Interview Techniques

Anyway, hmmmm...do some research and look them in the eye when you ask the questions. Also, try to come up with original questions but not stuff like "what's your favourite cake".

Ask this: WHAT ARE YOUR INFLUENCES?
Then when they answer say: HAHA THAT'S ODD AS 'INFLUENCE' DOES NOT EXIST SO EXPLAIN THAT!!

the mag designer says one of these almost every time he speaks...

Also, "Writing for Journalists" by Wynford Hicks is a pretty good general reference, with chapters on writing Interviews, Features, Reviews, etc. I think Sally Adams, who writes the Interview and Feature sections is a onetime Face contributor.

"what were your responsibilities at your old job"
"well, I always tried to avoid any responsibilities, but I could have had allot."

Oh help.

I am wondering how to handle this. I've been asked by a magazine I really love to pitch an interview with an artist I really love. So in theory, I really really want to write this, right?

No. It makes me feel like throwing up with nerves every time I contemplate it. Partly because interview subject is quite notorious for not doing interviews, for doing intensely strange interviews, for viciously ripping the piss out of interviewers asking questions they don't like.

I have lingering fear about writing interviews to start with, after having been told at CTCL "you really aren't very comfortable on this side of the interview, are you?" (basically the editor said this to me, then after pulling my piece, he decided to interview the band himself, so I don't know whether it was really a comment on my being rubbish at interviewing - which I am uncomfortable with, but I'm uncomfortable with all professional music writing really - or whether he wanted to write the piece himself.) So I don't think I'm going to be good enough to do the piece - and also because I've been asked to write a general interest interview with appeal enough for non-fans, and I am a massive trainspotting fan and don't know if I can rein in my trainspotty tendencies.

But every time I go to answer the email in the negative, I think "but I would fucking LOVE to read this interview, and know the answers to some of these questions..."

Followed quickly by "but they would never answer them, because they hate interviews, and if they didn't answer, or *worse*, replied with answers that made it clear they were doing the piss-ripping thing, I would be *GUTTED* and my fandom of this artist is (yes, I know it's pathetic, but my music fandom is an intense and special thing to me) so important to me that I don't want it spoiled by negative personal contact.

Do I say yes with the expectation that it's probably not going to happen and write it as an exercise? Or do I say no, accepting my limitations as a writer and also as a fangurl?

Say yes, Karen. If it goes well, then the infinite after-joy will obliterate all memory of the short-term before-stress. And if it goes badly, you'll have acquired some uniquely personal knowledge/context on the artist.

A handful of people with a reputation for being bad interviewees are genuinely passive-agressive pricks, but many others are just impatient with bad questions while likely to be thrilled by clever ones from a knowledgable fan. Can you make a sold guess as to which one he is?

You could start the interview by a) unabashedly declaring your trainspotty fangirl status, b) semi-apologising in advance for the "general interest" angle which you've been asked to adopt, and c) saying "but before I start with all that, I've got a couple of questions of my own, which I've always wanted to ask you", then using your in-depth knowledge/understanding to quickly build some upfront rapport, and to get him onside for the more obvious stuff which follows.

Mixing the fan-specific and the general reader material is a great idea.

It sounds like this artist is also uncomfortable with the interview process, so is defensive.

Could it be one of those artists who gets too many "Justify Yourself!!!" type questions?

Once they can see that the interview isn't meant to be a stitch-up, and that the interviewer is knowledgeable without being aggressive with it, it should be a pleasant experience for both sides...

It would be (if it even happens) an email interview, so the whole "rapport" thing is a moot point. I'd have to grab their attention with interesting questions from the getgo.

I'm not even sure what "general interest" questions even are? Would that be talking about their work or their lives generally, rather than specific questions about individual songs or albums?

It's not even a music magazine, which is what adds a whole nother level of weirdness to the whole thing.

I am the worst possible person to be doing this, because I completely lack the kind of conversational skills of asking interesting questions of anyone in the first place. I'm really uncomfortable with asking people questions, and feeling invasive. I have trouble even asking questions in conversations with my friends.

Would it be an ongoing email, or a "one-off" bunch of questions?

Also, I'm assuming the artist is a musical artist, so maybe as it's for a non-musical magazine, the level of implied defensiveness and/or justification wouldn't be as pronounced.

See, for some people, getting a stroppy interviewer from some music mag who could be perceived as being "I could do what you do, why isn't it me not you" gets the bird treatment...

Is it Squarepusher? Sounds like him. Email can be tricky because you don't have eye contact and simple face-to-face courtesy. It's easier for them to be rude or sarky on email, but then again you might find it easier to pose questions that way if it's something that usually makes you uncomfortable. Try setting it up with a really friendly intro explaining the direction of the interview and the fact that it needs to have some general stuff he's probably discussed before but also more specific questions. Display your knowledge without being too fannish - musicians are always flattered when an interviewee knows their whole catalogue.

"General interest" for me falls under "What makes this person tick?" and "What are the major events in their career?" If they've made a record with Thom Yorke, say, then you'll have to mention it at some point even if it's something they're not crazy about highlighting. But then you balance that with something more muso about what they were trying to achieve with album x, or why they think single y proved so popular.

I've been on the receiving end of a couple of email interviews recently and my advice would be to make the questions specific. Don't ask anything too vague which invites them to write an essay because that's a drag for them. Keep it brisk and knowledgable and curious.

i say go for it!

it sounds like the only real worry is that an unpleasant experience may ruin your enjoyment of the music afterwards - which is just a risk of any interview i think, regardless of the artist's rep. i tend to think of interviews as very businesslike experiences, which helps me separate all that out. i think it being an email interview might help in this regard? especially with the bits of the interview format you're instinctively uncomfortable with (like, it doesn't feel like prying so much if it's a typed question!).

what you shouldn't worry about: one negative editor from years ago making you feel like you're inherently bad at interviews. i don't really know how many people really feel 100% comfortable doing them, there's always a jangle of nerves and paranoia and uncertainty about the whole experience, but feeling uncomfortable in that situation certainly doesn't mean you can't produce a good piece of work.

also: general interest/fangirl appeal = FALSE BINARY! okay, maybe asking the artist about esoteric trainspotty sonic details in obscure b-sides would go too far, but remember that fangirl enthusiasm is infectious to general readers, and in fact is totally key to conveying why you love the artist so much. and particularly in an email you won't have time constraints => you can ask trainspotty questions as well, even though you might not be able to use them.

"but I would fucking LOVE to read this interview, and know the answers to some of these questions..."

hold on to this thought!

musicians are always flattered when an interviewee knows their whole catalogue.

seriously - quoting an artist's lyrics to them, esp of their more obscure cuts, is 100% guaranteed to make them warm up a bit. (and conversely you'll never see the shutters go up so fast if you get something so obviously wrong that it seems like you've only given them a cursory listen.)

"general interest" also = non-musical questions. what they do to get away from music, ~crazy~ stories from touring and so on, important people in their life and so on.

OTM. Sometimes for work I have to interview people where there's nothing I really want to know about them as a listener. But it's so exciting when you get to say, "One thing that always bothered me - what's with that oblique lyric/song title/sleeve art?" I did Gang of Four recently and loved asking them how tongue-in-cheek they intended the cover of Entertainment! to be. Can't remember if it made it into the final piece but it made me happy.

Musicians, like most people, want to be understood - if they feel an interviewer is misrepresenting them they'll get defensive but everyone likes to be respected for the work they do.

xposts goes without saying that if you're doing an email interview to make sure the questions are as open as possible. this won't stop some interviewees sending back unusable two-word responses though, in my limited experience.

in general, interviews are such a weird one for me. i have no idea whether i'm good at them. well - i mean, i know i can produce a good piece out of them, but i still feel like i'm totally winging the actual process itself. no one ever sits in with you to ~assess~ you, i've never been formally trained, i still have no idea whether i'm doing things which are total no-nos or failing to ask really obvious shit.

A good rule of thumb is to write down the three most obvious questions you think any dumbo with five minutes on Wikipedia would ask and then either avoid them like the plague or cunningly rephrase them midway through the interview. It amazes me how many times an interviewer will fuck up an interview by going straight in with, "So, what's with the name of the new record?" or "I hear Radiohead are big fans." or "Tell me about your feud with x."

xxpost realise that goes completely against: Don't ask anything too vague which invites them to write an essay because that's a drag for them. Keep it brisk and knowledgable and curious.

the worst recurring interview problem for me is knowing that i need a quote about one of those obvious questions, because it's a key peg of the piece, even though they've surely been asked it (and i've read it) 94942901202 times already.

HYUGE amount of x-posts...

Pls don't try to guess "who it is" because I'm well aware that many journos, editors, record company people, PRs etc. lurk on ILX and I'm already feeling like I'm jinxing what little chance there is of getting to do this interview by even discussing how uncomfortable I am with it.

The thing is, without getting into details, the *kind* of magazine that it actually is could be problematic for some artists. It'll either be a massive selling point that they might be curious, or make them completely not do it at all because they think it's icky.

I've read many, many interviews with them, trying to figure out what makes them respond well/badly/completely indecipherably. I've read a recent-ish interview where the questions were quite vague and general, and they ended up giving really well thought out and interesting and intelligent answers (that had nothing to do with the questions). Then I've read interviews where the interviewer put a lot of thought into asking interesting questions, and they totally took the piss.

(Maybe a lot of my discomfort is down to the fact that I don't want my illusions dispelled about this person, that I like them being mysterious and inscrutable. That I like projecting mine own interpretations onto them, and it would be gutting to find out they're not like I wanted them to be.)

it sounds like the only real worry is that an unpleasant experience may ruin your enjoyment of the music afterwards

^^^^^^^^^^^THIS times one thousand.

Because I've had several instances where having an unpleasant experience with the artist spoiled my enjoyment of the music. And I just cannot lose my love for this artist. And walking into a situation where you know the person has a history of being ... awkward makes me feel real trepidation.

i think it's far less likely to be an "unpleasant experience" per se if it's via email. might not make for the ideal interview situation but there'll be no potential face-to-face rudeness that can be really awkward.

Rudeness doesn't have to be face to face to be really awkward.

Perhaps one of the most devastating things that was ever said to me by someone I really admired came in an email, and I can still quote that email word for word, it hurt that much. In fact, worse, because I had the record to look at, over and over, and try to figure out why they'd say that to me. An in-person experience, it's like, you're rude to me, but then it's gone, I never have to see them again. Text is forever in a way that in-person isn't.

Probably what I should do is sit down and think up a set of questions that I'd like the answers to, and see what comes up, if there's even enough to make a decent interview.

How are interested are you/is the reader in anything particularly personal about this artist? If you're not likely to be going in heavy on that angle you'll probably be alright, as long as you don't ask any of the particularly inane questions detailed upthread.

the best advice i can give is to talk as little as possible and get them to talk as much as possible. when you listen back to the tape you shouldn't be able to hear much of yourself.

and ask about something offbeat. i remember an interview with ralf from kraftwerk, done by a friend of mine, who geeked out with him about various scientific measurements--blood pressure numbers, EKGs (the 'elektrokardiogramm'!) etc. ralf got really excited. 'no one ever asks me questions about science!'

Then I've read interviews where the interviewer put a lot of thought into asking interesting questions, and they totally took the piss.

This guy does sound like a bit of a prick to be honest.

Dylan clowning the guy from Time in Don't Look Back has a lot to answer for.

More like, drug use has a lot to answer for.

My tips: prepare tons of questions, a huge list of them. More than you need. Hammer through them focussing on the questions and answers rather than on trying to have a conversation. You can frame it as a conversation later if you choose. Focus on their newer projects. Since you are a big fan, ask really indepth/obscure questions. Even if you think you are the ultimate fangurl, do research and find out even more obscure things to ask about. If it's a more mature artist the people reading or listening to the interview are likely to be fans too so that approach is is going to give value to the consumer as well as ingratiating the interviewee.

If you have done your job as an interviewer by being prepared with respectful, relevant and interesting questions and conducting yourself appropriately then the interviewee can reasonably be expected to respond respectfully in return. If they instead behave like douchebags then I don't think that's your problem. Portray them as such in the interview as is your right. Makes for an interesting article at least.

xpost I agree that obviously being a fan can, with the right interviewee, really open things up. Years ago I interviewed Colin Meloy: he'd come to London for a day of press and I was the only journalist who turned up. He was first gratified someone wanted to talk to him at all, then amazed when it turned out I knew his catalogue inside out (Decemberists hadn't released anything in the UK at that point).

It's much easier to interview someone you couldn't give a shit about. You don't worry anywhere near so much about what they think about your questions. And because you're more relaxed, they often respond better. A new band who I think are truly dire I've interviewed twice just because I enjoyed talking to them, and we had a load of common ground that made the interviews really straightforward.

But am basically the same on not enjoying interviews: I do very few of them (mainly an editor), and when I do I tend to do them for short pieces, knowing it's more likely to be me who shuts the interview down because I've got more than enough and the thing I really needed has been covered. I always worry that's bad form, but, well, I've only got 650 words, there's one angle: I don't need 45 minutes of their or my time wasted. And, as an editor and reader, I'm not really very interested in interviews per se (of course, you sometimes get a stunner): I think of them as the pieces that buy me the right to run the articles I'm really interested in but which don't sell a publication.