Luke Burbank's descent into the final level of interview hell.
Sigur Ros: "Suck it, Burbank."NPR's new "hip, edgy" morning show launched recently, and they pledged to do things differently. You have to worry about any media endeavor that's created by demographic demands, but I met some of the folks behind it when I was in New York recently, and they seemed sharp, interesting and (relatively, for public radio) cool. Particularly sharp and interesting in my book is co-host Luke Burbank, who's vivacious and funny and pleasant on air, and probably actually likes rock music produced after 1974. They were probably counting on the lattermost quality when they booked Sigur Ros on the show.
Sigur Ros, for those who don't know, are an Icelandic band who have achieved worldwide success recording beautiful, ethereal orchestral rock with lyrics in a made-up language. It becomes quickly clear in this interview that they did not achieve worldwide success by being nice to interviewers.
Perhaps Luke wasn't terrified as each question he asked was met by a five-second silence and a one-sentence answer. If he was, he hid it well. I know that I would have been flipping the fuck out. At one point, Luke asks the band (paraphrasing from memory), "So, what's your process to create the songs." A bandmember replies, "We get together and create the songs."
As the interview decends into madness, Luke makes a few mistakes -- yes or no questions, that kind of thing. But I can say from experience that given the pressure to come up with a new approach every ten seconds to try to crack a completely standoffish, uncommunicative subject -- and an arts one to whom you don't want to be combatative -- he did an amazing job. I know that when you do this kind of interview, it makes you want to crawl into a hole and die. As an interviewer, you rely upon the good will of your subject. If they don't care about your audience, there's little you can do. That's what happened here.
I was surprised by some of the blog responses on the NPR site, and some of the comments on MetaFilter, where I first saw the story. Is my empathy for interviewers getting in the way of having a clear view of this situation? What do you think? Is this band justified in striking back at the media for being inane? Is it insulting to ask a band who sings in a made up language why they sing in a made up language?
My kudos to Bryant Park for posting the video of the interview, at the very minimum. I'm interested to hear what you think.
Video
Labels: public radio, rock
Like this post? Click here to subscribe to the blog.
posted by Jesse Thorn at Friday, October 12, 2007
9 Comments:
Saw this earlier on the metafilter and couldn't stop laughing. I really kind of like Bryant Park, and I have really kind of liked Burbank since he guest-hosted Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me once.
It was both painful and hilarious to watch. Burbank tried SO hard to get it together but it really didn't work. The four members with dumb names just kind of looked at each other and then one of them would basically repeat the question with a period at the end.
I feel awful for Burbank, but I guess he tried his best. Sigur Ros still makes some pretty good music, I guess.
Wow, who would have ever guessed that a band that makes boring music and sings in an invented language would be pretentious assholes?
I'm gonna place some of the blame on the interviewer, his questions were a bit generic. Then again, he could have employed some standard questions that might have gotten a better response ... like "how did you guys meet each other?" or "who was your favorite band when you were a kid"?
What about you, Jesse? You're prerecording your show these days. Did you ever have an interview go so badly that you decided to scrap it entirely? Have you ever felt like screaming "Why the fuck are you even here" at an interview subject? You don't have to name names (but you can if you want to).
P.S. Did anyone notice that the Sigur Ros dude in the white T-shirt looks like Jack McBrayer? Like if Jack McBrayer was really sullen and disliked speaking. Which would essentially make him the anti-JackMcBrayer.
I cut a lot of silence out of the Betty Davis interview, but I've never just not run an interview. We had some bad ones in the live days, but more recently, it's been almost universally good.
I remember that Betty Davis interview ... that was actually sort of interesting, just in terms of her being so much more mild-mannered than one would expect from her music (and her freaky album covers).
Wow. Just... wow. Anyone claiming the interviewer is the one at fault here is completely delusional.
I will say he should have known their interview history better.
Yeah, I think I'm with daveb. He askes them if they've always played "this kind of music," without really describing their music. It's possible he played a track or something that's not included on this video, but otherwise I don't think it's a great way to phrase the question.
Also, he asks them kind of generic questions, rather than asking them specifically about their history - at no point does he ask them about how they met and started playing together, for instance.
He also doesn't really seem to know a ton about the band. "Hopelandic" was only really only one album, but rather than ask why they decided to use it, he asks them if it's on all the songs or some of the songs. And he asks them if they're going to use it "going forward," but the album after () (the gibberish album), Takk, uses just plain Icelandic.
They obviously weren't being helpful with their answers. Some of that may have been because it seemed at first they weren't sure who would be answering, but the questions weren't exactly stimulating.
This interview is many things; perhaps most obviously an example of the cultural differences between the interviewer, and the subjects. Neither is to blame in my opinion; both parties simply were not flexible to the other, nor were they on the same page.
For example and at the risk of generalizing, the art of conversation in the nordic countries differs greatly from america. The band was asked closed ended questions, which to many people means a yes or no answer. They were also asked more than 1 question at a time, and the question was at times followed by a comment from the interviewer. (a comment probably made in attempt to increase the flow of dialogue) This may have been confusing for them, not knowing which question to comment on.
I am a north american who lives in Scandanavia, and it has taken me some time to learn the differences in how conversations work here. Perhaps Sigor Ros, having probably had more exposure to American culture than the interviewer knows Iceland culture, could have been more flexible in the discussion. But perhaps they were not in the mood to, and hoped that the interviewer would adapt to them instead. (which most great interviewers would aspire to excel at)
Interviews are also different in the nordic countries, dead air is not feared, and most people are very soft spoken and deliberate. No words are wasted, and a subject is discussed until there is nothing left to say, whereas in north america people have a tendincy to shift quicker from topic to topic in a conversation(as took place in the line of questioning).
I think this interview was simply an example of cultural disconnect between the two parties.
Im from iceland, and i kind of hate Sigur Rós. They are total assholes in that interview.
Ari from Iceland
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home