Friday, April 30, 2010

3:AM Cult Hero: Albert Cossery

http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/3am-cult-hero-albert-cossery/

This is a post from 3:AM Magazine's Buzzwords blogClick here for the latest posts.

3:AM Cult Hero: Albert Cossery

albertcossery
“So much beauty in the world, so few eyes to see it.”

Andrew Gallix on Cossery:

All his life, Cossery sided with those he felt God had forgotten: petty thieves, pretty prostitutes, exploited workers and hungry vagrants. He despised materialism and eschewed the rat race. In Proud Beggars(1955), usually considered his masterpiece, a university professor finds peace of mind by becoming a bum, proving that beggars can be choosers. In The Lazy Ones (1948), a character stays in bed, out of choice, for a whole year. Another decides, on reflection, not to take a wife for fear she might disrupt his precious sleep patterns. In an early short story, the inhabitants of an impoverished neighbourhood even take up arms against all those who prevent them from snoozing in peace until midday.

For the author and his lovable rogue’s gallery, sleep, daydreams and hashish-induced reverie are endowed with mystical qualities. Idleness is more than a way of life. It offers the greatest luxury of all: time to think and therefore the chance to be fully alive, “minute by minute”. The overt message of these people whom God has forgotten (but who themselves have not forgotten God) is that paradise is not lost, but most of us are too busy to bask in “the Edenic simplicity of the world”.

More: An extract from Splendid Conspiracy (New Directions) / Cossery’s The Jokers (NYRB Classics, July 2010) / Graphic novel extract from Proud Beggars inWords Without Borders, translated by Lulu Norman / ‘A Voltaire of the Nile’, Lulu Norman’s obit of Cossery in the Independent / The Times obit / Albert Cossery’s Last Siesta in Paris

First posted: Wednesday, April 28th, 2010.

Posted via web from ttexed's posterous

mhsteger: Walpurgisnacht, a 1923 woodcut by Ernst Barlach (1870-1938)

Thursday, April 29, 2010

EFF: Facebook's "Evil Interfaces"

Good article, I learned how to make my friends list visible only to friends! And the sneaky place they hide it at (not in privacy settings)...

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebooks-evil-interface

Electronic Frontier Foundation

APRIL 29TH, 2010

Facebook's "Evil Interfaces"

Commentary by Tim Jones

Social networking companies don't have it easy. Advertisers covet their users' data, and in a niche that often seems to lack a clear business model, selling (or otherwise leveraging) that data is a tremendously tempting opportunity. But most users simply don't want to share as much information with marketers or other "partners" as corporations would like them to. So it's no surprise that some companies try to have it both ways.

Monday evening, after an exasperating few days trying to make sense of Facebook's bizzare new "opt-out" procedures, we asked folks on Twitter and Facebook a question:

The world needs a simple word or term that means "the act of creating deliberately confusing jargon and user-interfaces which trick your users into sharing more info about themselves than they really want to." Suggestions?

And the suggestions rolled in! Our favorites include "bait-and-click", "bait-and-phish", "dot-comfidence games", and "confuser-interface-design".

Although we didn't specifically mention Facebook in our question, by far the most popular suggestions were variations on this one from @heisenthought on Twitter:

How about "zuck"? As in: "That user-interface totally zuckered me into sharing 50 wedding photos. That kinda zucks"

Other suggestions included "Zuckermining", "Infozuckering", "Zuckerpunch" and plenty of other variations on the name of Facebook's Founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg. Others suggested words like "Facebooking", "Facebaiting", and "Facebunk".

It's clear why folks would associate this kind of deceptive practice with Zuckerberg. Although Zuckerberg told users back in 2007 that privacy controls are "the vector around which Facebook operates," by January 2010 he had changed his tune, saying that he wouldn't include privacy controls if he were to restart Facebook from scratch. And just a few days ago, a New York Times reporter quoted a Facebook employee as saying Zuckerberg "doesn't believe in privacy".

Despite this, we'd rather not use Zuckerberg's name as a synonym for deceptive practices. Although the popularity of the suggestion shows how personal the need for privacy has become for many Facebook users, we'd prefer to find a term that's less personal and more self-explanatory.

No, our favorite idea came from Twitter user @volt4ire, who suggested we use the phrase "Evil Interfaces". The name refers to a talk by West Point Professor Greg Conti at the 2008 Hackers On Planet Earth conference.

Here's Conti explaining Evil Interfaces to a puppet named Weena:

Privacy info. This embed will serve content from youtube.com.

As Conti describes it, a good interface is meant to help users achieve their goals as easily as possible. But an "evil" interface is meant to trick users into doing things they don't want to. Conti's examples include aggressive pop-up ads, malware that masquerades as anti-virus software, and pre-checked checkboxes for unwanted "special offers".

The new Facebook is full of similarly deceptive interfaces. A classic is the "Show Friend List to everyone" checkbox. You may remember that when Facebook announced it would begin treating friend-lists as "publicly available information" last December, the change was met with user protests and government investigation. The objections were so strong that Facebook felt the need to take action in response. Just one problem: Facebook didn't actually want to give up any of the rights it had granted itself. The result was the obscure and impotent checkbox pictured here. It's designed to be hard to find — it's located in an unlikely area of the User Profile page, instead of in the Privacy Settings page. And it's worded to be as weak as possible — notice that the language lets a user set their friend-list's "visibility", but not whether Facebook has the right to use that information elsewhere.

A more recent example is the process introduced last week for opting out of Instant Personalization. This new feature allows select Facebook partner websites to collect and log all of your "publicly available" Facebook information any time you visit their websites. We've already documented the labyrinthine process Facebook requires users to take to protect their data, so I won't repeat it here. Suffice to say that sharing your data requires radically less work than protecting it.

Of course, Facebook is far from the only social networking company to use this kind of trick. Memorably, users of GMail were surprised last February by the introduction of Google Buzz, which threatened to move private GMail recipients into a public "frequent contacts" list. As wenoted at the time, Buzz's needlessly complex "opt-out" user-interface was a big part of the problem.

OK, perhaps the word "evil" is a little strong. There's no doubt that bad user-interfaces can come from good intentions. Design is difficult, and accidents do happen. But when an accident coincidentally bolsters a company's business model at the expense of its users' rights, it begins to look suspicious. And when similar accidents happen over and over again in the same company, around the same issues, it's more than just coincidence. It's a sign something's seriously wrong.

Related Issues: PrivacySocial NetworksTransparency

[Permalink]

Posted via web from ttexed's posterous

3AM Mag: Traversing the Middle (The John Fante Tapes Four) By Ben Pleasants

http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/traversing-the-middle-the-john-fante-tapes-four/

This is an article from 3:AM MagazineClick here for the front page.

Traversing the Middle: The John Fante Tapes [Four]

By Ben Pleasants.

johnfante3

First published in 3:AM Magazine: Tuesday, April 27th, 2010.

Posted via web from ttexed's posterous

New Blog: ANDRE WILLIAMS: THE BLACK GODFATHER

http://andrewilliamstheblackgodfather.blogspot.com/2010/04/welcome-to-officia...

ANDRE WILLIAMS: THE BLACK GODFATHER

FRIDAY, APRIL 9, 2010

Welcome to the official Andre Williams blog. At age 74, Andre is not slowing down one bit. You can catch Andre on tour in Europe starting April 29 for two weeks. He'll be backed by The Goldstars and gigs include France, Germany, Italy, and Belgium. You can get the gig schedule here: www.thegoldstars.com. He has recently released his first novel called Sweets on Kicks books and he will have copies on tour to sign. He has a new record coming out on Bloodshot called "That's All I Need". You can get it here: www.bloodshotrecords.com. And- his documentary, Agile, Mobile, and Hostile" is showing now on Hula.
We will be posting notes and photos from the tour and giving all updates as we go.
Thanks for checking out MR. Rhythm!

Posted via web from ttexed's posterous

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

EFF: Facebook's Eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline (Watch your privacy & control disappear!).

http://w2.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline/

Facebook's Eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline

Commentary by Kurt Opsahl

Since its incorporation just over five years ago, Facebook has undergone a remarkable transformation. When it started, it was a private space for communication with a group of your choice. Soon, it transformed into a platform where much of your information is public by default. Today, it has become a platform where you have no choice but to make certain information public, and this public information may be shared by Facebook with its partner websites and used to target ads.

To help illustrate Facebook's shift away from privacy, we have highlighted some excerpts from Facebook's privacy policies over the years. Watch closely as your privacy disappears, one small change at a time!

Facebook Privacy Policy circa 2005:

No personal information that you submit to Thefacebook will be available to any user of the Web Site who does not belong to at least one of the groups specified by you in your privacy settings.

Facebook Privacy Policy circa 2006:

We understand you may not want everyone in the world to have the information you share on Facebook; that is why we give you control of your information. Our default privacy settings limit the information displayed in your profile to your school, your specified local area, and other reasonable community limitations that we tell you about.

Facebook Privacy Policy circa 2007:

Profile information you submit to Facebook will be available to users of Facebook who belong to at least one of the networks you allow to access the information through your privacy settings (e.g., school, geography, friends of friends). Your name, school name, and profile picture thumbnail will be available in search results across the Facebook network unless you alter your privacy settings.

Facebook Privacy Policy circa November 2009:

Facebook is designed to make it easy for you to share your information with anyone you want. You decide how much information you feel comfortable sharing on Facebook and you control how it is distributed through your privacy settings. You should review the default privacy settings and change them if necessary to reflect your preferences. You should also consider your settings whenever you share information. ...

Information set to "everyone" is publicly available information, may be accessed by everyone on the Internet (including people not logged into Facebook), is subject to indexing by third party search engines, may be associated with you outside of Facebook (such as when you visit other sites on the internet), and may be imported and exported by us and others without privacy limitations. The default privacy setting for certain types of information you post on Facebook is set to "everyone." You can review and change the default settings in your privacy settings.

Facebook Privacy Policy circa December 2009:

Certain categories of information such as your name, profile photo, list of friends and pages you are a fan of, gender, geographic region, and networks you belong to are considered publicly available to everyone, including Facebook-enhanced applications, and therefore do not have privacy settings. You can, however, limit the ability of others to find this information through search using your search privacy settings.

Current Facebook Privacy Policy, as of April 2010:

When you connect with an application or website it will have access to General Information about you. The term General Information includes your and your friends' names, profile pictures, gender, user IDs, connections, and any content shared using the Everyone privacy setting. ... The default privacy setting for certain types of information you post on Facebook is set to "everyone." ... Because it takes two to connect, your privacy settings only control who can see the connection on your profile page. If you are uncomfortable with the connection being publicly available, you should consider removing (or not making) the connection.

Viewed together, the successive policies tell a clear story. Facebook originally earned its core base of users by offering them simple and powerful controls over their personal information. As Facebook grew larger and became more important, it could have chosen to maintain or improve those controls. Instead, it's slowly but surely helped itself — and its advertising and business partners — to more and more of its users' information, while limiting the users' options to control their own information.

Related Issues: PrivacySocial NetworksTerms Of (Ab)Use

[Permalink]

Posted via web from ttexed's posterous

George Kinney & The Golden Dawn: “Mayday Mayhem On Main”

http://wewantnothing.tumblr.com/post/557584504/http-www-facebook-com-event-ph...

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=121966017816000  “Mayday Mayhem On Main” Saturday, May 1, 2010 Continental Club (3700 Main) Houston, TX “Mayday Mayhem On Main” With George Kinney & The Golden Dawn, Shapes Have Fangs, Something Fierce, Roky Moon & Bolt, Spain Colored Orange, the Mahas, Brandon West & the Black Hats, The Big Black SpidersHeadlining is singer-songwriter George Kinney’s Golden Dawn, whose 1968 LP Power Plant remains a cornerstone of the International Artists/Texas Psych sound.

Saturday, May 1, 2010

Continental Club (3700 Main) Houston, TX

“Mayday Mayhem On Main” With George Kinney & The Golden Dawn, Shapes Have Fangs, Something Fierce, Roky Moon & Bolt, Spain Colored Orange, the Mahas, Brandon West & the Black Hats, The Big Black Spiders

Headlining is singer-songwriter George Kinney’s Golden Dawn, whose 1968 LP Power Plant remains a cornerstone of the International Artists/Texas Psych sound.

Posted via web from ttexed's posterous

SydBarrett.com: First Look At New Syd Book

http://SydBarrett.com/home.htm

First Look At New Syd Book

Rob Chapman's new, 400-page biography of Syd has already been favourably reviewed (a 'sympathetic, fascinating book' – The WORD; 'the most diligent yet' – Q Magazine), and we are pleased to be able to offer you a glimpse of it, by kind permission of Rob and publishers Faber & Faber.

A Very Irregular HeadLike his brothers and his father before him, Roger was a keen Scout, and it was here that school friends remember him first taking an interest in the guitar. 'I remember Roger from when he joined our school in September 1957,' says Geoff Leyshon. 'He joined the school Scout group, of which I was a member. I think he was in Mick Taylor's patrol. Mick and I could claim to have taught Roger his first chords on the guitar,' says Leyshon. 'One Saturday morning, we were sorting out equipment prior to summer camp. Mick had brought his guitar along (a Hofner acoustic, I think) and we were having a strum. Roger expressed an interest as any thirteen-year-old would so we showed him how to shape chords. E, A and D, I recollect, good enough for most twelve-bar R&R numbers.'

According to Leyshon it was also during this period that Roger became Syd. 'The "Syd" nickname came from that era,' he maintains, 'bestowed around about 1959, when Roger turned up in a flat cap instead of his Scout beret for a field day at Abington Scout site. Some of our more senior and pretentious members thought this was very working-class and promptly nicknamed him "Syd" as this was felt to be a lower-class name, I suppose, and it stuck.' Leyshon's recollections pre-date all previous accounts about how 'Roger' became 'Syd'. The most commonly aired theory was that there was a jazz musician in Cambridge, a bass player known as Sid 'the beat' Barrett, who used to play at the Riverside Jazz Club in the early 1960s, which the young Roger used to frequent.

This latter account is of course a more attractive and eminently more hip option, but the truth is that the nickname was bestowed upon Roger by his school seniors and not by the denizens of a jazz club. There is no evidence to suggest that Roger was unhappy with the nickname, and he used both his real name and his nickname interchangeably for several years, although it is significant that he was referred to solely as Roger or 'Rog' in the Barrett household. 'He was never Syd at home,' maintains Rosemary. 'He would never have allowed it.'

Syd Barrett – A Very Irregular Head by Rob Chapman, is published in the UK by Faber & Faber on 1st May, 2010. It is available to order now from Amazon; you can also get a bundle of the book and a brand-new official Syd T-shirt from the Syd Barrett Store. Order now for a ship date of Saturday 1st May.

 

Posted via web from ttexed's posterous

History of the Texas Theatre

http://stashdauber.blogspot.com/2010/04/another-phoenix-rises-in-cliff.html

TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2010

another phoenix rises in the cliff

jason reimer, ex-history at our disposal, is now involved in helping to revive the texas theater at 231 west jefferson blvd in oak cliff (where lee harvey oswald was _not_ resisting arrest). they're showing the original 1982 TRON there on thursday, may 13. yeah!

 

http://www.oakclifffoundation.org/?q=node/3

History of the Texas Theatre

Once the heart of the southwest Dallas community—a grand, palatial gathering place marked by a brightly lit sign that spelled T-E-X-A-S, touting top-of-the-line acoustics and appurtenances, the Texas Theatre was opened at 231 West Jefferson Boulevard with fanfare on April 21, 1931 by billionaire Howard Hughes. The Texas Theatre was the novelty of long time Oak Cliff resident and entrepreneur, C. R. McHenry, better known in the community as “Uncle Mack.” McHenry’s dream was to build a theater with state-of-the-art projection and sound equipment.

McHenry partnered with four Dallas area businessmen to help him realize this dream: Harold B. Robb, E. H. Rowley, W. G. Underwood and David Bernbaum. Together they hired renowned architect W. Scott Dunne to design the Texas. The men spared no expense and boasted that the theater was “fireproof”—constructed entirely of concrete. The theater’s opera seating cost $19,000, the projection and sound system cost $12,000, the 1,240 yards of the finest grade carpet cost $5,000, and the Barton organ, the second largest in the City of Dallas, cost $10,000. However, McHenry was most proud of the cooling and ventilation system, which blew 200,000 cubic feet of air per minute through a water-cooled system pumped from a 4,000-gallon tank. The cooling system made “The Texas” the first theater in Dallas with air conditioning.

However 72 years later, as a Dallas Morning News writer suggests, it may be safe to speculate that few care about the historic details of the Texas Theatre-if not for its significance to the events on November 22, 1963.

On November 22, 1963 at approximately 1:45 p.m., nearly 15 Dallas police officers converged on the Texas Theatre in search of a man who had entered without paying. That man was Lee Harvey Oswald—President John F. Kennedy’s accused lone assassin.

Photo provided from the R.W. “Rusty” Livingston Collection/The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza.

President Kennedy’s assassination marked a violent end to the Age of Camelot and forever scarred the American psyche. As the Texas Theatre rocketed into the international spotlight, an urgency to hide, deny and destroy it tore its way through Dallas. Shortly thereafter—in what is coined locally among preservationists as the most comprehensive architectural cover-up of the Twentieth Century—the theater’s vibrant designs, false bridges, towers and campaniles, decorative wood railings, and star and cloud painted ceilings were sealed from public view under a mass of lath and spray applied plaster.

Even today, a sense of culpability for the President’s assassination lingers, and with it, residual inclinations to resist renovating the theater. As such, the very reason for which it qualifies as a nationally historic landmark poses a substantial threat to its restoration. Despite this, the theater has managed to repeatedly escape the wrecking ball.

As technology in moving, talking, and color pictures progressed and drive-ins and multiplex cinema became the rave, the Texas Theatre’s patrons slowly moved on to other entertainment venues. Failing to capture a considerable audience, United Artists closed the theater in 1989. In an attempt to save it, the Texas Theatre Historical Society (TTHS) bought the theater in 1990. Acknowledging its importance to the President’s assassination, TTHS allowed Oliver Stone to remodel the exterior fa├žade for his 1990 film, JFK. However in 1992, the Society was no longer able to make the mortgage payments and the theater closed once more. Shortly thereafter, former usher and sign changer Don Dubois of Texas Rosewin-Midway Properties saved the theater from the wrecking ball. Nevertheless, two years later in 1995, it was nearly destroyed by a five-alarm fire, forcing the doors shut yet again.

In 1996, Pedro Villa rescued the theater from demolition when he learned of plans to convert it into a furniture warehouse. However, as Villa’s resources were exhausted and his pleas for investments went unheard, the theater defaulted back to Texas Rosewin-Midway Properties. The tattered and torn building remained vacant for three years, succumbing to vandals, stray animals, and hostile weather.

Even then, however, Michael Jenkins of Dallas Summer Musicals (DSM) believed the Texas Theatre could be Oak Cliff’s “crown jewel.” As such, DSM made a proposal to the City of Dallas in latter 2000 to develop the theater into a critically needed community performing arts center. Preferring to stay in the theater management business as opposed to theater ownership, DSM, along with the City of Dallas approached the Oak Cliff Chamber of Commerce and its philanthropic arm, the Oak Cliff Foundation, with a plan to manage the theater if the foundation would purchase it.

In 2001, the Oak Cliff Foundation was awarded $1.6 million from the City of Dallas Neighborhood Renaissance Partnership Program to purchase and renovate the theater. The foundation agreed to raise additional funds to complete the renovation and contract Dallas Summer Musicals to manage the performing arts center. Unfortunately, the Oak Cliff Foundation purchased the theater just a few weeks before the horrible events of 9/11, which has hindered the fundraising process. In fact, the terrorist attack’s impact has proved devastating for many non-profit cultural arts-related organizations 1 .

Nonetheless, in 2002, Komatsu Architecture, Inc. and Phoenix I Restoration and Construction, Ltd. were selected for the project based on their substantial experience in historic renovation and restoration of old courthouses, performance halls, and movie theaters. Together with DSM and the Oak Cliff Foundation, Komatsu and Phoenix created a master plan to first renovate and then restore the Texas Theatre. This plan provides that live performances will begin after renovation and before restoration 2 . Restoration will occur during dark periods of the theater to minimize the impact on performances and the profitability of the venue. To date, approximately $1 million has been spent toward select demolition, electrical, plumbing and other “bare bones” essentials.


1 -For an in-depth discussion on 9/11’s impact on charitable giving and its particular influence upon the arts, theater, and non-profit theater-related organizations, see September 11: Perspectives from the Field of Philanthropy, The Foundation Center, 2002.


2 -Renovation focuses on readying the theater for adaptive re-use whereas restoration focuses on the retention of materials from the most significant time in the theater’s history.

 

THE RENOVATION



Click here to read about the Oak Cliff Foundations efforts to revive the Texas Theatre.

RELATED HISTORICAL SITE


The Oak Cliff Foundation 2008

Posted via web from ttexed's posterous

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

recordmecca: Mothers of Invention/Absolutely Free Libretto

http://recordmecca.blogspot.com/2010/04/mothers-of-inventionabsolutely-free.html

RANDOM THOUGHTS ON RARE RECORDS, MUSIC MEMORABILIA, AND COLLECTING...
FROM JEFF GOLD OF RECORDMECCA.COM

4/27/10

Mothers of Invention/Absolutely Free Libretto

Here's a bit of public service blogging--a set of scans of the impossible to find "Libretto" booklet for the Frank Zappa & the Mothers of Invention's second album, "Absolutely Free." 

Along with their 1966 debut, "Freak Out" and their third album, "We're Only In It For The Money"the Mothers created some of the most experimental and enduring music of the 1960's.  Printed inside the gatefold cover of "Absolutely Free" was the note "Send money.  As much as you can get.  $1. minimum.  All the words on the record..even little sneaky ones! Merely send money...as much as you can...how you get it we could care less (make sure it's at least $1.00) for your very own libretto.....dump money into a shoebox & tie securely.  Ship immediately..."

Now I've been collecting Zappa & Mothers records since the very early 70's, and I've seen exactlyone libretto in all those years--which came from the collection of his former manager, Herb Cohen--leading me to believe that these were never sent out.  But I did manage to snag that one copy.  I scanned it for a client last week, and decided I'd post it online, for others to enjoy.

If you don't know these albums, click the links above, listen to the sound samples, and buy them all.  You won't be sorry.  As good as it gets !
(and of course, if you're a collector of rare records or music memorabilia--or have some to sell--please do check out our website, Recordmecca.)





Posted via web from ttexed's posterous

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Vegetable Friends Yahoo Group: New Syd Book Review by Joseph

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/VegetableFriends/

 

New Syd Book Review

Posted by: "Joseph"   lovedacapo

Sat Apr 17, 2010 7:06 am (PDT)

Okay, let's move to the reviews section where there's cause for a huge celebration due to the impending release of the very excellent 400+ page biography SYD BARRETT: A VERY IRREGULAR HEAD by Rob Chapman, whose impeccable research herein is nothing short of that of a Culture Hero. Again and again, Chapman trawls up specific poems and children's rhymes whence came Syd's endless lyrical plunderings, until you begin to groan at your hero's Muse being so spectacularly outed. Specifically? Well, I'm not sure I wished to learn that this section of `Octopus' was a direct lift from Sir Henry Newbolt's 1931 poem `Rilloby Rill':

`Madam, you see before you stand,
Heigh ho! Never be still!
The Old Original Favourite Grand
Grasshopper' s Green Herbarian Band,
And the tune we play is Rilloby-rilloby… '

Eventually, Chapman traces a large proportion of Syd's lyrics to, get this, THE LAUREL & GOLD ANTHOLOGY, first published in 1936. Shit, there goes the charabanc! I'll not let you down with any more mythbusters: read the book – it's compelling. Better still, after you've finished this book, you're gonna hate the rest of Pink Floyd even MORE than you already do. Many conspiracy theorists had long suspected (and since before Punk, you young'uns) that R. Waters, N. Mason and R. Wright had railroaded Syd out of his own band because he was no longer capable of `playing the game'. Author Rob Chapman, however, presents us with four cynics with such a taste for pop success (and such a fear of impending architect futures should they lose their success) that they arbitrarily changed the rules of the group without informing their leader. So Syd's one-note-freakouts and refusal to play `See Emily Play' at provincial gigs – an anti-commercial attitude regarded so positively throughout 1967 – are turned against him as evidence of madness when he performs similarly on their US tour. The spineless Richard Wright even admits to sneaking out of the flat he shared with Syd in order to play Pink Floyd gigs. With the abortion that is `Wish You Were Here', these energy vampires demanded that we should feel sorry not for Syd but for THEIR loss of Syd, after it was their goalpost-changing and hiding from him that precipitated his slide into oblivion. Read this book and you'll agree that Syd's increasingly plaintive yearning for lost love in the BARRETT and THE MADCAP LAUGHS collections were directed not at some ex-girlfriend but at his former musical partners. "I'm trying to find you", sang Syd on the MADCAP-outtake `Opel'. But his cohorts were actively hiding from him, even his organist flatmate: each so suffocatingly English and proper, so ingrown and unconfrontational that their betrayal became Syd's only Muse. Read the book, just read the book. Rob Chapman, Sir Rob Chapman, you're a heartbreaker, sir, but what a heroic piece of Cultural Retrieval. Kiddies, file this sucker next to Paul Drummond's equally heroic 13th Floor Elevators biog EYE MIND and get trawling eBay for a copy of THE LAUREL & GOLD ANTHOLOGY … The torture never stops!

Posted via web from ttexed's posterous

3 Quarks Daily: Colin Marshall talks to Eno biographer David Sheppard

http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2010/04/bringing-art-to-rock-invitin...

APRIL 19, 2010

BRINGING ART TO ROCK, INVITING AMBIENCE INTO ALBUMS AND CULTIVATING THE IMAGE OF STERN BOFFINHOOD: COLIN MARSHALL TALKS TO DAVID SHEPPARD, AUTHOR OF ON SOME FARAWAY BEACH: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF BRIAN ENO

David Sheppard is the author of On Some Faraway Beach: The Life and Times of Brian Eno, the first and only biography of rock music's foremost intellectual "non-musician," producer and cultural theorist. The book covers Eno's early life growing up in England listening to early soul records, his formative period in art school, his entrance into the public eye as the synthesizer player with Roxy Music and his career's subsequent fragmentation across the cultural landscape, into the realms of visual art, ambient music, record production (for the likes of U2, David Bowie, Talking Heads and Coldplay), writing and futurology. Colin Marshall originally conducted this conversation on the public radio program and podcast The Marketplace of Ideas[MP3] [iTunes link]

Sheppard1This is a question coming from one Brian Fan to another, and it's one I've always had difficulty with: what is the concise answer that you give — say, when you were working on the book and they asked you want it was about and they didn't know who Brian Eno was, so they asked "Who's Brian Eno?", what did you say?

I've yet to come up with the pat sentence that actually answers that, as indeed has Brian. I mention in the intro to the book that he got so fed up with trying to answer that question at dinner parties, explaining this enormously complex dilettante artist, cultural theorist, etc.etc. job description that he instead just said he was an accountant, which made people go away very, very quickly.

How did your own history with the enjoyment of Brian Eno's work begin? What was your introduction to him?

I came across him as a sort of callow youth, listening to punk rock records. He got all the mentions in the margins. I was aware of him in Roxy Music, but I was a bit too young for that, so it was a kind of ethereal presence initially. He got mentioned in dispatches by all sorts of people in punk rock. When I first got to hear his music, which in any serious capacity would have been about '78, what I heard sounded nothing like what I expected. I expected something far more severe and metallic. 

Obviously I knew things like Low, the David Bowie record he'd worked on, and I'd never really associated his involvement in those records with the more calm and ethereal elements. Somehow I imagined him to be more Velvet Underground and less lift music  to be honest, when I first heard ambient music I, like many others, didn't fall immediately in love with it. I did think it was rather bland. 

My initial reaction to Brian Eno was one of disappointment  one which quickly turned around. Something happened very shortly after that. I think it was just part of my growing up, actually. A light went on somehow, and it all suddenly made enormous sense. The more I investigated it, the more sense it made.

You mention this intro was in the late seventies, when Brian was in the process of inventing and releasing the first ambient albums. For those in the audience who might not know, how did Brian enter the public eye? What things was he first famous for?

His introduction to the masses would have been through playing synthesizers with Roxy Music, certainly in the U.K. This was this very strange pop group, even for a time of very strange pop groups. Bryan Ferry was the lead singer and Brian Eno was this guy, a self-confessed non-musician, who played synthesizers and actually played a lot of the instruments in the band, more traditional, guitars and so forth, and filtered them through his electronic effects. This was a revolutionary thing to be seen in pop music in 1972, which is when they struck. They went swiftly to the top of the British charts. I think they took a bit longer to penetrate America. 

That would've been Eno's calling card to the world, but he was only actually with Roxy Music for two albums. By 1973, he was off on his own. He'd fallen out with Brian Eno  with, uh, Bryan Ferry, rather, the singer. Probably less confusing with two Brians in the band, for one thing, but they had a conflict of interest over where the band was going. Bryan Ferry, I think, was always looking to be a more orthodox pop star, and was moving in that direction. Eno comes from an art school background, and wanted to pursue music that reflected that more. Ultimately, that's when he struck out on his own. But it would've been Roxy Music that first awakened the world to Brian Eno.

And during this era, the early seventies, with Eno in Roxy Music and gaining some acclaim there, how much of what Brian Eno would become and what he's regarded as today — we can't even describe concisely how much he does, how he thinks — how much of this was visible in this early iteration of Brian Eno?


Our inability to nail down what he does  there was evidence of that early on. People weren't quite sure what this guy was doing. First of all, he was a very bizarre visual spectacle, even in the time of glittery clothes and glam rock outfits. This slightly balding but long silver-haired guy wearing clothes that looked more at home in a Flash Gordon movie, he was playing this synthesizer but not actually playing a keyboard, in the orthodox sense. It was very hard to figure out what he was doing. Even his fans weren't entirely sure. 

Part of his appeal was that he seemed to be a very kind of alien presence, both physically and in what he was doing. It was slightly unquantifiable and very exotic. That was the key thing. I think what he later became, which was slightly unquantifiable and always somewhat exotic, was there right from the get-go.

This is a man who occasionally relished referring to himself as a non-musician. What, in your best music journalist's way, would you say he was actually doing in Roxy Music?

I think it's slightly disingenuous of him to describe himself, at any point in his career, as a non-musician. He grew up with musicians, in a musical household. His background is quite musical, but he never had a formal musical education, and he never actually stuck to an instrument. That's one of the accusations of dilettanteism coming with Brian, which is that he never really learned proper chords. But he can play a tune, and in fact he always had a gift for melody as much as he had a gift for texture and providing a kind of sonic envelope for other music. 

What he was actually doing in Roxy Music was treating instruments, so the electric guitar, rather than just going through an amplifier in the traditional sense, would first be routed through his synthesizer, which was essentially just a device for modulating sound in different ways: changing the pitch, the shape of the sound, et ceteraet cetera, vibrating it, wobbling it. What you'd end up with was a semi-recognizable sound, like the sound of a rock electric guitar, but given this patina of weirdness by Brian's instrument. What he was actually doing was not applying a musical strategy to the music as such, certainly not in any formal sense. What he was doing was a sonic thing. 

It was actually what happens in recording studios much more commonly now, which is that you take a root sound, whether an acoustic or an electric sound, and then you filter it and process it quite heavily to change it into something more expansive, more colorful, more vivid, bigger. So what Brian was doing then was prefiguring his production work, in a sense, but he was often doing that live on stage. Obviously it was slightly flying by the seat of his pants approach  it didn't always work, I don't think  but as he went on and as he worked his way into the producer's chair later on for other people, he started applying some of these same processing and modifying techniques to the recording studio. I think that's the root of his other fame, which is that of a top international record producer.

Sheppard3Your book covers the personality clash between Bryan Ferry and Brian Eno that would ultimately get Eno out of the band, but the question remains: why would a fellow like Bryan Ferry, very much a classic pop star, want, in the first place, an Eno running his voice through a VCS-3?

Ferry was the most resistant to any of Eno's effects, and I think the voice rarely if ever was subject to Eno's arsenal. It was usually the guitar and Andy Mackay's saxophone and oboes. Sometimes the drums. Sometimes Bryan's keyboards  he played electric piano often. Not so much the voice in the end, but I think what you're hinting at is correct: Eno's tendency to exaggerate and foreground these production gimmicks  for want of a better word, but that's how Ferry perhaps began to see them  he found in conflict with his own classicist direction. Very soon he was recording an album of cover versions of Noel Coward, et cetera, so that's a very different trajectory to what Eno was on. 

He allowed him in the band because, in the beginning, it was fantastic, it was novel  the synthesizer was a new tool in the rock armory, and I think it was genuinely exotic. Like Eno, Ferry comes from an art school background, and I think there was that element of genuine creative expression which Eno embodied, and I think for a while that was an asset for Bryan Ferry. But after a short while, it became a challenge. 

When Brian Eno did part ways from Roxy Music — I was never quite sure about the chronology of this, though you do cover the details well in your book — Eno both starts a solo career with vocal songs, and of course has (No Pussyfooting) with Robert Fripp. What was begun first? What was the release order, or the work order?

(No Pussyfooting) was first. Roxy Music, in their initial pomp, were on quite a heavy tour schedule for most of '72 and early '73 particularly, all over Europe and all over the U.K. several times. They were basically just promoting their hits. But there was a hiatus, I think in September of '72, when Ferry had tonsillitis. They had to cancel some shows. During that period, Eno started making some experiments at home. He was addicted to the reel-to-reel tape recorder and what you could do with sound. He had a couple of these in his London flat, and he invited a couple people over, one of whom was Robert Fripp, the guitarist in King Crimson. They shared management. 

Eno befriended Fripp. He was also quite a maverick musician, obviously, absolutely a virtuoso where Eno was not. But they had a lot in common in terms of their approach to music, even if they came at it with different skills. I think after consuming a bottle of wine very quickly, they started playing around with Eno's tape recorders. This delay system he'd created by feeding tape in and out of two tape recorders into a continuous, perpetual loop, over which the virtuoso Fripp would then improvise. They just made these two very long pieces which became the basis, if not the completed thing, of a record, (No Pussyfooting)

But this was just an experiment. However, Eno then went back to touring, having first spoken to a couple journalists about this collaboration with Robert Fripp. Of course, journalists being what they are  as I know only too well  they took this little crumb of information and turned it into a Eno-and-Fripp project. As the relationship between Ferry and Eno was beginning to become rather fraught, and public knowledge of this was starting to creep out, in the end (No Pussyfooting) was just another arrow against Eno as far as Ferry was concerned, because it sounded like he was stealing the thunder a little bit in yet another way.

Here Come the Warm Jets, the first song album that Eno produced, was made in the late summer of '73, just a couple of months after he'd left Roxy Music. That was the beginning of that phase, although he had tried to make a couple of stabs at a single before that, with Andy Mackay, a pop single which didn't really come to anything. The sessions dribbled out. In the end, he had (No Pussyfooting) ready for release, but nobody saw that at the time as... it was very experimental, just these two long pieces of looped sound. Nobody gave that any kind of credence as the beginning of a long and sustained career in rock or pop music. The management company and Island Records persuaded him that he needed to do a more orthodox song record, and that was Here Come the Warm Jets.

You say that was a bit too experimental to be taken as the harbinger of a long, fruitful career. But I've heard Eno's early solo albums, of course, as well. How normal, in the context of the times they were released, did those even sound?

That's right. Time tends to modify revolutions in music, when you listen back. Sometimes you have to imagine them in context. Although it's a relatively orthodox record compared to something like(No Pussyfooting) or even the things that Eno did in subsequent decades, it is a very odd record. It still remains curious. It's an odd mixture of straight-ahead rock-and-roll tropes and this otherness which is already there. In a sense, the harbinger of ambient music is there even in this early stuff, a lot of which is quite pounding and quite attritional and owes a lot to the Velvet Underground at their most primal. That's a big influence. 

But there's another element which is hard to quantify. There's a kind of ghostly shimmer that's to do with this overly processed sound which he was really exploring at the same time. In fact, it's kind of overproduced, that record, in a weird way. It feels like there are too many instruments on a lot of it. It's really straining for ideas, and I think that's something Eno subsequently would be happy to admit. But you can feel there's a sort of bravura quality to it as well. It's really steeped in that sense of "This has really got to be something special, but it's also got to be my version of something special." That's what it always feels like to me. It's like an art student's degree show, when they're trying to show all the tricks they've got, and all the potential they've got, at once. It sometimes makes a very disconcerting thing to take in in one take. It's a very mixed bag, but somehow he does pull it off. 

He was helped to have a great producer  great musicians as well. You can feel the enthusiasm of it more than you can feel the dexterity that comes in on later records. At the time, a lot of people compared it to Roxy Music, obviously, because he'd just left. It was quite favorably compared to Roxy Music, but they were also still seen at that point as being relatively odd, fairly eccentric in their choice of instrumentation and so forth. Lyrically, Here Come the Warm Jets is odd as well. He wrote most of those lyrics phonetically; they were just sounds designed to fit with the backing tracks, which he'd written sort of on the hoof, a lot with Phil Manzanera of Roxy music. So you have this very strange, surrealist, cut-up nonsense verse which isn't quite nonsense, actually. It goes to give the whole thing this otherworldly quality and reflects the music. 

People picked that up at the time. Reviewers did find that part of strange. The fact also was strange that Eno was talking up lead vocals, because although he'd sung a number of backing things in Roxy Music, it was always a very secondary tool in his armory. Suddenly, he was the frontman. There was a lot of spotlight on that record. It had to do well, or that would've probably been curtains for his career as a musician. It did do quite well, so it was worth going out on a limb, clearly.

Sheppard4When you listen to these seventies albums from Eno in sequence — Here Come the Warm JetsTaking Tiger Mountain (By Strategy)Another Green WorldBefore and After Science — what do you personally hear evolving through that decade?

What I hear is the sound of rock music being slowly exorcised and an interest in what's left being brought to the foreground. It's a process that Eno acknowledges. He started to become interested in things like backing vocals and treatments on instruments even as a very young music fan listening to doo-wop records and early soul records. I think this is a process that went on a long time and actually resulted, to a large degree, in ambient music. The process whereby things like the foreground of a traditional rock or pop record, chordal guitar or keyboards and rhythm section, is decorated with these other elements, these melodies, harmonies, backing vocals and string lines or keyboard lines that are much less statement-like and much more ethereal — his interest was "What would happen if we only had those elements and not so much of the primary-color stuff at the foreground?" 

Over the course of the first three solo records, that process is palpable. By the time of Another Green World, you have got these sort of tone poems. They do feel like pieces where something has been removed, in a minimalist sense. A very painterly approach, scrubbing away the foreground color to reveal the key elements. How few elements do you need to make a statement? By the time of Another Green World, which I still think is my favorite seventies Eno record if not my favorite of all his records, it's wonderful because it captures that moment where the urgency and the melodic vividness of his early records is still there, but it's now been set in a much more stark and very much more beautiful context. It's a beautiful sort of abstracted idea of rock music, and it's really a timeless thing. It holds up today incredibly well; it doesn't really sound like music of its time, where the preceding two records are somewhat shackled to early-seventies tropes.

That's the process I hear, and I think it's one he did then take further on Before and After Science. It's still exploring the same kind of territory, even though perhaps it's not so much of an evolutionary record. But the ambient records that followed very swiftly after are the logical next step from Another Green World.

The ambient music — we mentioned earlier that you heard that and were disappointed by it. What was the first ambient record from Eno you heard?

The first thing I heard was Music for Airports.

That was released what year?

I know it was recorded in '78. I think it was released in 1980. That's definitely the first ambient record I'd heard, and I just remember — I wasn't actually aware who it was — hearing that piano figure in the first tracks, played by Robert Wyatt, actually. It's very, very, very memorable. I think it's a six-note tune, but it's incredibly evocative and it's set against these looped voiced. Again, it's very hard to hear this music now and appreciate the unusualness of it in a turn-of-the-eighties context. In fact, that very same piece of music is being used on British TV at the moment as a linking piece of music during the Wimbledon coverage, would you believe. 

It come around; it's become this background music that's acceptable now, but it had a kind of exotic allure when I first heard it because, yes, it sounded like it owed something to muzak, environmental music of some kind, yet it had a slightly stranger quality. Very hard to pin down. But it's very immersive, and you feel like you really want to just pay attention to it and at the same time, it can be background music. That's a very, very hard trick to pull off, but that's kind of the definition of it. I was instantly hooked by that in a way I wasn't hooked by when I'd first heard the earlier stuff.

You quote Eno several times in the book talking about the idea of process versus product and what's more important. How much would you say it's necessary, as a modern listener, to appreciate the Eno processes to appreciate the Eno products, if that makes any sense?

That makes perfect sense. There's this kind of reductio ad absurdum you can have with Brian Eno that's been applied many times. He's a kind of boffin, and you only get his music if you're also some kind of geek. I tried to put that to the sword in the book, because part of the appeal of Brian Eno is that he's actually a supreme melodist. This comes, I think, from listening to lots and lots of pop music but not trying to make pop music. He's kind of imbued with this sense of melody. 

If you just went by the descriptions of certain rock journalists and certain other journalists and certain other so-called arbiters, if you just looked at this very dry, scientific-sounding description of how these records are made and what these records are "supposed" to invoke or evoke, you find it very forbidding and be much happier listening to lots of other things. Actually, when you hear the music, it's incredibly melodically rewarding, and it's textural and immersive and it's often incredibly beautiful. Something he said to me was that if he doesn't like something on a very basic level, he doesn't release it. That really tells you all you need to know on the process-versus-product argument. Basically, if it doesn't float his boat on a visceral level, it hasn't succeeded. Yes, earlier on, he's coming from an art school background where, often, process is all, and I think he went through a period of that. But I don't think you can apply that to any of the music that he's made...generally, it's wrong to apply that. 

There are instances, perhaps, where you could pick out certain things. Certainly with the ambient music, one or two of those earlier pieces he stumbled upon; I think they were made by tape-looping and slowing the tape down by accident and suddenly coming across  "Wow! That's a really beautiful sound!" In a sense, it's as much happenstance as it is process. One of the chapters of the book is about accident and about how you prepare for an accident, and I think that's one of his skills. One of the things he's done is always create a recording environment where accidents are allowed to happen, happy accidents. 

He's always had that brilliantly pliant mind, which a lot of musical auteurs don't have. "Oh, if it's going that way, I'm going to follow, I'm going to conclude that way, because that's the path of least resistance," rather than having this pre-composed idea for a destiny for a piece of music, and "it must be like this, and it's an expression of my soul." He's always argued against that. He likes accidents and he likes things that have a kind of surface appeal. All of which does rather contradict his public image as this stern, austere boffin, which I think I've gone to some pains to undermine.

Indeed. This concept of being able to use accidents — one of my favorite quotes of his, "Luck is being ready," you lead a chapter with in your book. How much of what he brought to the producer's chair, to the mixing board when he was working in the eighties with the very high-profile U2 or Talking Heads, was essentially as a facilitator of the usefulness of accidents?

It was more germane to his work with David Bowie in the late seventies. Those two really came together having a similar approach. Bowie had written lyrics by cutting them up in a William Burroughs-derived style. They really coalesced on that, and on those three records they made together, Low"Heroes"  and Lodger. I think Lodger was going to be called Happy Accidents at one point. This was really what drove those records, and also the deployment of Oblique Strategies, these cards that Eno and the artists Peter Schmidt had worked up, a set of cards with random instructions to do something like "Forget the edges and concentrate on the middle" and various aphorisms of this nature designed to unlock creative blockages, to create these accidents. 

That was when it was really in its pomp, the accidental approach, but I think it was still there in Talking Heads. There was a certain amount of just trying things through different pieces of equipment, filtering things, recording things in different rooms. It brought it down to a much more pragmatic  he's always been about praxis, I think, Brian Eno. If people aren't prepared to go the whole hog, then he'll find a way to use that approach that frees something up in the group. I think with U2, in a way, the whole thing was a potential accident, bringing this very orthodox rock band under the auspices of the process magician, if you like. He applied a certain amount of little sonic tricks, little recording tricks: "Let's put the amplifier outside, in the open air, and record it there, see what that does," lots of different ways of just upsetting enough the everyday meat-and-potatoes recording approach to make everything have that kind of slightly altered state. 

Like with Roxy Music, with U2, I think you get an eighties rock band with a patina of something otherwordly, something other, which doesn't sound like other groups of the eighties, even though a lot of groups were using processed sound. There's still something very particular about the result of that particular marriage. I think the accidents went on long after the things were in neon saying "This is going to be an accident."

Sheppard5What has always struck me as somewhat unexpected is that — we talked about the Bowie albums Eno worked on, and then we talked about the U2 albums Eno produced — it seems like the Bowie albums were not hugely successful, though they're now well respected, but with U2, those albums were the huge successes. Both had Eno influencing them strongly. What's the difference?

The difference is perhaps to do with a perception, on one part, by the record companies. When Eno was signed up to work with Bowie, Bowie was at quite a low point  the album's called Low. But I think he was actually at a bit of a creative nadir, and he was recovering from drug problems and a failed marriage and all that. Getting Brian in was, I don't think, ever designed to make hit records. I think it was designed to say "If I want to revive my musical muscle, my libido needs to be re-pumped here." I think Brian was brought in purely on an artistic basis: "This guy does strange things, and I want some of that." That went on throughout the three records they made together in the seventies. RCA hated Lowwhen Bowie delivered it, mainly because half of it was instrumental. That's obviously something which came very much from Eno. They thought "Well, we're never going to sell this," so they didn't promote it. 

Low was just shuffled out into the world. I think they were very reticent about releasing the singles from it, all of which were hits. They were wrong. Of course, that changed a bit with "Heroes"; they realized the error of their ways. "Heroes" was a more successful record, and the title track was a hit, certainly in this country, and I'm sure it was a hit in America too, but not a massive hit. It wasn't a U2-sized phenomenon; you're quite right there. But, remember, those records were actually produced by Tony Visconti. They weren't actually produced by Brian Eno. He was merely a kind of sub-producer, half-producer, half-musician. He wasn't on all of the tracks, and he wasn't where when the vocals were done on the first two. On Lodger, he was a bit more hands-on. 

But when it came to U2, he came Daniel Lanois as his assistant, and Daniel looked after the more mundane elements of recording, the more technical elements, and Brian was then in his element to just sort of conduct. That's essentially the difference between the roles. Also, U2 were a band ascendant, even though they were looking for a direction. Bowie had already had his first flush of success, quite a sustained one. He was a bit older, too; U2 were still pretty young and still looking to conquer the world.

Sheppard6As we get into the eighties and the nineties, it's hard to avoid talking about the return to visual art Eno gets into. His first aim was to be a painter; that's what got him into art school, as I recall. What did you see, examining his career in the eighties and nineties, doing more installations, doing more visual stuff, doing video paintings that you could draw a thread through? What comparisons could you make from what he was doing musically to what he was doing visually?

He was certainly exploring chance in visual art. My personal opinion is that his visual art rarely stands up to the music. It's almost like he was looking for something... when he got to the end of a process which was, by the end of the ambient records, he'd taken something that he'd began to glean in art school, which is that he was trying to become a painter but then quickly threw that over, because he saw there was much more experimentation in left-field music, especially in the outer reaches of classical music, which he stumbled upon as an art student. 

That process began there, and it kind of ended with the end of the ambient period in the early mid-eighties. That's when he started rediscovering his visual art, and I think he was looking to find a new process, but I don't think he ever really found it. I don't find his visual work as alluring or as surprising as his music has been. Yes, there are certainly chance elements in it, there are also environmental elements, he's certainly very keen on creating an ambient art, but he would always combine that with music. In the end, it felt to me like... it wasn't a cop-out, it was an attempt to translate an auditory sensation into a visual one, which was odd because a lot of times ambient music was described as "very like a Rothko painting." 

It was kind of a cycle. I don't think it ever really quite achieved the same height. They're often very beautiful things, but somewhat shallow, I think. The visual art never seems to quite have the same visceral appeal as the music, whereby you can understand the process, you can enjoy almost the revolutionary lack of familiarity about the thing, but at the same time you can be seduced by it. But a lot of his visual art, I find, you can appreciate it, you can admire it, but it's very hard to love.

In Eno's career, we've got this visual art, we've got his own music, we've got his production work, we've got his writing and speaking, a whole a variety of different things. As we've said, this guy has a career that is difficult even to encapsulate. He's said many times, and I believe you quote him as saying it at least once in the book, that he happens to be from England, and in England, you're a little more likely to get tarred with the dilettante label, or get called the "master of nothing." How much did that condition actually obtain — is he right about England in that way — and does it still?

For some reason, there is an inherent skepticism. It's possibly linked to the class system, which still obtains in this country, despite everyone I know's best efforts. It's still very much linked in with status and where you are in life. There's always been this skepticism of people who do too much. People somehow like to pigeonhole you in this country: "That's what he does. He's the go-to guy for that." And if you become the go-to guy for that, but "Oh, he's over there, he's also doing something different," that seems to upset people in a quite illogical way. "Jack of all trades, master of none" is the phrase which gets applied. I try to make the point in the book that it's perhaps just a semantic thing. You could also say "renaissance man" or "polymath," and that tends to get applied to people who aren't British. I'm sure that Albert Einstein, people would be a little bit dubious if he'd been English, and they'd found out he'd actually liked to paint. I think Winston Churchill, there was some skepticism about the fact that he was painting when he should've been running the war. 

This does still obtain to some degree. Was it true with Eno? Yes, I think he was dismissed; because he was this self-proclaimed "non-musician," people thought there was an element of charlatanism there. When Eno became this very didactic figure, this almost professorial cultural theorist, often on the TV, often in newspapers, very familiar media figure, relatively erudite, some people, certainly older fans, would then look back at thus guy who fiddled with synthesizers and couldn't really play properly. "How believable is this? When did he suddenly gain the credentials to become this talking head, this cultural mouthpiece?" 

That did linger on, and perhaps it does still linger in some spheres now. Eno's spread so widely now that it's almost ridiculous to even entertain this notion. He has clearly done a lot of stuff, and he's got the material proof that he was able to do it with some degree of success. But now he's in poltics, he's a newspaper columnist sometimes, he's still producing records for big-name pop groups, rock groups, he sometimes will turn up in comedy shows as a bit player... you just don't know when he's going to pop up next. I think he probably just laughs at it, really, but I think one man's dilettante is another man's renaissance man.

By what process did capturing this mulitfaceted, hard-to-describe career, capturing it in a single book, become your task?

It came from thinking "Why isn't there a book about Brian Eno?" It was really as dumb as that. And there were several books: one was a PhD, a fantastic book, but it's a musicological study of Eno, essentially. There'd been a very slim Italian book. Of course, there'd been books in which he's featured, and his own books. But I just thought "I want to read this book, and if no one else is going to write it, I'm going to have to do it," which sounds a bit self-aggrandizing, but I didn't know if I could do it, on a number of levels, having come to that conclusion. I then had to sound out the idea, find an agent and a publisher, and, of course, run it by lots of people, including Brian, to see if it was feasible. Once the green light for doing it was sort of there, I was then faced with — 
I think it's something I describe book: his life is like folding down a skyscraper into a briefcase. There's so much, you'd have to have ten volumes if you wanted to cover everything in detail. He's got lots of lives. 

What I wanted to do was write a book that, as you alluded to very early on in our talk, lots of people know the name Brian Eno, but they don't really know much about him, or they know one facet of him. I wanted a book where somebody could read it who knew one facet of him  say, as an ambient musician, most obviously  and they could read it and say "Oh, I didn't realize he also did that thing with Talking Heads, and he also made perfume. I didn't know that. Oh, he also has a theory of cake decoration and he's quite interested in various theories of futurism and science." So all those people wouldn't be disappointed, but at the same time it wasn't so eclectic that it was just scattershot. It had to have a core. I'm a musician and a music writer, so that was my central issue. That was a way of containing it, I suppose, but I wanted it always to reflect the fact that it was a multifaceted guy here.

Since Eno's a man who seems to oscillate between being reluctant to be talked to and garrulous and ready to talk to any journalist about his theories, what was his reaction to the looming prospect of a biography being written about him?

His first reaction was bashfulness. He was very sort of "I'm not sure, I'm not sure, I'm not sure," and there was a long silence. In fact, I'd sort of already started writing the book before I ever got his green light. When I did, it was clear that he was never going to sit down with me for days and days and regurgitate lots of picaresque stories of being on the road with Bryan Ferry. That was never going to happen. I knew that. That was okay. All I needed from him was a certain amount of narrative and a certain amount of confirmation of facts, which he was very, very good at, and his general imprimatur for the thing, which he gave. 

I had interviewed him before, and we had met on a couple of occasions. He knew me, he knew about me, but I wasn't someone he was regularly going to dinner with from the realm of music journalism, if he ever does such a thing. It wasn't "Let's do a biography on my friend Brian." It was much more dispassionate than that. As he said to me, he doesn't really do looking back. That's not really the first thing you associate with Brian Eno. One of the descriptions of him is as a futurologist: he's interested in what can happen in the future. That's kind of the definition of what he does. To go over old ground endlessly was anathema, I think, so I had to find a way to make him take part, but at the same time not alienate him from the process. It was basically trying to involve him as much as I wanted, but without putting him off the whole thing, which was a delicate balance. 

Eno2Reading the book, it's clear you've spoken to many people around Eno as well as Eno himself. How wide a variance opinion about the man did you find in those associated with him?

That's a very good question. You'd often find, even when 90 percent of their opinions of Brian were incredibly supportive and wonderfully positive, there'd be a little element of... ambiguity, maybe, about one or two things. Generally, I talked to people who he'd worked with, who he'd been taught by or befriended or had achieved something with. You always have an element of vested interest when you're talking to those people, so you have to claw that bit away. When you do that, everyone has a story about the guy where he suddenly disappears from their lives for a bit. Because he's always off, he's always doing the next thing, and you can tell  without naming names, there were one or two people who thought, "Well, I wish he'd kept in touch!" 

That was about as bad as it got, which is not bad for a guy who's touched so many lives. The only one who doubts is Gavin Bryars, an English composer whose life overlapped with Brian's quite a lot in the late sixties and seventies, who I assumed would be very supportive, had a lot of good things to say about him, particularly as a guy who organized recordings and so forth on a practical level, but he was rather skeptical about Brian's ability as a musician. This goes back to the earlier point about skepticism of the dilettante. Gavin Bryars is an academy-educated English composer able to play a number of instruments with great dexterity. I think he still retained that skepticism about Eno's ability as a musician, and that came through. 

There were a range of opinions. Obviously I spoke to his first wife, who he married when he was very young, expecting perhaps there would be a level of criticism. I was surprised she even agreed she took some tracking down — to speak to me, but she did. She had only good things to say, which was quite charming, actually. 

I'm surprised there isn't more resentment on the part of musicians who are highly trained, say, a Robert Fripp — he's such a virtuoso that you'd think he would have something unkind to say about how Brian has made it to such a degree. But no. He seemed to be very supportive of him.

With Fripp, you've got to realize that he worked with King Crimson. He was always working with big egos, big virtuosos, as it were. With Eno, he's working with someone who can create a blank canvas over which Fripp's virtuosity can be sprayed liberally. He'll support that. He wants that. For Fripp, that was a release. That's a really good creative partnership; it works for both parties. 

Tony Banks, famously from Genesis, was very skeptical. Tony Banks is a very gifted keyboard player, and he expressed some doubt about Eno. One or two other instances of this have occurred, but I think the results speak. In the end, people who don't know anything about the construction of music but just like records don't really mind whether the guy who made it calls himself a non-musician, or he made it using a computer, or he used 25 virtuosos, as long as the sound has an effect. I think Eno would probably argue that results are what counts.

It is a very Enoesque notion that the sound itself, the actual waves you're hearing, are what matters in the end. Finally, I'd like to return to a point that you were talking about earlier, when we were mentioning the seventies albums. You said Another Green World was your favorite seventies Eno album. This is the natural question to ask next: to the extent that it means anything, what is your favorite Brian Eno album?

Actually, it's definitely my favorite seventies album, if not my favorite album of all. I think it isAnother Green World. I don't think he's beaten it in terms of a record that sustains from beginning to end, but which is not an ambient records, by which I mean I'm also a very big fan of the ambient records. Thursday Afternoon, probably my favorite, is one long piece the length of a CD. But in terms of an album that's slightly episodic in its nature in a more orthodox sense, Another Green World is my favorite. That's the one I recommend to anyone to start their Eno collection.


All feedback welcome at colinjmarshall at gmail.

Posted by Colin Marshall at 12:08 AM | Permalink

Posted via web from ttexed's posterous