It is somewhat ironic that LotFP's standard of quality is found in its interviews, yet I discover that I don't know the real point of interviewing heavy metal musicians.
The reason interviews are important to the musicians and the financial interests behind them is because they give the artist publicity. The artists talk about themselves and their work and the more pages they get (at least in print media), the more important they seem. Interview space equals increased awareness of the work, which can translate into album sales. You didn't think that musicians just enjoyed being questioned by strangers, did you?
It is no coincidence that the largest record companies, the ones able to sell many albums, arrange their interviews in a schedule like clockwork. Some poor bastard(s) in the band sit on a phone all day with a different interview every half hour. That's great for the record company, because they're canvassing the media and getting the word out about their new releases, and all they're paying for is the phone call.
That's hardly an obscene arrangement when one considers the realities of the formatting of most print media, the want for the latest and most current content, and the lack of substance in most heavy metal interviews. It works perfectly.
From the perspective of the fan and conscientious writer, it is a disaster. Interviews have to be planned so the conversation will not run over the allotted time. To even get a slot, a snap judgment about the promotional release has to be made. A well-connected writer gets twenty to fifty free albums a month, and they have very little time to decide to do an interview if they want the record company's help in setting it up. The writer is responding to the publicist's call, not independently making the decision that a certain album or concern around an album or band is worthy of a discussion that a review or opinion column couldn't cover. And no matter what happens, the resulting interview is likely to be nothing more than a huge advertisement for a new album. Why would a fan want to read that?
For the actual content of an interview to be heavy metal and not simply additional publicity, there must be challenge within the interview. Not just asking a question and accepting any answer, but actual follow-up to questions with iffy answers. Every musician has some measure of controversy about them, and we've all read interviews that are obviously dodging these issues and letting the interviewee get away with crap answers to questions. The musicians had their say in their album. That's their unchallenged viewpoint on whatever they felt they needed to express. The heavy metal interviewer must make sure they uphold their end of the heavy metal publicity ritual by badgering these people like a British political journalist. The musician must know they are there to answer real questions, not high five the interviewer and take advantage of the space being given to them in the interview.
Publicists are paid to advertise and promote heavy metal music. Writers should have a different responsibility in life.
The reason interviews are important to the musicians and the financial interests behind them is because they give the artist publicity. The artists talk about themselves and their work and the more pages they get (at least in print media), the more important they seem. Interview space equals increased awareness of the work, which can translate into album sales. You didn't think that musicians just enjoyed being questioned by strangers, did you?
It is no coincidence that the largest record companies, the ones able to sell many albums, arrange their interviews in a schedule like clockwork. Some poor bastard(s) in the band sit on a phone all day with a different interview every half hour. That's great for the record company, because they're canvassing the media and getting the word out about their new releases, and all they're paying for is the phone call.
That's hardly an obscene arrangement when one considers the realities of the formatting of most print media, the want for the latest and most current content, and the lack of substance in most heavy metal interviews. It works perfectly.
From the perspective of the fan and conscientious writer, it is a disaster. Interviews have to be planned so the conversation will not run over the allotted time. To even get a slot, a snap judgment about the promotional release has to be made. A well-connected writer gets twenty to fifty free albums a month, and they have very little time to decide to do an interview if they want the record company's help in setting it up. The writer is responding to the publicist's call, not independently making the decision that a certain album or concern around an album or band is worthy of a discussion that a review or opinion column couldn't cover. And no matter what happens, the resulting interview is likely to be nothing more than a huge advertisement for a new album. Why would a fan want to read that?
For the actual content of an interview to be heavy metal and not simply additional publicity, there must be challenge within the interview. Not just asking a question and accepting any answer, but actual follow-up to questions with iffy answers. Every musician has some measure of controversy about them, and we've all read interviews that are obviously dodging these issues and letting the interviewee get away with crap answers to questions. The musicians had their say in their album. That's their unchallenged viewpoint on whatever they felt they needed to express. The heavy metal interviewer must make sure they uphold their end of the heavy metal publicity ritual by badgering these people like a British political journalist. The musician must know they are there to answer real questions, not high five the interviewer and take advantage of the space being given to them in the interview.
Publicists are paid to advertise and promote heavy metal music. Writers should have a different responsibility in life.
