A Quote by Davy Jones

I'm so reluctant to do newspaper interviews because it's so misleading how they interpret what you say. — © Davy Jones
I'm so reluctant to do newspaper interviews because it's so misleading how they interpret what you say.
You know how misleading an image is. You see an image in the newspaper, if they left the caption off, good luck knowing what's going on. There is something inherently misleading about images, so they need annotation.
I prefer doing interviews where people don't have to interpret what you say. I'm going to be real honest.
I feel like what I say on Twitter has actually a lower rate of misinterpretation than what I say on interviews because I'm just kind of rambling on interviews, and I'm just talking, talking and talking.
It would be misleading to say, 'I believe in the Force,' in the same sense that it would be misleading to say, 'I believe in the sun.' Give it whatever name you like - the Force, the Tao, the Holy Spirit, the Universal Mind - I see it in action everywhere I look, both in the world and in myself.
I've done thousands of interviews in my life, and it's a format that I quite enjoy, because I think of questions in interviews as an opportunity to sort of gauge my growth in a way. It gives me an idea of how I'm navigating this world that I'm in.
It's really hard to talk about writing, and I'm usually conscious if I'm misleading people or misleading the questioner, because the problem with writing is the next line.
I like to interpret 'Call me a River', as if I'm saying, 'Now you're telling me you love me after all that, and I'm telling you to shove off.' That's my interpretation. But I would never 'say' that because somebody else might interpret the song in another way.
In an email... like I did 100 interviews, and I never repeated one story. That's impossible to do when you do face-to-face interviews, because your brain locks and you say the same thing over and over again.
I remember when I was in Mid-South and they used to tape interviews every Wednesday morning, and I wasn't required to go to the interviews because I was a rookie and I wasn't cutting any interviews - I was a curtain jerker. But I went every Wednesday anyway because I was going to watch those guys and I was going to glean from them.
For the rhapsode ought to interpret the mind of the poet to his hearers, but how can he interpret him well unless he knows what he means?
I approach my interviews with the mindset of, exactly what are we selling? How can I sell it the hardest and the most effectively in the fewest words possible? And how can I make each word that I say mean as much as it possibly can? And I bring that perspective to the table because I used to focus a lot on the character that I had to play.
In terms of, like, interviews, I used to struggle a lot with interviews; I never knew what to say.
A few of these interviews have gone slightly awry, because every now and again there has been the odd conflict of interest between interviews because of the Iron Maiden record, and I am a bit long-winded.
Given how few young people actually read the newspaper, it's a good thing they'll be reading a newspaper on a screen.
I would say the No. 1 problem with the Volcker Rule is it's too complicated, and people don't know how to interpret it.
What's important is the way we say it. Art is all about craftsmanship. Others can interpret craftsmanship as style if they wish. Style is what unites memory or recollection, ideology, sentiment, nostalgia, presentiment, to the way we express all that. It's not what we say but how we say it that matters.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!