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

[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

[Chapps]

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.

With the exception of these articles about Live that have been popping up lately, I can't even remember the last time I read anything from RS. If they didn't piss off all of Canada a couple months with their ridiculous list of top singers, I thought they were out of business.

[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