He got the message, about being better off sticking with acoustic Options

[themaestro]

Very few bands have ever successfully replaced their lead singer without death being the factor:

http://rock.about.com/od/top10lists/tp/Roc...LeadSingers.htm

LIVE should outdraw Ed in some markets on name alone. That doesn't mean Ed solo won't draw enough for Ed to play and be successful. Many fans would rather here the actual voice and chief songwriter of the band LIVE over CCP and an unknown cover singer.

Fuel with chief songwriter and lead guitarist, Carl Bell, did so poorly with a new singer that he eventually sold rights back to original singer Bret Scallions, who is doing fairly well with the new version of Fuel.

My money is on Ed.

I think it's funny you used Fuel as an example. Are you serious? Fuel? Hopefully you think more of Live and EK to use that as a serious example.

[themaestro]

He can tour market his new tour as Ed Kowalczyk, former lead singer of LIVE, and do just fine. The acoustic tour will give fans a different type of show than the rock show that new LIVE will offer. Ed also has been touring hard in international markets and is constantly gaining new fans worldwide.

If CCP and their fans should focus on making new LIVE more successful and lasting than The Gracious. It is a realistic goal. Putting Ed out of business is not.

Who said anything about putting Ed out of business? I'm offering real, constructive criticism here. It's just a fact that he hasn't done anything to differentiate himself from Live and they are coming back. How long can he go on as the former singer? Why not try to set yourself apart? If Live has any longevity he's going head to head with them. You really think that's wise? What if Live flames out and goes away? Where's the recognition then. It's a lose, lose proposition. If they succeed he's competing against them, if they go away, no one remembers who they are and his point of reference is mute. He's either going to be the former singer of that band that is doing well without him, or the former singer of that band no one remembers. Either way, he's doomed as long as his wagon is hitched to Live.

[SJN1279]

Who said anything about putting Ed out of business? I'm offering real, constructive criticism here. It's just a fact that he hasn't done anything to differentiate himself from Live and they are coming back. How long can he go on as the former singer? Why not try to set yourself apart? If Live has any longevity he's going head to head with them. You really think that's wise? What if Live flames out and goes away? Where's the recognition then. It's a lose, lose proposition. If they succeed he's competing against them, if they go away, no one remembers who they are and his point of reference is mute. He's either going to be the former singer of that band that is doing well without him, or the former singer of that band no one remembers. Either way, he's doomed as long as his wagon is hitched to Live.

People will always mainly remember LIVE as a band that gained success from Throwing Copper and their success in the 1990's. As long as Ed plays the classics while mixing his new material in, he'll be fine.

The Gracious Few tried to distance themselves from LIVE and Candlebox......how did that work out?

[themaestro]

People will always mainly remember LIVE as a band that gained success from Throwing Copper and their success in the 1990's. As long as Ed plays the classics while mixing his new material in, he'll be fine.

The Gracious Few tried to distance themselves from LIVE and Candlebox......how did that work out?

Typical response when you've got nothing. In case you forgot, TGF did just as well as Ed in almost every aspect, without relying on Live. You keep saying how recognizable Ed is but he's barely playing to a few hundred people at a lot of shows. Ed will not be fine when Live is back. Insisting otherwise is futile. He has already downsized. Now watch his audiences get even smaller once Live is back. If you actually think he's not going to lose some of his audience you are insane.

[SJN1279]

Typical response when you've got nothing. In case you forgot, TGF did just as well as Ed in almost every aspect, without relying on Live.

TGF and Ed sold roughly the same amount of albums in the US, and TGF had one single chart higher in the US. Other than that it has been all Ed. Ed's album and singles charted in other countries. He toured in numerous international markets to packed houses. The Gracious Few's album didn't chart anywhere other than the US, and they only played 6 international dates where they didn't draw houses near what Ed did.

In the US, Ed typically draws a few hundred to his shows at normal show prices. TGF had to drop their tickets to 10 dollars in order to draw the same number.

Ed has toured consistently since LIVE broke up, TGF has not. I would say that Ed has toured 2-3 times more than TGF has, either way it has been a very wide margin of difference.

(Also remember that The Gracious Few billed themselves as LIVE and Candlebox, they just didn't play the music.)

[Pokey]

Your money is on Ed, to what? Churn out the same old crap over and over and play the same 10 Live songs over and over? Yeah my money is on Ed then too!
Oh did you mean to be more successful in a commercial sense?? Ohh hell maybe he will be maybe he won't be, but if his commercial success comes at the cost of his artistic credibility then you have some messed up priorities as a fan of music. Give me a less commercially successful but more artistically creative band any day over someone like what Ed has become.

[themaestro]

TGF and Ed sold roughly the same amount of albums in the US, and TGF had one single chart higher in the US. Other than that it has been all Ed. Ed's album and singles charted in other countries. He toured in numerous international markets to packed houses. The Gracious Few's album didn't chart anywhere other than the US, and they only played 6 international dates where they didn't draw houses near what Ed did.

In the US, Ed typically draws a few hundred to his shows at normal show prices. TGF had to drop their tickets to 10 dollars in order to draw the same number.

Ed has toured consistently since LIVE broke up, TGF has not. I would say that Ed has toured 2-3 times more than TGF has, either way it has been a very wide margin of difference.

(Also remember that The Gracious Few billed themselves as LIVE and Candlebox, they just didn't play the music.)

Need I remind you that your point was that TGF tried to distance themselves from Live and Candlebox. While they were active, they did just as well as Ed in comparable situations, better in some. Throwing out international statistics when they didn't really tour internationally is mute. Ed relied heavily on his association with Live and toured international markets where Live had a bigger current following than the US. The only area that he has outpaced TGF is in touring since they stopped. I'm not sure how you equate that to some huge success with the numbers he's playing to. So he can line his pockets with a few extra bucks playing Live's hits. Wow, impressive.

This post has been edited by themaestro: Mar 4 2012, 7:42 pm

[jaybb]

Restarting a band with a new lead singer is a very risky proposition, and most bands don't even try to do it. LIVE toured with the same lineup for nearly 20 years, replacing its most recognizable member with a total unknown is going to very difficult. I'm sure some fans will be supportive of new LIVE, but they will face a pretty harsh backlash from others.

Ed Kowalczyk will always be the frontman most associate with LIVE and will be able to tour for as long as he chooses to continue to do so. Remember it is much cheaper and easier to do a solo acoustic show than a full band rock show. CCP always have to rely on the latter and Ed has the flexibility to do both.

The part you are missing is that public awareness or name recognition of LIVE is painfully low, especially domestically. Today's music buyers are almost completely unaware of who LIVE is, save for a having heard a few singles here and there. Go ahead, ask your average person today on the street if they've heard of LIVE. You'll get a blank stare. On the off chance somebody knows who LIVE is, ask them who the lead singer is, you'll most certainly get an even blanker stare. It'd be one thing if Ed was replaced as lead singer when they were at the top of the charts, but entirely another to have a new singer take over when nobody knows who they are. Keeping the LIVE name intact will allow them to capitalize on any existing awareness of the "brand," even though most people are unfamiliar with the individual members - including Ed.

Don't get me wrong, I thought Ed was a great performer and he is what drew me to the band originally... However, much of the success of LIVE's original works came from the unique sound that the other three members contributed to the works. Ed writing lyrics to the music from the other three guys was a powerful combination to be sure. So it can't be a coincidence that as Ed exerted more and more control over the creative output of LIVE, their success on the charts took a nosedive. By restarting with the LIVE name at a time when awareness of who they are is so incredibly low, they have a shot of making music with the same talent and uniqueness as they once had, which led to so much success. Sure, Ed's great vocals might be missing, but don't judge it until you've heard new songs with the new vocalist.

For the record, you also can't use the Holland success as evidence of the public liking the last couple albums. Worldwide success vs. success in a few minor markets is not comparable.

Also, please don't throw the TGF anecdote in everyone's face. TGF was meant to be a harder, more classic rock-focused output, rather than the anthemic music that LIVE was well-known for.

This post has been edited by jaybb: Mar 5 2012, 12:08 am

[Aitkens]

Ed's logical next steps...

Solo shows in coffee shops.
High School Proms.
Open mic nights.

[dancing queen]

I'm a little surprised.
the tour poster he put on FB says
"vocalista de Live"
which, though I'm not a native Spanish speaker, correct me if I'm wrong says "Vocalist of Live"

methinks he can't help but notice, since he put it on his fb page. so he just doesn't mind advertising himself as the vocalist of Live??

First I Alone, now there's no denying that he's seen this poster...

dammit, Ed.

[Pokey]

People will always mainly remember LIVE as a band that gained success from Throwing Copper and their success in the 1990's. As long as Ed plays the classics while mixing his new material in, he'll be fine.

The Gracious Few tried to distance themselves from LIVE and Candlebox......how did that work out?

It worked out pretty well in that we got an awesome album that I'd put above 3, maybe 4 of Live's albums, and we'll get another in good time. Which of course you don't think will happen even when everyone including members of the fucking band are telling you otherwise.

So how's that working out for you? You're content with the same shit from Ed over and over and over and over? It seriously makes you seem like the ultimate casual fan. All you want are the hits and you're happy, it's kinda sad that you seem like a super fan on the surface that follows every step that is taken, yet deep down you just want to hear Lightning Crashes and you're happy.

[SJN1279]

The part you are missing is that public awareness or name recognition of LIVE is painfully low, especially domestically. Today's music buyers are almost completely unaware of who LIVE is, save for a having heard a few singles here and there. Go ahead, ask your average person today on the street if they've heard of LIVE. You'll get a blank stare. On the off chance somebody knows who LIVE is, ask them who the lead singer is, you'll most certainly get an even blanker stare. It'd be one thing if Ed was replaced as lead singer when they were at the top of the charts, but entirely another to have a new singer take over when nobody knows who they are. Keeping the LIVE name intact will allow them to capitalize on any existing awareness of the "brand," even though most people are unfamiliar with the individual members - including Ed.
.

Most fans who attend LIVE shows at least know of Ed or the bald lead singer. The majority of fans will know that there is a replacement lead singer with the band. Attendance at shows will be drastically down from their days with Ed, and albums sales will struggle either way.

[Pokey]

I love how you think losing people who only recognise something is different because "the bald singer" isn't there is some terrible thing. If people aren't happy with it then best of luck to them I hope they're happy with something else. The thing is we don't care of attendances are "well down" we just want good music and that's more likely to happen at this point with Ed out of the picture

[PurdueSteve]

Most fans who attend LIVE shows at least know of Ed or the bald lead singer. The majority of fans will know that there is a replacement lead singer with the band. Attendance at shows will be drastically down from their days with Ed, and albums sales will struggle either way.

They can't struggle anymore than SFBM Pre-Alive.

I mean, with the known bald lead singer, they still flopped hard with that album and they were even on American Idol for christ's sake.

Will you at least answer the following the question, your silence will be considered as an agreement with me.

Do you not see the hypocrisy that in every Interview Ed has done the past few years he talks about moving on with his solo work, moving forward with his solo work, leaving behind the repeative throws of Live, yet in many of his promos and now the naming of his new tour he tethers himself to Live. Can you at least acknowledge the hypocrisy? Leave out the rationalizations about how people want to see "the hits". If the people want to see "the hits" and Ed want's to please them playing "the hits", then why in the fuck did he leave Live. "The hits" would have been better played by the 4 live members than by his shitty backing band. You, nor Ed, can have your cake and eat it too. Either he's moving forward or clinging to the past, it can't be both.

This post has been edited by PurdueSteve: Mar 5 2012, 8:50 am

[themaestro]

Most fans who attend LIVE shows at least know of Ed or the bald lead singer. The majority of fans will know that there is a replacement lead singer with the band. Attendance at shows will be drastically down from their days with Ed, and albums sales will struggle either way.

Right. As if there aren't a ton of fans that left because of Ed the past 10 years. If they can appeal to them in any sense then their fan base may grow exponentially. At any rate, your estimations are grossly exaggerated. They really don't have that many fans left to lose, they've got way more to reinvigorate.