You're smoking something, What is it? Options

[Live4Life]

You seem to really, really like Nick when all you post about is defending him.
Either way, I somewhat agree, personally I see this as totally different to Nick. Whilst I disagree completely with what the original poster of this thread believes, its inevitable that these opinions exist. And thats what they are, opinions, and everyone can have them. So I say people who are psyched about New Live just gotta put up with these opinions and argue them where appropriate, not everyone will always be pleased.
This is utterly different to a bitter little man holding a grudge and pushing an agenda. Thinking that it'll fall flat on its face is different to hoping it will fall flat on its face.

Nah, it's not that i really like him i'm just sick of all the shit he has to deal with and everytime i come here people are on him constantly over dumb shit. I mean, this guy most likely doesn't know diddley squat about what goes on here with you guys and nick so i just thought his comment was kind of lame. He does have a point as i said however.

[PillarOfDavidson]

I don't fault them for having the bus. They at least deserved that. However, they weren't staying in expensive hotels at all. They stayed at RV campgrounds, which are very cheap. At the Ephrata show, I spent a good hour talking to their bus driver. He's driven for them since the TC days, and said that under the Ed years towards the end, Ed had his own bus, and would insist that they stayed at expensive hotels, because he just couldn't be caught dead in a cheap place.

I wouldn't either. I'd want to travel in a bus too if I could. And staying at RV campgrounds sounds more fun. Plus, there's just something seemingly icky about staying in a Motel 6... like I'm sleeping on other people's sex juices or something.

Ed insisting on staying at expensive hotels just seems par for the course.

[World Dreamer]

Nah, it's not that i really like him i'm just sick of all the shit he has to deal with and everytime i come here people are on him constantly over dumb shit. I mean, this guy most likely doesn't know diddley squat about what goes on here with you guys and nick so i just thought his comment was kind of lame. He does have a point as i said however.

As tired as you are about people ganging up on Nick, I am equally tired with the idea that new Live has already failed before any new music has even been put out.

That is why I lumped Nick in with the original poster. Both of them already consider new Live a failure.

The only difference I can see is the original poster thinks it will fail whereas Nick hopes it fails.

[Pokey]

The whole New Live being a failure thing is ridiculous, there are 2 ways of breaking that down. New Live as a failure commercially, and new Live a failure artistically.

Nick believe both will happen but he will judge the latter by the former, which is ridiculous because they are 2 separate things, but thats all he ever judges things on. New Live will NOT set the world on fire and I doubt will be considered a commercial success. But then again old Live were already going nowhere by the end and could be considered a failure. What shits me is the idea that somehow this version of live is going to shit all over the legacy and success of the old Live. Ed shit all over that long before the split. SFBM was the turd that buried Live for good.
So personally, I don't expect much in the way of charts, sales, attendance .. but then again, I don't care.

I treat music like an art, like a joy, not like a business. So will Live be a artistic success? That's yet to be heard, I have high hopes, but who knows what will happen. I'll certainly not be deciding this before I've heard any new material like some people. Arguing that Live will not be a commercial success without Ed is just like "they're gonna do really really shit commercial instead of just really shit". The difference between Ed being there and Ed not being there commercially, is just one "really". The world does NOT care about Live anymore, and they haven't for a long time. We're a tiny little community in a corner of the internet. This is not like when the soccer world cup is on, to me that means nothing, but to millions and millions of people it is what they wait every 4 years for .. I can't deny that it's a huge success.
The soccer world cup is what would happen if U2 had split and then got back together. Live splitting and getting back together (with or without Ed), is by comparison to the Soccer world cup, the same level of interest as the local bingo hall's Tuesday night half price game. No one cares. It may be a big deal to us, or to the people who are playing that bingo game, but to the vast majority it doesn't matter.

The difference is now someone new is reading out the numbers at the bingo game, it used to be Bob for years and now its Jack. Some people at Bingo are happy with that because Bob really annoyed them towards the end, and some people can't imagine life without Bob reading the numbers. But it still only matters to those very few people, just like who the lead singer of Live is. The Bingo game is still going to go ahead no matter what, Live are still going to go ahead. You either keep turning up to play bingo there, or you move on and find somewhere new. Follow Bob to his new Bingo hall. You can move on and follow and support new Live, or you can move on and follow and support Ed.

So arguing that this is going to "ruin" Live, like I've heard before is just moronic. Commercially Live is just not going to set the world on fire, with or without Ed. So lets remove what the world will think from the picture. Lets remove sales, attendance, charts, marketing etc.. lets focus on the music. And hey we have no new music yet, so lets reserve our judgement.

[Wambangalang]

The whole New Live being a failure thing is ridiculous, there are 2 ways of breaking that down. New Live as a failure commercially, and new Live a failure artistically.

Nick believe both will happen but he will judge the latter by the former, which is ridiculous because they are 2 separate things, but thats all he ever judges things on. New Live will NOT set the world on fire and I doubt will be considered a commercial success. But then again old Live were already going nowhere by the end and could be considered a failure. What shits me is the idea that somehow this version of live is going to shit all over the legacy and success of the old Live. Ed shit all over that long before the split. SFBM was the turd that buried Live for good.
So personally, I don't expect much in the way of charts, sales, attendance .. but then again, I don't care.

I treat music like an art, like a joy, not like a business. So will Live be a artistic success? That's yet to be heard, I have high hopes, but who knows what will happen. I'll certainly not be deciding this before I've heard any new material like some people. Arguing that Live will not be a commercial success without Ed is just like "they're gonna do really really shit commercial instead of just really shit". The difference between Ed being there and Ed not being there commercially, is just one "really". The world does NOT care about Live anymore, and they haven't for a long time. We're a tiny little community in a corner of the internet. This is not like when the soccer world cup is on, to me that means nothing, but to millions and millions of people it is what they wait every 4 years for .. I can't deny that it's a huge success.
The soccer world cup is what would happen if U2 had split and then got back together. Live splitting and getting back together (with or without Ed), is by comparison to the Soccer world cup, the same level of interest as the local bingo hall's Tuesday night half price game. No one cares. It may be a big deal to us, or to the people who are playing that bingo game, but to the vast majority it doesn't matter.

The difference is now someone new is reading out the numbers at the bingo game, it used to be Bob for years and now its Jack. Some people at Bingo are happy with that because Bob really annoyed them towards the end, and some people can't imagine life without Bob reading the numbers. But it still only matters to those very few people, just like who the lead singer of Live is. The Bingo game is still going to go ahead no matter what, Live are still going to go ahead. You either keep turning up to play bingo there, or you move on and find somewhere new. Follow Bob to his new Bingo hall. You can move on and follow and support new Live, or you can move on and follow and support Ed.

So arguing that this is going to "ruin" Live, like I've heard before is just moronic. Commercially Live is just not going to set the world on fire, with or without Ed. So lets remove what the world will think from the picture. Lets remove sales, attendance, charts, marketing etc.. lets focus on the music. And hey we have no new music yet, so lets reserve our judgement.

Bingo!

[thefunkyredcaboose]

I AM smoking something. How did you know??

[Live4Life]

As tired as you are about people ganging up on Nick, I am equally tired with the idea that new Live has already failed before any new music has even been put out.

That is why I lumped Nick in with the original poster. Both of them already consider new Live a failure.

The only difference I can see is the original poster thinks it will fail whereas Nick hopes it fails.

I never said they will fail.

[Arizona_Skies]

I suggest you go back into Live's history to learn what inspired them, what they stood for, the subject matter they tackled, their idealism.

If you're still hung up on who's singing...

Wow, that's a lot of work. Do I need to do an in-depth analysis of every band's history? No thanks, I'll let the music speak for itself.

And, yes, I am still hung up on who's singing. You know why? Because it's Ed Kowalczyk on every fucking song.

This post has been edited by Arizona_Skies: Jan 17 2012, 1:53 pm

[Arizona_Skies]

Everclear sucks mightily. Every song the same.

This is a typical response. Just like "all rap music sounds the same" and "all speed metal sounds the same".

If you don't like their music, fine. But any Everclear fan will tell you that their songs are unique from one another.

My point was to illustrate that Everclear without Art Alexakis would be a shadow of its former self. Just like LIVE without Ed Kowalczyk. Art wrote all of their stuff (just like Ed) and he was the driving force of his band (just like Ed).

Same thing with every band I mentioned: the lead singers were the creative forces behind their bands. This isn't Lennon-McCartney we're talking about. It's not like Chad Taylor had 50% of the creative input or something. Ed was the driving force behind LIVE. Are you gonna argue that?

That's why LIVE should just move on and release some new shit - not some unknown singer copying the old Ed.

This post has been edited by Arizona_Skies: Jan 17 2012, 1:59 pm

[Aitkens]

This is a typical response. Just like "all rap music sounds the same" and "all speed metal sounds the same".

If you don't like their music, fine. But any Everclear fan will tell you that their songs are unique from one another.

My point was to illustrate that Everclear without Art Alexakis would be a shadow of its former self. Just like LIVE without Ed Kowalczyk. Art wrote all of their stuff (just like Ed) and he was the driving force of his band (just like Ed).

Same thing with every band I mentioned: the lead singers were all the creative forces behind their bands. This isn't Lennon-McCartney we're talking about. It's not like Chad Taylor had 50% of the creative input or something. Ed was the creative force behind LIVE. Are you gonna argue that?

That's why LIVE should just move on and release some new shit - not some unknown singer copying the old Ed.

Just a heads up, when Ed became the driving force behind Live's music, the band, and their music went to shit. The proof is in the albums.

[dancing queen]

Wow, that's a lot of work. Do I need to do an in-depth analysis of every band I listen to? No thanks, I'll let the music speak for itself.

And, yes, I am still hung up on who's singing. You know why? Because it's Ed Kowalczyk on every fucking song.

I agree that it's absolutely not necessary (for me) to analyze the history and attitude and philosophy of every band I listen to. For me it's about the music. if the music is good (meaning they have some talent and I like it) then I listen. if not, I move on. I LOVED Live when I first heard because they had some talent and I liked it. As I've learned about their passion for music, it made me like them even more. However, if your voice sucks (or your guitar playing sucks, or your drumming sucks... etc) I don't give a rat's ass how passionate you are.

Soo... I agree, I don't care WHY they make the music, as long as it sounds good.
(I do have to say, though, that there is usually a difference between music made out of a passion for music, and music made out of a desire for a paycheck - it does happen that usually music made for a paycheck is subpar, but if it turns out to be something I like, I'll listen.)

*This said, it seems silly to me to decide you dislike something you haven't heard yet.*

If you listen to the version of AOY that Chad put up, and you hate it, okie dokie. Move on. I admit I struggled with it because it's not Ed - it's not what I'm used to. But I won't be getting what I'm used to anymore, so I'm doing my best to be open. Every time I listen to that version of AOY, I enjoy it more and more as my brain makes room for it next to the original version.

The real test will be new LIVE songs with a new singer. Clearly whoever he is can pull off something that sounds pretty similar to Ed, with his own twist.
(on a side note, I think more of his own twist, less of Ed will be better)

[OutToDry]

The term 'driving force' behind the band is an oxymoron. As stated, when Ed took over, everything went to shit. The music. Is the measuring stick. When the arrangements were controlled into one way, band was over. The other 75% were placed in the background, ideas, concepts, sound.........proof is there.

[Arizona_Skies]

As stated, when Ed took over, everything went to shit.

Not true. Ed was the driving force behind Throwing Copper and that went pretty well, didn't it?

And don't argue this - just read the liner notes: All lyrics written by Ed Kowalczyk

This post has been edited by Arizona_Skies: Jan 17 2012, 2:55 pm

[Pokey]

Not true. Ed was the driving force behind Throwing Copper and that went pretty well, didn't it?

And don't argue this - just read the liner notes: All lyrics written by Ed Kowalczyk

All lyrics huh? Didn't know that's all there was to a band. Here I was enjoying the drums, the guitar, the bass and now I realise none of that matters. It's purely the lyrics! But not to fear, Ed also wrote all the guitar, drum and bass parts too right?

Seriously, they wrote as a team early on. Ed may have contributed more but the others had their parts to write too and it all worked because the ingredients all matched. Then Ed truly did take over all aspects and the sound changed dramatically. There was no one to challenge him and the music turned to shit. His lyrics turned to shit. The band turned to shit.

If the lyrics are all you can see then that's sad. Ye they were great but thu were part of a larger picture.

[OutToDry]

Not true. Ed was the driving force behind Throwing Copper and that went pretty well, didn't it?

And don't argue this - just read the liner notes: All lyrics written by Ed Kowalczyk

Is that your measure of Live? I can't help you then. It's your opinion. Music is not only lyrics. I think the 3 members will take issue to that statement you posted.