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]

Hence my statement that it's most likely the concert promoters who are doing it. You've been shown the english used is incorrect. Tough to prove it anymore to you though when it's not something you'd accept anyway. I believe each case of using the incorrect verbage is a separate, shall we say incident which can be litigated against.

[SJN1279]

I love how the very people who complain about me posting in a LIVE thread because I'm "not a fan," are posting in an Ed K thread.

[Pokey]

I love how the very people who complain about me posting in a LIVE thread because I'm "not a fan," are posting in an Ed K thread.

You are nothing short of a blithering idiot.

If this was "hey what do you think of Ed's new song", I probably wouldn't bother posting because I couldn't give a damn. But this relates directly to Live, the band that we're all a fan of, draw the lines.

Anyways, it is absolutely beyond my comprehension that you can't see the difference between "Live's Ed Kowalczyk" and "Formerly of Live". Personally I don't see the massive problem as such because Live, Ed and everyone involved is such small fry. But its a "principal of the thing".

If he were billing himself as "formerly of Live" I doubt anyone here would have a problem because it's a factual statement, he was formerly a massive part of Live. As Aitken's said "Live's" implies possession. That he is CURRENTLY "of Live", which he is not. I don't care if you think it's "not a big deal", that's debatable. But it is categorically incorrect and the fact you can't admit to that just shows what a massive problem you have. Would it really hurt you so much to ever go against Ed? "Yeah I admit he probably shouldn't be billed that way because it's not true, but I don't think it really matters". That is not such a difficult sentence to have to spill out. But nope, Ed does no wrong. I'm sure you just look at it as "good for business".

Seriously, Live - this band about spiritualism, with songs like Mirror Song and your mind is constantly on promotion, money, advertising, what the public thing etc.. I really hope when you see Ed that you don't sing along to the words of "Mirror Song" and pretend that you even begin to have a clue as to what it means.