New music on the horizon and by no means are LIVE dead, CT's FB Options

[OutToDry]

We need some humor in this thread!!!































one of our posters might recognize these



This post has been edited by OutToDry: Mar 23 2011, 9:36 pm

[thefunkyredcaboose]

First of all, a big fat "no" to the idea that Ed definitely fucked the band. Secondly, a rampant misconception in the Live community is that it was Ed's choices that was the main reason for Live's music sucking. Anyone who thinks that a rock singer/songwriter should have the inherent ability or talent to put out more than 4 great albums is obtuse. If a rock artist can find the inspiration and physical ability (vocal chords), to keep running for more than 4 albums, bless em. Ed put himself out there until he would wring out every last drop after hundreds of shows. Animosity for Ed not being a supercharged and insightful rocker into his 30's a 40's is unwarranted.

I listen to a lot of groups who have put out more than 4 great albums. That is what quality acts do.

However, they are almost all bands who actually write their music together. Solo artists struggle because they don't have anyone around them pushing them to be better. It is no surprise to me that Live struggled once they quit truly writing together (as documented by CT and noticed by anyone paying attention after V). Did the other 3 play some part in that? Sure they did, and CT even admitted it. CT's blog entry is incredibly open on these issues.

We don't have Ed's side because he is too busy covering old Live songs in his "new" and "inspiring" solo project. He hasn't let the band go and evidently neither has anyone else, which is a damn shame because TGF is better than anything Live has done since TDTH and Ed fans are getting the SFBM style Ed that they want. No one is losing here.

The only thing I want to hear from Live are the promised b-sides releases. Anything other than that is just not authentic right now.

[tiger]

I listen to a lot of groups who have put out more than 4 great albums. That is what quality acts do.

However, they are almost all bands who actually write their music together. Solo artists struggle because they don't have anyone around them pushing them to be better. It is no surprise to me that Live struggled once they quit truly writing together (as documented by CT and noticed by anyone paying attention after V). Did the other 3 play some part in that? Sure they did, and CT even admitted it. CT's blog entry is incredibly open on these issues.

We don't have Ed's side because he is too busy covering old Live songs in his "new" and "inspiring" solo project. He hasn't let the band go and evidently neither has anyone else, which is a damn shame because TGF is better than anything Live has done since TDTH and Ed fans are getting the SFBM style Ed that they want. No one is losing here.

The only thing I want to hear from Live are the promised b-sides releases. Anything other than that is just not authentic right now.

[OutToDry]

On the money again Funky.

[tiger]

First of all, a big fat "no" to the idea that Ed definitely fucked the band. Secondly, a rampant misconception in the Live community is that it was Ed's choices that was the main reason for Live's music sucking. Anyone who thinks that a rock singer/songwriter should have the inherent ability or talent to put out more than 4 great albums is obtuse. If a rock artist can find the inspiration and physical ability (vocal chords), to keep running for more than 4 albums, bless em. Ed put himself out there until he would wring out every last drop after hundreds of shows. Animosity for Ed not being a supercharged and insightful rocker into his 30's a 40's is unwarranted.

Two of their biggest influences, R.E.M. and U2 seem to dispel this.

[Wambangalang]

if they were to go with a new lead singer he'd have to be strikingly similar to young Ed creatively, interested in the same big ideas, philosophies etc. not to mention be an extremely talented lyricist. it would work even better than having crusty old ed back. find a new young, creepily gifted, explosive unpredictable frontman...if you can

[Bremang]

Since it was his choice to abandon the group concept of collaboration and making music we'll never know. He continues to claim he is a supercharged and insightful rocker making music on par with what he did in the 90's. So I'd say the misconception is his, not the Live community.

Well ya know his claims are probably just promo BS, that's mandatory. Some people actually feel that he still rocks too. So its probably not his misconception, but yea we'll never know w. the whole group concept thing.

[Bremang]

I listen to a lot of groups who have put out more than 4 great albums. That is what quality acts do.

However, they are almost all bands who actually write their music together. Solo artists struggle because they don't have anyone around them pushing them to be better.

Maybe they would have had more of a chance to do better with group writing, or maybe Ed's route was best because he knew he couldn't keep up anymore. His voice was no longer shredding at all by the early/mid 2000's. There are no decisions that can fix that, and thats what Ed's best contributions hinged on in my opinion. Even though bands with more than 4 great albums tend to be those who write together it is still an unrealistic expectation for anyone to have or create resentment over. And to be specific, I'm talking about rock groups/singers, cause we want Ed to rock. Sure, there are instrumental groups that can go on forever.

[Bremang]

Two of their biggest influences, R.E.M. and U2 seem to dispel this.

Just because bands can make more than 4 great albums doesn't mean it should be expected of anyone. Also, while singers in your example are great songwriteres, they don't bring the rock like Ed did. And I guess it would be an OK compromise if Ed toned down but still made great softer songs. But most resentment comes from the lack of quality rock music from Ed.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Mar 24 2011, 1:42 am

[+Ed+]

I love boss and will follow everything he does.



This post has been edited by +Ed+: Mar 24 2011, 1:46 am

[SecretInsomnia]

Wasn't CT working on a book about the band? I bet we'll see a Live book tour of sorts, and that may correspond with the release of the b-sides album. It is possible to tour and not perform shows, you know.

ha-ha... if Chad wants a reunion to happen EVER, he better not release that book. Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to read/have it, but I don't think Ed would be too pleased with what's written under the name Live (at least, the short passages we've seen so far).

[makemedream]

No I don't. It's Ed or nothing. And that doesn't mean I like Ed. I'd only want to see Ed come back if he doesn't have complete creative control. If he does then I'd rather not see any incarnation of Live at all. I don't give a shit about sales, charts, success or any of the shit you do. Just the music.

weel said ... i couldnt agree more with you.....

[thefunkyredcaboose]

Maybe they would have had more of a chance to do better with group writing, or maybe Ed's route was best because he knew he couldn't keep up anymore. His voice was no longer shredding at all by the early/mid 2000's. There are no decisions that can fix that, and thats what Ed's best contributions hinged on in my opinion. Even though bands with more than 4 great albums tend to be those who write together it is still an unrealistic expectation for anyone to have or create resentment over. And to be specific, I'm talking about rock groups/singers, cause we want Ed to rock. Sure, there are instrumental groups that can go on forever.

I think Ed "losing it" had more to do with him pushing his voice higher and higher, not that his vocal chords were going. Listen to V and BOP - there are some rockers on there, but instead of staying in his pocket range Ed is trying to go up high. "People Like You" is a great example of this.

When singers start to lose their voice they make the songs lower, not higher. It was a deliberate stylistic choice and one that really didn't work out.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

Just because bands can make more than 4 great albums doesn't mean it should be expected of anyone. Also, while singers in your example are great songwriteres, they don't bring the rock like Ed did. And I guess it would be an OK compromise if Ed toned down but still made great softer songs. But most resentment comes from the lack of quality rock music from Ed.

R.E.M. I get, but if you can listen to early U2 and tell me they didn't "bring the rock" then I don't really know what to say. They mellowed out later, but they kept writing as a band and the material stayed fresh (with some duds along the way).

I could make a list of bands that are way more aggressive than Live ever was who made more than 4 great rock albums, but it is such a long list that I'm not even going to bother.

[tiger]

Just because bands can make more than 4 great albums doesn't mean it should be expected of anyone. Also, while singers in your example are great songwriteres, they don't bring the rock like Ed did. And I guess it would be an OK compromise if Ed toned down but still made great softer songs. But most resentment comes from the lack of quality rock music from Ed.

R.E.M. made their most rocking album with their 9th release Monster in 1994. This album rocks much in the way Throwing Copper does and topped the charts around the world. They collaborated as usual and came up with 45 songs during the recording sessions. They insisted the album rock and it did.