I just don’t understand. Keith has been sober on tours before, including entire Warped Tour summers. Andy hasn’t drank alcohol ever. When Keith had to miss shows because of his daughters birth, the band played shows without a vocalist just like they said they were going to do this week. I just can’t imagine anyone in this band even thinking about trying to replace Keith. Ugghhhh.
we were both half-joking. I just thought we could use a bit of levity but I misread the room. my bad.
The scheduled tweets need to end. This isn’t the first time this year alone it’s been bad timing/incentive to a event that wasn’t happening when scheduling the tweet
idk $$$ or ownership or whatever I’m not a lawyer just spitballing anyways, this ad after your reply was perfect
I really hope they can communicate and find some mediation for the situation. I’m really hoping this is a big misunderstanding that’s being blown out of proportion. I’ve recently had that happen with my family as I’ve grown as a person and it causes severe miscommunication.
I’m honestly not sure how many bands outside of maybe astronomically huge ones have their membership tied to them legally. Is that a thing?
Yes? I would assume they're incorporated as an LLC or corporation. It's most definitely a thing. Anyone making a living from being in a band (especially for 2 decades) would be foolish not to have some legal entity setup for tax purposes and such.
plenty of bands have had songwriting members leave, including front people, and continued on with the name. i doubt it comes to that and, if it did, the band would be better off from a PR standpoint continuing on with a new name but it is far from unheard of. it would be very odd if keith had sole ownership/copyright of the band’s name
owners are removed from LLCs quite literally all the time. like, y’all are kinda just spitballing and way off rn. also, this doesn’t matter. i doubt it comes to any sort of legal issue. or i hope it doesn’t, at least.
This ^. Assuming they have the pretty standard LLC setup (specifically like a lot of bands of their ilk have), it would be very common practice as far as moving on (once you get past the contracts and payout agreements based on the merch, recordings,etc.) but a lot of bands typically do it because it just looks better to re-brand and move on most of the time. I mean, imagine trying to continue ETID with no Keith......A lot of people won't be getting on that ride
right. it’s more of a bad move for them publicly and would probably turn fans off. it isn’t a legal issue at all to continue without keith. he’d continue to get paid for the songs he contributed to but they can continue on without him. think of how many singers bands like chiodos or saosin or whatever have gone through