Live should not continue without Ed Options

[ch81]

Doesn't get any simpler. Just caught wind of this and feel the need to rage against the notion. I hope Mr. Taylor and crew read this.... Moving forward without Ed is a bad, bad, bad, BAD idea. I don't care if the music you make without him is 23676x better than anything before -- it's not Live. It's some other band pretending to be Live. Such endeavors are embarrassing and insulting to a long-time fan, and REEK of COMMERCIAL concerns. Get over yourself. Don't accuse us of dwelling on the past -- it's an easy thing for you to spout in defense of YOUR ill-advised idea, but is really meaningless. Don't hijack the brand just because there's more of you than him, make something new. At least you'd gain respect from this fan....

[World Dreamer]

Doesn't get any simpler. Just caught wind of this and feel the need to rage against the notion. I hope Mr. Taylor and crew read this.... Moving forward without Ed is a bad, bad, bad, BAD idea. I don't care if the music you make without him is 23676x better than anything before -- it's not Live. It's some other band pretending to be Live. Such endeavors are embarrassing and insulting to a long-time fan, and REEK of COMMERCIAL concerns. Get over yourself. Don't accuse us of dwelling on the past -- it's an easy thing for you to spout in defense of YOUR ill-advised idea, but is really meaningless. Don't hijack the brand just because there's more of you than him, make something new. At least you'd gain respect from this fan....

You should also hope that Ed is reading this. He has used the name of Live more than anyone else to this point.

[Bremang]

is it money is it fame
whats in a name
shame

[Merica]

Doesn't get any simpler. Just caught wind of this and feel the need to rage against the notion. I hope Mr. Taylor and crew read this.... Moving forward without Ed is a bad, bad, bad, BAD idea. I don't care if the music you make without him is 23676x better than anything before -- it's not Live. It's some other band pretending to be Live. Such endeavors are embarrassing and insulting to a long-time fan, and REEK of COMMERCIAL concerns. Get over yourself. Don't accuse us of dwelling on the past -- it's an easy thing for you to spout in defense of YOUR ill-advised idea, but is really meaningless. Don't hijack the brand just because there's more of you than him, make something new. At least you'd gain respect from this fan....

[Live4Life]

I'm sure it's a serious post. This is actually how a lot of people feel. They just don't come to this board or prob even know about it. Plus, not everyone uses a comp believe it or not. That's why you'll see a newb pop in here and there. I have been to a few shows last couple weeks and had a few conversations about the band and ed. People pretty much feel the same but a lot are also willing to see what they will produce with a new singer. Everyone deserves a chance.

[Hoodstock]

Doesn't get any simpler. Just caught wind of this and feel the need to rage against the notion. I hope Mr. Taylor and crew read this.... Moving forward without Ed is a bad, bad, bad, BAD idea. I don't care if the music you make without him is 23676x better than anything before -- it's not Live. It's some other band pretending to be Live. Such endeavors are embarrassing and insulting to a long-time fan, and REEK of COMMERCIAL concerns. Get over yourself. Don't accuse us of dwelling on the past -- it's an easy thing for you to spout in defense of YOUR ill-advised idea, but is really meaningless. Don't hijack the brand just because there's more of you than him, make something new. At least you'd gain respect from this fan....

Thanks "random" new poster.

Point taken. Perhaps Ed should also stop touring while associating with the name Live since it is also a farce.

BTW - Please note that Ed left the band, has no interest in Live, and has decided to abandon you as a Live fan to pursue his "new direction" of touring on Live songs without Live. He apparently has no issues with Live disbanding or moving on, it only seems to be some fans stuck on this issue.

Do you have an issue with him playing Live songs without the band every single night, or that perspective just doesn't bother you?

Either way - feel free not to listen to Live anymore.

[PillarOfDavidson]

Moving forward without Ed is a bad, bad, bad, BAD idea. I don't care if the music you make without him is 23676x better than anything before -- it's not Live.

According to them, Live was always Chad, Chad, and Pat... before Ed ever stepped foot into the rehearsal space back when they were teens. They may not have had the name of "Live" yet, but the name isn't what made the band. The band is who made the name.

Ed chose, in more ways than one both directly and indirectly, NOT to be part of Live. That is not anyone else's fault but Ed's. IF the four of them... Ed, Chad, Chad, and Pat... had all mutually agreed to end Live then that would be one thing. But CCP NEVER agreed to end Live and shouldn't have to end it because Ed wanted to go do his own damn thing or because you have some cockeyed point of view of what makes Live... Live.

It's some other band pretending to be Live.

How can Live pretend to be Live when they already are Live?

Such endeavors are embarrassing and insulting to a long-time fan, and REEK of COMMERCIAL concerns.

That's a red herring. You think live didn't have aspirations for commercial success? You never would've heard of them had they not.

You should go read the lyrics to "Hooker With A Penis"

Get over yourself. Don't accuse us me of dwelling on the past --

FIFY

it's an easy thing for you to spout in defense of YOUR ill-advised idea, but is really meaningless. Don't hijack the brand

How can they hijack something they had possession of in the first place?

At least you'd gain respect from this fan....

Considering the character assassination you appear to be attempting in your post I don't think they'll care much about whether they have your respect or not.

Enjoy your unlively music.

This post has been edited by MrSheptical: Oct 18 2011, 6:29 pm

[mattyeagles]

People get overly defensive here if anyone has the balls to say anything negative re:CCP. I don't want to anyone besides for Ed singing lesser known live songs like tbd, where fishes go, ghost, iris etc. And I don't want to see anyone besides for Ed singing the hits either. For that reason, yes, I am happy Ed still tours and plays the live songs. Do the songs have the same passion? No. They are still better than 99.9 percent of other songs though. Doesn't make me any less of an old school live fan if that's the way I feel and I feel like the new live album with a different lead singer is no different than The Gracious Few. I am open to being blown away by the cd but that hasn't happened since TDTH so I have no reason to believe that the new Ed less Live cd will be any different.

[Hoodstock]

Point taken. I listen to both artist "groups" and here's my take personal perspective.

The fact that Ed people come here and just completely say that it is totally not Live and that anything without Ed will be shit is just asinine. Just keep in mind Ed is still performing basically as Live. He left the "Live" brand only in namesake.

If anyone is open to the idea of Ed playing Live songs without the band I don't see how they can be against Live playing Live songs without Ed.

My issue is the people who come in here with the one sided "band" bash without addressing the fact of what Ed is doing.

[PillarOfDavidson]

People get overly defensive here if anyone has the balls to say anything negative re:CCP.

"Anything negative" is a fairly broad term that can be taken any different number of ways. If somebody comes in here saying apparently false things or are just trying to tear them down, then yeah... people are going to respond in kind. I don't see much criticism they've gotten on this forum as anything constructive. It's always this bullshit bash fest by Ed's devoted. I'm not even one of the forum's most active users and I can see it.

I get people being skeptical of how the band will sound with a different singer. I'm skeptical too. But I can look at a band like Alice In Chains or Alter Bridge and know that a new/another singer does not necessarily mean a dip in quality. At times it can actually be a boost in quality. But according to the author of this thread it won't mean shit to him if the new music is infinitely better than the old music. Why? Because it isn't Live without Ed.

I suppose Alice In Chains isn't Alice In Chains without Layne Staley either? Good luck convincing Jerry Cantrell of that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZkiYNrhU9M

This post has been edited by MrSheptical: Oct 18 2011, 7:52 pm

[OutToDry]

I find it interesting that this poster knew to come here as soon as he caught wind, and created a user name to post that demand they listen to him? They already did make something new with TGF, and top notch quality music mind you...............this fan must be in the dark around the whole going's on the past 3 years or so (hiatus, stealing, lawsuit, proclamations of never wanting to come back)........it's interesting that this OP doesn't understand that Ed's current direction in music doesn't fit LIVE anymore. Also not sure Ed's going to realize his roots in the band and go back to being 1 of the 4 in the creative process and not the CONTROLLING one.........and, Ed can only COMMERCIALLY survive on LIVE's coattails as of right now. Anywhoo.....Music they be making is really good. A new singer would be a breath of fresh air to this long time fan's ears. Is the guy a fan or a PLANT?? Lots of basic contraditions in his post. I just want new Live & TGF music, like most fans of quality music.

[Bremang]

Doesn't get any simpler. Just caught wind of this and feel the need to rage against the notion. I hope Mr. Taylor and crew read this.... Moving forward without Ed is a bad, bad, bad, BAD idea. I don't care if the music you make without him is 23676x better than anything before -- it's not Live. It's some other band pretending to be Live. Such endeavors are embarrassing and insulting to a long-time fan, and REEK of COMMERCIAL concerns. Get over yourself. Don't accuse us of dwelling on the past -- it's an easy thing for you to spout in defense of YOUR ill-advised idea, but is really meaningless. Don't hijack the brand just because there's more of you than him, make something new. At least you'd gain respect from this fan....

The problem as I see it, is that Ed just isn't that good anymore to carry the helm. But I can see why you would want them to change their name. Still, lets wait and see if CCP can somehow pull it off with the new guy.

[Bremang]

According to them, Live was always Chad, Chad, and Pat... before Ed ever stepped foot into the rehearsal space back when they were teens. They may not have had the name of "Live" yet, but the name isn't what made the band. The band is who made the name.

On a side note, the band who made the name Live included Ed a whole lot. I don't think anyone here would agree with this paragraph the way you have put it.

[PillarOfDavidson]

On a side note, the band who made the name Live included Ed a whole lot. I don't think anyone here would agree with this paragraph the way you have put it.

I didn't intend to say that Ed wasn't an integral part of what made Live the band they were. I'm just kind of echoing what they said when they started jamming together again. That it went back to what it was before Ed joined them back in school.

The four of them were always the core together... until Ed started splintering off on his own and trying to take the band with him. At that point it started to take on more of an "Ed & 3 Live Crew" kind of vibe. You know, the thing the forum has been in a constant state of debate about forever it seems.

Ed didn't take Live with him. He left it with CCP to continue on with.

[Bremang]

I didn't intend to say that Ed wasn't an integral part of what made Live the band they were. I'm just kind of echoing what they said when they started jamming together again. That it went back to what it was before Ed joined them back in school.

The four of them were always the core together... until Ed started splintering off on his own and trying to take the band with him. At that point it started to take on more of an "Ed & 3 Live Crew" kind of vibe. You know, the thing the forum has been in a constant state of debate about forever it seems.

Ed didn't take Live with him. He left it with CCP to continue on with.

The OP was mostly concerned that CCP shouldn't use the name Live without Ed, saying that it doesn't matter if the music is 28273x better. He's saying that the combination of members should be essential to how they come up with their name, with Ed included.

Building on the idea that a band should be named based on their members, it seemed you were countering by saying that CCP should still use the name "Live" because CCP would have been "Live" by this standard, before Ed was involved.

Now you're saying the split is best, which I agree. But were you making an argument still for keeping the name Live, without Ed?

This post has been edited by Bremang: Oct 18 2011, 10:46 pm