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

[FishOutaWater]

LIVE's management is with Ed and not CCP, so not all parties distanced themselves from Ed.

I think the management (greedy money people) may still represent Ed. True. They are the ones accused in the lawsuit of allegedly breaching fiduciary duties owed to CCP and they connived with Ed for years. So what does that prove and what does that say about Ed? But the broader point turns your point on its head. The lawyers and money skimmers stayed with Ed. The road crew, tour manager, friends, producers of their great albums (Jerry Harrison) and everybody else with boots on the ground and sleeves rolled up working shoulder-to-shoulder with the band on a personal level all stayed with CCP, through TGF and now Live 2.0. Both your point and the broader point speak volumes about the quality of the individuals.

This post has been edited by FishOutaWater: Mar 6 2012, 10:48 am

[sh4rpz]

I just miss the music.

[SJN1279]

But who knows if it will really be the best case for everyone, new Live might come along and smash it out of the park and that might be the new thing that most of us want instead? (please for the love of god don't bring up how CCP+Ed would sell more than CCP+CS, what is "best" for everyone is not judged on fucking sales).

LIVE 2.0 is a bit about sales and drawing for concerts. If not, CCP could start an entirely new band with Chris Shinn instead of creating a less successful version of something that peaked in the 90's.

This post has been edited by SJN1279: Mar 6 2012, 12:56 pm

[Aitkens]

LIVE 2.0 is a bit about sales and drawing for concerts. If not CCP could start an entirely new band with Chris Shinn instead of creating a less successful version of something that peaked in the 90's.

EK is only about sales and making money, are you going to even attempt to deny that?

[Pokey]

Nick of course every band is going to want to sell their stuff and have people attend their shows, but that's just something that should just happen, making it the entire focus of why you care about music or how you judge music is just ridiculous.

Why should CCP start a new band with Shinn when they feel they own Live? Live is as much their baby as it is anyone's. They've said it loud and clear "we're Live, and we're changing and this is what it's going to be". It'll be different, some people will love it, others won't and they can move on. Whatever way, it is what it is. I'll take that any day over a guy professing to have moved on and wants to focus on building a solo career, but then continues to ride the ever loving shit out of the coat tails of Live. Stop being so sentimental about the name or the brand, do some little mental trick where if you see the name Live tell yourself it's pronounced as if it rhymes with Give and it's them "moving on", then it's no different to Ed which you have no problem with. Moving on but calling your album Alive, calling your tour I Alone, stacking your shows and appearances with a majority of Live songs. Because it seems the name is all you have a problem with when you boil it down, and that's just silly. Just stop being so damn precious.

You say Live 2.0 is about sales and drawing for concerts, but you fail to recognise that not everyone views the world the way you do (which is evident by the way so many people here clash with your way of thinking), the fact Ed appeals to you so much is no surprise since his way of doing things seems to be right up your ally. To the rest of us we're not so concerned about how it will sell or be marketed, just how it sounds. It can be called whatever the hell it wants, if it sounds good - i'm all for it.

This post has been edited by Pokey: Mar 6 2012, 12:36 pm

[themaestro]

LIVE 2.0 is a bit about sales and drawing for concerts. If not CCP could start an entirely new band with Chris Shinn instead of creating a less successful version of something that peaked in the 90's.

Why create an entirely new band when they are completely committed to Live? Look man, Ed left, OK? They don't have to abandon something they devoted their entire lives to just because one person doesn't want to be part of it anymore. What part of that don't you get? They have the same inspiration they've always had. So they should just ignore what inspires them? They want to make Live music. Live is different than TGF. Live is different than some new band they'd create. Live has it's own identity and it's bigger than one person. Live represented a big idea that they still have the vision to pursue. If you can't at least respect that then you have serious issues. Seriously, you need to get beyond Ed is Live. It's not about the individuals. It's about a grand vision of creating music that represents something much bigger than the individuals themselves. Yes, Ed had an indelible impact on Live. He had tremendous input when they operated within the guise of Live. However, he was never the impetus for what Live was all about. Get that? Ed was not Live. Neither is Chad, Chad or Pat individually. The idea of Live exists outside of any of them individually and just because one person has changed the idea of Live has not. This is apparently too much for you to comprehend because it has been spelled out a million times. You should really just move on since you have no ability or desire to understand.

[OutToDry]

I love how dick doesn't respond to the direct criticism calling out the bs and lies. Typical ducker and dodger.

[Pokey]

Why create an entirely new band when they are completely committed to Live? Look man, Ed left, OK? They don't have to abandon something they devoted their entire lives to just because one person doesn't want to be part of it anymore. What part of that don't you get? They have the same inspiration they've always had. So they should just ignore what inspires them? They want to make Live music. Live is different than TGF. Live is different than some new band they'd create. Live has it's own identity and it's bigger than one person. Live represented a big idea that they still have the vision to pursue. If you can't at least respect that then you have serious issues. Seriously, you need to get beyond Ed is Live. It's not about the individuals. It's about a grand vision of creating music that represents something much bigger than the individuals themselves. Yes, Ed had an indelible impact on Live. He had tremendous input when they operated within the guise of Live. However, he was never the impetus for what Live was all about. Get that? Ed was not Live. Neither is Chad, Chad or Pat individually. The idea of Live exists outside of any of them individually and just because one person has changed the idea of Live has not. This is apparently too much for you to comprehend because it has been spelled out a million times. You should really just move on since you have no ability or desire to understand.

The thing is Nick can't see beyond a singer/front man ... he is the epitome of a super casual music fan. He needs something like that to identify with. I'm not sure whether he is just incapable of understanding that music is more than that, or if he's just extremely bitter that Ed won't be getting a piece of the pie. I've said it before, Ed getting paid seems to really excite Nick with all his talk of sales and such. That to him, seeing Ed get paid must be the same as a parent watching their kid open presents on Christmas Morning, probably prefer front row seats to watch Ed on pay day than front row at a show.

I was initially torn on the idea of Live carrying on without the original 4, I thought it just wouldn't be right, not because of who left, but because just 1 of them left. But I just realised why bother being so precious about it? It's happening, I can't stop that, so am I really going to let something like that effect whether I might like the music or not? If I held that same view and ended up really loving the music then what? In the end screw even putting names to it, it just is what it is, and if it's good I'll love it, if it's not then I won't, it doesn't matter what it's called.

But Nick see's it in terms of advertising and drawing and brings all those elements into it, and this is the very core of why Nick drives me up the fucking wall because so many of us here are MUSIC fans, we're passionate about our music and whether its good music or bad music. We all know there is an element of sales and marketing and all that which goes with it, but christ, what does it matter? Let it matter to the people directly involved with it, ie the people who are using it to make a living. To us, the fan, listener and consumer, worry about the product, that is the music.

[Pokey]

I love how dick doesn't respond to the direct criticism calling out the bs and lies. Typical ducker and dodger.

But he ALWAYS admits when he's wrong! (or just dodges the questions and then claims he never read them) Just like Ed has NEVER done anything dishonest. Send the 2 of them away to a desert island to live together, 2 peas in a pod, they're perfect for each other and deserve each other, it's easy to see what attracts Nick to Ed.

[themaestro]

The thing is Nick can't see beyond a singer/front man ... he is the epitome of a super casual music fan. He needs something like that to identify with. I'm not sure whether he is just incapable of understanding that music is more than that, or if he's just extremely bitter that Ed won't be getting a piece of the pie. I've said it before, Ed getting paid seems to really excite Nick with all his talk of sales and such. That to him, seeing Ed get paid must be the same as a parent watching their kid open presents on Christmas Morning, probably prefer front row seats to watch Ed on pay day than front row at a show.

I was initially torn on the idea of Live carrying on without the original 4, I thought it just wouldn't be right, not because of who left, but because just 1 of them left. But I just realised why bother being so precious about it? It's happening, I can't stop that, so am I really going to let something like that effect whether I might like the music or not? If I held that same view and ended up really loving the music then what? In the end screw even putting names to it, it just is what it is, and if it's good I'll love it, if it's not then I won't, it doesn't matter what it's called.

But Nick see's it in terms of advertising and drawing and brings all those elements into it, and this is the very core of why Nick drives me up the fucking wall because so many of us here are MUSIC fans, we're passionate about our music and whether its good music or bad music. We all know there is an element of sales and marketing and all that which goes with it, but christ, what does it matter? Let it matter to the people directly involved with it, ie the people who are using it to make a living. To us, the fan, listener and consumer, worry about the product, that is the music.

He's the poster child for Madison Avenue's clients, an advertisers wet dream. He's actually asking for the shit that's packaged up and sold to us as the real deal when it's really just a bunch of marketing hogwash. Why would someone knowingly ask to be fed that shit?

[SJN1279]

He's the poster child for Madison Avenue's clients, an advertisers wet dream. He's actually asking for the shit that's packaged up and sold to us as the real deal when it's really just a bunch of marketing hogwash. Why would someone knowingly ask to be fed that shit?

Like Holiday gifts filled with B sided material when you purchase a membership for a band on hiatus?

[FishOutaWater]

LIVE 2.0 is a bit about sales and drawing for concerts. If not, CCP could start an entirely new band with Chris Shinn instead of creating a less successful version of something that peaked in the 90's.

It's really simple. They are continuing with Live because they are continuing with the "Spirit of Live". Live is a concept that includes the fans, the style of music, the message of the lyrics, and a philosophy. They see "Live" as something worth continuing for the fans, for themselves and for music, without Ed. They've written about it. Fans here have written about it. This is a concept that I don't think you are capable of understanding because it is not about record sales or commercial success or show attendance. It's really about music as artistic expression, and calling this "Live" actually represents something.

[Pokey]

Like Holiday gifts filled with B sided material when you purchase a membership for a band on hiatus?

Yeah like that, and stick figure drawings of themselves, over priced pendants, ridiculously over priced phone calls, you know, a "society of friends".

[themaestro]

Like Holiday gifts filled with B sided material when you purchase a membership for a band on hiatus?

No, more like your continual reference to superficial things like charts, press releases, and reviews that have little to do with the music.

[World Dreamer]

Nick...let me get this straight.

Are you saying that the guy that LEFT Live and is now singing Live songs and naming his tours after Live hits is perfectly okay yet the three that didn't leave Live can't continue on being Live?

In your response please remember the guy that left Live also stabbed his band members in the back and has claimed SEVERAL times that he wants to move on from Live.

This post has been edited by World Dreamer: Mar 6 2012, 3:05 pm