This was great. Would have been more original if the fans had been allowed to ask all the questions (I remember the first girl's LJ report about how the fans questions were essentially scripted? And WTF, 9/11 questions? And Daily Mail questions? For serious?)
Five kids in a room in the middle of nowhere made them content. I... like hearing that kind of stuff.
I find it hilarious that Gerard had ~theories about pop (though I kind of agree on Gaga and all). Like, he sits and comes up with ~theories.
Frank wants an MCE museum. He would totally be the curator in his old age, I bet.
And he breaks down after two days away from his kids. JWNFJbgejgnwejg.
And them all talking about Britpop and all, and Ray's like LOLNO.
Mikey, your hipster glasses. What. Just. What.
And don't lie about musical theater. We all know you wanted to be in musicals.
They're always going to ask those standard questions, I'm surprised fans are still complaining about it. It's part of their base history now and a lot of reporters go over it so if you're new to the band, you can get the overview.
Plus, not everyone reads every interview by them ever. I think a lot of us here have a skewed vision of what is being asked because we follow obsessively. There's going to be standard questions that get asked everytime because it's band history. It's partly lazy, partly "educational".
I thought the questions were good and they were able to expand further on some of the stuff and actually the questions that were asked about those two subjects weren't necessarily the standard.
I just... find it better if people do their own back research if they're that curious? It's not hard to wiki, but the time could be used for other stuff we don't know the answer to yet?
But...why? I mean if there's an interview with a band that's supposed to be informational and pique your interest you can get your information there. That's kind of the point. This just gives an overview of basic information, that takes up 2 min of a diehard fan's time and gives it to a new listener who might be interested. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal.
It gives a new fan basic overview of the band's history and key points then they can go do additional research if they are interested. That seems like a great formula to me.
Which is why in a basic article about the band, or even in a normal interview, I do the same thing as everyone else, which is roll my eyes and don't say anything.
But especially in a comparatively rare situation like this, where there's a bunch of fans sitting right there who could probably as a bunch of new and interesting stuff? Especially since hearing that they were in the tabloids for such-and-such wouldn't want to make me know more if I was just a casual listener? I mean, it never made me interested in Marilyn Manson. And the 9/11 thing was so long ago, and Gerard keeps saying that the band has now moved on from being a reaction that, kind of?
Essentially, it's not as if I threw a fit or something. There was plenty of other stuff to talk about regarding the interview, and I talked about it. In great length, thus the size of my, as always, stupidly large comment. But after hearing about this stuff for years I just had to throw out a bit of a ~BLARGH WHY.
It just tends to annoy me when we do get a great interview and so many comments are expressing frustration about something that happens in the span of 2 min and then all the comments become about that. As you said, there's so much other great stuff here it seems silly to point out something that most in the community are frustrated or annoyed by and have expressed numerous times. As many times as they've answered those questions, fans have complained. It's annoying on both sides IMO.
I think it's great for the band to have an interesting origin story, to have some big controversial moments. Because it DOES get people interested but if they never discuss it in different interviews with different magazines, shows etc. people who could have gotten interested because of those things wouldn't ever. It might not have pulled you in but you know...you're not someone else. So who knows, why not cover everything?
I used to complain about those sorts of questions all the time, I obviously read and listen to pretty much everything related to MCR and I get sick of it. However, I do feel like it's a necessary evil
( ... )
Word. There's a reason even die-hard fans have a difficult time coming up with a truly new question, at least after the first round of press is done for a new album. As much as I do watch these things hoping for a bit of new information about SOMETHING, mostly I'm watching it to see the boys interact, because that never gets old (to me).
Exactly, I don't necessarily watch for the answers anymore although there will occasionally be a really great one but it's more for how they interact or banter not really related to the question because every interview is often a rehash ESPECIALLY in the beginning of promoting an album or tour. It's for new fans or prospective fans, not for me and I definitely have accepted that at this point.
I think...I don't know. Coming into the interviews as a diehard fan, interviews have ceased to be about information for me personally and I think it's a way to approach it that leads to a lot less annoyance. But that's just me.
Completely agreed on the interaction bit, at least. Interviews are more about AWW, GUYS, than anything else.
And I totally understand the bit about it being a necessary evil - but I just never expect to watch a band interview and get their origin story, and always feel frustrated when the questions are about something old and irrelevant, even if it's a new band and I actually didn't know the answer. I always sort of thought that you could just... judge by what you see the band doing now, and if you want to know about the past, then go look it up?
Blah. Like I said, I get it. I was just expressing my frustration amidst all the other stuff I noticed in the interview. \o/
No, I'm right there with you. I occasionally feel bad for THEM, having to answer the same questions a bazillion times, but it's part of the job, they KNOW it's part of the job, and especially when they get to do interviews with at least one other member of the band they figure out ways to have fun with it.
Like, if I had my way I would much rather get to listen to them talk about music they love for half an hour a la their iTunes celebrity playlist thing every time, but that's not how promotion works.
This was great. Would have been more original if the fans had been allowed to ask all the questions (I remember the first girl's LJ report about how the fans questions were essentially scripted? And WTF, 9/11 questions? And Daily Mail questions? For serious?)
Five kids in a room in the middle of nowhere made them content. I... like hearing that kind of stuff.
I find it hilarious that Gerard had ~theories about pop (though I kind of agree on Gaga and all). Like, he sits and comes up with ~theories.
Frank wants an MCE museum. He would totally be the curator in his old age, I bet.
And he breaks down after two days away from his kids. JWNFJbgejgnwejg.
And them all talking about Britpop and all, and Ray's like LOLNO.
Mikey, your hipster glasses. What. Just. What.
And don't lie about musical theater. We all know you wanted to be in musicals.
Reply
Reply
I thought the questions were good and they were able to expand further on some of the stuff and actually the questions that were asked about those two subjects weren't necessarily the standard.
Reply
Reply
It gives a new fan basic overview of the band's history and key points then they can go do additional research if they are interested. That seems like a great formula to me.
Reply
But especially in a comparatively rare situation like this, where there's a bunch of fans sitting right there who could probably as a bunch of new and interesting stuff? Especially since hearing that they were in the tabloids for such-and-such wouldn't want to make me know more if I was just a casual listener? I mean, it never made me interested in Marilyn Manson. And the 9/11 thing was so long ago, and Gerard keeps saying that the band has now moved on from being a reaction that, kind of?
Essentially, it's not as if I threw a fit or something. There was plenty of other stuff to talk about regarding the interview, and I talked about it. In great length, thus the size of my, as always, stupidly large comment. But after hearing about this stuff for years I just had to throw out a bit of a ~BLARGH WHY.
Reply
I think it's great for the band to have an interesting origin story, to have some big controversial moments. Because it DOES get people interested but if they never discuss it in different interviews with different magazines, shows etc. people who could have gotten interested because of those things wouldn't ever. It might not have pulled you in but you know...you're not someone else. So who knows, why not cover everything?
Reply
Obviously they have a right to ask them whatever they want. I just also have the right to mention that I'm annoyed once in a blue moon? Ah, well.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I think...I don't know. Coming into the interviews as a diehard fan, interviews have ceased to be about information for me personally and I think it's a way to approach it that leads to a lot less annoyance. But that's just me.
Reply
And I totally understand the bit about it being a necessary evil - but I just never expect to watch a band interview and get their origin story, and always feel frustrated when the questions are about something old and irrelevant, even if it's a new band and I actually didn't know the answer. I always sort of thought that you could just... judge by what you see the band doing now, and if you want to know about the past, then go look it up?
Blah. Like I said, I get it. I was just expressing my frustration amidst all the other stuff I noticed in the interview. \o/
Reply
Like, if I had my way I would much rather get to listen to them talk about music they love for half an hour a la their iTunes celebrity playlist thing every time, but that's not how promotion works.
Reply
Leave a comment