Live Not Acknowledging Songs From Black Mountain Options

[mattyeagles]

If they omitted any other album, I'd think maybe it was a mistake. But omitting SFBM? Which we all know was basically by Ed?

I think it was intentional. And I don't blame, them, either. If I had nothing to do with it and disliked the quality of it, I wouldn't want my name on it.

A little hypocritical to then sue for proceeds from the record and associated tour, no?

This post has been edited by mattyeagles: Apr 30 2014, 11:34 am

[PurdueSteve]

I do think they should write SFBM in their bio, good or not. Chad T. Explained how it was recorded and that he just did the parts he was told too. That's a mistake of CCP to let Ed take control for THAT particular record. They should live with it and still write that album there, because they were touring in 2008-09.

I think that's a big crux of the whole debate is that the legal maneuverings by Ed helped facilitate that. I think in hindsight CCP wouldn't have lapsed the way they did, but it's not exactly like Ed was making phone calls to get the band together and write and they declined. He had positioned himself as the sole creative process and by the time SFBM came to be, it was the 100% Ed show with CCP as stand-in musicians. If I were them, I'd feel that SFBM wasn't my work because it wasn't. It's just as morally wrong to lay claim to that work as it is technically wrong to omit it from the "Live" portfolio. Personally, I'm fine with them omitting it. Everyone who cares knows it was all Ed. No one really considers it "Live". I don't think anyone can sit here with a straight face and say it belongs in the Live portfolio more than it does in the Ed Kowalczyk portfolio.

This post has been edited by PurdueSteve: Apr 30 2014, 1:23 pm

[PurdueSteve]

A little hypocritical to then sue for proceeds from the record and associated tour, no?

Tour? No, they were out there doing the work, why is that hypocritical. It's not like they weren't playing stuff from all of the other albums on the tour.

As for proceeds from the record, I don't remember them suing explicitly for this, some proceeds from it may have been involved as part of the overarching suit.

[alexou]

I think that's a big crux of the whole debate is that the legal maneuverings by Ed helped facilitate that. I think in hindsight CCP wouldn't have lapsed the way they did, but it's not exactly like Ed was making phone calls to get the band together and write and they declined. He had positioned himself as the sole creative process and by the time SFBM came to be, it was the 100% Ed show with CCP as stand-in musicians. If I were them, I'd feel that SFBM wasn't my work because it wasn't. It's just as morally wrong to lay claim to that work as it is technically wrong to omit it from the "Live" portfolio. Personally, I'm fine with them omitting it. Everyone who cares knows it was all Ed. No one really considers it "Live". I don't think anyone can sit here with a straight face and say it belongs in the Live portfolio more than it does in the Ed Kowalczyk portfolio.

I know you are totally right about this, but the perfect move for them at that time was to leave and create something they like. This was the rational decision to take at that time, but Chad detailed that again in his blog years ago. Understand, but still, the Live name is on that album.

[SinfulEyes]

A little hypocritical to then sue for proceeds from the record and associated tour, no?

They had to recoup for their time and efforts. That and the money Ed allegedly stole from their pockets.

[brett]

If they omitted any other album, I'd think maybe it was a mistake. But omitting SFBM? Which we all know was basically by Ed?

I think it was intentional. And I don't blame, them, either. If I had nothing to do with it and disliked the quality of it, I wouldn't want my name on it.

well it's too late for that. they should of had the BALLS to not do the album then. they didn't and they are forever linked to it. good or bad. they toured behind it and profited off it. end of story.

This post has been edited by brett: Apr 30 2014, 2:43 pm

[brett]

They had to recoup for their time and efforts. That and the money Ed allegedly stole from their pockets.

you always come up with bullshit to justify anything. it's not surprising considering what a giant fucking douchebag you've always been on this board.

[Bremang]

I don't think anyone can sit here with a straight face and say it belongs in the Live portfolio more than it does in the Ed Kowalczyk portfolio.

Just watch Chad Gracey work the drums, Pat work the bass, and Chad T slam the guitar on the chorus. Less than stellar song to many fans, but there is clearly Live's input, not an Ed Kowalczyk solo effort.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgGNpQ6if8Q

I agree that CCP had little to do with the songwriting, but I would have to say it belongs in the Live portfolio, even solely because the name Live is on the album. That ends the debate to me. Also, CCP placed their musical influence on the SFBM songs in concert, making it Live and not just Ed Kowalczyk. Furthermore, if the standard for Ed Kowalczyk songs is that Ed writes the music without the band, then there certainly is the argument that Ed wrote alot of the previous work as well, even though nobody would call TC material or SS material an Ed Kowalczyk solo effort.


There's no reason that CCP even need to list their albums directly in their bio, so it does seem like the omission may have been intentional.

But I also see no reason to mess up the year of the hiatus, which makes me think that possibly the writer made mistakes unintentionally.

[Bremang]

A little hypocritical to then sue for proceeds from the record and associated tour, no?

I don't remember that in the complaint. Did CCP actually sue for SFBM proceeds?

The most hypocritical thing would be that the name Live is on the album, if they won't recognize it as being Live.

This post has been edited by Bremang: May 1 2014, 5:20 am

[PurdueSteve]

I agree that CCP had little to do with the songwriting, but I would have to say it belongs in the Live portfolio, even solely because the name Live is on the album. That ends the debate to me. Also, CCP placed their musical influence on the SFBM songs in concert, making it Live and not just Ed Kowalczyk. Furthermore, if the standard for Ed Kowalczyk songs is that Ed writes the music without the band, then there certainly is the argument that Ed wrote alot of the previous work as well, even though nobody would call TC material or SS material an Ed Kowalczyk solo effort.

Maybe I misunderstand it based on CTs blogs/postings but....

1) SFBM - CT/PD (and maybe CG, not clear on his part) did NOT write their own instruments.
2) Prior to SFBM (with the exception of a few tracks on the later albums) - CT, PD and CG did write their own instrument parts.

When people say "Ed wrote such and such song", he didn't sit down at a drum kit like Dave Ghrol. He doesn't pick up a bass guitar. He writes, as he always says, with his acoustic and his voice, which is without a doubt the main bulk of a song.

Additionally, regardless of who wrote each instrument, there are other "song writing" elements such as arrangement of the song (does a bridge occur after the 2nd chorus or before the 2nd chorus?) mixing input, song title, ect. It's strongly implied that CT,PD,CG were left out of this process considerably more. If you couple that with Ed's legal maneuverings, it's not hard to understand why at the time, CCP were complacent and just doing what they were "told" (as CT himself put it). It's not really an excuse and in hindsight I'm sure they'd all do things differently if they had a do-over.

Sure "Live" is on the front of SFBM but when CCP did decide to stand their ground the result was a hiatus and Ed's solo CD "Alive". Had CCP remained complacent that album would've had "Live" stamped on it as well. (Remember Ed showing Zion as a new Live song?) The stamping on the the album cover unfortunately did not accurately reflect the artistic process of the music underneath the cover.

This post has been edited by PurdueSteve: May 1 2014, 8:03 am

[mfitz804]

All of these arguments are pointless. They put their names on it, its theirs. Some idiot leaving it out of a bio on the website doesn't change that.

The level of involvement they had is completely irrelevant. If it was in fact all Ed as many (even Chad T., I believe) have said, then shame on them for putting their stamp on it. They should have refused to do so and let Ed put it out as a solo album. Believe me, when SFBM came out, nobody was clamoring for a new Live album anyway.

[Bremang]

Had CCP remained complacent that album would've had "Live" stamped on it as well. (Remember Ed showing Zion as a new Live song?) The stamping on the the album cover unfortunately did not accurately reflect the artistic process of the music underneath the cover.

I agree with your description of CCP's input but once they agree to call it Live, it's Live. And CCP played it in concert, which means that SFBM is not exclusively an Ed Kowalczyk solo act effort from an artistic standpoint as well. If Live allowed Chad T to put out an album containing songs that were only written by Chad T, and let him record it without the other guys, but the band still performs it together and calls it Live, nobody here would be calling it a Chad T solo effort officially. It would still be Live.

That is interesting to think about Live putting out Alive. Probably a bad album in the end, but I think Alive would have been different if CCP were still in the band. It would have a different album name probably. I recall "Believe" being a collaboration between Ed and CCP performed in 2009, so that probably could have been on the tracklist. Chad G would be playing drums on the album at least. Ed's new songs would sound different in concert. Who knows what the new album would have been like, or if CCP would have stood their ground and demanded more of an input.

Aside from "believe" in 2009, I also recall Live performing "hold me up" for the first time in 2009, for those who question whether the band began their hiatus in 2008.

This post has been edited by Bremang: May 1 2014, 4:10 pm

[lovemachine97]

Their YouTube page is linked on the home page, and from their channel you can get to their official music video channel and the music video for "The River" is on there. That's quite a lot of clicks to get to one mention of something from it, but it's not completely shunned.

That said, it's not mentioned on their website at ALL, nor do they sell it. They probably feel no connection to the album.

This isn't the worse I have seen. Van Halen tried to replace all pictures of Michael Anthony on album covers on their official website with pictures of his replacement, Wolfgang Van Halen. The replacement covers weren't up for long, however.

[throwing_cheetahs]

It's by far the worst album any of them have ever produced.

Yes that is the Opinion that is shared by alot of people. I certainly disagree and i enjoy it alot....to each their own.


TC

This post has been edited by throwing_cheetahs: May 31 2014, 5:51 pm

[dancing queen]

Mental Jewelry, V, and Paradiso are also not for sale on their site. That is interesting. When I read the bio I assumed SFBM was left out purposely and it made sense. The incorrect hiatus date is weird, though. I was at the last show, which apparently took place during a hiatus... ;-)