10 Questions with Chad Taylor, Facebook Options

[OutToDry]

If Ed signed a contract, and Chad and the band have not even spoken to him about it, then how can they be so positive about all the circumstances regarding Ed's signature? They are assuming that Ed meant the worst. They have stated that Ed was not available for comment on this.

Nor was Ed available when the band was asked by the band's management to give Ed a $100,000 singers bonus. Is a $100,000 even a realistic number for a lead singer at a festival with multiple bands? Who knows if Ed really even requested this if nobody spoke with Ed about it?? This would be on top of Ed's regular cut I'm sure. If the band is making money anywhere near these figures, than what is the big deal over money issues? Who knows?

You're certainly grasping at consipircy theories here. I mentioned in an earlier post what Chad said he contacted Ed regarding what he found.....another contract which only required one signature. Why are you so up in arms over this? Has the band slighted you personally because they broke up?

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Mar 10 2010, 8:14 am

[Infrequent Poster]

Don't forget my other point which was that these guys claim they didn't even talk. They were bandmates for 20 years, good friends, and business savvy. I find it at the very least questionable that Ed would leave matters un-discussed.

The secret contract was created in 2005, prior to the Paradiso DVD, Radiant Sea, and even SFBM. It seems questionable that any band members would not have realized if they were receiving anything less from whatever publishing deals they originally had, or if any publishing contract situations had changed. I also wonder how it could have changed with only Ed's signature.

I'll agree the circumstances are questionable, but that can be attributed to only hearing one side of the argument, in addition to not having all the facts available. It takes a jump to make that a hoax.

It's becoming less about album sales, more about ticket sales and merchandise. I don't think you have the resources to determine Live's worldwide fan base, the effect on album sales, nor are able to determine that the breakup announcement had a negligible impact on Live's audience. So I think your two reasons are not likely to be very accurate. Also, I think its safe to say that message boards are not representative of Live's fanbase as a whole.

No I don't, but I can make logical guesses based on what I've seen from this forum (which is a microcosm of Live's worldwide fan base) and what I've seen in the news. A contract hoax seems to be a very convoluted way to double dip on tickets and merchandise. I'd have gone to see both Ed's show and TGF's before Chad's email. Now after it (and due to my unenthusiastic reaction to the music Ed's put out thus far) I'm only going to a TGF show.

A fabricated breakup can be great for business. The binary opposition is all about gaining interest. Just look at all the hip hop beef. Just look at any political election. It is good for both sides. Bad press is still good press.

Just off the top of my head, I could imagine many reasons to fabricate a breakup. It might just be a simple case of Ed wanting to settle down, and the band wanted to keep rocking. Ed's got kids, his voice is going. Maybe he wants to tone it down as a performer, all of which would be reasons not advantageous to tell the fans. Maybe Ed didn't care that his name was dragged into the mud, like a Freak, if it meant helping his friends' band. Maybe they wanted to pool their income from two separate acts...haha maybe.

Any press is good press, yea I've heard that before. But no press is still no press, and that's what Live got out of this, no press.

If Live's real reason for breaking up was two different musical directions, why not call it "creative differences" like many other bands and call it a day? You assume that Ed explicitly saying he's toning it down would be bad for his revenues but we've already seen that. Just because it is unsaid does not mean it is unknown. Ed easing his shows back is no mystery to anyone, nor is the fact that his voice is no where near where it was in 1997.

Or imagine this. Maybe Ed would not be so greedy as to step on his band. Even if he had, I could imagine the rest of the band having more composure, and not trifling over money issues and contracts. Sure, there would be deception involved on Ed's part, but I'm guessing they're all wealthy. I could imagine if Ed's management was asking for a lead singer bonus, that maybe one of the guys would have talked it over with Ed. Who really knows. How do these things really go unresolved? How does a professional band like Live tour for months and not a single conversation between Ed and his band surface in regards to Ed's greed?

The band is all the guys have ever known. Ed was (and after a few years, probably will be again) a good friend to the guys. A decrease in yearly revenue could have easily been seen as a symptom of the decrease in CD sales and concert attendance that Live struggled with in the 2000s. I, and I'm sure many others, would admit that the "secret contract" is hazy at best, and we certainly don't have enough information to create an accurate picture of what happened. However, it is simply not logical, not with all the better avenues the band could have taken, for the "secret contract" to have been an elaborate hoax to move more tickets and merchandise, or draw attention to both acts.

[Bremang]

I know it's a publishing company Bremag. Those are the only 2 places it's listed. And 'Linked In' may not count...there are no dues to keep on that....it's simply a free business directory search page for contacts. Anyone can put anything in that website. Wikipedia only mentions what Chad stated.

Have you found any other thing regarding it? Why do all of the records cite Loco De Amor Music Inc/Audible Sun Music Inc? This to me is the publishing company of record. I could be way off here, but I don't think so.

You've been making assertions but what do they mean? Loco De Amor is all over Live's discog, how does that suggest anything against what I've been saying? What are you trying to prove or disprove by saying the publishing company is secret?

You do have to pay to use many basic features on Linkedin. Chad has 70 connections. I figure he would want to have the ability to view someones full profile before making a connection. On his Linkedin you have descriptions of all Chad's public companies, who would think to upload this information other than Chad

This post has been edited by Bremang: Mar 11 2010, 1:15 am

[Bremang]

You're certainly grasping at consipircy theories here. I mentioned in an earlier post what Chad said he contacted Ed regarding what he found.....another contract which only required one signature.

These are questionable things said by Chad, for all the reasons I've been posting.

Why are you so up in arms over this? Has the band slighted you personally because they broke up?

Not up in arms anymore than you. It probably wouldn't be a lengthy discussion if I didn't feel like patching up all the holes I saw in the responses here. Aside from that, were at a Live discussion board and I'm just discussing Live's breakup. What is your deal, that you won't be straight forward with these ideas? And covering it up with tangent and loose-ended arguments. Applauding those who respond to me with baseless feedback.

[Bremang]

I'll agree the circumstances are questionable, but that can be attributed to only hearing one side of the argument, in addition to not having all the facts available. It takes a jump to make that a hoax.

Then we are in agreement. See where I amended my "hoax" statement.

No I don't, but I can make logical guesses based on what I've seen from this forum (which is a microcosm of Live's worldwide fan base) and what I've seen in the news. A contract hoax seems to be a very convoluted way to double dip on tickets and merchandise. I'd have gone to see both Ed's show and TGF's before Chad's email. Now after it (and due to my unenthusiastic reaction to the music Ed's put out thus far) I'm only going to a TGF show.
Any press is good press, yea I've heard that before. But no press is still no press, and that's what Live got out of this, no press.

This does not stick if you realize already that promo is a not a necessary reason for the breakup. I've already listed the avenues where the word has been spread about the breakup. Yes, we agree that you don't have the resources to determine the significance of the breakup in regards to promotion, which essentially thwarts this argument.

If Live's real reason for breaking up was two different musical directions, why not call it "creative differences" like many other bands and call it a day? You assume that Ed explicitly saying he's toning it down would be bad for his revenues but we've already seen that. Just because it is unsaid does not mean it is unknown. Ed easing his shows back is no mystery to anyone, nor is the fact that his voice is no where near where it was in 1997.
The band is all the guys have ever known. Ed was (and after a few years, probably will be again) a good friend to the guys. A decrease in yearly revenue could have easily been seen as a symptom of the decrease in CD sales and concert attendance that Live struggled with in the 2000s. I, and I'm sure many others, would admit that the "secret contract" is hazy at best, and we certainly don't have enough information to create an accurate picture of what happened. However, it is simply not logical, not with all the better avenues the band could have taken, for the "secret contract" to have been an elaborate hoax to move more tickets and merchandise, or draw attention to both acts.

I really don't think anyone here has the resources to determine what makes one avenue better than the other without having control over all the statistics on live. They could consider this avenue to be a trial and error in their business, who knows

Why not call it creative differences? This is a good question which leads to my line of questions. I've mentioned that they were already on hiatus, and have questioned the reason to make a production about the breakup, and have questioned what anyone in the band had to gain.

I don't think you have the resources to pick apart Live's demographic the way you have. In regards to Ed, you're trying to suggest that there is not a considerable fanbase that still thinks that Ed rocks. How about new potential fans, who have only heard throwing copper? The point I made before was that one function of an entertainers image includes attracting the fans and potential fans who are less informed. That is why you can't announce Ed's turn to softer performances as a reason for the breakup, even though some people may know Ed to perform "softer" now.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Mar 11 2010, 1:13 am

[OutToDry]

You've been making assertions but what do they mean? Loco De Amor is all over Live's discog, how does that suggest anything against what I've been saying? What are you trying to prove or disprove by saying the publishing company is secret?

You do have to pay to use many basic features on Linkedin. Chad has 70 connections. I figure he would want to have the ability to view someones full profile before making a connection. On his Linkedin you have descriptions of all Chad's public companies, who would think to upload this information other than Chad

All you need is to have an account yourself, you don't have to pay. Only assertion I have made is that it appears on the surface that Black Coffee Music Inc, is most likely something he found in the past 6-8 months........If BCMP has been there for the whole existence of Live, then what Chad found was a addendum changing the makeup of the contract executed in 2005.

I don't think there is anything more to argue here. We both see it differently and that is OK.

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Mar 11 2010, 8:01 am

[Merica]

Biggest truism for me is that the guys have received little to no attention from all this, so any masterful trick failed in an epic way, if indeed it even existed.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

This has to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen on these boards, and that is saying something.

[Infrequent Poster]

Then we are in agreement. See where I amended my "hoax" statement.

This does not stick if you realize already that promo is a not a necessary reason for the breakup. I've already listed the avenues where the word has been spread about the breakup. Yes, we agree that you don't have the resources to determine the significance of the breakup in regards to promotion, which essentially thwarts this argument.
I really don't think anyone here has the resources to determine what makes one avenue better than the other without having control over all the statistics on live. They could consider this avenue to be a trial and error in their business, who knows

The promotion angle was one you were working, unless my reading comprehension skills are failing me.

As for my argument being thwarted well that's just silly reasoning. Do you think the polls shown on the news about various political subjects or celebrity gossip mongering are inclusive of all 300+ million people in the States? They're samples, ones used to extrapolate trends over a larger whole. What I did (in a much less scientific way, well, maybe not that much) was make similar extrapolations based on the posts I've read here. Just because I can't say with one hundred percent certainty how things worked out does not negate my argument.

Why not call it creative differences? This is a good question which leads to my line of questions. I've mentioned that they were already on hiatus, and have questioned the reason to make a production about the breakup, and have questioned what anyone in the band had to gain.

I don't think you have the resources to pick apart Live's demographic the way you have. In regards to Ed, you're trying to suggest that there is not a considerable fanbase that still thinks that Ed rocks. How about new potential fans, who have only heard throwing copper? The point I made before was that one function of an entertainers image includes attracting the fans and potential fans who are less informed. That is why you can't announce Ed's turn to softer performances as a reason for the breakup, even though some people may know Ed to perform "softer" now.

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? First, the announcement would have to reach the transient fans he'd stand to lose, which, if the acrimonious break up was any indication, it wouldn't reach much of anyone. And secondly, if Ed wanted to keep a "rocker" image and a transient fan who only knows of him from Throwing Copper went to his website and listened to Dirty Water, Lotus Flower...yea...

This contract dispute was not made up to protect Ed's image.

This has to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen on these boards, and that is saying something.

Don't mind me, this argument has brought back words I'd thought long lost from my lexicon. Might help me bust through a little writer's block, been falling in love with a few phrases and words and it's annoying the shit out of me in my writing.

[Rupe]

You can research corporations on a state's business license website. For Pennsylvania, its https://www.corporations.state.pa.us/corp/s...732303240740741.

If you look up Black Coffee and Action Front, they list CT-EK-CG-PD as the 4 officers of each - in different orders, but they are the only officers. It depends on their articles of incorporation and bylaws as to which officers have power and what can be done with/without others approval.

It appears BC and AF are both Maryland corporations... if you go to http://sdatcert3.resiusa.org/UCC-Charter/C...erSearch_f.aspx, and do the same search, both corps have "forfieted" their license.

Don't know if any of that helps, but it does give me the chance to post one of these:

[OutToDry]

Thanks for that. That's why Chad's listed as VP. Ok Bremang, one up.

[Bremang]

Biggest truism for me is that the guys have received little to no attention from all this, so any masterful trick failed in an epic way, if indeed it even existed.

If you don't have access to any site statistics, then you wouldn't know of any trends from the breakup announcement. What do you consider all the internet articles, and various online avenues in which the announcement was spread.

Again, attention wouldn't necessarily have been the main point of making up other reasons for a the breakup. We don't know what the motive was, we can't monitor the results too well, so we don't know how successful the announcement was.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Mar 11 2010, 11:48 pm

[Bremang]

As for my argument being thwarted well that's just silly reasoning. Do you think the polls shown on the news about various political subjects or celebrity gossip mongering are inclusive of all 300+ million people in the States? They're samples, ones used to extrapolate trends over a larger whole. What I did (in a much less scientific way, well, maybe not that much) was make similar extrapolations based on the posts I've read here. Just because I can't say with one hundred percent certainty how things worked out does not negate my argument.
That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? First, the announcement would have to reach the transient fans he'd stand to lose, which, if the acrimonious break up was any indication, it wouldn't reach much of anyone. And secondly, if Ed wanted to keep a "rocker" image and a transient fan who only knows of him from Throwing Copper went to his website and listened to Dirty Water, Lotus Flower...yea...


This contract dispute was not made up to protect Ed's image.

My reasoning might not seem silly to you if you reconsider what your argument was. First you agreed that you were not able to determine that the breakup announcement had a negligible impact on Live's audience. With this, you concluded later that Live surely got no press. So your preface thwarted your conclusion, because having no "press", (which in context simply meant all the word being spread about the announcement) suggests that you were able to determine whether the announcement had any impact on its fans, with "press" being a factor that could make the impact. On top of which, I mentioned already that promo may not even been necessary for the fabrication of the breakup. I also do not believe your analogies serve you. Not being specific about a situation in which political news or celebrity gossip has derived truth over a matter, similar to how the posts here derive truth over the breakup, does not give me a clear understanding of how we can connect the two concepts. Hopefully I've made it more clear to which argument of yours I was saying you thwarted, because it seems like you are directing this now to the idea of Ed's fanbase, and his image. You make an interesting point about Ed, but again, I honestly find it questionable as to how this breakup has effected Ed's image, as well as to whether it was intentional or unsuccessful. Being unsuccessful with the breakup news does not define what their intentions were.

The promotion angle was one you were working, unless my reading comprehension skills are failing me.

Promo is just one possible angle, I've been repeating the others.

Don't mind me, this argument has brought back words I'd thought long lost from my lexicon. Might help me bust through a little writer's block, been falling in love with a few phrases and words and it's annoying the shit out of me in my writing.

haha cheers

This post has been edited by Bremang: Mar 12 2010, 1:10 am

[Bremang]

This has to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen on these boards, and that is saying something.

Ah, I think then I'd like you to help make it less dumb. Thank you.

[Bremang]

You can research corporations on a state's business license website. For Pennsylvania, its https://www.corporations.state.pa.us/corp/s...732303240740741.

If you look up Black Coffee and Action Front, they list CT-EK-CG-PD as the 4 officers of each - in different orders, but they are the only officers. It depends on their articles of incorporation and bylaws as to which officers have power and what can be done with/without others approval.

It appears BC and AF are both Maryland corporations... if you go to http://sdatcert3.resiusa.org/UCC-Charter/C...erSearch_f.aspx, and do the same search, both corps have "forfieted" their license.

Don't know if any of that helps, but it does give me the chance to post one of these:

Nice find. This throws way more speculation into the mix. The forfeit is strange because it shows the forfeit announcement in 1999. Plus there are different physical addresses on both sites. It has the names of their lawyers and the addresses. We should go there and bribe them to see if they'll give us some confidential information, how about it?

I don't know if this company was simply registered in different places over time, or what. But according to Chad, there was action in 2005 and it still exists in his profile, so who knows.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Mar 12 2010, 1:01 am