Live / Ed K Paradox, A visual interpretation Options

[OutToDry]

Hey, Ed's a pretty smart guy, so he thinks anyway. He seems like a very intelligent person to seek out the meaning of it all. So here's the rub.......Live is a paradox in terms of success, popularity, their deep brotherly bond which allowed their music to transcend the masses. The music in their early years, the collaboration of true brothers!!! Ah it was great. Maybe as the Thrill says....door's open, but the prodigal son must go through his life trials to see where he may have messed up. The New Live will approach us with much skepticism, but I think open minds will find what they're looking for. I wanted to take a glance over Live's history of popularity and success, and mix in the hidden variable which ultimately did in this brotherhood. I took to a little scientific research and figured it all out!!! I wish I had a sacrafont....but here goes.





This post has been edited by OutToDry: Feb 20 2012, 7:41 pm

[FishOutaWater]

Chad has stated that they stayed in the band the last 10 years for the livilihood of their families. Do not make them out to be saints by saying they stayed for friendship and relationship sake. The truth is, +live+ had been about business for a very long time, to all of the members.

I throw up the white flag. I can't argue over every recollection about each thing that CCP may or may not have said at one time or another. I don't think that CCP stayed in Live with Ed because they were sell-outs. They may have stayed with him too long, and it may, in some part, have been because it was their livelihood. But I am not going to get into a tit-for-tat over who is a "sell-out" because I called Ed a sell-out. Like I said in my original post in this thread, I don't think there is ANY debate over who the sell-out is. I don't see how anyone can argue these points in the face of Ed demanding 75% of the Live royalties and 25% for the other 3 members, with a threat of an ultimatum, and demanding a lead singer bonus and stealing $1 million in a secret publishing contract, and the B.S. he has been pulling to milk his fans of every dime he can get out of them. And don't think that touring all alone with an acoustic guitar or touring with cheap session musicians playing Live music is just so that Ed can selflessly "reconnect with his artistic roots" - he can make more money playing in front of a few hundred people alone with an acoustic guitar without eloborate lights, road crew, tour manager, sound board and splitting the proceeds with all 4 members of Live. It's simple math - a promoter will pay Ed good money to get off a plane in a city with his acoustic guitar and take the stage to play Live songs without any expense overhead of Live, and I bet Ed makes more money that way than his cut of the $50,000 to $75,000 asking price that Live had for a show, after expenses. Reconnect with the fans my arse.

Ed came to see the other 3/4's of Live as a useless appendage that was holding him back and costing him money. Ed was wrong. He either forgot or never realized the intrinsic value of 4 band members coming together and making music together as a band. That worked better than Ed doing it himself. That has become self-ecvident. And Ed won't do as well without Live as he did with them. Not financially. Not artistically.