This was a lovely conversation, at least for the first 30 minutes. Keeping a busy website like Morrissey-solo going for 26 years takes commitment, and can be judged solely on those terms per se, regardless of the subject, as David pointed out. Given that though, I thought it was a pity the interviewer did not follow up, as one might expect, with questions about statistics on traffic, or numbers of visitors to the site, and on money made secondarily through advertisements based on the popularity of the site, or subject, as seen at
https://hypestat.com/info/morrissey-solo.com or
https://www.similarweb.com/website/morrissey-solo.com/#overview .
With the figures being so significant, it could have formed an extra segment of real interest, especially for business and marketing people.
Moving on to issues raised in the 2nd half, discussions on some of these are available on the website e.g. on the bodyguard lawsuit. -
https://www.morrissey-solo.com/thre...wanted-me-to-f-up-fan-club-honcho-tmz.132047/
A comment is found there by
Will Never Marry on May 28, 2015: #8 “I'm a California attorney, "with prejudice" means that the case is resolved and the plaintiff cannot file another suit based upon the same or similar facts. It would only be dismissed "with prejudice" if there was a settlement. Otherwise, the plaintiff would dismiss it "without prejudice" (i.e. he can file again within the statute of limitations). Who knows how much the settlement was for or who paid it. Moz could have had an insurance company who decided to settle it to avoid legal costs or if they believed there was some exposure to liability. But we are likely to hear nothing about the result absent a leak because there will be a confidentiality clause. Final note, a settlement does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff had anything real to complain about. Companies and individuals settle all of the time, because of the cost to fight and whether the evidence seems to support the plaintiff's complaint (even though the "real" facts do not).”
Others then noted the inexplicable delay before the complaint was made. Morrissey morphing into a mafia don does seem rather incongruous, after Meat is Murder and everything.
On the question of individuals being allowed at shows, or otherwise, it is not that unusual for artists to ban those with certain attributes. Guns n’ Roses banned a fan for life for leaking songs -
https://completemusicupdate.com/art...fe-from-live-shows-over-leaked-music-dispute/
In 2021, Adele banned unvaccinated fans at her Vegas shows -
https://www.entertainmentdaily.co.u...ban-on-unvaccinated-fans-for-las-vegas-shows/
A range of artists do/did not allow people to bring phones to their shows -
https://www.ranker.com/list/bands-who-ban-phones-at-shows/matt-manser
And people who run fan-sites pose unique enough risks that they tend to be banned more often than the run -of-the-mill punters -
https://www.reddit.com/r/kpophelp/comments/i9qje8/why_do_some_shows_concerts_awards_ban_fansites/
So it seems that it is the artists’ prerogative to decide who they want to attend or not attend their shows. Just as people working in the website management sector can decide on rules for their operations, including rules to ban people e.g.
https://www.morrissey-solo.com/general-posting-policy/
Community forums can differ from traditional fan magazines and music press in editorial responsibility, by accident or design, and some posters, such as James Cagney, do, like Morrissey, “call it So Low too, because every thread is hijacked by someone who is truly So Low. The mods are crazy and go by their own arbitrary rules, merging and moving threads, deleting some users while tolerating others, etc.”
It probably just comes down to the fact that people have different standards. Sinéad's case brought this to the fore more recently too. So thanks, David
podcasters.spotify.com
