While it’s nice to see a lengthy interview with Peter Hammill, this particular interview tells us very little about the substance of VdGG. Peter can, of course, only give information to fit the questions asked but there is so much more that one could have asked him about VdGG. For instance, other than finding out that the music is ‘complicated’ and ‘contrapuntal’ there is hardly any discussion of what is taking place musically in the music on the many albums they’ve made. Moreover, Peter is unarguably one of rock music’s most thoughtful and intelligent lyricists; he certainly doesn’t write conventional rock lyrics about conventional rock subjects, but the interviewer failed to ask anything about the subject matter of Peter’s lyrics and how this might have evolved over a long career. All we get are the usual vaguely interesting questions about why a particular line-up came together and why another line-up dissolved, what they did in the studio, and isn’t remarkable that they’re all so old and yet still working in a band. Well, actually, classical and jazz musicians go on until they drop, so age is not really very important and one’s creativity certainly doesn’t necessarily diminish with age. So, all in all, not of much of an interview. Guess it just serves to plug the latest CD.
No doubt that plugging the new CD is what it’s all about. My love of this interview is more aesthetic and less substantive. Despite Peter’s tendency to “let it all hang out” with his performance and lyrics, his interviews seem to be much the opposite. Despite the girth of this video, almost nothing is revealed, and it even occurred to me that was set up in advance, perhaps with ground rules. Certainly, no probing questions about Mr. Jackson’s separation from the band.
But, I must admit, the sound of his Peter’s voice, his comfort and wit and charisma, all draw me in and make me smile. And the lack of substance only serves to reinforce something I’ve always believed – you can learn everything you need to about your favorite musical act by simply listening to the music. That is the expressive nature of this art form and all the blabbing is merely gossip.
“And the lack of substance only serves to reinforce something I’ve always believed – you can learn everything you need to about your favorite musical act by simply listening to the music. That is the expressive nature of this art form and all the blabbing is merely gossip.”
I think your comment is rather generalised and you appear to underestimate the complexity of VdGG and Peter Hammill’s solo work if you think that attempts to seriously analyse/discuss the music are merely “blabbing” and “gossip”. Of course, it depends on the person asking the questions and their assumptions about what viewers are capable of understanding. If the assumption is that viewers are merely ‘anoraks’ who just want factual data about line-ups and studio equipment, etc, then that’s all an interview will yield. I doubt very much that Peter established any “ground rules” for this interview (I’ve interviewed him twice and he didn’t establish any ground rules) but simply responded to what was asked of him and pitched his answers accordingly. Either the interviewer didn’t have the imagination (or even knowledge) to ask more challenging questions about the lyrical content of the songs, for instance, or he assumed that the viewers wouldn’t have the attention span to cope with Peter discussing the literary, philosophical and musicological aspects of his work.
I remember my excitement when I brought home “Frank Zappa: The Negative Dialectics of Poodle Play”. I expected an academic discussion, but I was left with a fawning volume of lip service wherein the author could not remove his obvious bias in favor of his subject from what purported (inaccurately) to be a learned and serious discussion.
I have no interest in the Keith Richards autobiography, but from what I hear from my friends who have read it, the insights seem thin. And it makes sense. What else could be said about his playing and songwriting that would illuminate those things beyond the purity of the thing itself?
I am new to Peter Hammill and VdGG and I’m sucking up as much as I can. I would love to read/hear you (Monty’s) interviews if they are available.
While it’s nice to see a lengthy interview with Peter Hammill, this particular interview tells us very little about the substance of VdGG. Peter can, of course, only give information to fit the questions asked but there is so much more that one could have asked him about VdGG. For instance, other than finding out that the music is ‘complicated’ and ‘contrapuntal’ there is hardly any discussion of what is taking place musically in the music on the many albums they’ve made. Moreover, Peter is unarguably one of rock music’s most thoughtful and intelligent lyricists; he certainly doesn’t write conventional rock lyrics about conventional rock subjects, but the interviewer failed to ask anything about the subject matter of Peter’s lyrics and how this might have evolved over a long career. All we get are the usual vaguely interesting questions about why a particular line-up came together and why another line-up dissolved, what they did in the studio, and isn’t remarkable that they’re all so old and yet still working in a band. Well, actually, classical and jazz musicians go on until they drop, so age is not really very important and one’s creativity certainly doesn’t necessarily diminish with age. So, all in all, not of much of an interview. Guess it just serves to plug the latest CD.
No doubt that plugging the new CD is what it’s all about. My love of this interview is more aesthetic and less substantive. Despite Peter’s tendency to “let it all hang out” with his performance and lyrics, his interviews seem to be much the opposite. Despite the girth of this video, almost nothing is revealed, and it even occurred to me that was set up in advance, perhaps with ground rules. Certainly, no probing questions about Mr. Jackson’s separation from the band.
But, I must admit, the sound of his Peter’s voice, his comfort and wit and charisma, all draw me in and make me smile. And the lack of substance only serves to reinforce something I’ve always believed – you can learn everything you need to about your favorite musical act by simply listening to the music. That is the expressive nature of this art form and all the blabbing is merely gossip.
“And the lack of substance only serves to reinforce something I’ve always believed – you can learn everything you need to about your favorite musical act by simply listening to the music. That is the expressive nature of this art form and all the blabbing is merely gossip.”
I think your comment is rather generalised and you appear to underestimate the complexity of VdGG and Peter Hammill’s solo work if you think that attempts to seriously analyse/discuss the music are merely “blabbing” and “gossip”. Of course, it depends on the person asking the questions and their assumptions about what viewers are capable of understanding. If the assumption is that viewers are merely ‘anoraks’ who just want factual data about line-ups and studio equipment, etc, then that’s all an interview will yield. I doubt very much that Peter established any “ground rules” for this interview (I’ve interviewed him twice and he didn’t establish any ground rules) but simply responded to what was asked of him and pitched his answers accordingly. Either the interviewer didn’t have the imagination (or even knowledge) to ask more challenging questions about the lyrical content of the songs, for instance, or he assumed that the viewers wouldn’t have the attention span to cope with Peter discussing the literary, philosophical and musicological aspects of his work.
I remember my excitement when I brought home “Frank Zappa: The Negative Dialectics of Poodle Play”. I expected an academic discussion, but I was left with a fawning volume of lip service wherein the author could not remove his obvious bias in favor of his subject from what purported (inaccurately) to be a learned and serious discussion.
I have no interest in the Keith Richards autobiography, but from what I hear from my friends who have read it, the insights seem thin. And it makes sense. What else could be said about his playing and songwriting that would illuminate those things beyond the purity of the thing itself?
I am new to Peter Hammill and VdGG and I’m sucking up as much as I can. I would love to read/hear you (Monty’s) interviews if they are available.