What's up with Chad Taylor? Options

[ShadowStormEK]

Did anybody see his facebook post two hours ago???

2 hours ago ·

Chad Taylor - "You ever just totally fuck something up? What does it mean if you do it over and over again? When I get it right, its so right but when its wrong....ahh. Hopefully, forgiveness can work in two directions. If I've wronged YOU, please remember it was only about me. End narcissistic post. "

What does he mean? Could he be talking about Ed???

WTF??

A girl can dream right?

[thefunkyredcaboose]

I'm sure this one post will be enough to convince some here that he made all that stuff about Ed up.



This post has been edited by thefunkyredcaboose: Apr 21 2010, 12:23 pm

[SJN1279]

I'm sure this one post will be enough to convince some here that he made all that stuff about Ed up.

I doubt Chad made an entire blog up about Ed. However, I would not be surprised if certain things in that blog were entirely overblown or incorrect.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

I doubt Chad made an entire blog up about Ed. However, I would not be surprised if certain things in that blog were entirely overblown or incorrect.

Its just too easy.

[Merica]

Interesting.........................

[BERLINONE]

Is this the beginning of the reunion ??
(Just kiddin, but it wouldn't be to bad).

BERLINONE

[Pokey]

Why does it even have to have anything to do with Live? It could be about anything else in CT's life...

[Deku]

Why does it even have to have anything to do with Live? It could be about anything else in CT's life...

Good point, this wouldn't be the right sort of timing for something like this, so close to TGF album/shows etc. If he's gonna roll with stuff like this, surely it would be better timed a couple of years down the line or something. Plus, if he were talking about Ed, that might then mean that maybe Ed didn't pull all the money-grabbing shit Chad said he did, and seem as though Ed is selling phone calls, excuse me if that seems unlikely

[Merica]

I honestly don't think the whole Ed requesting extra cash thing is a clear cut as it was made to sound. If he did it how it has been described, I'd guess there'd be a good reason behind it. Honestly.

[Pokey]

I honestly don't think the whole Ed requesting extra cash thing is a clear cut as it was made to sound. If he did it how it has been described, I'd guess there'd be a good reason behind it. Honestly.

The good reason could be that Ed literally believed he was well within his rights to ask and deserved that money? I still think it was a bitch of a thing to do, but maybe he believed it. When someone has their name credited to a song you'd assume they get bigger royalties for it because afterall it is apparently their creation, for better or worse. But a lead singer bonus for a performance I don't understand.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

I would be willing to bet real money that this isn't related to Live at all.

But since the subject was opened up, there is no way to spin requesting a "lead singer bonus" as a good thing. Like it or not, this situation with Live isn't unique. In the music business lead singers get more attention, and eventually they go solo because they realize they don't "need" their bandmates any longer. Why share the money? They usually spin it as a creativity issue and then make music that sounds just like what they made with their band, except usually it is LESS creative.

The modern fascination with lead singers is a big part of the reason that the music business is in such a shitty state right now.

And that, my friends, is why Chad's story makes such a great deal of sense.

[Sakhmet2]

The modern fascination with lead singers is a big part of the reason that the music business is in such a shitty state right now.

And that, my friends, is why Chad's story makes such a great deal of sense.

Just as a point of music history: When was it not about lead singers? Janis Joplin, Mick Jagger, Jim Morrison, Alice Cooper, Ozzy Osborne, Michael Hutchence, Mark Bolan, - even Bret Michaels fuck's sake! The majority of bands in the past had a public persona dominated by the lead singer.

I would be willing to bet real money that this isn't related to Live at all.

If this is about Live, I will die laughing at all the drama that will ensue here.

This post has been edited by Sakhmet2: Apr 22 2010, 6:56 pm

[Hoodstock]

Chad's life does not revlove around Ed. This has nothing to do with Live.

[Sakhmet2]

Chad's life does not revlove around Ed. This has nothing to do with Live.

You're pretty definite about that. I say wait and see.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

Just as a point of music history: When was it not about lead singers? Janis Joplin, Mick Jagger, Jim Morrison, Alice Cooper, Ozzy Osborne, Michael Hutchence, Mark Bolan, - even Bret Michaels fuck's sake! The majority of bands in the past had a public persona dominated by the lead singer.

In the public eye, yes, of course the fascination has always been there.

The difference is that now the contracts for band members reflect that more than they ever have before. Also, going solo and staying solo wasn't nearly as popular back then. The music business was a much different place in the time of the Doors, Sabbath, Joplin, Rolling Stones (okay any time period is their time period, haha).