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

[jclive]

Nope!

It's not about wording things correctly, it's about being a pig headed ignorant fool who runs a fansofLIVE website when he barely was a fan of the band, just Ed.

Well hey, as least we have a place to get together and bitch and moan. :-)

[Bremang]

I disagree with you on this one. While I'm not overly familiar with Candlebox's more recent work, the sound of TGF and the sound of Candlebox are not nearly the same. Just like Live is best known in the U.S. for the TC days, Candlebox is probably still best known for the self-titled album days with hits such as "Far Behind", "You" and "Cover Me". The sound and feel of Kevin's voice is vastly different from his Candlebox glory days to the sound he has with TGF.

The prominence of other band members in the music plays a very large part in how the lead singer's voice comes across. It's a lot easier for a singer to go from one band to another and have a completely different sound. Whereas a singer going from band to solo artist will inevitably bring up reminiscences of some of the band's simpler songs. The reason for this is that most singers, when leaving a band to go solo, make the mistake of having everything be subservient to them.

That's not a knock on Ed specifically. He fell into the same trap that many others have fallen into over the years. Rob Thomas of Matchbox Twenty was another one who fell into that trap. With a couple of exceptions, I thought his first solo album was sadly lacking musically compared to what he had done with the band. He corrected some of those mistakes in the second album and it made for a much better listen.

One artist who I always thought got it was Billy Joel. For someone who carries the moniker "Piano Man", he was sure adept at using just about every type of sound, from saxophones, to drums, to violins, to guitars in his music.

Hmm...yeah I'm not too sure, singers are the most recognized usually. But its the Candlebox singer, I don't know if he would be more recognized than CCP, since his voice isn't really distinguishable from many other voices, Live are more famous than Candlebox, and one of the main connections is the Live breakup controversy.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Jul 9 2010, 8:22 pm

[Bremang]

But here's where the common sense thing comes in. Does it make sense that three guys with the character of Chad, Chad and Pat, would smear Ed because of creative differences?? Are people really that blind and fucking stupid?? Does it not make complete sense that they would've just said ok-bye, in that case? And went their own separate ways?? Does any one single person in their deranged little mind think that these three guys were so vindictive and disgruntled that they would make all this shit up?? Jesus fucking Christ, get a life already and use the motherfucking brain god gave you.

They have smeared Ed on creative differences partly. But are you asking if it makes sense that they would part based on creative differences, or otherwise? This paragraph isn't clear.

Common sense tells me the reaction of these three guys was due to some sort of serious breach of trust that led them to take drastic measures.

Nobody is arguing against this. But in this breach of trust were CCP were not getting paid, it is not really clear to us exactly how much these guys got screwed, or by by whom.

Whatever Ed or his management did was definately underhanded. Illegal or not, that's not for me to say. But their reaction tells me that it's someting you never do to a friend, never mind a lifelong friend. After all the stories we've heard about these guys being like brothers, it's obvious something terrible happened. Somebody did something they shouldn't have done period.

I'm siding one hundred percent with the three guys I know to have great moral character. It makes not one ounce of sense that three guys would just make shit up against a lifelong friend and cut all ties with him. If it does to you or anyone else, I feel sorry for your friends and families. It must be real hard discussing anything with complete dolts who have the logic comprehension of a giant fucking jungle turd.

You say here that it might just be Eds management. It could be Levin, an associate of Levin, other members of Ed's management, or any other 3rd party that could have been taking advantage of these guys while the band were at odds with each other. Since Ed reaped the benefits, obviously the band has to counteract by pointing the finger at Ed, but it doesn't mean that Ed actively pursued being unfair to the band in regards to money.


Ed may have decided in recent years to keep communication at a minimum, which makes sense if their disagreements got really heated (you agree we don't know how heated it got.) But if we don't know the details of the money issues, and if the situation began with years of resentment in the first place, it is easy for some to mistakenly assume Ed is to blame now. I don't think you can say that Ed was unfair to the band if he wanted control over the music, the same way it wouldn't be unfair if CCP wanted control over the music. Lifelong friends with a 10 year history of disagreement, I don't see that it would be common sense to point the blame at Ed right now.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Jul 9 2010, 9:02 pm

[OutToDry]

Ed and Levin are the only 2 individuals being summonsed, also their companies.....the buck stops with them.

Pat D is the plaintiff on 3 of the 5 counts. This speaks a lot to me. It tells me they aren't making it up.

Ed & Levin did some bad things with the 'bands' $$

Fiduciary trust involves impartiality.

[Existentialist]

Yes, agreed with everything from Luke and Bob. It couldn't be any more obvious that some bad shit happened and that Ed and Levin were the ones doing it. What they did exactly, what they are legally responsible for, as was said we don't know exactly, but it is fucking obvious that Ed is guilty of fucking over his friends.

[Bremang]

Ed and Levin are the only 2 individuals being summonsed, also their companies.....the buck stops with them.

Pat D is the plaintiff on 3 of the 5 counts. This speaks a lot to me. It tells me they aren't making it up.

Ed & Levin did some bad things with the 'bands' $$

Fiduciary trust involves impartiality.

Just because Ed and Levin are on the summons does not mean that they are the only ones involved.

How does having Pat on more counts speak anything, aren't they all making counts for the band not themselves individually?

"They aren't making it up"
What the heck is this....
When did anybody here say that they're making something up? Not making what up?


Levin was wrong, then, perhaps. Though if Levin were to say it was all Ed's fault, then he could say that he was just acting according to the deals Ed made, and he could assume that Ed talked it over with the band. Though if it was Levin's fault, then we'll still have to see how Ed was involved.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Jul 9 2010, 10:04 pm

[Bremang]

What they did exactly, what they are legally responsible for, as was said we don't know exactly, but it is fucking obvious that Ed is guilty of fucking over his friends.

What a contradictory statement.

[OutToDry]

"They aren't making it up"
What the heck is this....
When did anybody here say that they're making something up? Not making what up?

i seem to remember it was you who said they were making it up as hoax for publicity, then backed off

Yeah, that is a questionable blog post to me.

I started out calling this a hoax, but I don't want to hang on that word now. I'm going to just suggest the reasons for the breakup are "very questionable". I've gone through all of your rebuttals and systematically made an argument against them.

Meanwhile, you have hardly made specific references to the points I've made. It seems that you are persistent in saying that the breakup is not questionable at all, and its completely true without a shadow of a doubt.

In the end we agree, let's anticipate what TGF will give us and enjoy it

http://www.fansoflive.com/forums/index.php...141&#entry56141

[Existentialist]

What a contradictory statement.

Not at all. It is possible for him to have fucked over his friends and not done anything illegal, and we don't know what exactly happened. It makes sense.

[Bremang]

i seem to remember it was you who said they were making it up as hoax for publicity, then backed off




http://www.fansoflive.com/forums/index.php...141&#entry56141

By "here" me and Liverocks obviously meant people speaking recently or in this thread.

The other thread is obviously not what you were referring to when you agreed here that "they aren't making any of this up".

This post has been edited by Bremang: Jul 9 2010, 10:51 pm

[Bremang]

Not at all. It is possible for him to have fucked over his friends and not done anything illegal, and we don't know what exactly happened. It makes sense.

Well then your preclusion was misleading. In any case, for all the reasons I mentioned, I don't think it is obvious. Could you explain how it is so obvious...and I hope you recognize what I wrote before if you decide to explain.

[OutToDry]

By "here" I obviously meant people speaking recently or in this thread.

The other thread is obviously not what you were referring to when you agreed here that "they aren't making any of this up".

oh wow, owned and your making excuses.....C'mon Man!!!!

reframing again. This thread immediately came to mind as your were all for the hoax thing for several days.

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Jul 9 2010, 10:52 pm

[Existentialist]

Luke explained it well. I was agreeing with him. Shut the fuck up with trying to get technical and educated with me. It's embarrassing for you.

[Bremang]

oh wow, owned and your making excuses.....C'mon Man!!!!

reframing again. This thread immediately came to mind as your were all for the hoax thing for several days.

Not owned. No re-framing on my part. No excuses. You aren't owning up to what you said. You are referring to something months ago that I don't deny claiming. It just wasn't relevant, even though you can link the two if my comment was regarding any instant of them "making stuff up" ever happening. Its also a transparent lie that you claim now that you were referring to my old claims originally. Aside from which, you even claim that I changed my scope after learning more evidence, so my comment would make sense even in your ridiculous re-framing of the statement.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Jul 9 2010, 11:04 pm

[Bremang]

Luke explained it well. I was agreeing with him. Shut the fuck up with trying to get technical and educated with me. It's embarrassing for you.

I'm not trying to get technical or educated with you. I'm not embarrassed. You agreed with Luke, and I suppose I replied to that person. I was curious, after my response to Luke, how you still felt it was completely obvious.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Jul 9 2010, 11:00 pm