Q: Does this mean the band was getting too big or that they were facing too many compromises?
We were facing a lot of compromises. We were becoming less like friends in a band and more like partners in a business. To make this transition requires you to play a lot of gigs to remain a financially viable business at the cost of fewer song writing sessions and just hanging out as friends (we all have day jobs and some have families which makes things complicated). You end up not enjoying the time you spend together, which is really not why we started Shy Guevaras at all.

Q: If it was about not wanting to compromise, was it the musical, acquiescing to radio friendliness type issues or was it more of a money issue, perhaps having to play too many gigs to stay afloat and therefore not being able to concentrate on making new music? Or was it something else entirely?
To take Shy Guevaras to the next level we had to spend more time making a business of it. I’m not the first musician who will tell you that on average a rock band is not the most profitable business. We’d be compromising all the things we like most about Shy Guevaras (writing songs and just hanging out) for a little bit of cash. Worst of all we could already start seeing the negative affects this was having on our friendships.

Q: When I ask people about the SG's the general response is that they are/were excellent live, but few people can name any of their songs (that I've spoken to). Does this indicate that the members of SG were more into Playing Music than Selling Product?
Shy Guevaras were definitely happiest during the 40 minutes we spent together on stage belting out a set.

Q: In terms of "Exiting the music industry" but then "sure will be back", what area's are ex-members moving into? are any leaving the country to be musicians elsewhere?
As musicians there is always a chance that we will be involved in the music industry in some form or other again. You might see one of us producing or recording or doing session work… who knows?

Q: The SG's performed with a passion that indicates that they truly loved what they were doing, is their disbandment an indication of their not being able to find a large enough audience appreciative of their specific form of expression?
Definitely not. We played with as much energy at Coke Fest to 10,000 people as we did the week after to 10 people in a quiet Cape Town pub gig, and we loved every minute of both shows.

Q: Would The SG's have been happy only just surviving financially and performing to a solid but small audience?
That’s what we were doing, and we weren’t enjoying it anymore. As a band you must either go for super stardom or just have fun writing music and jamming together. Stumbling along in mediocrity is not really what we were about. It would be a great disservice to ourselves and our fan base if we just let things peter out into nothing. We’re ending off with a big show and a thanks to everyone. We did some amazing things in the last few years and it’s a good feeling to bow out while you are ahead.

Q: Essentially I'm trying to get a feel for what is was specifically that made the SG's feel like exiting an industry as opposed to not being a band?
Most of us were only in the industry because we had started the band. It was like a bi-product of starting the band. In biological terms it’s like a parasitic symbiosis. The band was the host and the music industry was this parasite, and the host was definitely the worse off. We’re getting rid of the parasite. In time we will write some songs again, have a jam and hang out together again. It’s what rock bands are made of.

Thank you for your time, and for the music, while it lasted.

On the 8th we played our first gig in our own backyard at Stones in Tableview supporting our favourite SA Band, Taxi Violence.