I have vague feeling this may have been discussed. If it was, doesn't really matter. Over the years, lots of old forum used inactivated and new ones has come. Instead of digging up old conversations, anyone can open new topics. They'll be merged my moderator if seems it is better.
Couple things first. I was yesterday reading a magazine about reading habits. Mainly the fact that people no longer read. All sorts of articles and interviews of authors, journalists, publishers, scientists and so on. Late 80's, Finns were reading approx 55 mins a day. That included books and magazines. In 2021, people read 37 minutes per day, and that number includes not only books and magazines, but e-books and audiobooks. Number ain't that much smaller, but considering it includes also AUDIO material and that in worst group, that is men between 10-24, who spend 9 minutes in day with all that. ... okay.. haha..
In same magazine I was reading older author talking she doesn't like reading about ideas, ideologies, ecology or such but about people. She concludes that autofiction is currently in bad shape. That every book is schematic. Story goes the routine of first being tough times, then via some sort of process of learning people become who they are. I would think this same thing applies not only autofiction but a lot of stories and interviews as well. Makes me want to beg for some ideas and even ideologies, not the childhood struggles.. eh eh..
As example, couple years ago, biggest media in Finland did long interview with BEHERIT. In early part of interview, journalist asks "so, where did your father and mother work". Something like that. Some really generic family question and mr. Beherit just "This has nothing to do with Beherit" and blurted some moderately harsh comment and it made journalist puzzled for a while. She was quiet for few moments, before gathering herself and asking something interesting. Interview was published as written article and uncut audio podcast. It was funny what things did get emphasized in written piece. Some little comment in side sentence of other things, became like major point in written piece.
One of countless examples how I often prefer "underground interviews". Question + Answer. Unedited. Blunt. Even sort of amateurish, yet you get the real deal so to say.
Rare case in underground is the journalist writing a piece. Bardo Methodology does it now, has featured a bit of industrial there. If writing is good and it makes artists talk more focused and coherent, I like it. It requires a bit taste. Also this format may be that we aren't really reading interview per se, but essay or article, featuring some artist comments. If well done, I like it, but it is quite uncommon style.
I would prefer interaction, but even more prefer space to talk. Lets say WCN podcasts have displayed very clearly how one to one podcast works the best. You got 3, and it might get too crowded. You got 4, and it starts to become unbearable to listen when interaction of that many guys may prevent relevant talk happening. Noisextra can have great interviews, but then also some interviews were one could listen more.
I almost promised myself I no longer listen to Women of Noise podcast, unless there is noise artists. Well, I did listen all the new ones too, latest being some sort of dream pop singer/producer, haha.. but couple episodes before it were leaning to noise at least. In those interviews you really got like 95% fixed questions. No matter how interesting topic would be going, and you'd be like pleaaase please ask her about the sex work she just said she started and how it relates to sex-obsessed noise she makes... but no. Next questions is like "what is your favorite icecream?". Godddamit... Makes one think is interviewer listening? Is interviewer interested in artist? I'd hope that would be like first step why interview is happening. When you are interested, questions sort of come out automatically.
Whatever the format is, I do like generally some sort of polemic, strong, or reeking of importance to person who is talking. Its not that I'd have to agree, and it doesn't have to be, and preferred not to be, polemic & strong in form of someone running his mouth and talking shit. But someone who clearly has something to say.
I was just reading Untitled magazine. Best interviews easily Locrian and Noise Widow. Noise Widow tells tale about gig, where girls are engaging into performance arts of sort, nude body painting, people getting wild, all sorts of debauchery, and then two of the harsh noise guys are sitting in basement alone, talking about tape players. It reminds me of one festival. Older industrial guy walk to room and says "there are beautiful women here! Why are you talking here about noise tapes! There's great looking girls in the bar!". Me and the other guy look eachother and "women in bar?". haha.. And both conclude that we didn't fly around europe to hang out with women, we are here for NOISE. And really, beautiful women are everywhere, but that neckbeard with sizeable 80's occult industrial tape collection is rare breed.
In reality, there is barely possible to demand or request what type of "noise content" is being made. It tends to be what just comes.. but in theory:
the question - preferred noise interviews?
Styles, methods, editing, raw?
Themes, humane interaction, autistic nerdism, polemic agitation?
etc?
