h3o Formed in the U.K. in 1980 by Andrew McKenzie and Cabaret Voltaire alumni Chris Watson, The Hafler Trio have created a massive body of work in organized sound, creative literature, and performance. Watson remained a member until 1984. Since that time, projects have been handled under the direction of McKenzie, in Reykjavik, Iceland. The Hafler Trio discography contains well over 30 releases on labels such as Touch, Soleilmoon, Sub Rosa, Mute, and Die Stadt. Their work and ideas have been highly influential throughout their history, and continue today as innovations in their respective mediums. Unfortunately, McKenzie has recently been diagnosed with two serious illnesses which will be fatal without treatment, but remains as active, or more, than ever. For a comprehensive history and current information, visit: http://www.brainwashed.com/h3o

Crouton Music: Remembering back to the first Hafler Trio release – what was it like (theme, inspiration, idea) and how does this compare to the most recent release?
Andrew McKenzie: Well, it was a mixture of many things, accident, intent, serious endeavour and flippant provocatory attempt, hubris, rumour, 'fact' and both inner and outer work, and many other things besides. A lot was frustration, much was experimentation in order to find a way of dealing with some things that were yet to be developed, both very consciously and subconsciously. There was also a lot of the tying of loose ends on many levels and scales, for all the people involved, the past, personal processes, previously developed approaches and methods concerning various things. Some of these you can hear echoes of in the first material, but the uses have changed; however this is done mindfully, not mere 'reference'. The 'theme' was many in one: like nested Russian dolls or some such. The real 'kernel' had to be 'unwrapped' by conscious interaction and examination with and of the material. I can't really compare, as you suggest: what is certain is that some of the concerns are still there, in fact, some more so than ever. The only difference in many cases is that the mode of execution and the method of explication and presentation have changed. The 'intent', for the most part, is intact exactly as it was.

CM: How have your ideas and methods changed and how have they remained consistent?
AM: Ideas are something that come and go, arrive, serve a purpose, whatever recognized as such or not, and then return. What are normally called 'ideas' are really only automatic reactions against the environment, be it inner or outer, at most base, a kind of excretion. In the way that the h3o work has actualised, ideas have played very little part at all. There have been moments of inspiration, during many of them, but these have not been ideas in the normal sense at all. Part of the 'modus operandi' has always been to try to move past this stage where such automatisims are 'needed' or indeed even given credence. In the original meaning of the word, quite divorced from present day use, the word was meant to mean a visualization of something. But not in the sense of an illusion or a phantom: this was one of the main realising forces in an operation. In this sense, it has never changed for me, and the only difference over the years has been the facility by which it has been used, and the cumulative effects of that effort.

CM: What do you hope your work communicates with people?
AM: I have severe doubts about communication as an actual working method at this present time. This is due not only to confusion and varying interpretations of such a concept, but a withering and wasting away of the impulse itself. Being able to receive and not just to consume is something I encounter less and less. I prefer other routes to this, if I have any interest in getting 'in' at all, and that is debatable. If anything survives, it is through resonance. And for me, that is a very big subject, and not something reducible to a simple 'making of a product and hoping for the best'.

CM: How do you think technology has affected communication?
AM: Well, see above. One has to be careful about a blanket word like 'technology', but if you mean that which is associated contemporaneously with 'progress', I'd have to say it has all but destroyed it.

CM: What first comes to mind when you think of 'music?'
AM: I think of the experience that music provides at core: that of being able to act simultaneously from head heart and hands equally, leading to the possibility of leaving al those behind and entering into a 'something' which cannot be spoken of intelligently when it is reached. However, I do not see or hear any evidence that such experiences are being had, at least in public, very much if at all at this present time. and while I may be 'after' such levels in what I do, I do not approach it from the 'musical' channel, as there are dangers inherent here with regards to the state of 'music' which create conditions which almost inevitably lead to that state or states becoming inaccessible. I am moving through different corridors, even though, at times, this might not seem to be the case.

CM: As 'popular' as working with sound has become, how do you view the relationship between that escalation and accessibility of technology?
AM: Well, my view would be that the two cannot be separated, and in a symbiotic relationship such as they have, one feeds the other. The stagnation that results is not life-supporting, because there is a third element missing. Many other things are bound up in this process: and the records and other products are not immune from these other processes and systems, ultimately. Except on a localized, semi-autonomous level, where they must realize that they are 'food' for other processes, and can be valuable as 'shocks' or 'starting points' for lower points in other processes.

CM: How does your work differ from the generation of sound processors today?
AM: I don't really want to make comparisons. I don't think of myself as 'sound processor'. I do this, but this is just the surface of what I'm doing, and not what is really happening. Think of the conjuror distracting the audience with the right hand while reaching behind for the rabbit behind his back.

CM: How much has the computer played a role in your work?
AM: In what I do, little, except to reject it. As far as I'm concerned, it's like drugs: cheap and dangerous methods of getting to 'places' that are better done under one's own steam. And just as easy to become bedazzled by and addicted to.

CM: Do you think the increased work in sound (via accessible technology) has developed a culture to 'listen' more, find interest in different sounds?
AM: That's one of my central arguments. It doesn't. what the unparalleled access to this 'material' has done, fostered by the widespread availability of technology is REDUCE listening capacity, attention and more besides, making a situation where what is being produced is polluting the atmosphere which we live in. I mean this quite literally. Another way to see it is like a piece of land, with a river running through it. If people come and use the land and the water while understanding that the earth has to rest, lie fallow for a while, crops have to be rotated, that refuse has to be regularly disposed of (and not a huge amount all at once otherwise the water will be clogged), all this will work. On the other hand, if a vast number of people start camping out and using the resources as they see fit without considering where they come from, the result will be scorched earth and unusable water. And I'd say that right about now, the situation is almost such that the environment cannot sustain much more.

CM: Does any of your work involve improvisation, or is it a clear plan before a project is begun?
AM: Here I'll have to suppose that in the first instance you're talking about the idea or practice of *musical* improvisation, not that which involves using the materials to hand in a given situation that are not the normal tools one ordinarily uses. Yes, but only in the sense of having come to a place or situation where that input a) is needed to complete a course of action and b) has been carefully prepared as regards 'basis'. So, one deals with preparation, execution and consequences. That is, not just one of these aspects, which is these days, as far as I can see, the norm.

CM: If your work has been a personal learning process, what have you learned about your place in the world?
AM: I cannot say that I learned where my 'place' in the 'world' is through sound work. I'm not entirely sure that it isn't the case that I have learned, to a certain extent, where the world's place is in me. My 'place' in the 'world' is something that I learn though all the things I do and become, and most importantly, is informed by them. This is what I try to maintain, at least.

CM: Explain the significance of the series "Who Sees Goes On."
AM: That is perhaps too big a task for a format such as this: but the thing does describe itself very well, I think. it has many aspects, on three levels, and these interact and comment upon each other, providing dynamism for the unit as a whole to complete itself *as the examiner investigates it*. And this can happen in a number of ways, and provide multiple "readings". There are whole scales of meaning in each of the levels, and so the whole thing is in fact a latticework of 'meanings', derived, implied and 'discoverable' (the 'active' component provided by the act of investigation and the attention that has to go with it), which continue to resonate as the investigation continues, and as it moves from artifact to 'operation', public, private and 'other'.

CM: Who are some other people who's work you admire and what about them appeals to you?
AM: I think it's true to say that most of the people living whose work I have admired I have been fortunate to work with, for a short time in most cases, for better or worse, and so my knowledge of them is not something I can separate from what they do any more. However I also think that all of them a have a long way to go (thankfully so), and I feel very happy and indeed fortunate to have been on part of that path 'with' them to see a part of it. I don't see where one begins and the other ends, for the purposes of your question, although I *do* know on another level where that difference is. I am also now aware that because of having known some other people that their work is now no longer important, as what I was seeing was simply not their intent, and in some cases, what they do is actually harmful – what they were *really* doing has now been revealed to me by the expedient of my having known them in 'essence'. But this is experience and the passing of youthful enthusiasm, perhaps. I'm certainly none the less naive than I was when I was younger, it seems to me...the recent illnesses and the reactions to it/them have illustrated that in sharp relief. And there are some I would still like to both know and to work with, for specific areas and reasons. The difference between 25 years ago and now is, for my view as it is at this time of writing, is that I see more clearly what it is that they are lacking that I can help them with. What I realize today is that this is perhaps the most difficult thing for others to accept. There are people who are dead who have done things that interest me, it is true, but the references are clear in what I have done, and think that speaks for itself. I find very, very little contemporary *anything* admirable or useful.

CM: To what degree has your health affected your plans for future work, and what are those plans?
AM: I'm trying to earn money to stay alive. I don't qualify for free or even reduced cost medical care: and so I'm not receiving any. Without this, I will die. I have not been able to find a job at anything, even after the fact that I am looking for one has been broadcast over the internet. I don't receive any kind of social security money or any other income other than the small amount of donations recently organised through eBay channels and the like, which has just about dried up at the time of writing..

If there is anyone with any information regarding assistance for Andrew McKenzie please contact us: crouton@croutonmusic.com