Thesly1: I think everyone can respect the fact you are so devoted to your Chief from Liverpool but stop writing they are the only Chief around when their are (at least) four. Everyone else seems to respect your Chief, please do the same for the other bands called Chief. The fact that the us Chief are so popular now (they are the only Chief in the top tracks) could actually gain the Liverpool Chief more attention than they ever had?
thats not the way that they law works...i (and everyone else i know) think chief are better than the us "chief" doesn't really affect anything. in all fairness don't know about the other 2 chiefs, but i am trying to stick up for the interests of chief.
well if they've never heard of them, then they should use their brains and check it out on the internet, or threw other mediums...far be it for me to insult this band and say, that they are low intelligence, but it is a simple task, and if when I were creating a band this would be one of the first tasks i would take when in the naming process, particularly if I were choosing a name that could potentially be chosen by many bands, due to the fact that it is a fairly simplistic name. the reason i care so much is that i am a fan of chief (the chief in which that is from Liverpool, UK!!!!!!!) and want to ensure that they get the money they deserve. it is my opinion that "chief" (aka. not the real chief, the "chief" from New york) should change there name, to something else which would rule out the possibillity of boring discussions that i am doing, plus allowing Chief (from Liverpool, England) the full rights to the name that they had the foresight to create, giving them greater revenue!!!!
its not about top tracks, surely the original Chief, that is the Chief from Liverpool, England (the only Chief that matters) have copyright claims on the name Chief, and as such are the Chief that matters. I was nearly fooled into going to a gig by the impostor Chief (that aren't really called Chief at all, they are a band that should remain nameless until they can devise an original name), under the impression that I would be seeing Chief. If I had attended that gig, I would have been severely disappointed as I would have seen some other band masquerading as Chief, despite the fact that they may or may not be more popular. They have no right to use the name Chief, it is only going to confuse fans of Chief (which, if I have to remind anyone again, are from Liverpool, England.) I can't jname my band called 'The Beatles' or 'Red Hot Chili Peppers' as the copyright, and therefore the right, to these names belongs to their repsective owners, so why are this band arrogant enough to do this?
it's not about how long they have been around or how popular they are for you. I believe you that you've seen them in front of hundreds of people and that they are popular in the UK punk scene.
But for all you know the rapper Chief plays for thousands of people in South America and Chief the beatmaker plays for millions of people in China.
It's only about one thing. The Tops tracks.
And that is by far the Chief from the US. As you must agree