I think there’s a part of him that’s reluctant to reveal himself in his songs.
One time, I did this interview with him, maybe ten years ago, where I went up to near where he lives in Northern California. We met at this restaurant—like a roadside tavern—and he brought in three or four books with him. He brought in a phone book; he brought in a book on how to cook potatoes; and something else. And he started reading though that. It’s just his way of being an interesting character so you can’t get through to him. I said, “Look, Tom, you can just keep doing that or you can really try to honestly answer questions. Because think of people who love your music and who are influenced by your music; they really care about you and want to know a little bit about you. Wouldn’t you like to know about people you care about? Hoagy Carmichael or some[one]?” And he got really resentful, like I was really trying to push down his wall and he didn’t like that. He kind of eased up a little bit and started talking more personally, but it’s still very difficult for him to do that. I don’t know if he just doesn’t want anybody to know about it or he likes the idea of the disguise.
In your book, you really underscored how creatively insecure a lot of the major artists are—Bono, Dylan, Cobain, Springsteen. Even in their strongest artistic statements, they’ve had insecurities.
Bruce [Springsteen] puts it really well: If you want to keep being a songwriter, you’ve got to keep digging layers off yourself, so you get deeper and deeper into yourself. 
That’s why John Lennon, with that album, Plastic Ono Band, he couldn’t get any deeper than that. And when you do that—when you lay yourself naked—you’re vulnerable. And [so] if somebody says, “Oh that’s a terrible album,” or, “That’s a stupid thing you’re thinking,” that’s just not talking about your work; it’s talking about your own essence in a way. A lot of times, it’s a void in somebody that pushes them to be an artist. It gives them sensitivity. It makes them want to articulate their fears and desires. It’s a way of compensating for things they lack.
How do you answer the age-old criticism that you get—usually when you give a negative review—that because you don’t know how to write or perform music, you’re not capable of assessing what a musician does?
Article comments
1 - Glen Boyd
Fantastic job on this Donald. Hilburn is a great subject, and you asked exactly the right questions, getting him to talk about stuff not in the book (like Tom Waits).
Hilburn's take on the role of the qualifications of rock critics who aren't musicians particularly resonated with me. It's all about knowing your history, and having the instincts to trust what you know in your gut could be potential greatness -- or what resonates with you deeply on an emotional level.
His story about the Strokes also struck a chord with me personally. I remember going to see them at some dive in Tacoma when the hype around them was huge. It was a decent show, but after it was over I remember turning to my friend and saying that not only wasn't it anything special, but that I couldn't visualize them even five years from then making any lasting impact -- to say nothing of in twenty.
Great interview Donald. It just saddens me that there aren't any new writers cut from the Hilburn cloth -- at least not that I can see anyway.
-Glen
2 - brad laidman
well done - the RRHOF thinking about leaving Bowie of the ballot is pretty scary stuff
3 - El Bicho
very good contribution to the music section.
I used to read Hilburn all the time, but it's funny to hear him talk about new artists because all I remember is the stuff with Bruce or Dylan. The letters used to get on him a lot about his fawning.
4 - Helen Neely
This is a well written review. I will check out the book at the local bookshop on Monday during lunch.
5 - Christopher Davis
If you didn't share Robert Hilburn's personal tastes or political beliefs, you didn't deserve his respect, I guess.