DoMw94

As I said, it's not quite as black and white as that. You can refuse, but if that means losing everything as opposed to gaining something, you have to weigh that up. NDAs on the other hand are usually fine in this context. They protect both sides in a sense. If you're daft enough to sign and then blab, that's on you. If you don't sign, you can say what you want – to a point – but won't have the additional knowledge or relationships that could (and most likely would) help you further down the line. The phrase "Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face" comes to mind...

The viewership nowadays is in YouTube and social media. People watch clips of all of them online rather than watching one of them on TV

I primarily cover motorsport but have worked in other areas over the years (My personal website is largely untouched these days owing to outside commitments, but here are some bits I've done). It's a fair assumption, and I agree to a point, it's just sometimes it's a necessary evil unfortunately. But to be honest, it's not the questions that matter, but how you ask them. Refusing if they ask for them in advance can jeopardise the opportunity or the relationship, but steering them to accept conversation topics instead helps. It might not even be to stifle the journalist either, sometimes they only want to know so they can get their client in the right frame of mind if they have multiple commitments on the same day. You've just got to look at each situation individually. I'm fortunate that a lot of the people, teams, companies, and manufacturers I deal with regularly are ones I have a good rapport with so there's mutual understanding/expectation when we go in – but that kind of thing takes time and is the result of carefully fostering the relationships. Not every asks for questions in advance (it's been very rare for me), but if they do, they probably won't forever. I tend not to go in with explicit questions anyway – and I do say that if asked – specifically because, like you alluded to, I want a natural conversation. I want them them to open up, and I don't want to put words in their mouth or back them into a corner where they can't open up. It comes from something I was taught at uni: "be like Michael Parkinson, not Terry Wogan", meaning don't always stick to a list of questions, ask your next one based on the answer to the last – that way you don't miss an opportunity to let them give you more on their own. But yeah, long story short, we don't like having to do it, but accept we kind of have to. That being said, it doesn't always happen and it depends on who you are – on both sides.

If any fan is going to any show to hear one new song they need their head checked 😂 I always find it hilarious that people think the release of Perhaps will help shift tickets when 99% of people there just want to hear Welcome to the Jungle, Sweet Child O' Mine, and Paradise City

It's one of those 'magic' 8-balls where you ask it a question and shake it for a response

Perhaps you were wrong when you didn't see it... 😜 Sorry to go off-topic here. I'm guessing you're the best person to ask this... Chris Pitman was a writer of Silkworms, but not Absurd. What do you reckon the deal is there? When he left was it like "we'll give you $X if you sever all ties and renounce all claims"? That situation's always intrigued me.

As a "serious journalist", it does happen. It's been rare for me, and never been an issue when it has been requested, but to dismiss any journalist who's had to do this as not "serious" is laughable. A journalist can't help if a PR rep on manager is protective. Likewise, a rep can't help it if the interviewee goes off-piste. If an interviewer is restricted, it's then on us to carefully navigate that issue, or blow the whole thing wide open and risk losing it. I had it recently with a prominent name in his field. I was asked what I would be asking, was told certain topics were off-limits, but then as soon as the interview started, I got a text saying "if he goes there, you can". I ended up getting three times the info I wanted/needed anyway because the guy answering the questions did the heavy lifting. Meanwhile others asked the questions right up and got instantly blacklisted. You have to play the game. Being as respectful as you need to be to get something is part of that, it doesn't mean you're any less "serious".

"I recut my guitars as well." Which means he redid his parts. He played on the recordings. It's not confusing, the whole thing's pretty clear

Interesting... Thank you for sharing!

Oh wow, interesting. Hadn't heard that. Would love to read/hear more. Strange choices to 1. Have a former member on a new release (lets leave opinions at the door) and 2. Have what is looking like 'just' a touring drummer regarded as an official member. I feel for Frank. I like him, and if he's in the band, surely he should be on the latest releases. I fear this could lead yet another thread down a Frank rabbit hole so I'll leave it there 😂

I doubt it played a part at all. Look at all the leaks, regardless of reception, Atlas and The General have been the ones talked about for years, yet we got Silkworms/Absurd first and none of us were talking about that. Then Hard Skool which had a bit of chatter but not much until it became clear it was coming. If the talk around the leaks was influential in any way, the releases would've been different already in my opinion

Only on Absurd, not Hard Skool. They made a point of saying Brain was on Absurd but not Hard Skool, so I highly doubt he was on that

Yes please!

Gotta say, I do love how GN'R is sort of taking ownership of Slither now, in a sense. Velvet Revolver is over, and in an ideal world would have never existed anyway. I think it's great that Guns fully embraces it to the point where it's not only being played, but being used to promote the current band. Imagine thinking of that in 2014!

Spotted a mistake

Again, I've seen them recently and Kiss have definitely cut back massively on the most recent leg of the ongoing tour. Especially at the start and the end of the show – that's where it's most noticeable! The Final Tour had very little mid-show stuff from the outset anyway. They've even started playing 'bang' sounds over the PA at points where there was once proper pyro (see I Was Made For Loving You at a recent 2023 show compared to a 2019 one). Mötley Crüe have none whatsoever on the current tour and haven't used any since reuniting last year. Foo Fighters don't have any and typically never have. I do tend to agree though – it adds to the show and makes it more of an experience. Regardless, my point stands – GN'R isn't the only major act either cutting back on, or completely doing without pyro.

Foo Fighters, The Rolling Stones, Def Leppard, Motley Crue, The Who, all bands I've seen in a stadium setting recently without pyro 🤷‍♂️ Even Kiss – albeit not in stadiums – have cut back on pyro on this most recent tour leg

Stadiums seem to be a popular thing at the moment for bands that typically don't warrant it. I'm not for a second suggesting GN'R don't warrant stadiums, but so many acts are playing them these days, I wonder if they're more cost effective even if they aren't full. I mean, I saw The Who play a stadium a couple of weeks ago. The show only had 8,000 in attendance, less than the capacity of both local arenas. Surely arena shows would make more sense there? I dunno, just a thought

Oh without a doubt (hence the "five minute" dig 😜) Let's be honest, there'll never be a day where this fanbase is entirely happy 😂 At the end of the day, it's only a rock band, we should just enjoy it for what it is or move on. it's hardly a big deal no matter who's playing what 🤷

What money? The money was in Slash returning to the fold. The big payday has been and gone, and AFD5 reunion will do nothing whatsoever... Except make sections of this forum lose their shit for five minutes. That's it. It won't generate ticket sales at all. That ship has sailed.

Who cares? You clearly. Just because he's a founding member, it doesn't mean he has a right to be there. He doesn't. He's a former member with nothing to do with the current band and he's lucky he gets a birthday shoutout, let alone a handful of guest appearances in-place of someone who justifiably earned his place. Sorry, but it's exactly that – a work place. It will be run exactly like any other business. And you clearly have no idea how the real world works. It has nothing to do with Frank being there to step in. Frank's drumming isn't going to pay medical bills, it isn't going to cover lost earnings in the event of something going wrong etc. Every single person working at those shows will be insured, from caterers and riggers to the band itself. You, no doubt, get travel insurance when you go on holiday, your home and car will be insured too, right? But you can always just get another if something goes wrong...

But he's not in the band. It's as simple as that. There's a reliable person in the position he once occupied. We need to look at this practically – we might be fans, but at the end of the day the band is a workplace like any other. If you depart a job and your longstanding replacement fulfills the role reliably and without issue, you can't pop back to the office and expect to waltz back into your old role when there's no reason, from a business perspective, to ditch the current guy. Whether he or some fans want it or not, he simply isn't in the band. Deep down he'll know that and accept that. The odd song here or there might seem like a bummer, but a few short years before that, that would've been absolutely impossible. He should be, and will be, thankful the current band acknowledges him and gave him those guest appearances at all. Not all bands would be as gracious. It's not like he's Axl or Slash either. 95% of concert goers won't give a damn about who's drumming – even Frank will acknowledge that. As for the insurance point, money could be irrelevant. If a company flat-out refuses, there's no amount of money that would help. Even so, spending a lot of money to pay, insure, feed, house, and move someone who doesn't need to be there is a horrendous business decision, regardless of how much you're making. It's unnecessary expenditure.

Please give it a rest 🤦‍♂️ Anyway, on the original topic... I don't think it's necessarily a Guns thing. You'll see a lot of rock acts do bigger shows in Europe, South America, and Japan compared to the US, even if they're from there

Probably the other way round

Sadly I agree. I expected a lot more than a recap followed by 'yeah people hate eachother again'