Interview Prefrences

[Andrew McIntosh]

Thinking about what it is I've been disliking about interviews lately, I've realised that I have a preference for person-to-person verbal communication, as opposed to interviews by mail. Reason being there is more genuine input-output, the interview subject has to think on her/his toes, and there's more a sense of actual communication. With e/mail, the subject has the advantage of pondering questions which leads, it seems to me, to a more contrived and therefore, possibly, artificial presentation of ideas.

Of course e/mail interviews have their advantages and of course one-one-one isn't always possible. But from reading the interviews in SI, and from the few I've transcribed, I've found the spoken interviews more fulfilling to read than the written ones.

I'm putting this forward simply as a personal observation, not a vote either/or. Please do contradict as you wish.

[ImpulsyStetoskopu]

Thinking about what it is I've been disliking about interviews lately, I've realised that I have a preference for person-to-person verbal communication, as opposed to interviews by mail. Reason being there is more genuine input-output, the interview subject has to think on her/his toes, and there's more a sense of actual communication. With e/mail, the subject has the advantage of pondering questions which leads, it seems to me, to a more contrived and therefore, possibly, artificial presentation of ideas.

Of course e/mail interviews have their advantages and of course one-one-one isn't always possible. But from reading the interviews in SI, and from the few I've transcribed, I've found the spoken interviews more fulfilling to read than the written ones.

I'm putting this forward simply as a personal observation, not a vote either/or. Please do contradict as you wish.

You are right. This type of interviews I prefer too. Time for that is more friendly than never before. We have facebooks, skypes and other Internet applications, which should help us to conduct this kind of interviews.

[Doom-Rivers]

Well, it depends of the person interviewed, there are persons who are more elocuent than others... I think the nice thing is to find the way in which the person uses to express better...

[FreakAnimalFinland]

I think the preferred outcome and few other factors dominate the choice.
Most of all, possibilities. Live interviews I have done, are all connected directly to opportunity. Being somewhere - because of live gig or on the road to somewhere, with possibility to meet artists in quiet enough place. With artists who can speak fairly good english.

It is good for casual talk, more down to earth and "free form" discussions. What often leads to another kind of results than written interview. Some bands do not have the personality of guy who is able to talk this much or stuff he wishes to express demand more thought and planned writing, than just on-the-spot talk.

Obviously now technology has allowed to make live interviews online. One wouldn't have to meet specific person face-to-face, but do it via messanger or skype. Record audio and transcribe that. It would be basically matter of finding out who all artists do have these possibilities and if they prefer 1 hour chat instead of typing. This is something I have considered.

[Andrew McIntosh]

Some bands do not have the personality of guy who is able to talk this much or stuff he wishes to express demand more thought and planned writing, than just on-the-spot talk.

I lament again the lack of the written statement/manifesto these days. Of course not everyone is up for personal chit-chat - so they should not be interviewed. Let these people express themselves how they will, or not. If they prefer the written word, I want to see a free, honest written statement of intentions, ideas, feelings, expressions, that are not prompted by someone else's inquiries, but by what they the artists want to express.

And of course, if in the end, words are not enough - and why should they be? - let the sounds do the talking. Not everyone has to be interviewed.

[jake]

Email interviews can be informative but come off so aggravating, with long planned-out responses. I remember the first time I noticed an email interview in a punk zine YEARS ago where the guy was asked about some political or social cause he was associated with and he started spouting websites and statistics...SNOOZE...
I know some may think it leads to a celebrity feel but I LOVE personal questions in interviews with just regular noise/PE dudes. I mean I'm curious about how the normal people I work with live their lives, I am certainly curious about the people who make the tapes I'm listening to at home.

[NO PART OF IT]

I have always liked to do a telephone interview, because the person can have their space and distance, then I follow up with an edit of the transcript and additional questions.  Best of both worlds. 

I think the most nagging thing I have about other interviews is the constant question of "influences". It would be much better to ask how someone came to this point.  Of course, everyone doing noise was probably messing with feedback or toy recorders, or whatever, but they may or may not have known about it as a genre and they may have gleaned it from different aspects of popular music, etc.  The question of "influences" never really leads to much, at best if quantifies the subject to a limiting spectrum that doesn't fully cover it, and at worst, it tries to vaguely ask a person about their own subconscious, which is pretty futile.   

[tiny_tove]

I am big fan of in-depth interviews that cover personal matters, concepts as long as experience.