10 Bands We Want To See Make a Comeback(Article) Options

[SJN1279]

10 Bands We Want To See Make A Comeback

5. Live
What happened to Live? In 2009, the band announced a two-year hiatus. This hiatus turned into a permanent break-up when it was revealed that lead singer Ed Kowalczyk wanted a $100,000 bonus just for being the lead singer. The rest of the band decided that maybe they’d just go ahead without him. Good idea, guys, because everybody wants to hear those “other” members of Live. Give the man his hundy thousy G’s and get this comeback cracking.

Complete list:
http://pigeonsandplanes.com/2012/01/10-ban...a-comeback.html

[Pokey]

Nice one Nick, you've found one of the few writers that even remembers Live. I like how you cherry picked this article as some kind of back up. I bet your life when the new album is released we will only see you post negative reviews and ignore the positive ones right?

[SJN1279]

Nice one Nick, you've found one of the few writers that even remembers Live. I like how you cherry picked this article as some kind of back up. I bet your life when the new album is released we will only see you post negative reviews and ignore the positive ones right?

I have Ed Kowalczyk on google alert, and this was the new article for the day. I didn't cherry pick anything.

[Pokey]

I have Ed Kowalczyk on google alert, and this was the new article for the day. I didn't cherry pick anything.

Oh no it's still cherry picking because as I say there is no way you would post an article with anything positive to say about new Live. This just screams "hey guys look! Someone else supports my view, I'm not alone!".

[SJN1279]

Oh no it's still cherry picking because as I say there is no way you would post an article with anything positive to say about new Live. This just screams "hey guys look! Someone else supports my view, I'm not alone!".

I clearly know I'm not alone. One would just have to read LIVE's FB to see that. There is a clear divide down the middle on LIVE 2.0.

[themaestro]

I clearly know I'm not alone. One would just have to read LIVE's FB to see that. There is a clear divide down the middle on LIVE 2.0.

Wrong. There isn't a clear divide, it's more like 90% - 10% in favor of new Live. And that's only with the fans that are still left. I'd also say the majority of the fans that left did so with Ed leading the musical direction and would at least listen with open ears to new Live before making their judgement. And please spare us the stupid SS vs TC sales figures as some indication that they were losing fans back then. You've said yourself that the radio climate was in flux already at that point. They were going strong until V, which has been documented as a time of Ed's growing influence and band dissension. Live's future was fully cemented with BOP and killed with SFBM. The no Ed no Live argument is coming from people who can't seem to distinguish Live of the 90's vs Live of the 2000's.

[World Dreamer]

Wrong. There isn't a clear divide, it's more like 90% - 10% in favor of new Live. And that's only with the fans that are still left. I'd also say the majority of the fans that left did so with Ed leading the musical direction and would at least listen with open ears to new Live before making their judgement. And please spare us the stupid SS vs TC sales figures as some indication that they were losing fans back then. You've said yourself that the radio climate was in flux already at that point. They were going strong until V, which has been documented as a time of Ed's growing influence and band dissension. Live's future was fully cemented with BOP and killed with SFBM. The no Ed no Live argument is coming from people who can't seem to distinguish Live of the 90's vs Ed and the Individuals of the 2000's.

Fixed it for you.

This post has been edited by World Dreamer: Jan 27 2012, 10:18 am

[themaestro]

Fixed it for you.

Thanks man. This no Ed no Live stuff is getting real old. You'd have to have your head stuck in the sand not to realize the difference in Live pre and post Ed takeover. Anyone who spent enough time around this band knows that they managed to keep things together through TDTH. The V period was a mess. Did the label problems contribute to their problems? Sure. Are they all culpable, sure. They went off the tracks during that time. However, and this is a big however, they never really had a chance long term. Ed's ego was already blossoming well before V. The V period contributed to the already existing discord between Ed and pretty much everyone else associated with the band. But the point is, Ed was going to be that way no matter what. So blaming anything or anyone else for Ed's ego and what happened to this band is just wrong. The musical output of this band is directly related to Ed's influence. Early Live, equal contribution, shared vision. Newer Live, nearly 100% Ed contribution, sole vision. That's not Live, that's EK. Alive is a pretty good indicator of that. Not much different than SFBM. And, although TGF is quite different than Live, the spirit of making true rock music as a band is captured perfectly. Take those 3 guys and a new singer that is on board with continuing the vision of early Live and you have something that at least warrants a listen from anyone that called themselves a Live fan back in the day.