Musicians in interviews - should they EVER be believed?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
I don't mean thing's like Gwar's "We're cannibals from the South Pole" or Dylan's runaway stories, or even wit/sarcasm (John Lydon - "I hate all music. Except for 'Roadrunner'). I mean ESPECIALLY when artists appear to be serious about articulating their intentions. People often argue about what the artist 'really meant' and use said artist's interviews/letters etc. to back it up - but are even those reliable?
Bit of background - I write music, and after fruitlessly trying to explain processes to people who have no way of understanding the first thing, I end up over-simplifying(OR over-complexifying), and sometimes simply being mendacious, rather than having to reinvent the wheel every fucking time someone asks me "What were you thinking" etc. (Of course, I'm not a household name at the moment and maybe that has to do with my inability to articulate my own processes?)

tarden, Friday, 15 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Imagine this is an interview and you've just asked me that question. I say 'Yes'. But am I to be believed? If I were a liar I'd also say yes. If I say 'No', then, since I'm a musician, you shouldn't believe me. So a 'No' is also a 'Yes', but a 'Yes' may be a 'No'. Rather than get tangled up in this conundrum, I suggest we treat interview answers as fiction (ie 'the lie that tells the truth'). The important question then becomes 'Is what the musician says interesting or boring?' The important response is a kind of psychoanalytic sifting. Not 'Are Primal Scream really going to lift people out of their skins with their new stuff?' but 'What in Bobby Gillespie's deep psychology makes him produce such a sadistic metaphor?'

By the way, this is my last post for a week or so, as I'm catching a plane now to Thailand. Then again, that may be a lie, and I may just have decided to lurk for eight days. Whether it's an interesting lie will depend on what anecdotes I make up and whether I introduce Thai nose flutes into my sound on my 'return'.

Momus, Friday, 15 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Imagine this is an interview and you've just asked me that question. I say 'Yes'. But am I to be believed? If I were a liar I'd also say yes. If I say 'No', then, since I'm a musician, you shouldn't believe me. So a 'No' is also a 'Yes', but a 'Yes' may be a 'No'. Rather than get tangled up in this conundrum

Hey, I've seen Labyrinth too

jamesmichaelward, Friday, 15 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

'Are Primal Scream really going to lift people out of their skins with their new stuff?' Eww, sounds like Hellraiser or something. Only Bbby Gllsp doesn't raise hell in the way he'd probably like to think he does.

DG, Friday, 15 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

(From a cafe in Bankok) Actually B. Gillespie was friendly around the time he said that with the guy who runs Creation Books, who was then being influenced heavily by Gilles de Rais, the medieval pre-Sadist and baby-impaler. Strange to think how literary rock hype can be!

Momus, Saturday, 16 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

What do you mean by "influenced heavily by Gilles de Rais"? I find it odd that anyone could be influenced by that bastard.

DG, Saturday, 16 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Nick, you're an addict. You're on holiday. Please go look for ping-pong in Patpong, okay? I'll fill them in ;)

James Havoc is the pen name of the founder of Creation Books, and he wrote two creepy books, Raism and Satanskin. He's like that guy in Kids In The Hall who had the 'slave' The Evil Hecubus, and was an acolyte of Prml Scrm around '88 or so which is why he got to found Creation Books with help from the Ginger Prince. James bought Alan out some time in the early '90s. Yes he is massively into Gilles de Rais but it's pretty safe to say that Gllsp is more into Jn f Rc.

Back to the subject. Speaking as someone who's interviewed gazillions of musicians/recording artists right across the spectrum, from utter dolts to total geniuses, I'd say most of them try to answer honestly and simply those questions put to them, provided one of the parties isn't boxing clever. Nobody's asking interviewees to reinvent the wheel. But now, when the really huge stars have their PRs wave a pre- interview question censorship document in the face of journalists, it's more difficult to get meaning, never mind honesty, out of one's subjects.

suzy, Saturday, 16 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Am now in cafe in Pat Pong. Don't like sleazy commercial sex, prefer personally not to have to pay for it. (Never have.) Am, if not sex addict, certainly I Love Music addict.

On subject of Gilles de Rais and James Williamson of Creation Books, did you know that in Raism there's a masturbating demon character called Momus? And did you know that to publicize that book Alan McGee and Williamson appeared on Tony Wilson's TV show 'The Other Side Of Midnight' and McGee claimed to hate all musicians and only be interested in writers? Suspension of belief required on that one, I think.

By the way, one of the stranger aspects of today has been receiving two e mails from Alan himself asking why I've been nasty about him on this bulletin board recently. 'Cockneyred' was not McGee, as some thought. We haven't spoken for eight years, but have now patched things up and will be meeting up in Japan in a couple of weeks.

And personal note to Robin Carmody: no, I am not impersonating you on in recent threads!

Sorry for using this one to tie up loose ends. Off to watch Thai boys pole dance now... or whatever you're supposed to do here!

Momus, Sunday, 17 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Nick: I only suspected you because of the reference to Paddy Kingsland = electronic ruralism, which surely very few people would be aware of. I will look into this further, because there are a few people who I think have the grudge against me to do it.

Robin Carmody, Sunday, 17 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Robin, you really should stop accusing people of impersonating you. You may eventually find out who (I doubt it though), but chances are you'll piss off lots of *innocent* people on the way. I really, really doubt any ILM regulars have a grudge against you. Don't let this impersonation thing get to you.

Dr. C, Sunday, 17 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Impersonating people on boards sux. If Robin's that bothered he should find out who it is.

DG, Sunday, 17 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I've only known this kind of thing happen once on a mailing list (at the same time the person doing the impersonating also invented a completely fictional right-wing reactionary etc etc persona who fooled and upset me to start with) and it caused a *lot* of shit. However, all my future inquiries will take place entirely off the forum (as indeed some already have).

Robin Carmody, Sunday, 17 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Interesting. Contributors to forums: should they be taken at face value? I should hope so, I'd like this to be a safe haven of honesty and a corrective respite from media-induced cynicism! Robin, remember you're one of a kind and some jealous creep can't handle it. Thought it only fair to say so seeing as you've been so supportive of my contributions.

suzy, Sunday, 17 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

1) I think lying in interviews is absolutely De Rigeur, and part of the fun of being a pop star/interviewee/whatever. We used to make a point of telling a completely different story about basic facts about the band, not just for fun and to eliminate the inherant boredom of basic interviews, but also so that in the future, we would be able to tell which journalists had done their research, and if so, which sources they had used. Much hilarity has already resulted from this tactic.

2) People assuming others' identities on public forums. This has been done to me in the past (on other boards, and on mailing lists) and it is fucking frightening. I don't think Robin is over-reacting, it is really scary, both in the "why is someone doing this to me?" way and the "what if other people really believe that it is me, and what if they have done it elsewhere that I'm not aware of the situation to attempt to rectify it?"

In one case, I had a stalker (of the ex-lover variety) actually hack my email account and send posts to mailing lists I was on and to people that I knew. That was terrifying, and I had to contact my ISP and have my password changed. In another case, it was a board such as this, and a well-known troll just decided to co-opt my identity. (Conveniently misspelling my name, as well as leaving their IP address in plain sight.)

The thing is, it's usually the most prolific or high profile posters who are the victims of such pranks. (Robin, in a way, you should be freakily complimented. ;-) It means you're "high status" poster.) But with prolific posters, it is fairly easy to grow to recognise their writing style and personality. If you see a post which is drastically out of character, it is often safe to assume that others will realise that it is an imposter.

Good luck ferreting the freak out.

3) Good god, all the big lizards read this board, don't they? I'm afraid. :-)

masonic boom, Monday, 18 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.