Moderator: Andrew
strangegrey wrote:Andrew, I think this needs to be said publicly.
two words. Thank you!
First, let me say, I love your interviews. Some of them have been better than others. But as a whole, they've been informative, entertaining and enlightening.
Anyway, I realized something this morning, as I'm reading your Herbie interview...in that while sometimes you don't go for the jugular in an interview, you *always* strive to twist optimism out of the interview. In todays day and age, optimism is very, very hard to find. Your interviews strive to be informative, while at the same time you offer an opportunity for you to become a sort of ambassador for the interviewee. I'm sure you understand just how hard this is. I don't think that most people here can see the distinction. Most other journalists will attack their interviewee with hard questions and strive to glean a nugget of controversy from the interview, in an effort to attain leverage with the final product. Sometimes, this isn't necessary at all. It takes a damn good interviewer to recognize that and not scratch under the surface with serrated knives that'll leave a scar.
So I'm going to come right out and say, I think your interview with Herbie Herbert will go down as one of the best interviews you've ever done.
I'll expand on this in a minute.
When Herbie speaks, I usually listen. He's sorta like Simon Cowell. He's rarely wrong, despite the fact that sometimes you don't want to hear what he has to say. So to speak plainly... Rght or wrong, I tend to trust Herbie above all others. Let me say that while Herbie's interview was informative, more significantly, it has allowed me to open my eyes to some of the positive aspects surrounding Journey right now and for the first time in years, I'm looking at Journey in a different light.
In fact, right now, while writing this, I'm listening to Journey. Something I haven't done in, literally, years. (other than to reference a youtube here or there)
I'm a firm believer that the interviewer controls about 75% of the tone of the interview. If an interviewee has an axe to grind, you can't get around that fact. But if the interviewer is neutral, it's up to the interviewer to set the tone. In this particular case, Herbie said it himself, he has "no dog in this fight." So to come to the point, you had an opportunity to direct this interview in any direction you wanted. You could have taken Herbie to a place where he would have blasted Cain, Perry and Schon for all of their faults. And I firmly believe Herbie could have done that with ease. Instead you chose to take the interview in this positive direction. Sure there were times were Herbie didn't speak positively about Perry or Cain. But the interview wasn't dominated by such a flavor.
So to close, thanks for this interview. It's exactly what I needed right now to dust off the chaps and get back into the rodeo.
strangegrey wrote:Andrew, I think this needs to be said publicly.
two words. Thank you!
I'm a firm believer that the interviewer controls about 75% of the tone of the interview. If an interviewee has an axe to grind, you can't get around that fact. But if the interviewer is neutral, it's up to the interviewer to set the tone. In this particular case, Herbie said it himself, he has "no dog in this fight." So to come to the point, you had an opportunity to direct this interview in any direction you wanted. You could have taken Herbie to a place where he would have blasted Cain, Perry and Schon for all of their faults. And I firmly believe Herbie could have done that with ease. Instead you chose to take the interview in this positive direction. Sure there were times were Herbie didn't speak positively about Perry or Cain. But the interview wasn't dominated by such a flavor.
strangegrey wrote:So to close, thanks for this interview. It's exactly what I needed right now to dust off the chaps and get back into the rodeo.
strangegrey wrote:Andrew, I think this needs to be said publicly.
two words. Thank you!
First, let me say, I love your interviews. Some of them have been better than others. But as a whole, they've been informative, entertaining and enlightening.
Anyway, I realized something this morning, as I'm reading your Herbie interview...in that while sometimes you don't go for the jugular in an interview, you *always* strive to twist optimism out of the interview. In todays day and age, optimism is very, very hard to find. Your interviews strive to be informative, while at the same time you offer an opportunity for you to become a sort of ambassador for the interviewee. I'm sure you understand just how hard this is. I don't think that most people here can see the distinction. Most other journalists will attack their interviewee with hard questions and strive to glean a nugget of controversy from the interview, in an effort to attain leverage with the final product. Sometimes, this isn't necessary at all. It takes a damn good interviewer to recognize that and not scratch under the surface with serrated knives that'll leave a scar.
So I'm going to come right out and say, I think your interview with Herbie Herbert will go down as one of the best interviews you've ever done.
I'll expand on this in a minute.
When Herbie speaks, I usually listen. He's sorta like Simon Cowell. He's rarely wrong, despite the fact that sometimes you don't want to hear what he has to say. So to speak plainly... Rght or wrong, I tend to trust Herbie above all others. Let me say that while Herbie's interview was informative, more significantly, it has allowed me to open my eyes to some of the positive aspects surrounding Journey right now and for the first time in years, I'm looking at Journey in a different light.
In fact, right now, while writing this, I'm listening to Journey. Something I haven't done in, literally, years. (other than to reference a youtube here or there)
I'm a firm believer that the interviewer controls about 75% of the tone of the interview. If an interviewee has an axe to grind, you can't get around that fact. But if the interviewer is neutral, it's up to the interviewer to set the tone. In this particular case, Herbie said it himself, he has "no dog in this fight." So to come to the point, you had an opportunity to direct this interview in any direction you wanted. You could have taken Herbie to a place where he would have blasted Cain, Perry and Schon for all of their faults. And I firmly believe Herbie could have done that with ease. Instead you chose to take the interview in this positive direction. Sure there were times were Herbie didn't speak positively about Perry or Cain. But the interview wasn't dominated by such a flavor.
So to close, thanks for this interview. It's exactly what I needed right now to dust off the chaps and get back into the rodeo.
Im not the expert,but it was 8 years for Steve A,and they added extra tours at the end of The Main Event,and other tours they did to bringin that extra $$annie89509 wrote:The only thing I would question Andrew about is his apparent affirmation with Herbie that SA did more performances than SP. How could this be true? Our own SJ, before he turned a total about-face, condemned HH as a slave-driver "ruining" SP's voice with relentless touring. He posted Journey's touring schedule from Infinity-Frontiers to boost his claim. There were hardly any gaps on the calendar. Infinity tour went all year. Short break to record Evolution-back on the road. Same with Departure. Escape spanned 2 years. Frontiers record came out in 1983 = tour from March to October.
Sure, SA toured every year he was with the band, but none much longer than 6 months. Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong. And I think they even skipped 1 year to make a record.
And this thing about SA being frontman for Journey longer than SP? SA = 2-1/2 records. SP = 8 studio albums (counting DreamAfterDream); live album with 2 new songs; countless personal appearances and videos (almost all of which one can find posted on YouTube for posterity).
If all this makes me sound like a loon, so be it.
stevew2 wrote:Im not the expert,but it was 8 years for Steve A,and they added extra tours at the end of The Main Event,and other tours they did to bringin that extra $$annie89509 wrote:The only thing I would question Andrew about is his apparent affirmation with Herbie that SA did more performances than SP. How could this be true? Our own SJ, before he turned a total about-face, condemned HH as a slave-driver "ruining" SP's voice with relentless touring. He posted Journey's touring schedule from Infinity-Frontiers to boost his claim. There were hardly any gaps on the calendar. Infinity tour went all year. Short break to record Evolution-back on the road. Same with Departure. Escape spanned 2 years. Frontiers record came out in 1983 = tour from March to October.
Sure, SA toured every year he was with the band, but none much longer than 6 months. Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong. And I think they even skipped 1 year to make a record.
And this thing about SA being frontman for Journey longer than SP? SA = 2-1/2 records. SP = 8 studio albums (counting DreamAfterDream); live album with 2 new songs; countless personal appearances and videos (almost all of which one can find posted on YouTube for posterity).
If all this makes me sound like a loon, so be it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests