A Non-Commercial Decade Of Dominance!
Cosmoetica Bylines 1 2 3 4 5 6 Schneider Online 1 2 3 4 Archives GFSI Essays Seek & Destroy Books Schneider Fiction True Life Cinemension
To search Cosmoetica, click here. Despite this site's providing over 100,000 searches per month to Google, that company refuses to allow me to customize a site search w/o wanting to charge me $1000/yr for the privilege of providing them with customers and revenues.
The Dan Schneider Video Interviews: Taking Interviews To The Next Level!
on Twitter Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5
Latest Interview
414) Jill Dalton On Acting: She speaks.
**** Terrific talk.
Comment: Good one.
----------
413) The Decline Of Rock: Andy Edwards opines.
**** The decline of Rock?
Comment: Good talk.
----------
412) Art & Religion IV: Great convo.
****½ In depth stuff.
Comment: Digging in.
----------
----------
401) That Is Interesting: Geography.
**** Is.
Comment: Fun.
----------
402) The Last Sitcom: Great talk.
****½ Jacob King.
Comment: Beyond the screen.
----------
403) NYTN: History and genealogy.
**** Danielle Romero.
Comment: The past.
----------
404) Ars Natura 6: Grizzly Bears: Kings.
****½ Talking bears.
Comment: Louisa Willcox.
----------
405) Krazy Kat: Great talk.
****½ Da Boyz.
Comment: Great comic strip.
----------
406) The Yardbirds: Great band.
***½ Matt Williamson.
Comment: Good convo.
----------
407) On Melancholia: The Blues.
**** Takin' it.
Comment: The humors?
----------
408) Vivian Maier: The work.
**** Legend aborning.
Comment: Yes.
----------
409) Kay Adshead On Acting: Great convo.
****½ In depth.
Comment: Acting across the pond.
----------
410) Crime Films: CM Crockford opines.
**** Real or Hollywood?
Comment: Good talk?
----------
411) Pets, Love, Loss: Isaac Marion.
**** Watson's Story.
Comment: Watch!
----------
After reading some mediocre interviews, wherein the interviewees did not even bother to pretend to care about the questions asked them, nor the reading pleasure of Cosmoetica’s audience, the site’s fans wanted me to invoke a ratings system for interviews, figuring that the interviews that are great deserve more readership than the bad ones. And, since the high quality of the questions is static from interview to interview, it really points out how much of the interview’s success depends on the interviewee and his or her willingness to open up. Ironically, even the ‘lesser’ interviews are successes because they often unwittingly reveal the negative and/or malevolent side of the interviewee, just as the great interviews reveal the positive and intelligent side of the interviewee. Yet, even the lesser DSIs are miles above the fellatio and relentless hucksterism that passes as interviews online and in print.
Along with the rating, I will add comments relevant to the interview- be it quality, background information, and recollections of the pros and cons of the interview and interviewee.
So, herein I will invoke a 0 to 5 star rating system, with ½ stars invoked as needed.
***** 5 stars- a great interview, one that shows interviewing is an art form. The answers are in depth and treat the reading audience as the intelligent people they are, plus being highly quotable.
**** 4 stars- an excellent interview. The interviewee is often witty and intelligent, but perhaps is a bit reticent in a few areas, due to PC or their own nature. Still quotable.
*** 3 stars- a good, solid interview. Some high points that are quotable, but some negative points and ho-hum moments.
** 2 stars- a mediocre interview. Some good quotes but more often the interviewee is agenda pushing or being reticent and/or not taking the interview and the audience seriously. Good and bad points are about balanced.
* 1 star- a bad interview. Not quotable, and the interviewee thinks that DSIs are just run of the mill interviews found elsewhere. Rote answers and/or interviewee delusions can be seen. Not quotable.
zero (0) stars- an atrocity. The interviewee has no real reason for doing the interview save to serve their own ego and/or ax to grind.
Enjoy the interviews, but make sure you compare the great and bad interviews with each other, and the differences between how the interviewees approach the questions (and often the exact same questions) and the quality of the interviews.
Copyright ©2001-2011 by Dan Schneider