Ed's Bootlegs (inc. Supreme Court summons), not so legal after all? Options

[tiger]

Maybe Ed's legal advice at the time said that the million dollars was 100% his. We really have no idea how all of this went down.

It's all stated in the suit, unless you subscribe to the two sides theory. David Levin and Ed were part of this. Something seems strange to me, if they believed it was 100% his then why pay the $75,000. Seems like an admission that C,C and P were owed something.

[SJN1279]

Bands do and should operate differently than that.

If a band JUST becomes a business then the art will suffer (which it did).

I've coached with a good friend the last 7 years. He's a good guy, but he wasn't happy in his current position in the staff. He asked the head coach if he could be the defensive coordinator this year, if not he was going to move on to another school. The coach rejected and he moved on.

Very similar to the Ed wanting to go solo, and I don't begrudge the guy for trying to better himself. They signed the contract to keep the band together, because they probably were afraid of the alternative.

[tiger]

I've coached with a good friend the last 7 years. He's a good guy, but he wasn't happy in his current position in the staff. He asked the head coach if he could be the defensive coordinator this year, if not he was going to move on to another school. The coach rejected and he moved on.

Very similar to the Ed wanting to go solo, and I don't begrudge the guy for trying to better himself. They signed the contract to keep the band together, because they probably were afraid of the alternative.

Or maybe they didn't want to see their family dissolve totally. Maybe they figured the best way to continue their family was to work with Ed. There's three other guys in the band that clearly like each other and want to work together along with an extended family of crew and other associates. Why not try to keep that together if there's only one asshole to deal with.

This post has been edited by tiger: Jun 15 2010, 9:58 am

[thefunkyredcaboose]

I am not a musician. But I am a business man. I am a part of a successful company, we've been in business for over 12 years. When someone decides they want to leave, we have a decision to make. We 1) just let them leave, or 2) ask them to please reconsider. If we ask them to reconsider, they typically have terms that need to be met inorder for them to stay around. Either we counter-offer, or they present the terms, and we decide if its worth the risk.

Maybe we're talking about a real key player in what we provide to our clients. And said employee comes to us and says that they've been presented with an amazing new opportunity, but that they'll consider staying around if we do A, B, and C for them. We have a big decision to make at that point.

Should be no different in the music business.

Bands should never JUST be a business. I have been a professional musician for 10 years and have been a part of many bands and recordings. Bands are not just a business and when they are, shit like this happens.

[Pokey]

I've coached with a good friend the last 7 years. He's a good guy, but he wasn't happy in his current position in the staff. He asked the head coach if he could be the defensive coordinator this year, if not he was going to move on to another school. The coach rejected and he moved on.

And this "very good friend", lets say he got the defensive position, but then you decided you wanted it. Would you turn to him and say "ok if you don't give me that position then I'm leaving?"

[thefunkyredcaboose]

I've coached with a good friend the last 7 years. He's a good guy, but he wasn't happy in his current position in the staff. He asked the head coach if he could be the defensive coordinator this year, if not he was going to move on to another school. The coach rejected and he moved on.

Very similar to the Ed wanting to go solo, and I don't begrudge the guy for trying to better himself. They signed the contract to keep the band together, because they probably were afraid of the alternative.

You are missing the point: being in a band is simply different.

I have been in businesses, I've been in education, I've been in retail for crying out loud.

Being in a band is different and it should be different.

[Pokey]

You are missing the point: being in a band is simply different.

I have been in businesses, I've been in education, I've been in retail for crying out loud.

Being in a band is different and it should be different.

Once again I guess we can't expect Ned to understand this. It ties back into the point that he views music as a business and he see's sales and charting and all that, he doesn't view music as an art form. To him, if it's not marketable then it's junk.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

I dunno what to say, my respect for all members of Live is dwindling. That Ed would even ever dream up that ultimatum of "I get all song credit or I leave the band" is not as shocking as it should be at this point, but still shocking nonetheless. I mean, there were rumors back in 1999 about Ed be very controlling, but I never knew it became this ultimatum.

The guys in Live accepting Ed's ultimatum, for whatever reasons, is also very shocking. And I'm sorry to say it, but their reason of accepting it out "friendship" is a huge flaming piece of bullshit. When your "friend" is giving you an ultimatum like Ed did , I wouldn't consider him much of a "friend" anymore. It's quite obvious there was no more friendship there, just business. Again, I hate to say it but one could speculate they agreed to Ed's ultimatum until they figured they could sell more albums in a new band. Or they had hoped Live started to sell well again, which obviously didn't happen.

I know I'll get flamed for all of this, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around how they ever agreed to that ultimatum.

Before you reply, consider one question:
Would we be hearing about this if Live had made a sudden & huge return to popularity after the ultimatum?

I agree with a lot of this, actually. I do understand why they would agree to it though, having been in a similar position and chosen the other route.

[tiger]

There are all sorts of dynamics in a band, especially one that has such a rich history as Live. You can't totally dismiss the family dynamic of Live either. When they first decided to take a break CT wrote a very passionate blog about his ties to Ed. It was only after the secret contract was discovered that things changed. Turns out Ed only has one thing in mind, business. I'm not even so sure about his dedication to his art. It seems to be muddled with business. I believe the others try to honor all the dynamics.

This post has been edited by tiger: Jun 15 2010, 10:21 am

[Pokey]

Just some observations..

Is there anyone here who absolutely prefers TGF's music over Ed's yet thinks that Ed is in the right here? Likewise is there anyone who absolutely prefers Ed's music but thinks TGF is in the right here? The majority of the "wait and see" people seem to be the ones that have not shown any major preference in terms of the music, Merica for example.

It seems very much like everyone has "their side" and so on. It's interesting. It's like football, if I go to a match you'll see some guy from team A get done for "holding the ball" and all the supporters of team B will yell for a free kick. Yet the exact same thing will happen in reverse and they'll say "theres no way theres a free kick involved!", simply because it's not their team that stands to gain from it. They simply are seeing things the way they want to and interpruting them a certain way.

It just seems like we're going around in circles and the arguments are all mirroring previous ones. We've had the argument where Nick see's music as an industry and just a business to generate sales and how he can't see the art in music. It's funny how him and people of that side are the ones who are talking about what is "good business" and all the legal stand points of this. You have people who appreciate TGF more and talk about music as an art form arguing from a moral stand point. There seems to be a clear devide between creative thinkers and business thinkers (for lack of a better term).
It seems to mirror the 2 sides ... Ed seems to be all about wanting people to sign contracts and money and telephone calls and pendants and all this sort of stuff. It's what people like Ned want in a "rockstar".


anyways, carry on .. just .2c worth

This post has been edited by Pokey: Jun 15 2010, 10:15 am

[Sonic Tonic]

Wow... haven't heard (or read) those lyrics in ages!
*jumps up to search her cd-collection and dig up the disk....

lyrics? cd? It's from a movie. But I guess it was used in some music then?

[LivesMeltdown]

Sometimes I wish they just would have taken a break after TDTH. How would things look today if Ed just said: Hey guys, I got some stuff I'd love to create on my own, do some solo stuff for a year or 2. LOTS of musicians do side projects to get other creative ideas out of their system.
A band like Tool comes back every 5 years with a new (amazing) album every time and those 4 guys are very good friends. But between the albums they have many other projects, ventures and side bands (most notably Keenan's A Perfect Circle)
But I'm just blabbing here typing out thoughts and wishes between all this legal mumbo jumbo that's being discussed here lol. And obviously what's done is done and what could have been is just that; what could have been.
Any who, back to your scheduled People's Court that we have going here. (off to get more popcorn)

I agree with this. I think a lot of this could probably have been avoided if Ed did some solo albums and the other guys worked on some side projects, rather them just doing Live and Live only for 20 years.

[+Ed+]

I bet if V was Ed's solo, it would have gotten more credit than it has right now...

[LivesMeltdown]

I bet if V was Ed's solo, it would have gotten more credit than it has right now...

That and he had a better producer.

[crazy1]

lyrics? cd? It's from a movie. But I guess it was used in some music then?

Guns N Roses - Civil War