You said in an interview recently that your music was research and that you were finding things out about yourself as you did it. I like that because it's one of my theories about why I listen to unusual music; I'm trying to learn things about myself. But that's only when I pay attention to how I listen.

oh dear. did I? I can't recall the context, but I'm sure it was true for that situation...I wouldn't use such a flat term right this moment, although it's the basis of a statement that could be called 'correct', as far as I'm concerned.

well, I should point out that it's fine for you to call what I do 'music', but I don't think of it that way: I was trained as a classical musician, and have played a lot of music. I have the conceit to think that I know somewhat what the real meaning of the 'music experience' is...and that hasn't a lot to do with music itself. just the same with what I do.

part of what I do is a sort of 'probe', and the answers are not actually answers at all. what remains is a record of what happened, but also a possibility of something else 'happening'. possibly another way to view it is that there can be a bridge between those two 'states'.

'attention' is most certainly one of the names given to the most important aspect of the processes I am involved in. there is only the danger of the degradation of the word as it is taken to mean 'focus'. attention is a very hard thing: it is not something that one can just turn on (except, perhaps, for a few very rare individuals). it is work, in the most pejorative sense of the word. if I might in some small way encourage that, that wouldn't be a bad thing. but that would be a side effect, rather than something I would ever set out to do. however, it is a concern.

real listening is not just hearing in a passive role, no matter how much one might be encouraged to think so today. there is no 'casual' when it comes to perception.

That's one of the other things I've noticed about your philosophy with this stuff; you have a conviction that sounds carry a great deal of power and can even be dangerous to us. I don't know if I agree that it's that powerful, but I must admit that I think of some recent time I spent in the Mojave desert, camping alone. After about 24 hours, I started to notice the near-silence, lack of urban noise, the peaceful emptiness there and I felt like I was coming up from a very bad beating that I didn't even know I had been taking.

I'd be unsure of applying the word "philosophy". but you can see it like the relationship and the operations of a cook, the food and the diner; to simplify matters, at least. just to give one example: if the cook is simply throwing things at random into various pots and subjecting them to random cooking processes, it's highly unlikely that the result will be palatable, or even edible. there are three types of food normally consumed: the kind we normally associate with the word 'food', and then 'air' and then 'impressions'. without amounts of these, you die. if any of these are polluted, or contain poisons, you will get ill. this is not based on theory, but actual observation which you can easily verify for yourself. and so it is with the intake of impressions.

it is said that one should never anger the cook when they are working =)

the role of the cook is also important in another sense: that they see beyond the apparent surface of the operation, past the physical location of the kitchen and the transient nature of the operation. they also must see that what they do must be relinquished in order for the work done to move to the next effective stage, which is the transformation of the energy contained in the food into other work, or higher or lower forms of energy. they also must look to the next recurrence and the satisfaction of needs which the kitchen can fulfill at a later date.

and just as with this example, to refer to your experience, when one is overfed and the internal organs are tired from the excessive processing of food. leaving things alone will right the situation: but not without the elimination of matter that is fouling the system.

I could go on and on with this metaphor: but I'm sure that the basis of what I'm saying is clear by now.

'sounds' are resonances; that is, they are internally the same on whatever scale you examine them. they are not pointers to something else: they ARE that which you are encountering. whether or not you proceed from there to impose tags and labels is neither here nor there. it is 'atomically' what it is.

therefore it is not 'sounds' that are powerful - they *are* the power that they manifest. they *are* the 'things' that they create by coming into being by nature of having being "sounded". therefore, what I said earlier about consciousness and attention in perception may be seen to be very crucial indeed. vital.

Whenever i start having a talk with someone about this sort of thing: the sounds, their workings, etc. I feel compelled to try and just move into the heart of the question: What is it that's going on here with all of us that listen to or create works of sound like this? Those of us that listen to Halfer Trio or Zoviet France or whatever "unusual" sounds we like that only a few thousand other people on the planet even know about. What is it we're trying to do?

well, I have to take issue about some of your generalisations, as that's an obstacle to me really explaining anything you're asking about.

firstly, what is "this sort of thing"? for me, this is not a specific set of things that I share with other people. I'm amazed, basically, that there is so little conscious thought, and so much automatism. but I suppose I shouldn't be. the sounds I am using are not those of others: nor would I either wish it or advise that is should be so. the workings are very peculiar to me. and this is a very important point. today more than ever, as far as I can see, aided by technological developments and the attitudes they foster, it is assumed by the vast majority of people that taking is the same as creating. moreover, mimicry is seen as an easy, clean and consequence-free way of "stealing power" or even "joining in" with or from something that appears to be attractive from the outside. this is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of working in the area of the presentation of 'work' at this present time that I see. there are many others, but this is to my mind the most prominent. and insidious.

"with all of us that listen"? I would first of all question the premise implicit in your question that people are actually capable, in general, of listening. it something that has atrophied certainly in my lifetime, to a point where I would say that deafness is by far more prevalent than anything else. not only do I mean this is the sense that people are unable to really 'hear' or 'listen' (and this of course links with earlier comments about attention), but that physically their hearing also damaged to a severe degree, mostly by choice or ignorance or bravado. or all three.

secondly, I think the vast majority of 'sound works' produced at this time are not creations. they are, at best, fiddling around i the dark, and dressing the 'result' up as something consciously created in order to feed the ego of the machine operator. this situation is also encouraged by the easy distribution of such material now possible. what also plays a significant role is the almost complete absence of discriminative faculties exercised here. the combined result is a situation where not only do the end recipients receive impressions and impulses that act upon them without their even knowing what they are in the first place, never mind being aware of the effects, but the people putting out this material are simply being acted upon themselves completely unaware of what it is they are dealing with.

I can think of no other occupation where such a situation would be acceptable. and yet within the realms of the contemporary 'creative act', this appears to be *required* behaviour.

and so a partial answer to your question would be "not many people have the slightest idea what it is they are doing." and to me, this is not a state of affairs that I find tolerable, and something I can just ignore. it is pollution, it is destruction of an ecology, for want of a better word, that I care deeply about, and which the destruction of is a cause for concern on very deep levels. not many of them to do with human frailties and inherited likes and dislikes.

I have known the one consistent member of :zoviet france: for more than a quarter of a century, and would never presume to speak for him. however, what he (and they) are occupied with is something which may tangentially connect with what I do, but is certainly in effect and modus operandi very different from that which I am engaged in or indeed, with.

but the very fact that there are even the slightest attempts to come to a place where something can happen as the result of a work made principally in the sonic realm (suggested by your last question) indicates a hunger for a kind of experience which is only to be found there. that this possibility is being removed by the flattening out of discriminative faculties in the name of some unwritten democratic system is cause enough to re-examine the situation. but this may be too late.

I can sympathise with you not wanting to be at the mercy of my or the readers interpretation of a few words or terms, but I think your attention to semantics is out of hand here. The core of my question is obvious and some generalization is unavoidable when talking about "this music" or "this sound" or this whatever term you prefer. I have to use SOME terms, some words to ask the question. Out of the many, many possibilities, I have to choose something, see?

yes. and I am using it as a springboard to speak of things that concern me. which is what I also thought you wanted. I'm not nit-picking: I'm picking up the ball where you left it and running off with it. please indicate if this is not what you want. I'm not criticising in any way. well, not you, anyway =)

How much of what you have intended can possibly come through still intact, just the way you intended it, after it's been put on a shiny little disc, in a little box, with cover art, and put in four-thousand different sets of hands? No matter how the listener might adjust his hearing for Hafler Trio?

and therein lies one of my points: the essential characteristics come though no matter what. just as every religious ritual, every folk dance, every martial art, contains the kernel - if it was constructed correctly, that essence is still there no matter what the distortion of the 'signal' due to being placed in a battered and misshapen form. it is by "listening" in the REAL sense that this original impetus can be rediscovered. and so it is with what I do. and indeed, more 'dangerously', with anyone. or indeed any 'thing'. the degrees of this are limited simply by the type and kind of focus. and this is where discrimination, which as I said before, I find to be disappearing, is a faculty most sorely needed. the consequences otherwise, as can be seen everywhere that *I* can see, at least, are evident.

I think this is important, and no small detail in our discussion, this problem with some terms and certain types of questions. Because for one thing, it's a peeve of many artists. Most are forgiving when questioned into a corner, but almost all feel the need at some time to clarify the mechanics of a question or two. Who wants what they do, which is so big and so meaningful for them, to be reduced to a few words, to be at the mercy of the readers interpretation of those words? I think it's the nature of trying to write about this sort of music, the process is fundamentally flawed.

I (and what I do) can't be reduced to a few words, and neither can anyone else. that's not what 'words' are for. neither can 'words' actually 'do' this. it's a *active* point I have made in various ways on several releases, one way or another. I don't feel myself at the mercy of any interpretation. for me, there is no interpretation. this is where perhaps I diverge from 'many artists'. I'm not implying 'better' or 'worse'.

Of all the artists I think I've researched, I've found that you are interested possibly much more in writing out and defining what it is that you do than anyone else.

probably least of all, if my limited experience is anything to go by =). I'm not defining anything here. what I was doing elsewhere that you have seen, I don't know. probably something else =) I am probing and seeding (amongst other things). and that's one aspect of what I do that is not contained to one medium, and perhaps the reason why it isn't seen so clearly.

Your interviews are very detailed, you seem to be very disturbed by the prospect of something being misinterpreted.

not at all. this is only worrisome for anyone that sees fit to do so. what is encountered by *listening* or *looking*, as far as I'm concerned is not open to discussion and debate and opinion, much less to interpretation. the work required in order to perform these two acts, as well as other acts whereby something might be encountered, is also beyond discussion in terms of subjective evaluation.

After reading that, I just remembered something that always crossed my mind whenever I listened to Hafler Trio material for the first time. It was that nothing I heard sounded accidental, I would always sense this huge amount of intent behind it. There are several artists I enjoy who I can sense happenstance in their work, and that's fine, but it makes me pay attention when I can tell something has been crafted. Having said that, I'll bet now you'll have to break it to me that it's all been one big accident!

well, no, not really...in the beginning there was a lot of 'unchecked' use of chance operations, and as I've gone on about at length elsewhere, it had some pretty bad side-effects. for many years now, I haven't done any of that kind of experimentation in public. yes, you'd be right about the "intent" part. and all of it, too. directed, conscious, and evident. and there are many, many layers of this in most everything that has been done under the h3o name for many years. for the last period, what is happening is less 'layers' than many 'jewelled features', that change as one examines them from different angles, revealing more of the structure both on the small and the large levels.

I've always suspected that you value a good prank too. I mean, I'm sure you were completely serious when you sent that fax to Czech president Vaclev Havel asking him to show up as a guest performer at a 1994 show in Prague, but it's also hilarious.

yes, both. it had serious intent, and was silly, true. he had been hanging out in a club (which no longer exists) twice the day before I played as a member and sound engineer for Clock DVA on two european tours. that was one of many 'actions' that there is very little documentation of.

And at one of the Hafler Trio websites I found a copy of a sort of rider I guess was presented to show organizers. In it you requested that if possible there should be these things on hand: Someone who could make animals out of baloons, as many toasters as possible, a barbershop quartet, fire-eaters, a stand-up comic (good or bad) and the list goes on. As I actually write this question out and consider some of your past live events, I'm wondering if you were strictly serious about all of it.

I wanted any and all of those things. to me it would have been very instructive and yet entertaining, as well as being closer to the h3o 'spirit' than having any other 'musical' or 'artistic' "act" before whatever I did. the contrasts that it provided were also very important. on some of the dates we did get some of this stuff, and others. I was deadly serious, and if I ever get the chance to do it again, I will. but I'd go even further next time...

So what is your life like, what does Andrew McKenzie do from day to day?

hmm. at the moment, and for the last 6 months or so, I try to raise money to live on and to get mediacl treatment, without success. and that's it, really. just wondering "how much longer?", to be really blunt about it (the diseases I have will kill me without treatment). I bleed more or less constantly from internal haemorraghing, and have pretty much constant pain in the liver and other organs. I vomit blood two or three times a week. I'm very tired all the time, and sleep very badly indeed. I sweat cold and hot pretty much all the time, and frequently have black spots before my eyes. I'm nauseous more or less constantly. my legs swell up and down, as do my feet, making it very painful and difficult to walk.

I understand you do some programming to "keep the lights on" so to speak.

apart from the lights nearly being out in the bodily sense, they're just about out on the electrical front too. I was fired from a company I was a partner for "being ill", and swindled out of my shares. I have been unable to find any work either internationally in either sound work or computer-related activities (my two main qualifications) or anything else, be it bottle factory, street-sweeper, whatever. any help with this would be gratefully received. CV is online.

December 2002