Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
Read my interview with Propagandhi here or dock yourself twelve scene points.
One of the most important bands in punk rock today. Love the subject title too - "Head Chest Or Foot?" is one of my favourite Prop songs. I only wish he and Fat Mike become friends again...
How the hell is this an interview? I bloody hope you didnt waste Propagandhi's time in order to write this shit? If you're gonna do an interview, why not find out relevant information that people want, such as when they are returning to the UK? People read interviews because they want to hear from the band, not from the interviewer.
It's an article. An article that is the same as every other article ever written about them
Fantastic band, useless information.
It's not really an interview as such but I wouldn't call it shit far from it.
an interview about when they'r returning to the uk? well, gosh, it's always good to contain information that'll be on EVERY FAT WRECK mailout from as soon as it's announced.
if you want question-answer i can send you the transcript. journalism is about crafting articles.
journalism is journalism, crafting articles to represent a story as the journalist wishes to portray it to his/her audience.
however, when you state that something is an interview, it generally suggests that there is going to be a question/answer format within the article, especially as every other interview on the website has consisted of this.
so before you take out your incompetence upon the readers of the website, which keep the website alive, perhaps you should pull your head out of the ground and offer the full interview to the readers. people who are interested in the band, i.e. the people who will read the interview, already know about their past and their aims so you do not need to spray paint it over the page as if you're presenting ground breaking material.
present the bloody interview and stop talking shit in your defence.
I perhaps wouldnt have been so blunt or rude but I do agree with the sentiment of the negative comments.
Mate, no offence but this is Punktastic not Rolling Stone and we don't give two shits about good journalism! People don't want to read a load of shit about your opinions of a band and their views; they wanna see what the band themselves have to say about things.
The phrase ideas above your station rings a bell...
yeah i'd love the transcript thanks. after all, thats what im after when i read the 'interviews' section of this site.
Could you PM it please?
That's just fucking absurd. Seriously. Maybe you don't care much for well written articles but I'd sooner read something by someone with a brain than have some illiterate keyboard warrior pandering to lazy journalism. If you want trashy and poorly worded reviews and articles there's a load of other sites that do just that. Punktastic has always had a really high standard of writing and I, for one, am fucking glad.
I agree, I really cant fault this sites jornalism on the whole, but tell me, what did you take from that article? Are you more educated? Do you feel that you have a further insight into the band? The article is well written, there is no denying that, just not much content.
U PRICK! What is wrong with you? Do you seriously come on PT to admire the writing skills of the 'journalists'????? If that's what you want, go and read the fucking evening standard you cunt! It doesn't even require any writing skills to transcribe an interview, maybe if this was a review then well worded paragraphs would be neccesary.
PT is for information, insights and news on various bands. Peter is right - yes it's a nice and pretty article, well written, would get an A* in GCSE English, but it has given the reader NOTHING in terms of information regarding Propagandhi. kiss kiss kiss.
I don't remember saying that i wanted "trashy and poorly worded articles" because to have said that I would have to be an idiot. What I did want and what I expected when i saw the word 'interview' would be a transcript of the conversation, possibly preceded by a short introduction about the band.
I can't understand how any fan of Propagandhi would find that article particularly interesting. There was no new info so the only reason I can see for people to defend it would be:
a) They'd never heard of Propagandhi before or
b) They're brown-noses, sucking up to Punktastic.
There's nothing wrong with me, but to get so riled by an internet message board and the fact an article was called an interview there may, indeed, be something seriously wrong with you. I don't come on to the site to solely admire the writing skills of the staff. I come onto the site to read well written articles, interviews, reviews, etc about bands I like, amongst other things including having a laugh a people acting like complete twats and slating someone's hard work because they chose not to go down the route of digging up dirt on the dispute between Propagandhi and Fat Mike. Ben's article, as well a showing a great deal of integrity, is well written and about a band I like. It satisfies me, therefore. And I'd rather not read the evening standard, 'you cunt'. I also like the way you've decided the agenda of the site, I'm pretty sure you don't have anything to do with the running of the site, so if Ben wanted to do a question and answer format interview he could have done, he obviously chose not to and now he's getting slated for calling it an interview. I suppose he should be sorry his work didn't meet your aims of what Punktastic is for and didn't seek your permission. Perhaps an article would have been a more apt name for it... but again the levels of pedancy and your apparent anger (were the personal insults really necessary?) suggest you should really calm down and get a life.
a) I am a fan of Propagandhi, and b) I have no need to brown-nose or suck up to Punktastic, nice assumption though. Perhaps category c) may be more useful: (i) it's an article (not an interview) that reminds those of us who know Propagandhi how important, integral and vital they are to modern punk rock and (ii) it serves as a great introduction to those who aren't so familar to the band and wouldn't really get much basic info. out of a long Q&A style interview.
roflcopter man calm down it's only the internet rofl
I thought it'd be best to respond to this seperately as you seem capable of having a discussion without resorting to personal insults or accusing me of sucking up to Punktastic.
I didn't learn anything more from the article myself, but I consider myself to be a big fan of the band. It would have been quite easy for Ben to dig up stuff on arguments between the band and Fat Mike and ask them questions that have been asked by every other website around the world. It appears instead that he chose to write an article that serves as a good introduction to the band for those not so familar with them. His crime is apparently calling the work an interview when, perhaps, an article would have been better suited. So what, who really cares? Does that slight pedantic error on his part really deserve the torrents of abuse he received, baring in mind he obviously put in a lot of (his own) time and effort into writing it?
Question/Answer transcripts are so boring.
I'd much rather read a feature like this, as it at least shows a bit of thought.
There would have been no winners going down the fat mike route, and there is no way I could have done better, I think the best way to put it for myself would be I would like to see what Ben had done but expanded, propaghandi are such legends with so much to say, I felt a bit short changed, I guess I just wanted more.
i don't get what their problem is with Soros in particular... he's a genius who has made a hell of a lot of money through decent investments. sure, if you're going to nitpick over every little thing, his 'ethics' are questionable, but so are those of somebody who has ever bought a can of coke, or worked at Sainsburys, etc...
in my opinion, he was an easy target to get the band some attention.
i also didn't like the way the guy came across in the interview as trying to be some over-eloquent anti-capitalist, to try and trick kids into thinking "wow, he uses some big words, his point of view must be right". One good question for him would have been "tell me what kind of market you think would work in today's society, if you don't like capitalism and you don't like capitalists who donate a significant proportion of their net worth to worthy causes, including a cause you support (removing Bush)".
Also, from Soros's Wikipedia site : "Most of all, George believed even then in a mixed economy, one with a strong central international government to correct for the excesses of self-interest." Again, this is more in line with Propagandhi's views than the majority of people working in finance, so again, I ask, why George Soros? You only have to browse down the Forbes rich list to find a plethora of people this band could go after whose views & actions conflict with their own far more than George Soros's.
I enjoy their music, but bands, for the most part, think they're entitled to way more of a platform to plug political opinion than they should. It's sad, because at the end of the day, Propagandhi do put out some really decent tunes, but in my opinion their attempts at being political are poor and misguided.
one: anyone having a go at me for being too journalisty - thank you, it's my chosen career, fuel my fire.
two: the article was written for another magazine, whose readers aren't very well versed on punk music, let alone propagandhi.
two part two: not everyone knows as much about your favourite band as you do - if you want to be so fucking precious and keep them for yourself so no one ever learns about them, fine. find another webzine to patronise, punktastic is about openness and the unity that comes with sharing music. if you have a childlike affection for bands that you're too fucking bratty to share, please never come back to this site again.
three: there is no section of the site for 'articles'
four: there is a section of the site for 'interviews'.
five: do you understand my point about parts three and four? if not, please go back to the start.
six: the interview was conducted over email. i've read so many interviews with propagandhi where they've been barracked into talking about the fat mike / whatever incident that i made the choice to focus on different things. i'll post the full transcipt below this post so that you can see what i had to work with. it wasn't much.
seven: i'd love to see your effort. seriously, give writing a go.
love, hugs and more love.
Date: 2/09/2006 15:28:12 +0100
To: Ben Patashnik <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: PROPAGANDHI interviews!!! All headers
Dies ist eine mehrteilige Nachricht im MIME-Format.
hi - here are chris' answers! and pics. thanks, wiebke
> ...questions from a UK netzine...
> OK, here are the questions for Propagandhi. Please pass on my
> thanks to
> band for taking the time to read and respond to them, I'm sure they
> flooded with inane bullshit every time they put a record out.
> 1. Is Potemkin City Limits designed to be a development of the musical
> lyrical ideas expressed on Todays Empires..., or an entirely new stage
i don't know? we don't really have a gameplan when we put new songs
together. they just kinda happen. i'd like to think that they build
upon past musical and lyrical ideas, but that is up to the individual
listener to decide.
> 2. When writing/constructing the new album were there any particular
> that you felt merited automatic inclusion? Or was it simply a
> what you felt were the best complete songs you'd written?
yeah, again, no real gameplan. maybe some themes were inevitable
given events of our time, but we don't sit down with a checklist of
issues we need to address. the process is fairly chaotic.
> 3. A very specific question now: is the lyric "Well, I think when
> all is
> said and done, just cause we were young doesn't mean we were wrong"
> as a 'fuck-you' to people that haven't necessarily agreed with your
> in the past? And does it mean you stand by everything you've said
> in the
no, it's more of a tip of the hat to youthful piety in relation to
protecting (sub)culture from the proverbial money-changers. young
people, for better or worse, are generally better at being strident
about their principles. as people get older, they customarily soften
their positions on things: often for the better, sometimes for the
worse. that song is nostalgic for a time when a dialogue about music
and economy was very much on the agenda. bands and labels making
millions of dollars selling garbage to uncritical consumers don't
want that dialogue resurrected.
> 4. What would it take for you to be able to think "Propagandhi isn't
> any more - everything we wanted to change has come into effect"?
well, the band is only "needed" insofar as we remain interested,
regardless of what happens in the world around us. honestly, we're
just three friends who have enjoyed rocking out together over the
years. we don't really have any delusions of grandeur about what
being in the band means.
> 5. How do you feel about people consuming your music, say on a mixtape
> between Rancid and Good Charlotte? Or eating a Mcdonalds in the queue
> for a
> Propagandhi show?
ambivalent. people listen to music for a million different reasons. i
have no reason to expect everyone to "get it", and i think it would
be transparently hokey to pretend that i was shocked or outraged by
the fact that they don't (or that they do get it and don't care).
> 6. While you were making Potemkin..., were there any elements from
> Propagandhi albums that you wanted ro revisit and update?
i don't think so? at least not consciously.
> 7. Would you consider releasing future albums on another label? Why /
i would rather have naked diarrhea in a zero-G one-man space capsule
than think about future albums.
> 8. You've talked about having to compromise to a certain extent - what
> you bend to?
i suppose i'm willing to compromise with anyone who doesn't expect
people to throw away their principles. i find most people who make
calls for "unity" almost always expect that unity to be on their
terms. i shit on unity.
> Thank you - I only did 8 because the first few are pretty in depth.
> again for your time Wiebke and Propagandhi.
thanks ben! much appreciated!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests