Exactly. And people saying they're awkward - well, so? The band is the "creative" side of this interview process, aren't they?

Artists are at least excused - if not expected or even lauded - for being "weird" (offbeat, strange, unconventional, etc), so their behavior here isn't really abnormal imo. Now, the interviewer - well, an experienced and effective interviewer of artistic/creative types of people should be able to draw out even the strangest of interviewees. He's asking very similar questions, all from a simultaneously sort of "basic" nature as well as more analytical and dry.

So not only are the questions shallow and sort of boring, they lack any effort toward drawing out the creativity of these people who made the music being discussed. Why should the onus be completely on them for making this interview interesting?

Now, before I get pitchforks please consider that musicians and other artists are not professional conversationalists, nor good at marketing themselves necessarily. If someone makes music primarily as a form of expression or creativity, they may be terrible at advertising themselves. Maybe they do interviews for contract reasons, exposure, etc but aren't actually good at them. This doesn't mean they don't have the potential to be effectively interviewed, but perhaps whether they are depends more on the ability and methods used by the person interviewing them.

That would lead us back to the skills of the interviewer. This guy didn't change the tone of the questions being asked, he kept with the very simple, generic type of questions and didn't ask effective follow-up questions. He wasn't able to direct the interview with any expertise, probably got rattled or even personally offended, and thus made it more awkward. Again, it is the interviewer's job to be so good at what they do that they can draw out even the more difficult of subjects. He didn't try to switch things up, kept asking the same type of questions. It's like he expected the band to do the work for him.

Imo the best interviewers know so much about their subjects that they can salvage an interview with even the shyest, most awkward and reticent people. They know that the ultimate goals of an interview is to inform and to entertain. If the interview subject is unable/unwilling to help supply either of those things (by being less talkative, or straight up difficult) then it's on the interviewer to supply these things themselves. That can only happen if the interviewer becomes very familiar with the source material and the subject.

My take: This guy was either generally unfamiliar with this band, or has poor or underdeveloped interview skills. Either way it's clear he was out of his depth on this one.