Rick Probstein interviews Bill Mastro

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Collectorsince62

The interview was like listening to Pete Rose. A brash personality who knows a lot about the history and inner workings of his industry, a very tarnished reputation after being on top of his world, semi-repentant about his deceit, simultaneously embraced and hated . . . but interesting as hell.

That's a good analogy, as Mastro is certainly a polarizing figure. I did enjoy hearing Mastro's thoughts (like him or not). My name appeared on the "You've been shilled List" when it was released... and yes it was a real downer. So while I'm certainly not a fan of Mastro or what he did, I was still quite interested to hear the story from his perspective.

Pete Rose (even at his advanced age) probably knows as much about baseball as anyone alive today. I would've put Don Zimmer in that category before he passed, as well. The hobby equivalent is undeniably Mastro. Like Rose, he is still passionate about the hobby and expresses a moderate degree of remorse. Whether it's remorse over what he did or just at getting caught is open to interpretation. Still, some of my best pieces came from the early days of Mastro Auctions (dating back to Mastro & Steinbach).

I agree that Probstein should stick to his "day job", as his interviewing skills were awful, to the point of maddening. Just as Mastro would hit on an interesting topic, Probstein would interrupt him or change course. Just let him speak, for Christ's sake. A good interviewer lets the person complete their thoughts and then bases the follow-up question(s) on what's been revealed (assuming the interviewer possesses good listening skills). Johnny Carson was the master of this, and even Leno was far superior to the current Late Night crop.

Anyway, Mastro's stories of the early days were engaging. I would've liked to hear more about his federal prison experience and how he built his auction house into the empire it was back in the day. Sounded like a follow-up interview might be in the works.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by perezfan

A good interviewer lets the person complete their thoughts and then bases the follow-up question(s) on what's been revealed (assuming the interviewer possesses good listening skills). Johnny Carson was the master of this, and even Leno was far superior to the current Late Night crop.

Howard Stern might be the best interviewer and makes the very most of the hour or so he has with his guests.

Did not watch the Mastro interview yet so I cannot comment.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Christiana Amanpour.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by perezfan

I agree that Probstein should stick to his "day job", as his interviewing skills were awful, to the point of maddening. Just as Mastro would hit on an interesting topic, Probstein would interrupt him or change course. Just let him speak, for Christ's sake. A good interviewer lets the person complete their thoughts and then bases the follow-up question(s) on what's been revealed (assuming the interviewer possesses good listening skills). Johnny Carson was the master of this, and even Leno was far superior to the current Late Night crop.

That's the secret sauce in the baseball oral history classic, "The Glory of Their Times." Having listened to all of Ritter's original interview tapes, his patience with the players is what stands out as the key to the great stories he got out of them. I sometimes wondered if something had happened as the seconds rolled by while Larry sat silently to allow his subject to travel back in time in his mind. No attempt to hurry them, prod them for specifics, show off his knowledge of their careers, none of that. Just silence. Then, after what seemed like minutes sometimes, when the player was satisfied that his memory had filled in enough of the detail from many decades long past, he would launch into one of the amazing stories that make the book so magical. If a course in "Interviewing for Oral History" was ever taught, one of the textbooks should be Ritter and GOTT. You can hear the process at work on the audio set, even with a lot of editing for time and flow.

[egri]

Originally Posted by perezfan

I agree that Probstein should stick to his "day job", as his interviewing skills were awful, to the point of maddening. Just as Mastro would hit on an interesting topic, Probstein would interrupt him or change course. Just let him speak, for Christ's sake. A good interviewer lets the person complete their thoughts and then bases the follow-up question(s) on what's been revealed (assuming the interviewer possesses good listening skills). Johnny Carson was the master of this, and even Leno was far superior to the current Late Night crop.

I once listened to an interview with a Civil War veteran that was the same way. The veteran had been at Pickett's Charge, and it sounded like he was about to go into a story about that day, when the interviewer cut him off with a question about something completely unrelated.

[lumberjack]

There can be a short audio delay with Face Time. It makes for clumsy dialogue, but it's not anybody's fault that people are stepping on each other's lines. Somebody correct me if I am wrong.
lumberjack

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by lumberjack

There can be a short audio delay with Face Time. It makes for clumsy dialogue, but it's not anybody's fault that people are stepping on each other's lines. Somebody correct me if I am wrong.
lumberjack

I was just about to post this. While, as a viewer, it was pretty annoying to listen to, you could tell that he recorded it from his cell phone. They were probably having audio lag issues. I remember listening to a podcast between Joe Rogan and Peter Schiff that was the same way. It was super annoying to listen to and Joe later said that it was because of audio issues with whatever they were using to do the recording at the time.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by lumberjack

There can be a short audio delay with Face Time. It makes for clumsy dialogue, but it's not anybody's fault that people are stepping on each other's lines. Somebody correct me if I am wrong.
lumberjack

I thought this too, but he definitely didn't adjust well to the issue. Mastro was on the cusp of going into detail about something I actually wanted to hear him talk about and they trampled each other 2 or 3 times, and the thread of what he was going to say was lost. I've done enough Zoom meetings to know it's tough not to trample each other, but it can be learned. I'd give Rick a pass though. I don't think he was intentionally cutting Mastro off, being a dick, or a big shot or anything like that. It was just inelegant in execution.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by egri

I once listened to an interview with a Civil War veteran that was the same way. The veteran had been at Pickett's Charge, and it sounded like he was about to go into a story about that day, when the interviewer cut him off with a question about something completely unrelated.

Scott, I'm gonna bite - did the CW veteran ever get back to the story about Pickett's Charge? If not, bummer... When people like that get on a roll, a good interviewer would just let them keep going.

I bet Mastro could go on for hours. I'd listen but I would also not forget. Did he pay his debt to society? Maybe, but I'm going to bet he isn't "whole" with a lot of hobby community.

[lumberjack]

Lawrence Ritter said he had to keep his subjects focused. He had a woman friend who was helping, running the tape recorder or something, and he had to ban her from the interviews as she would go off subject and distract the old guys. He said he wasn't happy about it, but it was necessary.

As I understand it, he hired someone to make transcripts of the interviews and they simply went on and on.

Riter was, I guess, pretty good at editing the stories down.

Henry Thomas can, perhaps, add to that.
lumberjack

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by lumberjack

Lawrence Ritter said he had to keep his subjects focused. He had a woman friend who was helping, running the tape recorder or something, and he had to ban her from the interviews as she would go off subject and distract the old guys. He said he wasn't happy about it, but it was necessary. As I understand it, he hired someone to make transcripts of the interviews and they simply went on and on. Riter was, I guess, pretty good at editing the stories down.Henry Thomas can, perhaps, add to that.
lumberjack

I would agree with most of this. Larry's girlfriend, Barbara, who was allowed to participate in several of the interviews, was everything you didn't want in a questioner: full of herself, asking inane questions, obsequiously flirting with the subjects, etc. You can hear all that in the Goose Goslin segment of the audio set, but the Goose just rolls over her, he's got his story to tell and he's going to tell it, and it turns out great. And yes, the freedom and time Ritter gave his subjects could also work against him, and some of the interviews ramble on without producing much of interest. Sometimes the interviewees themselves just weren't very good no matter how much editing was brought to bear, and those were an easy choice to leave off the set. It was Larry's son, Stevie, then in his mid-teens, who handled the tape recorder, incidentally.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Sometimes the interviewees themselves just weren't very good no matter how much editing was brought to bear, and those were an easy choice to leave off the set.

Gibby didn't like that you omitted eight hours of Gibby!

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

It was Larry's son, Stevie, then in his mid-teens, who handled the tape recorder, incidentally.

"Tell us more!"

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by BillyCox3

Gibby didn't like that you omitted eight hours of Gibby!
"Tell us more!"

What about?
Gibby was "too much Gibby!"

[egri]

Originally Posted by Fred

Scott, I'm gonna bite - did the CW veteran ever get back to the story about Pickett's Charge? If not, bummer... When people like that get on a roll, a good interviewer would just let them keep going.

It's been several years since I listened to it, but I don't remember him going back to the story. I was disappointed too.