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.