TGF to play in studio at WZZO 95.1 Allentown PA, Tuesday 2/15/2011 Options

[PillarOfDavidson]

I'm sure there were some, but Nirvana was huge on MTV and I don't think anyone would call them a "sell out" band. MTV was so different back then, I remember watching it all the time. Crazy.

I always thought Live's music in its rawest form (on MJ) was pretty unique in that they were trying to do something new while acknowledging their influences. I don't think they really compromised that until 2001. But, anyone who makes it big in music has to make some compromises here and there, to me it is all about what those compromises are and how they influence the music.

I don't know about that. I would think making it big gives you more freedom to be less compromising. I don't think U2 have been all that compromising. They've changed their style incrementally over the years, but the signature of who they are as a band has never changed. You can tell that they were the same band on Boy that they were on No Lines On The Horizon.

The only time you could maybe say they "compromised" was on Zooropa, but then no one really bought into that album, or Pop for that matter (funny how that works, isn't it?). When they went back to their roots on "All That You Can't Leave Behind" people went apes for it. I guess maybe you can say they compromised by going back to their roots, but can you really say that with a straight face? How can you blame a person for going back to their strength, even if, or especially if it is something that will likely help them better to succeed?

This post has been edited by MrSheptical: Feb 19 2011, 5:07 am

[thefunkyredcaboose]

I don't know about that. I would think making it big gives you more freedom to be less compromising. I don't think U2 have been all that compromising. They've changed their style incrementally over the years, but the signature of who they are as a band has never changed. You can tell that they were the same band on Boy that they were on No Lines On The Horizon.

The only time you could maybe say they "compromised" was on Zooropa, but then no one really bought into that album, or Pop for that matter (funny how that works, isn't it?). When they went back to their roots on "All That You Can't Leave Behind" people went apes for it. I guess maybe you can say they compromised by going back to their roots, but can you really say that with a straight face? How can you blame a person for going back to their strength, even if, or especially if it is something that will likely help them better to succeed?

I agree on U2, but then again they were signed to a major label in what, the 80s? It was a lot different back then and they were enjoying more than enough success by the time things changed. As a result they enjoy more control over their catalog than most artists. I don't think they compromised at all with Zooropa or Pop, I dig both of those albums!

I would still guarantee though, that there was a point in their career when their label made them do something that they were opposed to. When you get big enough you have to compromise less, but while getting there decisions have to be made. In some cases, the label is even right, but that's really all I meant by "making compromises." A few demands made by labels in contracts that I've heard over the years - lose weight, wear this, purchase only this kind of guitar, here this person is now in your road crew so fire someone who has been with you for years, etc. etc. Those are the kind of compromises I am thinking of. The musical ones are more obvious.

One example that I can think of in Live's case, is that the record company could have a clause in their contract that Ed had to take his shirt off at every show. I'm serious that this happens, and given how often Ed took his shirt off it would not surprise me in the least.

This post has been edited by thefunkyredcaboose: Feb 19 2011, 7:46 am

[OutToDry]

Island records was more indy before they got snatched up into the big one EMI/Virgin or whatever it was.
U2 proved that after experimenting, they went back to their signature sound and vibe with ATYCLB and NLOTH. If Live did that, say they every get back to make a record, which I don't believe we'll every get another TC or SS....people would eat it up.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

Island was pretty huge for an indie label though, certainly not like most that are called indie labels today.

[OutToDry]

Yes, you are correct on that, they were bigger.

[crazy1]

Ed's career is pretty much in the pipe in the floor under the toilet. Yes, that pipe.

[crazy1]

Well said! I was thinking the same thing. It's kind of like you're in this great relationship, loving every second of it, why would you want to go back to your abusive ex. They would be miserable and I can't imagine the writing sessions would be as fulfilling as they are with TGF. Sometimes you just have to let sleeping dogs lie.

[zmanpga]

just put up new video behind the scenes...only one place to see it
thegraciousfans.com
shhhh

http://thegraciousfans.com/forum/showthrea...p=2654#post2654

[SJN1279]

Well said! I was thinking the same thing. It's kind of like you're in this great relationship, loving every second of it, why would you want to go back to your abusive ex. They would be miserable and I can't imagine the writing sessions would be as fulfilling as they are with TGF. Sometimes you just have to let sleeping dogs lie.

Because they all have families to support, and likely are losing money touring as TGF(at the very least taking an insanely huge pay cut).

This post has been edited by SJN1279: Feb 26 2011, 8:48 am

[OutToDry]

Oh here we go, you couldnt resist placing your asinine personal hate into another TGF thread.

you are an asshole.

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Feb 26 2011, 8:50 am

[OutToDry]

Yep as I write, you edit your post

[LivesMeltdown]

I'm a HUGE Live fan, but even I don't want them to get back together just for the money. I would hope they all want to do it because they enjoy it.

[SJN1279]

Oh here we go, you couldnt resist placing your asinine personal hate into another TGF thread.

you are an asshole.

I'm just stating why the guys would consider touring as Live again. Starting a new band at any age is extremely tough. Starting a new band at age 40, when all members have families to support is a huge gamble.

Do you deny that the guys are making way less money than they were as Live?

[Aitkens]

The problem here is you keep insinuating that Chad, Pat, and Chad need Live to get together or else they'll surely go broke. On the flip side, you've said repeatedly that Ed can go on just fine without them or Live getting back together. I believe Ed was the one that sold his house. The other 3 are doing just fine, and apparently have made smart business and investment decisions over the years.

[SJN1279]

The problem here is you keep insinuating that Chad, Pat, and Chad need Live to get together or else they'll surely go broke. On the flip side, you've said repeatedly that Ed can go on just fine without them or Live getting back together. I believe Ed was the one that sold his house. The other 3 are doing just fine, and apparently have made smart business and investment decisions over the years.

I'm sure Ed took a pay cut as well. However, he has been able to tour successfully overseas, and going solo is less costly than starting a new band.

The fact that Chad Taylor and Chad Gracey have softened their stance on Ed, and are possibly open to a Live reunion, makes me think they aren't doing as well as you think.