Too true.

No offense to his statement. I know these questions are all asked a million times. I would argue that if you are working for a site or magazine you have to cater to your readers. The reason why these questions are asked a lot is because this is the junk a lot of uniformed people want to know about a musician. Here is why:

You influences - so they can know if they'll like you compared to what they normally listen to

Your band name meaning - so they can know why you chose to fly your band under the banner you do.

Your crazy tour story - so they can live in the moment of hearing a crazy rock story.

What the worst part of all of this is is 90% of the time artists don't want to answer these questions, and give a false answer or a say they are put on the spot so they don't know. The truth is any band should be happy to get any kind of press. Part of the job of an interviewer is to get through some stock questions so readers know basic information about the artist then continue on to better questions that artist hopefully don't answer a lot. The job of the interviewer is not to expect the readers to read it somewhere else and steer readers away from the publication they write for, but instead provide their readers with the information so they won't go look somewhere else.

Conversational interviews are great, but in press blast you can sometimes only get 15-20 minutes and it's really fire and go. So it's not always afforded.

I think asking about the recording process of an album gets overused a lot, but if you are promoting an album it's a question that really has to be asked a million times. That's just the game you always start at level one before you can get to level twenty. Level one usually consist of bad stock questions.

Originally Posted by snu

No offense to his statement. I know these questions are all asked a million times. I would argue that if you are working for a site or magazine you have to cater to your readers. The reason why these questions are asked a lot is because this is the junk a lot of uniformed people want to know about a musician. Here is why:

You influences - so they can know if they'll like you compared to what they normally listen to

Your band name meaning - so they can know why you chose to fly your band under the banner you do.

Your crazy tour story - so they can live in the moment of hearing a crazy rock story.

What the worst part of all of this is is 90% of the time artists don't want to answer these questions, and give a false answer or a say they are put on the spot so they don't know. The truth is any band should be happy to get any kind of press. Part of the job of an interviewer is to get through some stock questions so readers know basic information about the artist then continue on to better questions that artist hopefully don't answer a lot. The job of the interviewer is not to expect the readers to read it somewhere else and steer readers away from the publication they write for, but instead provide their readers with the information so they won't go look somewhere else.

Conversational interviews are great, but in press blast you can sometimes only get 15-20 minutes and it's really fire and go. So it's not always afforded.

I think asking about the recording process of an album gets overused a lot, but if you are promoting an album it's a question that really has to be asked a million times. That's just the game you always start at level one before you can get to level twenty. Level one usually consist of bad stock questions.

No where did you address this issues Brendan raised with those three questions. Did you actually read his post or did you just read Jason's summary and decide the world had to know your opinion on the matter?

Originally Posted by ACA

If a band's name's origin isn't on Wikipedia, it's a fair question to ask (and answer) once.

This.

Good interviewers are few and far between.

Originally Posted by CluckyB

No where did you address this issues Brendan raised with those three questions. Did you actually read his post or did you just read Jason's summary and decide the world had to know your opinion on the matter?

I read it and addressed the points. I'm curious to know why you think I didn't. Sometimes you have to force questions. It's just part of being in the press. Like I said conversational interviews are better and asking questions that hold some details to find a more solid and interesting answer is better. Time doesn't always allow it and I tend to think uninformed readers like things spelled out for them. I think they want bullet points. That's my opinion.

Also I had trouble deciphering your first sentence when you said "this issues" I took it to mean "the issues." Where you talking about a specific issue or in general? Also nowhere is one word.

Absolutepunk is barely the world so calm down buddy. It's okay. We all have differing opinions. I liked his article. I found it interesting. I'm just trying to offer another view point.

Nardwuar.

I guess answering the same questions once in a while must be terrible instead of having to work a real job.

I should have written a book on how to conduct the perfect interview.

Originally Posted by snu

I read it and addressed the points. I'm curious to know why you think I didn't. Sometimes you have to force questions. It's just part of being in the press. Like I said conversational interviews are better and asking questions that hold some details to find a more solid and interesting answer is better. Time doesn't always allow it and I tend to think uninformed readers like things spelled out for them. I think they want bullet points. That's my opinion.

Also I had trouble deciphering your first sentence when you said "this issues" I took it to mean "the issues." Where you talking about a specific issue or in general? Also nowhere is one word.

Absolutepunk is barely the world so calm down buddy. It's okay. We all have differing opinions. I liked his article. I found it interesting. I'm just trying to offer another view point.

Your comments were just the general reasons one at first thinks they might be decent interview questions. "Oh, this provides information about the band so people can know if they should check it out or not" "Oh this humanizes the band by telling us where the came from". Brendan's point was that none of the questions have any real substance and come off the wrong way for interviewees. You didn't mention any of the reasons he gave for why he disliked the questions. He points out how there are better ways to ask the same question that don't come across as "Hey I'm going to ask you the same questions I ask everyone and have zero actual interest in you or your band I'm just doing my job and the reason you are doing his here instead of making a blog post is my magazine has 100,000 times the reach". I don't really see where in your original post you countered the argument that they are all bad interview questions.

great points. love reading his blog every so often when i remember it exists

Originally Posted by AMackChuck

I guess answering the same questions once in a while must be terrible instead of having to work a real job.

He has a full time job as a copywriter or something similar

Originally Posted by CluckyB

Your comments were just the general reasons one at first thinks they might be decent interview questions. "Oh, this provides information about the band so people can know if they should check it out or not" "Oh this humanizes the band by telling us where the came from". Brendan's point was that none of the questions have any real substance and come off the wrong way for interviewees. You didn't mention any of the reasons he gave for why he disliked the questions. He points out how there are better ways to ask the same question that don't come across as "Hey I'm going to ask you the same questions I ask everyone and have zero actual interest in you or your band I'm just doing my job and the reason you are doing his here instead of making a blog post is my magazine has 100,000 times the reach". I don't really see where in your original post you countered the argument that they are all bad interview questions.

I didn't argue whether they are good or bad. I argued whether they are necessary and what purpose they serve. The reason why it is the way it is. The questions are formalities in a lot of interviews as introductions to bands your readers may have never heard of. I also addressed why you can't always do interviews the way he thinks is better. You don't always have the time. You could be afraid you are doing too much talking and not allowing the artist to answer the questions. I mean it is somewhat lazy journalism I won't argue that. I also think casual readers of a lot of things tend to be lazy readers. That is why you jumped to the conclusion I had never read the article (when in fact I did). Most people, yourself included from how you responded to me, generally tend to think readers (who aren't already fans of the band) don't read they just browse the quick parts and overlook the depth.

I'll give an example of a necessary case why it could be good to ask a band their name (even if it is in general a bad question). Emily's Army. To ask that band the origin of their name helps a cause. It's a great story to how they got their name. I've seen them asked the question a bunch of times and it humbles me to see their passionate response. It is a stock lazy question but it serves a purpose. If given a good answer it can make the interview interesting.

Half the time the substance isn't there is because the bands are tired of answering those questions so they give a joke answer or don't answer at all. They create the lack of substance. Making the interview bland and boring. The questions are not great, but for a lot of media outlets they are necessary. A lot of interviews are also done via e-mail these days and it's a little hard to be conversational via e-mail. I mean framing the question in a million different ways will ultimately still make it the same question. Also like I said media blast interviews are quick and to the point not a lot of room for conversation.

He talks about the tour story like it is the worst. I guess as an interviewer you should overlook he's been on the road for the last two years (taking account a regular album cycle) and not be able to come out and ask a question. He should have to subliminally coax it from the brain of the musician? It hurts his brain to come up with one funny story about being on the road? Conversations are great to uncover details, once again you may not always have the time.

Like I said he's in a band he's lucky people want to interview him. All I'm saying is be a gracious guest. He's basically saying I'm a stressed out artist spoon feed me please. Don't make my brain have to think of answers. Instead trick me into answering them.

Originally Posted by Ollie McKraut

He has a full time job as a copywriter or something similar

well fuckitteedo.

Originally Posted by snu

No offense to his statement. I know these questions are all asked a million times. I would argue that if you are working for a site or magazine you have to cater to your readers. The reason why these questions are asked a lot is because this is the junk a lot of uniformed people want to know about a musician. Here is why:

You influences - so they can know if they'll like you compared to what they normally listen to

Your band name meaning - so they can know why you chose to fly your band under the banner you do.

Your crazy tour story - so they can live in the moment of hearing a crazy rock story.

What the worst part of all of this is is 90% of the time artists don't want to answer these questions, and give a false answer or a say they are put on the spot so they don't know. The truth is any band should be happy to get any kind of press. Part of the job of an interviewer is to get through some stock questions so readers know basic information about the artist then continue on to better questions that artist hopefully don't answer a lot. The job of the interviewer is not to expect the readers to read it somewhere else and steer readers away from the publication they write for, but instead provide their readers with the information so they won't go look somewhere else.

Conversational interviews are great, but in press blast you can sometimes only get 15-20 minutes and it's really fire and go. So it's not always afforded.

I think asking about the recording process of an album gets overused a lot, but if you are promoting an album it's a question that really has to be asked a million times. That's just the game you always start at level one before you can get to level twenty. Level one usually consist of bad stock questions.

Lol at you posting this exact wall of text on his blog, you are such a fucking tool.

Originally Posted by anthonydarko

Lol at you posting this exact wall of text on his blog, you are such a fucking tool.

Haha getting called a tool from a guy who writes this type of stuff on his profile and twitter:

I was a man when I was just a boy.
I am awesome, you are not.
Me want @ Walmart Supercenter


You are too cool for school friend. Comical. Urban definition of tool - One who lacks the mental capacity to know he is being used. A fool. A cretin. Characterized by low intelligence and/or self-steem. By the looks of some of the stuff you write you can join me in being a tool. Otherwise sir that is so me you nailed it. Hahahaha. I mean you must be bright I got you to read my toolish comment twice. The post so nice you read it twice, heh?