The Hafler Trio is Dr. Edward Moolenbeek, Christopher R. Watson, and Andrew M. McKenzie. Dr. Moolenbeek works in the group mainly in a capacity of consultant in the areas of sound and science. He is involved with sound as a means of art, that is, he produces sonic paintings by subjecting sensitive receiving material to high intensities and long durations of sound.
     Christopher Watson was a founding member of Cabaret Voltaire, and worked with that group from 1973 to 1981. His interest today is in Natural History recordings. Andrew McKenzie was an originator of the cassette magazine Touch, which became "quite successful shortly after I left," as he says. McKenzie also teaches classical guitar.
     The Hafler Trio's audio work is close in spirit to musique concrete in the way that sounds are arranged and mixed to produce an unusual and often quite enlightening/challenging piece. However, as you will see in the following interview, the group does not consider that what they do is 'art,' nor do they consider themselves musicians. Rather, they consider themselves scientists or philosophers. Their work/recordings/live appearances exist for the purpose of enlightenment through communication, trying to attain this through the realization of direct perception.
     In this world of mindless information reception through media saturation. The Hafler Trio is offering an alternative which requires input from the listener/receiver, not just a one-way brain drain. Most of life now revolves around states of passivity; perhaps The Hafler Trio are going backwards to go forwards: back to natural sounds, which are mostly taken for granted. The sounds produced and manipulated by the group vary from record to record, with clear intentions as to what sounds are to be used and for what specific purposes/ends/effects. This is a point which most musical groups won't delve into, let along think about: the study of the effects of their sounds on people.
     This sets The Hafler Trio in a category by themselves. The extracts from various essays by the group are included to exemplify their reasons for making what they make.

     - John Hudak

     One might observe about The Hafler Trio that they have conducted perception tests on their audiences somewhat relative to experiments which various armies and governments have conducted involving hallucination and response. The difference is of course that The Hafler Trio have not been administering mindbending quantities of LSD to leam what could have been understood from basic social theory anyway. There is a definite political aspect to the work of The Hafler Trio which is intriguing.
     They have likened participation in everyday society to sensory withdrawl, in which subjects willingly deaden their reactions in order to fit in, or the 'relax' (a supposition which includes subjecting the entire body to the violent undulations of club dancing in a deranged bid for passivity). When The Hafler Trio talk about opening the windows of the factory to let the sun in, this is no heavy intellectual notion; this is a simple statment about the body industrial, which proclaimsd efficiency one of the highest virtues yet does everything to keep its human workers demoralized.
     In their analyses of speech theory, they bring a definitely radical, anti-academic view-point into the fray, making them analogous to the work of R.D. Laing in the field of Psychoanalysis. From Bang! An Open Letter (Doublevision Records, 1984) to The Brain Song (Touch, 1986), there is a consistency about The Hafler Trio which makes them a worthy above the self-engrossed nihilism of 'industrial music' and the pseudo -intellectuality which aften accompanies it. Quite simply, they are about their work. Their sound pieces, their visual creations, and their live manifestations are of one spirit. They are carrying on the tradition of the now-disbanded ROBOL labs in the public eye, making available opinions and information which would otherwise remain in textbook and obscure laboratories. For the The Hafler Trio are deserving not of suspicion, but of the greatest respect.
     In the interview with group spokesperson Andrew McKenzie which follows is actually a synthesis of two independent interviews generated simultaneously by John Hudak and myself. Having learned of each other's efforts, we endeavored to construct one profile of one of the most intriquing groups in sound today.

     - Carl Howard

UNSOUND (US): Why, especially The Netherlands Lectures, do you utilize both words and sounds?
HAFLER TRIO (HT): Words and sounds? Words are sounds. We are engaged in research into psycho-acoustic and physiological effects of sonic events and phenomena - therefore we are interested in all sound, and the effect it has on the body, and, and spirit of man (and woman). The Netherlands Lectures record is a part of documents of parts of lectures delivered there. Such use of the Englush language in a country where most people (do not) speak it created the need for an effort to be made within the audience who, instead of passively gawking at a spectacle, were forced to fit pieces of puzzles together for themselves. A similar situation faces the listener of the record as the slides and films which illuminated certain parts are absent, but the words are repeatable. Therefore, another exercise in creating interactive perception using the same material in a different context.
US: Are you aiming to have the word meanings sink in subliminally? If so, why don't you use direct repetition so that if one doesn't hear it once, they'll get it the second time,..? or are you aiming at a more subtle repetition, like that of religious material?
HT: Subliminals, while of peripheral interest to us, (they are not as effective as people would have you believe), are not used on The Netherlands Lectures. Concerning your comments about repetition, it is worth noting that the more specific the subliminal message, the less effective it will be.
US: The is a man named Ernest Robson who has studied linguistics and phonetics, and claims that vowels and consonants in particular combinations and at different pitches create different psychological effects. He has scientifically examined these effects in a book, Phonetic Music with Electronic Music, and in his own sound poetry. His words are chosen because of the feelings involved, not particularly the meaning.
US: Are you using sound in this way?
HT: Ernest Robson is well known to us, as are the sources from which he derives many of his theories. Apart from a few technical inaccuracies in his work, on the whole we would agree with his findings and suppositions. We have in the past, and shall continue to do so in the future, put these ideas (some of which can be found in many religious systems) into practical use.
US: Have you studied the effects of sound? If so, why do you utilize words instead of utilizing just pure sound? Are you conscious of the exact results you want to create with your music? If yes, what is the general effect that you are after?
HT: Yes, we are conscious of the exact result that will occur after exposure to one of our recordings. If we were to be specific about these goals in print here, this would destroy the effectiveness.
US: What part does each member of the group contribute to each particular piece?
HT: Each member of The Hafler Trio has come from one or more specialist background, each different from each other member. This does not mean that the roles are fixed within the unite. Those backgrounds are described in the booklet accompanying The Netherlands Lectures.
US: Do you see your work as just sound arrangement/sound architecture, or do you consider it in strictly musical terms?
HT: Unfortunately your term 'sound architecture' baffles me. I can't really say whether we do see our work like that or not; but it is possible to say that we do not consider our work in musical terms, or for that matter as art at all.
US: Does your work have any particular premeditated didactic function?
HT: According to the dictionary we have here, we agree with the definition of what we do under that banner, in the first definition "designed to instruct" (although that is merely the beginning), but not the "opinionated" (we base nothing on opinions - only fact and practical applications/ effects) or "dictatorial." I defy anyone to point to any work of ours that can be labeled. So answer is both yes and no.
US: Are there any spontaneous parts or is it all preconceived? Is there room for chance or mistakes?
HT: There are spontaneous events which are then built on to finalize an experiment or construction, but these happen within a premeditated set of parameters. Sometimes the process is reversed, mainly in the case of feedback from other experiments which are then incorporated...etc., etc. It is not a question of mistakes, rather deviations from the original plan - and these occure because of a fault in that plan anyway. Roughly one quarter of our recorded work sees the public light of day.
US: Are you trying to get people to listen to things differently, as perhaps John Cage has been trying to do all these years....to get people to realize that everything can be considered music, every sound around you?
HT: John Cage is a musician-we are not. It is arguable that Cage does not consider everything musical: someone once asked him the screams from the gas chambers could be considered music. He did not reply.
US: Could Mr. Watson please explain the purposes and goals of his Natural History Recordings?
HT: Mr. Watson's interest in Natural History recordings stemmed, in the beginning, from genuine enjoyment-nothing else. Gradually the serious aspects of this pursuit, such as preservation of animal and bird sounds soon to be extinct, as well as the analysis and better understanding of the processes (certain calls for certain purposes, etc.) were revealed to him. It is an interest we all have within and without The Hafler Trio. I would much rather be sitting up a tree in the Lake District at 4am recording badgers or something, than have to listen to modem pop record.
US: How do the synthesized sounds fit in with the natural in either your scientific or aesthetic sensibilities?
HT: We do not, and never have used any synthesized sound. All sounds within our body of work are of entirely natural origin, processed in various ways. Perhaps there are some that would claim that this is a form of synthesis, but this is our position.
US: Since your regular, run of the mill person would not pick up your records, what type of people do you see listening to your records, and are you aiming to affect a certain group of people?
HT: What is a run of the mill person? We assume that people who listen to our records are human. This allows us to make certain suppositions with general terms in reference to the way the ear is constructed, likely sizes of room, speaker size, etc., and these results are then extrapolated from. The intermediate stage is public installations/exhibitions, where we can be reasonably specific. Otherwise, our recorded work is designed for all. You probably would be surprised at the range of different letters we receive from all ove the world from people whose primary taste has been thrown into complete disarray.
US: My basic question remains: why do you make your sounds in the ways they come out? Why the particular patterns/ arrangements? Do you or do you not consider yourselves musicians? Artists?
HT: I will state again: we do not consider ourselves musicians, artists, sculptors, architects, and so on ad nauseum. There are many reasons for the patterns/arrangements of sonic information (and written, and filmed, and others), primarily scientific, philosophical, religious, mathematical, and sheer bloody mindedness.
US: What kinds of sounds have The Hafler Trio recorded near ley lines (stone circles/megaliths) besides ultrasound, as mentioned in the New Scientist article of 21 October 1982? I've been reading the Underwood book Patterns of the Past that deals with the idea that stones were placed on blind springs mostly and had to do with water lines. Perhaps the placement of stones had something to do with sound also?
HT: Many peculiar phenomena have been recorded at the Rollright stones, and others, the Merry Maidens, Barbook Two, and so on, which we will release soon if some technical problems can be ironed out ( certain low and high frequencies will be almost impossible to transfer to disc or to cassette). Indeed, many ley lines are on blind springs, but their importance is underestimated if we leave it at that. The picture that is building up is composed of primarily religious significance. Certainly, the alteration of ions (due to the presence of water) in the air causes minute alterations of frequencies emitted near them. There is a number of books relevant to the subject, the first signifaicant ones being by Alfred Watkins. Useful reference is provided by books on Glastonbury, plus an OUP book called Sun Moon and Standing Stone by John Edwin Wood. This deals mainly with the mathematical analysis, and so leaves the picture incomplete, but useful nonetheless. It is a fascinating subject for many reasons, but our efforts at this time are to rediscover, if possible , the practical use of these forces (it is clear to everyone that there was one of some kind). Another great writer on related subjects is TC Lethbridge, although most people find some of his theories impossible to swallow.
US: Could you expound a little on recommended books or articles on the research of (Dr. Robert) Spridgeon and Moolenbeek? Does their research have anything to do with language or linguistic or physics?
HT: All books (if you are fortunate enough to find them) by Spridgeon or his associates are recommended....There are (books) which will be suggested by enquiry into the various avenues. Their research, (and) ours, does include language, linguistics, physics, plus everything else mentioned above, and more besides. APR Speaker Peter Bander (died 21st December 1986), ex-head of the ROBOL management team.
US: Who is the speaker on Alternative/Perception and Resistance? On the Netherlands Lectures?
HT: Surely it is obvious as to the speakers on the Lectures? Mckenzie/Watson/ Moolenbeek in that order.
US: What exactly ROBOL, and how does it fit in with your productions? Certain pitches cause certain feelings? If you are trying to be didactic, you should be clear with your lessons and not so vague.
HT: We have now nearly terminated our relationship with ROBOL. Issue might well be taken with your assertion that lessons are more effective if clear. Examination of parables, fables, religious books of all denominations, etc., will bear this out. This refers back to an earlier point concerning effort, participation, etc.
US: You approach art with your vagueness.
HT: We do not approach art at all (Well, Dr. Moolenbeek hints at it).
US: If what you are doing is experimental, how do you get feedback? How can you tell if something works?
HT: Feedback comes in the form of letters, newspaper articles, telephone calls, word of mouth, personal encounters, at installations, exhibitions, and so on. Something works if it has the effect we intend it to, which most of work has. A glaring example of failure being the (thankfully since deleted) German twelve-inch item.
US: Where do you see your work leading to? Are you trying to teach through example? Metaphor?
HT: Our work is leading us hopefully to conscious interaction with the world, based on an understanding of reciprocal maintnenance, the system of life on this planet so close to eradication. Example? Yes. Metaphor? Yes. It is a hope that these and other methods may be used, as they were in the past, to create human beings out of machines that sleep form the cradle to the grave.

-Questions: John Hudak

US: On The Netherlands Lectures, you point to what's called 'speech theory' as an example of how traditional socio-analysis falls short of describing true communicative mechanisms. Could you please establish the background of speech theory, and contrast this against the desired aims of Spridgeon/Moolenbeek/ ROBOL.
HT: The name Speech Theory is really quite an inadequate term for our exact interest and approach to what we (rightly or wrongly) see as one of the most important and pressing problems man has to face: the fact that none of us understand what the hell each other is saying. Our 'aims' are to keep aiming at these and other targets. For this question to be fully answered,ie., the background of speech theory,etc., the relevant books should be consulted, and pretty widely available they are, too....
US: Dr. Moolenbeek speaks of training the mind to be more attentive to stimuli-thereby more ultimately productive. He uses the analogy of the light in a factory. Is the mind then to be regarded as more of a mechanical field of training , and how is one to distinguish different stimuli in an environment as chaotic as a factory.
HT: It is not Dr. Moolenbeek who speaks of these things — I assume you have taken this from the 'Alteration...' twelve-inch. The voice on the record belongs to one Peter Bander, who until very recently was head of ROBOL's management team (now disbanded following his death). However, this is getting away from the point. I can speak about this as we all composed this text. As with all analogies (but not metaphors) they can be pulled apart. A factory in the real world is of course chaotic, but the inner sensual world/factory is even worse. By viewing in a detached 'objective' (manner) the senses and how they operate—which requires the almost superhuman effort he mentions earlier, we are able to control and make more USE of these, instead of sleepwalking. And the tools for this, the levers, the levers if you like, are all around us, if we only take note of them (if only...). So one of the ways to make another cognisant of these possibilities is to trick, force, and slide the listener of a record into them. To hole up a mirror and to repeat a phrase, cover it in skins of an onion so that effort and Participation in information is Achieved. Maybe it is then possible (we believe so and have received testimonies from people who do also) to pass into 'understanding' as opposed to knowledge, to connect with the three centers of a human which in turn mirrors the sacred 'triamazikamno'. As we say in one of the titles of our records, 'Ben , Ruach, Ab, Shaloshethem Yechad Thaubodo.'
US: Might one refer to the 'speech act' as being more specifically radical or confrontational than the typically passive casual conversation? How might one interpret such acts of specific communication using other than empirical means?
HT: Mostly answered above, but with the addition that you ask about interpretation: the only interpretation that is valid for us is that which we intended. If the message becomes altered, confused, or mistaken, we have failed. This is very different from not being 'sure' of the message, which may gradually filter through, according to our method of presentation, etcetera.
US: On The Netherlands Lectures, you point to what's called 'speech theory' as an example of how traditional socio-analysis falls short of describing true communicative mechanisms. Could you please establish the background of speech theory, and contrast this against the desired aims of Spridgeon/Moolenbeek/ ROBOL.
HT: The name Speech Theory is really quite an inadequate term for our exact interest and approach to what we (rightly or wrongly) see as one of the most important and pressing problems man has to face: the fact that none of us understand what the hell each other is saying. Our 'aims' are to keep aiming at these and other targets. For this question to be fully answered,ie., the background of speech theory,etc., the relevant books should be consulted, and pretty widely available they are, too....
US: Dr. Moolenbeek speaks of training the mind to be more attentive to stimuli-thereby more ultimately productive. He uses the analogy of the light in a factory. Is the mind then to be regarded as more of a mechanical field of training , and how is one to distinguish different stimuli in an environment as chaotic as a factory.
HT: It is not Dr. Moolenbeek who speaks of these things—1 assume you have taken this from the 'Alteration...' twelve-inch. The voice on the record belongs to one Peter Bander, who until very recently was head of ROBOL's management team (now disbanded following his death). However, this is getting away from the point. I can speak about this as we all composed this text. As with all analogies (but not metaphors) they can be pulled apart. A factory in the real world is of course chaotic, but the inner sensual world/factory is even worse. By viewing in a detached 'objective' (manner) the senses and how they operate—which requires the almost superhuman effort he mentions earlier, we are able to control and make more USE of these, instead of sleepwalking. And the tools for this, the levers, the levers if you like, are all around us, if we only take note of them (if only...). So one of the ways to make another cognisant of these possibilities is to trick, force, and slide the listener of a record into them. To hole up a mirror and to repeat a phrase, cover it in skins of an onion so that effort and Participation in information is Achieved. Maybe it is then possible (we believe so and have received testimonies from people who do also) to pass into 'understanding' as opposed to knowledge, to connect with the three centers of a human which in turn mirrors the sacred 'triamazikamno'. As we say in one of the titles of our records, 'Ben , Ruach, Ab, Shaloshethem Yechad Thaubodo.'
US: Might one refer to the 'speech act' as being more specifically radical or confrontational than the typically passive casual conversation? How might one interpret such acts of specific communication using other than empirical means?
HT: Mostly answered above, but with the addition that you ask about interpretation: the only interpretation that is valid for us is that which we intended. If the message becomes altered, confused, or mistaken, we have failed. This is very different from not being 'sure' of the message, which may gradually filter through, according to our method of presentation, etcetera.
US: Please describe the background of the forms and methods used by Dr. Moolenbeek in his sonic paintings. Do these methods tie in to the resistance techniques outlined by Moolenbeek on various occasions?
HT: The techniques of construction of the paintings are described in some detail next to their reproductions where they appear.
US: Many of the sound techniques devised by ROBOL and utilized by The Hafler Trio might seem vague to the untrained ear (hello). What differences are there to be found, for example, between the tape processing methods employed by McKenzie on the first Touch cassette, 'feature-mist', and on BANG! An Open Letter?
HT: I'm an ideal situation on this one! The way I used tapes/processing on the first three/four issues of Touch was merely working out methods in public, so to speak. It was a period where we were first (CR Watson and myself) in contact with Dr. Moolenbeek, and through him ROBOL. So the points of contact are the 'raw material' as exhibited on the magazines, and the processing is latent in them. Many many hours of work then went into the transformation witnessed in the BANG! An Open Letter LP. It seems a good point at which to correct the confusion which appears to have arisen regarding the note on the reverse of the sleeve of that record; it does not, due to poor wording, mean that the whole LP was recorded in 1972-most of the SOURCE material was initiated at ROBOL at that time. As to the technologies being ' vague to the untrained ear', I assure that some are intended to be vague to all ears, trained or untrained. It is a well-documented method used in many religious systems, philosophies, computer programming (really!) etc., reasons for which we have explained at length elsewhere.
US: One might observe a stylistic affinity between Seven Hours Sleep and the recordings of Zoviet France. What is the nature of the axis between these two groups, if any, and are any combined efforts being planned?
HT: We (THT) completely reject the label 'style' and any affinity on these grounds that you perceive is your own affair. Our work is the research and demonstration of techniques of improved communication, not with style and entertainment. I cannot speak for Zoviet France. However I have known one of Zoviet France for close to twelve years, maybe we will do something...?
US: What specific effects upon communication in general would you say are the result of the imposition of American popular culture , for example, as we see today in Mainland China? What perception and resistance exercises might ROBOL offer to counter these effects, or are they truly irreversible?
HT: None of us have been to China. It is really none of our concern . We prefer to affect and create on a more personal scale of communication as outlined above and elsewhere. Implicit in your question is the distinction between Popular culture and some other sort. Is there really any difference? What is culture anyway? I would be inclined to side on the theory that a people's culture is what it puts in its rubbish bins (witness Pompei, Roman Britain, etc.). If I were feeling more flippant, I would be inclined to say that a method of avoiding American popular culture would be, for us, to switch off the television set. As it is, I would say that the best method would be to develop the will and discrimination NOT TO HAVE TO. I apologize for the subjectivity of this answer.
US: Dr. Moolenbeek recounts a period towards the end of Robert Spridgeon's life when his involvement in field work led him to be converted by an extremist cult organization, thus rendering his last observations 'questionable'. Please elaborate upon this, and upon his findings at that time.
HT: I find some of your terminology here quite interesting, e.g. " extremist cult organization" , "converted", and that this somehow rendered his findings "questionable". This period is one of the most interesting in Spridgeons life, and if I were to put my interpretation onto it, it would diminish the possible ramifications of the incident. I would suggest you listen to the account once more, bearing in mind what comes before and after it. The light cast from each section of the record is caught and transposed by all the others.
US: Christopher Watson's fascination with source recordings would seem to go back some fifteen years, yet it is only after leaving Cabaret Voltaire that his interest appears to find its furthest elaborations. How would he describe his interest in source recordings, and how do these apply to the sound/social research of The Hafler Trio and of ROBOL.
HT: MR Watson's interest goes back much further than fifteen years (see the mini-biography at the end of the Lectures booklet), and it should really be quite obvious what use this interest (which we all share) is to us. I was not aware that we were engaged in social research, although you may have described a facet of what we do in terms I cannot see it in. C'est la vie. As to the relationship with ROBOL- we are currently loosening ties with the organization for moral and personal, as well as practical reasons, which it would be most improper of me to elucidate upon in print.
US: What chances are there that interested North Americans might be able to observe some of the films and lectures of The Hafler Trio? What projects for general release are being planned?
HT: Interested North (and South, East, and West) Americnas would be able to see films and slides, and hear and experience our special installations, etc., if they are willing to come up with the money and suitable places for such things. Tentative plans are afoot for some sort of appearance early next year in New York, but the problems are myriad: certain conditions of place, equipment, various logistical things and so on have yet to be surmounted. It is something we would like very much to do, and so any offers gratefully received. Currently in preparation is a record which forms the programme for an installation in a London art gallery which relates to the interaction between visual and sonic artists (something which we are not, I hasten to add). Following this, we have the basic structure (the hard work comes next) for a quite elaborate examination of "Sonic Alchemy," accompoanied by seventeenth centry engravings and modem parables of the stages of the process, with the sonic equivalents. Related to this is a complicated project involving the various implications of travel. Ironically, this comes at a dme where appearances were made (in January) in Den Bosch (Holland), and at a festival containing works by Stockhausen, Cage, Schaffer, et al, in a place near to Berlin. Tentative plans are underway towards a major exposition (the only one we will ever do) in London. A five-minute piece which includes some 'specially devised forays into audio-visual linking based on various scientific and religious system's use of the same was scheduled to be broadcast on national British television in April, 87. A major film soundtrack is being negotiated, and work begins within athe next few months on a very ambitious (read:shaky) theatre linkup. Waiting in the wings is a completed project entitled A Thirsty Fish, which is our final word on modern uses of religious 'maskings,' 'secret teaching,' and so on. This will be a double LP with attendant literature, but will require some very specialized production techniques to preserve the delicate frequency balance/shades of meaning/etc. - again, all offers greatfully received and will be duly considered. I thikn that just about covers it, except for the always-ongoing research and field work which is entirely our business.

Questions: Carl Howard

THE HAFLER TRIO IN WRITING...

---