should be software for it eh?

yes.

they're probably is, only I am too technically incompetent to know about it.

I still use tape and dictaphone. but so does andy r, so I'm not alone in my old skool ways.

Shittest job ever. If interviews actually paid decently you could hire a schmoe for it. But alas.

there.

not they're.

see? my brain is fried from hours and hours of it.

you could hire me. i like doing it

sucks even more when it wasn't you who did the interview and you can't make out what the interviewer is asking

haven't interviewed anyone for about 8 years. Thank christ!

Transcribing is fine - it will write the story for you if you did the interview okay.
And the more you do it the easier and quicker it gets.

>Transcribing is fine - it will write the story for you if you did the interview okay.
>And the more you do it the easier and quicker it gets.

you lie, you lie! it does not write the story for you. though it gives you some idea of structure, angle, etc.

I've been transcribing interviews for about eight years and though my typing speed is now much quicker, I still hate it just as much.

where is mathieson to back me up? I know he hates it too.

transcribing an interview with ian mackaye takes about 14 hours.

motherfucker can talk.

i used to hate it, but got used to it. having a digital recorder with a usb out is handy - you can dump the audio files to something like itunes and play them back just using your spacebar to stop and start the track (obviously alt + tab' ing between applications), rather than having to fumble with buttons, taking your hands off the keyboard.

HATE IT!!

i hate the tediousness of it, and i hate listening to my own voice.

once it's done, everything else is easy.

dodgy equipment makes it even harder. i've been recording phoners straight into my pc, which helps a bit. but still. can't the computer do all the work for me?

psychedelicsounds: i know!!

psych/adam: I also know!

prediction: this'll turn into a "who's interviewed ian mackaye" thread...

I hate interviewing a lot - the transcription is a relief after the stress of actually having to talk to the person. But I have conducted interviews with the phone jammed against my ear, typing their responses straight into Word.

I'm a pretty fast typist.

rosie, i know whereof you speak - those fucking cheap phone bugs from tandy/dick smith always used to die on me (even when i'd done test recordings) 30 secs before an i/v.

having a headset phone makes that easier; the neck cramp from the direct typed phoner is almost never worth the bites.

I haven't interviewed ian mackaye :(

but I'm currently 3/4 through the fourth transcription of the fourth band member of a (you guessed it) four member band, all interviewed separately. I'm going insane.

that really has to suck.

i'm trying to salvage a comets on fire interview that's been spoiled by my minidisc player shitting itself and it's proving to be a nightmare and a half. especially since it was one of the better interviews i've ever done.

I once interviewed somebody on the phone (with one of those phone bug mics - you know they're actually illegal! heh heh heh) and the tape came out blank! just hisssssssss.

I had to write the whole article from memory.

and yes, I had pressed record and had the volume up.

I hate the tediousness of it, and i hate listening to my own voice.

Agreed adam, it takes me so long to get started transcribing purely because I know that I'm going to have to listen to my own voice, not to mention my inane questions, stumblings and irritating laugh.

Glad I record onto my iPod now though, I find it a lot easier to negotiate than the dictaphone.

I haven't interviewed Ian Mackaye either. Does Ian Astbury count?

I still use the suction cup mic feeding into the old walkman. I have an ancient rotary dial phone that gives good sound quality to the mic. And a tip I got from Ben Butler; always turn your computer monitor off if using the old walkman - they interfere with the recording. Same goes, I've learned, with mobile phones.

P.S. Transcribing is Satan's way of winning over despairing souls.

does that make you a terrorist?

If there's too many mistakes in the transcription I'll be an errorist.

a zionist errorist?

That sounds more Seussian.

i would never ever do it. Each to his own but it's the wrong call imo. Convenience isn't always the best way.

I think chrisj said it best.

I blogged here: writers outsourcing interview transcriptions: lazy or smart?

Um, please take my real name off that, thank you very much.

So what does Tamara charge?

sighs, presses ''play'', presses ''pause'', types six words, presses ''play'' again...

Yep, it's go time.

Tamara's details are in nite shok's blog post now, mathieson, should you wish to avail yourself of her services.

Nah, each to their own and I need to hear it before I write. Besides, current tape is a clear recording of an orderly, low tempo talker - reams and reams of words without having to pause.

sounds like you need to invest in a pedal. there are pro transcribers at my work. we quote 6 mins to transcribe 1 min of audio.

Done.

Suck it up, sooks.

lord, give me strength and patience to try and work out what this icon of the australian alternative is saying to me on the phone while distracted putting his children to bed on this recording.

and as to the above argument - yes, i would love someone to just write down the words, the nuance should be remembered from the conversation anyway.

ITS DRIVING ME FUCKEN MENTAL RIGHT NOW.

there, thats better.

An hour and five minutes long and done!

Who was it with?

You should interview Lex from the tribe. His real name is Caleb and apparently he is writing an autobiography. hope its one of those tell-alls.

Nice work, Matho. I bet it's enlightening

half way through a 56-minuter now. boring but important. sound quality not great, echoey room.

Due to some issues with international calling, I'm doing my first online chat interview this evening. Has anyone done one? It's pretty cool that I won't have to transcribe, at least.