Rolling Stone Follow-up (Mentions touring with Two Drummers) Options

[fightingwithclay]

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-fe...ama-1234686802/

VERY insightful because it goes into detail on why they had two drummers for so long.

[Chapps]

So the article is titled the Tale of Two Chads, but really without even factoring in word count, CT is quoted at a rate of 2 to 1, so isn't really the Tale of One Chad with footnotes from another? I haven't in the past read a ton of interviews with the band so I don't know if CG is just not a man of many words, but I would think that given the opportunity to tell his side of this story he would have had more to say, especially about something that from all accounts seemed to be upsetting to him.

[JonSnow]

So the article is titled the Tale of Two Chads, but really without even factoring in word count, CT is quoted at a rate of 2 to 1, so isn't really the Tale of One Chad with footnotes from another? I haven't in the past read a ton of interviews with the band so I don't know if CG is just not a man of many words, but I would think that given the opportunity to tell his side of this story he would have had more to say, especially about something that from all accounts seemed to be upsetting to him.

CG has never struck me as someone who says "a lot". That's a relative take, but CT was the one who wrote that giant blog post to the fans years ago. So I guess you could say CT has always been more "word-y".

None of that necessarily means anything to this RS article, but idk why RS would be more biased in favor of CT to the point where they wouldn't include things said by CG unless he just asked them not to and obliged.

[Chapps]

CG has never struck me as someone who says "a lot". That's a relative take, but CT was the one who wrote that giant blog post to the fans years ago. So I guess you could say CT has always been more "word-y".

None of that necessarily means anything to this RS article, but idk why RS would be more biased in favor of CT to the point where they wouldn't include things said by CG unless he just asked them not to and obliged.

It's just a little odd to me I guess, but it would make more sense if CG was a "man of few words" that he just didn't say that much. I would also hope that RS wouldn't be biased towards CT, unless the belief that he commissioned the first article are true, but I just don't see RS being a pay to play magazine but who know anymore.

[JonSnow]

It's just a little odd to me I guess, but it would make more sense if CG was a "man of few words" that he just didn't say that much. I would also hope that RS wouldn't be biased towards CT, unless the belief that he commissioned the first article are true, but I just don't see RS being a pay to play magazine but who know anymore.

Yeah, I get the confusion. I'm no fan of Rolling Stone. I stopped reading their shit years ago for various reasons. I can't dismiss the possibility that CT commissioned it, but a more likely/reasonably believable scenario would be that he just still had friends there that are sympathetic. But I don't know how likely that is either. I don't read their stuff at all anymore. When was the last time that magazine gave a shit about anything Live-related?

The most believable thing to me is that the only reason they probably cared about this at all was the salacious nature of it and they knew it would bring eyeballs. If Rolling Stone is biased toward anyone they're mostly biased toward Rolling Stone. I doubt in the end they give more than a passing shit about either CT's or CG's side of things outside of the eyes it brings to their magazine.

This post has been edited by JonSnow: Mar 1 2023, 12:21 pm

[Orion0767]

Yeah, I get the confusion. I'm no fan of Rolling Stone. I stopped reading their shit years ago for various reasons. I can't dismiss the possibility that CT commissioned it, but a more likely/reasonably believable scenario would be that he just still had friends there that are sympathetic. But I don't know how likely that is either. I don't read their stuff at all anymore. When was the last time that magazine gave a shit about anything Live-related?

The most believable thing to me is that the only reason they probably cared about this at all was the salacious nature of it and they knew it would bring eyeballs. If Rolling Stone is biased toward anyone they're mostly biased toward Rolling Stone. I doubt in the end they give more than a passing shit about either CT's or CG's side of things outside of the eyes it brings to their magazine.

Absolutely. We live in a culture where this shit show is king and RS gobbled that up like candy and then went in for a second dip in the candy jar. However, it does seem suspect to me that they did such a comprehensive piece out of the blue. Let’s face it, the rest of the world doesn’t view Live like the die hard fans do so .. just a bit odd for me.

This post has been edited by Orion0767: Mar 1 2023, 5:56 pm