"Bad" interviews - fault of the journalist or the band?

Meta-question: should you only interview bands that you like?

I've been on both sides of the fence. I *KNOW* as an interview subject, that sometimes I am just having a bad day, not liking music at all, or my own music, and sometimes I'm just not feeling communicative. If someone interviews me on one of those days, no matter HOW GOOD a writer they are, it's not going to be a good interview.

Sure, the onus (sp?) is on the writer to make an interview interesting, but really. The puppet-actors are equally to blame when an interview is dull. Being able to talk coherantly about the music that you make and why you make it is NOT the same skill as being able to make it.

Your attitude makes me cross, both as a musician and a writer.

On top of that, why did the interviewers’ editors approve his copy – I mean Reed actually sabotages just about every question fired at him and the end result is a real wreck of a piece in which you learn fuck all about Reed other than he can be an obstreperous, touchy bastard when he tries, which we all knew anyway. So who wins here? Not Reed really, certainly not the writer and the Guardian just get to fill page space.

http://www.meirion.lewis.btinternet.co.uk/pics/whknob.jpg

I had to interview Will Haven about a year ago and it turned out so bad I never even wrote it up.

I really liked the band at the time, read other interviews, did lots of research and came up with what I thought were some really interesting questions but the band were only told about the interview 5 minutes before and they were all totally monged out from a transatlantic flight.

They just weren't interested at all, they weren't even inclined to talk about their own album and music and I assume that in their case that's not because of press coverage overkill. They were practically just grunting, though I did find out that only their drummer knew that one of their song titles was a reference to a Frank Zappa song and that another member of the band loves those stupid low-rider bicycles.

I could have made it interesting I suppose, but by avoiding all talk of music, so at the time I didn't see the point.

Luckily they livened up in time for their performance and I got the photo above that finally proves that not all those rock guys who reckon they get a hard-on on stage are lying.

that said, i am *never* interviewing J Mascis ever again.

And, NA... you think it's OK to interview bands you actually don't like? For no apparent reason (Lou Reed or Coldplay: yes then it's worthwhile - a relatively obscure band like Erase Errata, clearly it's not)... Then I hope you aren't a fucking music journalist. Fucking hack.

Kate, your reply is just weird. Why would my attitude make you cross? What, because I take a pride in what I do. Well, fucking excuse me. (And that's why your reply is weird, because I know damn well you take an insane amount of pride in both your music and your criticism, so quit it.)

Oh, and I still think you're one of the best writers about music I've encountered in the last two years.

Dave Q's observations are spot on. Therein lies the problem: music criticism isn't taken seriously as a trade or as a craft. Every last tosspot media student thinks they can be a music journalist simply cos they once heard a Mogwai (fill as appropriate) record. Wrong. Fucking wrong.

And Mascis is a *brilliant* interview: write it as he says it. It's a laff riot. (And, believe me, I have asked him 50 questions in under 5 minutes before now.)

But then again, I don't like reading interviews anyway, so what am I talking about?

The only interview I was ever on the receiving end of that was any good was an interview where the tape was rendered so garbled by background noise that I couldn't hear more than about 10 minutes of it, and I made the rest up from email conversations I had had with the viola player. So maybe that says something.

The way that I like to be interviewed/treated/criticised probably seems to be at such odds with the way that I like to write, and read music criticism.

But it's actually not, because I want to put all of the power in the hands of the ARTIST. But whether the artist is the musician or the writer depends on who is more interesting a person.

I need to process some invoices, stop distracting me.

But seriously. Meta-question: should critics only interview bands that they LOVE!!! ? Because that's a bit of a luxury, isn't it?

nothing. just lots of difficult silences (they weren't even difficult questions). and ET, i woulda written it up verbatim for the comedy value but 1) it was one of those NME 'On The Couch' questionairres, so therefore that wouldn'ta scanned 2) i had 45 minutes to do that interview and a 'proper' piece for a website (which was full of comedy silences and my own splurging in between to argue for mascis as truly erudite in his autism) 3) the whole Mumblin' mascis shtik has been so overplayed it ain't funny any more, and i don't like to repeat other people's material...

But seriously. Meta-question: should critics only interview bands that they LOVE!!! ?

Of course not. But i know my best work has been with artists i'm genuinely fascinated/besotted with, and not the stuff i did just for the bucks... it takes a lot (of money) to get me to interview anyone whose work i'm not thrilled with (and i certainly wouldn't do anyone i hated) and i always do extra research to make sure the experience isn't painful for me, or disrespectful to my subject.

Also, bear in mind that being a good conversationalist - which is urgent and key for a "good interview" - is not synonymous with either being a good writer or a good musician. Good writers are often notorious inarticulate, and write to compensate for lack of verbal skills (cliche number one) and musicians are inarticulate puppet-actors, end of story.

i agree that a good INTERVIEW can be as random as hell... one ex-colleague told me that one of his best ploys was to remain *SILENT* with his subjects and let them unburden themselves in the anxiety of his silence; he's a great writer, and i don't doubt this works for him.

i prefer to burble excitedly at my interviewees and crack jokes and generally inveigle myself into their worlds and enjoy the whole process. i would NOT regard myself as a good interviewer.

• petty/insignificant reason: If he got to meet the band, he might find out what they're all about and like them as people, and thus broaden his own horizons.
  
• crucial/overwhelmingly important reason: Although alot of what music journalism is about is getting the opinion of someone who cares and knows about music (hence the "music" part of "music journalist") theres another part that 100x more important. A music journalist has a duty to report the news. For example: Even though I find Marilyn Mansons music to be irritating and deriviative and (what I've seen of) his personality to be redundant and annoying, If I were ever hired to (interview|report on) him, I would keep my opinions to myself and report what he did and said, verbatim. Like the old report credo sez: I don't write the news, I just report the news.

or for you Americans and your degenerate spelling, Color
America: the only country to go from Barbarism to Decadence without a period of Civilization in between...Oscar Wilde. Ho ho ho.

He was so fun! And he likes Halifax!

At a zine I used to write for, my friend Mike got a chance to interview Cex ... probably back in 2000? I saw the transcript later. Ryan completely refused to answer any questions except one, whereby he launched into a three page diatribe about how all music today (or rather, that day) was horrible and how Cex and Kid606 were the only innovative, vital musicians in the world.

http://www.stoneroses.net/media/mmmay97squint.html

1. The horrific frequency with which journalists fail to operate their tape recorders properly. I have been on both sides of this problem. The usual trick is to rush home and write down everything from memory. The artist usually finds out because he or she allegedly says things that are right out of character. (Eg, in one interview where I was coming over as rather thick and inarticulate, the journalist had me use the word 'naff'. This is a word I have never ever used. In another, I started talking about a piece of equipment I have never owned).

2. The role of the editor. Last week, an interview was published in which nothing I had done since 1997 was mentioned, especially not the two new records I was supposedly promoting. Perhaps this was done with good reason, haha. Nevertheless, I asked the journo about it and it turned out the editor had halved the word length... by cutting out the last half of the interview.

3. The tendency of journalists to rehash old interview questions from other interviews, due to the fact they prefer to research the artist by looking at old articles rather than by making their own honest response to the music. Related to this, the failure of record companies to provide journalists with the new records prior to the interview.

Second afterthought: I recently read that an author was advised by her editor never to drink coffee before or during an interview. It makes one's ego too lively and eccentric, and one comes over as a narcisstistic fool (even more than usual, haha). Excellent advice.

What is this word "onus" that I keep using? Is it a real word? A corruption of a different word? A foreign language that has crept into my vocabulary by mistake?

I had something to say. Shit. Oh yeah.
I start almost of all my interviews with the same questions.

"So, what's happening?"
"So, what else is new?"

I always get the namby-pamby stuff out of the way first, so that when I get to the contentious stuff (if such stuff even exists) I still have enough material to pieces something together if the prima donna hangs up on me.

But, I recently did an interview with a dude, and in my write-up he came out looking like a jerk, though we were actually having a pretty friendly and mellow conversation. But he did this thing were he would give an answer and then discuss it and then shrug it off, like close every statement with "I don't really fucking care, man."

But, then again, his band is sort of a smart ass punk rock fan, so it probably didn't change anyone's opinion of him.

Historical detail can be added before or after, but unless you're going EXTREMELY in-depth on the artist (and they're relatively successful/well-known) it's extremely unlikely they'll have anything new to add to the discourse - mostly for the reasons Colin stated above.

Like: "When did you start?" "How did you meet". "What was Kurt Cobain really like?" Dude! There's such a thing as Google, y'know...