How much did Ed contribute to Live?, Thread #42 Options

[themaestro]

Collaborate means that everyone has their own input. Believe was a collaboration.

Based on your explanation, you can just as easily say that CCP had huge egos for not having a desire to make cheesy church music that Ed's fans love. CCP wanted things their way, and so did Ed, and they cut each other out. Works both ways.

The ego argument in general doesn't work. Choosing a style or having a vision doesn't mean that someone has a big ego. I'm not saying he doesn't, but a better explanation is needed. Saying that Ed stopped wanting to make music with CCP doesn't suffice.

Ed isn't stupid, he knows what his music was like when he started and why he made it that way. He was either uninterested or not inclined to do that anymore.

Nobody really has an idea what happened on the friendship side, there was tons of drama. But you can't blame Ed for that either. That's between all four of them. Sometimes friends grow apart.

b

It's not about wanting to make a certain type of music. It's about experiencing life together, getting inspired together, sharing, loving, and getting in a room together to see what you come up with. That is what Live is all about. That is what CCP are all about. That is what KM immersed himself in and that is what CS is doing with them. CCP have remained that way and if the hadn't they most likely would not be making music right now. After the experience with Ed they were determined to make music that way if they were to at all. We were treated with TGF thanks to that and we'll certainly be treated to something very special with CCCP. You can just see it as captured in Jimmy's pictures. Those guys love each other, they love what they are doing together and that includes those around them. It's the same environment that early Live worked within and it's the same as TGF. For whatever reason Ed did not feel the same way over time. I still believe he has plenty of talent to produce good music with them. Just no desire to make music the way CCP want to. The same way they did when they were successful with Live.

[Bremang]

b

For whatever reason Ed did not feel the same way over time. I still believe he has plenty of talent to produce good music with them. Just no desire to make music the way CCP want to. The same way they did when they were successful with Live.

Right, nothing to do with ego, and collaboration would not have resulted in good music since, as you said, for whatever reason Ed didn't want to make music the way CCP wanted.

It's not about wanting to make a certain type of music.

I still believe he has plenty of talent to produce good music with them. Just no desire to make music the way CCP want to.

So first you said it's not about wanting to make a certain type of music, and then you conclude that the lack of success is because Ed didn't want to make music the way CCP wanted to. Just seems like the reason Ed didn't want to make music with CCP is because he wanted a different type of music in the first place. There is just no resolving that difference between them. Live ended when there was creative differences and separate motivations, hard to blame any of them for it.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Apr 14 2013, 10:51 pm

[themaestro]

Right, nothing to do with ego, and collaboration would not have resulted in good music since, as you said, for whatever reason Ed didn't want to make music the way CCP wanted.




So first you said it's not about wanting to make a certain type of music, and then you conclude that the lack of success is because Ed didn't want to make music the way CCP wanted to. Just seems like the reason Ed didn't want to make music with CCP is because he wanted a different type of music in the first place. There is just no resolving that difference between them. Live ended when there was creative differences and separate motivations, hard to blame any of them for it.

I'm far from the first to suggest Ed's ego was at the center of Live's demise. Plenty with first hand knowledge have also, some with detailed accounts right on this site. You can stick to your theory as much as you want. I'll take the word of those that know, as well as my own first hand experiences.

This post has been edited by themaestro: Apr 15 2013, 1:02 am

[Bremang]

I'm far from the first to suggest Ed's ego was at the center of Live's demise.

Even if Ed had a huge ego, the moment that the band was in disagreement, Live was over. In general nobody should be hated or blamed for the type of music they want to make or how/why they want to make it.

[Live4Life]

Even if Ed had a huge ego, the moment that the band was in disagreement, Live was over. In general nobody should be hated or blamed for the type of music they want to make or how/why they want to make it.

A Fuckinggg MEN. Nailed it.

[Lakini's Juice]

Oh shit, all that crap again?? -.-

[super.fan]

What do you want, a nice spreadsheet with some pie charts and intricate formulas? There is no way to quantify it other than to experience it. The music that moved everyone so much did so for a reason. This was a brotherhood, a band where each had 100 % freedom to express themselves in every way and an environment of love and support for one another. They set out to conquer the world together and they did a damn fine job. Sorry if you didn't get to experience some of that when it was happening. It was magical and they all contributed equally to that.

You can downplay Ed's contributions all you want (by claiming all input was equal). The fact of the entire matter is, when a band becomes famous, it's usually a blend of talented writing, singing, and the ability to perform well live. Also know that most people (if not all) will not fall in love with a band if first and foremost they do not like the lead singer's voice - so the singer is at the forefront of the band and really personifies and solidifies the foundation that fans become attracted to. There have only been a handful of top tier bands that were able to swap lead singers and maintain popularity and continue to be successful using their original band name.

In terms of contributing to the bands success behind the scenes, sure, maybe everything was equal. However, I do firmly believe that Ed has an extraordinary voice that was a flawless match for the style of music that the band played, meaning his contribution to the band overall was huge. Chris Shinn has a large void to fill, and the bar is high. I listened to some of his performances, and one of the most recent performances... I actually kind of liked it. However, when he tries to sing something like Dolphin's Cry, I literally cringe and think he should just stick to only singing songs he and the other guys write while they are together.

Anyways, most of you all are just bitter that the band fell apart, and I was upset as well. Stop treating Ed like he was insignificant though, because he's the biggest reason you love Live, and deep down, you know it.

[themaestro]

You can downplay Ed's contributions all you want (by claiming all input was equal). The fact of the entire matter is, when a band becomes famous, it's usually a blend of talented writing, singing, and the ability to perform well live. Also know that most people (if not all) will not fall in love with a band if first and foremost they do not like the lead singer's voice - so the singer is at the forefront of the band and really personifies and solidifies the foundation that fans become attracted to. There have only been a handful of top tier bands that were able to swap lead singers and maintain popularity and continue to be successful using their original band name.

In terms of contributing to the bands success behind the scenes, sure, maybe everything was equal. However, I do firmly believe that Ed has an extraordinary voice that was a flawless match for the style of music that the band played, meaning his contribution to the band overall was huge. Chris Shinn has a large void to fill, and the bar is high. I listened to some of his performances, and one of the most recent performances... I actually kind of liked it. However, when he tries to sing something like Dolphin's Cry, I literally cringe and think he should just stick to only singing songs he and the other guys write while they are together.

Anyways, most of you all are just bitter that the band fell apart, and I was upset as well. Stop treating Ed like he was insignificant though, because he's the biggest reason you love Live, and deep down, you know it.

Great. Another over simplification. Ed did have a significant impact. He was also somewhat of a reluctant frontman when he started. It was the foundation of CCP that gave him the chance to become what he did. Unfortunately the success filled a void in Ed that led to the growth of his ego. I'm certainly not upset or bitter, never was. Life moves on.

[Lakini's Juice]

You can downplay Ed's contributions all you want (by claiming all input was equal). The fact of the entire matter is, when a band becomes famous, it's usually a blend of talented writing, singing, and the ability to perform well live. Also know that most people (if not all) will not fall in love with a band if first and foremost they do not like the lead singer's voice - so the singer is at the forefront of the band and really personifies and solidifies the foundation that fans become attracted to. There have only been a handful of top tier bands that were able to swap lead singers and maintain popularity and continue to be successful using their original band name.

In terms of contributing to the bands success behind the scenes, sure, maybe everything was equal. However, I do firmly believe that Ed has an extraordinary voice that was a flawless match for the style of music that the band played, meaning his contribution to the band overall was huge. Chris Shinn has a large void to fill, and the bar is high. I listened to some of his performances, and one of the most recent performances... I actually kind of liked it. However, when he tries to sing something like Dolphin's Cry, I literally cringe and think he should just stick to only singing songs he and the other guys write while they are together.

Anyways, most of you all are just bitter that the band fell apart, and I was upset as well. Stop treating Ed like he was insignificant though, because he's the biggest reason you love Live, and deep down, you know it.

YES! Thank you!

[themaestro]

You can't rate someone's contributions in a band merely by your perception of their public persona or the liner notes in a CD. It's uninformed, shortsighted, and extremely simplistic. The list of artists that singlehandedly carried the load in their bands is very short and does not include Ed Kowalczyk.

[Bremang]

You can't rate someone's contributions in a band merely by your perception of their public persona or the liner notes in a CD. It's uninformed, shortsighted, and extremely simplistic.

good thing super.fan considered way more than just persona. He said that the band was famous largely due to Ed's flawless vocal talent as well.

[themaestro]

good thing super.fan considered way more than just persona. He said that the band was famous largely due to Ed's flawless vocal talent as well.

Persona is the role Ed assumed as frontman for Live. It includes his voice.

[Bremang]

Persona is the role Ed assumed as frontman for Live. It includes his voice.

oh please. nobody considers a public persona to be mean the same as the artist's singing. If you think it is, then public persona is definitely a contribution.

[themaestro]

oh please. nobody considers a public persona to be mean the same as the artist's singing. If you think it is, then public persona is definitely a contribution.

OK then, Ed's persona as the singer of Live. Whatever you want to call it. Whatever super fan and anyone else experiences when they see Ed on stage or hear him sing. (That) can't possibly provide someone the basis for arguing how much Ed contributed to Live. As well as the liner notes as one person likes to cite as their measurement of Ed's contribution to Live. Look beyond that and you'll begin to understand what made Live (and Ed) successful. It's not as Ed centric as some think.

[Bremang]

Then you're saying when Elvis shook his hips on the Ed Sullivan show, it must have provided nothing for him and people should have not thought of that as a contribution to the art, and should have been influenced by only the censored version...cause what you see has nothing to do with a performance and shouldn't be counted toward's an artist's success.

Ed's vocal talent is what the other person was suggesting was a hugely identifiable factor. That's music.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Apr 26 2013, 9:51 pm