Q Magazine, July 2014

Sample questions for Tom because they treat him like a stupid 2 year old:
'when was the last time you lost your temper'
Has he been diagnosed with ADHD. Tom says no, never. Q doesn't let it go and contiunes on asking that simulant drugs are given for ADHD, does taking coke make him sleepy, and what else calms him down.

'Has becoming famous changed you'

my personal favourite: 'Ever pull any crappy rock star diva moves and think, 'I was a dick there'?

Lots of questions to both of them implying that Serge lacks a quality to be a lead singer but wants to be a lead singer and what Tom thinks about it etc etc, to which Serge says he doesn't want to be a lead singer, it's for Tom who's 'the missing piece' of his life.

More drug questions to Serge, how wasted they were at the early gigs and have they played on MDMA and how rock'n'roll is taking his toll and is Serge looking after himself.

There are 1-2 pages I haven't even looked at but I really doubt that there is anything that matters. Just seen something about how Tom likes his sausage cobs.

Serge vaguely mentions that the US tour was stressful and there was 'drunk shouting' on the bus once between him and Tom . It's milked for 20 paragraphs and a huge caption (ironically, on Ian's and Chris' pic) tells the world that they were 'at each other's throats'

I wish they had printed the track by track instead because it's SO GOOD and so interesting, but no, instead they provide tabloid fodder for the next 6 months.

I'm incredibly uncomfortable with how obsessed the press is with Tom having or not having ADHD. He says he doesn't. They make him justify himself over and over, basically for as long as the band exists. I know he's a grown man and not a delicate little flower that needs protection, I'm sure he could just not answer their stupid questions if it was bothering him too much, but what exactly is the message there? Your personality is so fucking weird that it MUST be caused by some kind of disease, go on, explain yourself. It's disgusting.

All the implications about their alleged "falling out" which NME and everyone else will have an absolute field day with. Which is exactly what they need the week before the album is released: "KASABIAN ALMOST SPLIT UP!!!!" Translation: They argued for ten minutes when they were drunk and exhausted, two years ago.

I've given up reading the majority of their press by now. It's a symptom of today's social media culture. It must bite-sized and easily repeatable. A ready made meme. The restraints of Twitter characters and the like means it must be a concept and nothing more. Transitory.

Plus, the under-current of their live reviews is more often than not, "I didn't want to like it, but I begrudingly did". There's always going to be this bizarre second-guessing of the live experience, it seems. That's the beauty of the band. It's such a sudden burst of energy, that's relatable and mob-creating, with sprinkles of curious influence here and there. It's people's choice if they want to respond to the more obscure moments or not. There's nothing more that needs to be parsed at length, in my view.

The recent article in which the journalist spent the first few paragraphs recounting the time he accosted Serge at the recent Africa Express concert about how much he hated the band was the absolute pinnacle. Nothing will top that one.