Darkstarexodus, on 22 April 2011 - 12:00 AM, said:
But I do love reading/hearing more about the creative process because I think that gives a lot of insight into them as people and artists, and also provides better understanding of the music itself. It helps to contextualize music that inspires such a physical and emotion response.
The physical and emotional response is what I get most out of their music, I think. It all comes to a head in the live setting, but I will never forget how I felt or where I was mentally and physically, and what I was doing on the day where I listened- really, really listened - and let the music find me. Yet the response to the music need not be some grand revelation that unlocks the secret to the universe or some nonsense. I like that it can simply make you want to dance, or it's good music to listen to in your car, or hearing it when you're out of your element about town can bring a smile to your face. I think the emotional and physical response of the music (and this isn't 100% unique to the Chems) is the hardest thing to describe to people without sounding completely bonkers. Thanks fellow Chems fans!
Anyway, back to the article. It's always a pleasure to read an interview on how things work and what went into the finished product you hear. I admit the techie interviews where they start going deep into the gear and technical processes are out of my league of comprehension sometimes (though still fascinating). But the insight into the creative process, how they got there, what the experience was like, what they wanted to achieve... maybe it's a bit more in layman's terms, but that is something that is within my scope of understanding.