downloads in today's music culture is impossible unless you basically sell your soul. The work that C,C, and P are doing with their new lead singer is set up to not only honor the past, but to think about the future of their music and grown with the loyal fan base. Doing music for yourself on your own label has proven to be successful for many artist and often I feel some of their best work comes from this approach because not only do they have less filter, but with the artist putting up the bulk of their own money the music they put out has a sense of passionate urgency. I have no doubt what the guys put out will appeal to me, but I am sure it may not work for others. Either way that is the beauty of music, plenty of choices for everyone, but I know where I stand on this, Sons of York take us on a new ride I ready.