ED: Right. Hello Pete.
PT: Hello.
ED: This is Pete, the bass player of the Banned Members? OK? What were your first
impressions upon your initial encounter with the coloured dots pieces?
PT: Yeah well, the coloured dots piece was the first one I heard because it
was on the website wasn't it?
ED: Yeah, probably.
PT: I think it was Sweaty Retard; I thought? that's a weird name.
ED: When you were listening to it, before you knew how it was done, how did
you perceive it?
PT: I actually thought it was laid out; I noticed that both you and Guy do play
some of the same riffs in the same keys sometimes and because I actually heard
that when I first listened to it, I did assume that it was laid out, it was
just intentionally out of key. When you actually introduced the concept to me
? you included an explanation of the music on the Rock 'n' Random CD ? I think
it was my dad who caught on before me. He realised how it was supposed to work.
And to begin with it was quite difficult to figure out?
ED: How did you feel playing those pieces in front of people? Did that affect
you? Did you have, sort of, mental barriers? Were you worried about being humiliated
in front of an audience?
PT: Not really, 'cus as I said, Dad spoke about it quite a lot when I first
heard it and my dad doesn't really appreciate art so much, but when he was able
to take it for what it was I did feel that it wouldn?t be quite so nerve-racking.
But the first gig, I have to admit, I was quite nervous.
ED: Is that because what you were going to play, or because you were worried
about the audience reacting badly?or something like that?
PT: I wasn't really worried about the audience reacting badly, 'cus I've had
the audience react badly before in other circumstances; I think you get used
to it and when you?re intentionally playing something that?s completely unconventional,
I think most people won?t react so harshly. It's the difference between original
bands and cover bands; people clap for original material bands because it's
something new, they haven't heard it before, so they can?t judge it too harshly
but people are always more discerning with cover bands because they expect something
from them, it?s got to sound how they want it to. With us, people didn't really
know what to expect or how to react. When I got the reaction from my parents
afterwards, they couldn't tell if it was out of key because there was so much
going on.
ED: Had you ever free improvised or improvised before?
PT: Not to the extent we do. I've improvised in the normal manner, but I?ve
never really improvised without scales. It's not even a matter of improvising
without a melody, it's improvising with sounds, more than anything else, which
I hadn't really done before. Other people have talked about making different
sounds on the bass, but I think the more outlandish part of it for me was playing
something, which didn't have a key, or melody, or anything to it, that was completely
random?
ED: One of the things that has surprised me is that some of those free improvisations
we've done have ended up being the things that have got the biggest applause,
certainly on some of the recordings I've got.
PT: It always reminded me of Pink Floyd (ED thinks: ouch!) because they liked
to drop in with weird sounds and it's one of those things, when it's done right
it can look and sound really professional when it's done live. I think that's
probably what draws people in.
ED: Well, it's quite unusual as well in those venues.
PT: Sometimes when we?re doing improvisations they're completely structured,
we use similar sounds each time, but other times, when maybe we're more awake
or more on the ball and we do something that?s completely unique.
ED: Well, there's the bit in "Who?s Y'Daddy" which, although it's
improvised, tends to be the same idea each time, but there have been a few occasions
when I've said, "let's do a free improvisation" and we do for five
minutes ? it's quite brave, I think.
PT: In those situations we're more likely to experiment a lot more; try something
different and when it comes out properly it sounds good.
ED: Are you aware of what everyone else is doing in those free improvisations?
PT: More so now than
when I began, I think, I've been careful to listen to what?s going on around
me.
ED: Does that mean you find yourself playing with it or against it, or??
PT: I think, with all due respect to everyone else in the band, there's sometimes
a lot of stuff going on, and there are times when I feel I personally have to
drop-out, just to make sure the sound doesn't get overloaded.
ED: That's very worthy of you.
PT: It's something I'm more conscious of now than I was at the beginning. It
varies, there are times when almost everyone drops out and I feel I have to
fill in. Whether I'm right or not is purely debatable.
ED: It is indeed purely debatable. Do you think there are any recognisable song
structures in what we do? Or they are more composition based, more like pieces
than songs?
PT: Maybe it's what I've been brought up on, but I do find I'm used to the structures.
I do think there are discernable structures there, but that's probably because
I've been brought up on prog rock.
ED: So do you think other people might have difficulty when they first hear
it, maybe?
PT: It's always odd when I talk to other people because when you've had such
a different musical upbringing, as I have, you find it odd to speak to other
people who've maybe only ever listened to what's in the charts and they're used
to a completely different way of structuring music.
ED: Is this because chart music is all verse, chorus, verse, chorus, middle-eight?
PT: If you take any Britney Spears song it's exactly the same as any other.
ED: But what about something that's a bit more messed up, like turntable stuff,
where they're chopping up other peoples' songs? is that any better?
PT: I'm personally not very interested in it; I don't think it requires any
musical skill. But in that way you could say people are being a lot more creative
about their music, particularly when they're taken samples of other peoples
songs and putting them in their own compositions, they're taking the music they
like and expressing it in their own way. I personally don't think that, obviously,
because they've messed up some of my favourite songs!
ED: Do you think there are any limits as to how far we can go with randomness,
if we're playing the Shed and places like that? Do you think that by pushing
a boundary it makes what we do more legitimate and people appreciate it more?
PT: I can't really say ? that's a difficult question.
ED: Are you aware of there being degrees of randomness?
PT: I know there are degrees in chaos theory?but not about randomness?
ED: Do you think the coloured dots pieces are as random as the free improvisation
bits?
PT: It depends, a definition of randomness is that anything can happen, and
that also includes everyone playing in tune with each other!
ED: One of the ways I think about it in composition is? you have ways of controlling
randomness, or you have parameters in music and you might control some of them
and leave others to chance. So I would consider the free improvisations, where
we haven't planned anything as more random than the coloured dots pieces, where
we have very fixed rhythmical aspect.
PT: Yeah, it's hard to say. When it comes to free improvisations, anything could
happen, but it?s not to a melody; a lot of it is sound. I think the coloured
dots pieces could possibly sound more random than free improvisations. In the
free improvisations, a lot of the time I say to myself I?m not going to make
a tune, I'm going to make noises out of the bass?
ED: So do you think that maybe people listening to it think the coloured dots
pieces are more random than the free improvisations?
PT: Yes ? because most people are more attuned to melody and tune than they
are to sound.
ED: So you think they pick up on the melodies of the dots pieces and think "they
don?t make any sense" so they're perceived as more random?
PT: Yeah.
ED: People are so attuned to melody, when they hear it messed up they think
"Wow, it's really random"?
PT: Yeah
ED: Interesting?
ED: Pete, you're one of the more experienced members of the group, or at least, you go back a long way?
PG: That's a better way of putting it!
ED: Yes?your experience of bands has included free improvisation before. But
how do you feel about going out and playing improvised music in front of pub
audiences?
PG: It's daunting, but it when it works it?s very satisfying.
ED: So you're aware that what we're doing is different from what a lot of other
bands are doing in Leicester?
PG: Well... yes, definitely.
ED: OK. You've suggested we introduce more familiar song structures. Why do
you think that?s a good idea?
PG: Not in the sense of getting away from the more extreme elements of what
we do; what I think it's all about is a question of experimenting with the pacing
of the set. And finding what seems to work for us. I think that what you can't
do is expose people to too much indulgent experimentation when they're on a
night out, because there's only a certain amount of it that they'll be prepared
to take. You have to pace everything?
ED: So, you're saying that the role of the band is very much as an entertainment
thing for other people to enjoy, in that sense?
PG: Yes. I think it's hard to avoid that's the conclusion when you?re out there
on the stage in front of people.
ED: Do you feel, in that case, that the venue is very much dictating, or at
least having a big say in what you can do when you're there?
PG: I think that's very much the case. If people were coming specifically to
see us ? if the band acquired a reputation whereby people were going out and
buying tickets to come and see us at a venue ? then we?d get more freedom to
dictate what we can do. But when you're attending a regular venue where there
are bands on seven nights a week, people will attend the venue because they
know they can predict a certain standard of entertainment, a certain approach
to entertainment. I think it's hard to pull them too far out of that without
being unduly provocative.
ED: Do you think there's a problem with that undue provocation? I've been reading
about Mike Westbrook, who's an ancient figure of jazz, but he was saying there
was a point in time when he was going out of his way, wholeheartedly, to fuck
off the audience. But not because he didn't want them to enjoy it, basically,
the path he was on was irritating them.
PG: He wanted to challenge their assumptions.
ED: Well, he wasn't even doing that. He had an idea that he wanted to pursue,
it just so happened audiences that were used to hearing him do jazz weren't
up for it, and they'd be rude and they'd heckle or they'd leave. Even the musicians
would leave off the stage 'cus they'd get fed up with it.
PG: When musicians start leaving off the stage, then you've got a problem.
ED: Well, yeah, but that kind of added to this great myth of Mike Westbrook,
'cus he's now got this great following because that's what he went out and did.
Do you think there's anything to say by that, in the sense that, the more you
push certain boundaries, although you might in the short term offend people,
in the long the term it's possibly a good thing to do?not just in terms of career?
PG: Yeah, I mean?I think, in terms of career, one goes out and plays music for
enjoyment and it?s nice to get appreciated by people, but it's not the total
be all and end all of everything. If I believed strongly enough in what we're
doing then I'd be quite happy to keep on doing it no matter how extreme it gets.
When I made the suggestion that we should put more song structures into the
over all thing, it was really more a question of saying, not that I think it's
a bad thing to do overall ? to go out and improvise in peoples faces for half-an-hour
? but it's good to play to your own strengths. And I think that you're a very
good composer of song structures and that you write things that are very good
to listen to. I think that including an element of that in the set is a good
idea.
ED: So you want a balance between improvisation and composed stuff.
PG: Balance is important.
ED: Pete (Thorley) said something quite interesting. He said that people would
find the free improvisation bits easier to get on with because in the coloured
dots pieces people go "wow, that's random" ? the pitches are all over
the place ? but in the free improvisation bits, because it's all to do with
sound, and a bit weird, people don't have much of a problem with it. Do you
think the coloured dots pieces sound more random?
PG: Yes ? I think that there are parts of the coloured dots pieces that are
much more aggressively in your face ? from the audiences' point of view ? than
the free improvisation that we do. I think that some of the stand alone free
improvisation pieces have actually been amongst the most entertaining things
that we've done live, and the tapes of the gigs actually tend to bare that out.
ED: Yeah, in the applause? I think that's true.
PG: In improvisation, people are pursuing their own habits to certain extent,
I know we?re trying not to do that, but we are doing? but the coloured dots
pieces, what they tend to do ? when they're very structured ? is challenge the
habits not only of the audience, but also of the musicians at the same time.
ED: In the free improvisation bits, are you listening to the other members of
the band or are you on your own line of thought.
PG: Yeah ? I'm trying to listen to what other people are doing but it doesn't
always happen. Sometimes you end up listening to yourself. And sometimes that
can work. And very often you can play a passage of improvisation and not be
aware of particularly listening to what's going on, but then you hear the tape
back afterwards and you find that you were listening to people and people were
listening to you, far more than you thought they were at the time!
ED: Do you ever play against what everyone else is doing?
PG: Yes ? probably.
As a drummer I try to strike a balance between playing with and against people.
And that works with improvisation as well as structured songs.
ED: So were you daunted at all about going out and playing free improvisation
in front of an audience?
PG: Yep.
ED: You were daunted?
PG: Yep.
ED: What was daunting? Was it the fact that you were trying to win an audience
over or were you just frightened the audience would say "bollocks!"
or what?
PG: Absolutely both.
ED: OK. Have you got over that at all?
PG: Yes. I'm more confident; from the moment we first gigged as a three piece
and people liked it, that was a big hurdle for an unusual band to get over,
and that gives you a whole lot of confidence. If you know one audience likes
you, and you go out and you have a bad night, then you know it was either a
bad performance or a bad audience.
ED: Is a bad audience one that boos or one that is just indifferent.
PG: No ? it's an audience composed of cretins and morons.
ED: But wouldn't you rather get an emotional reaction from people, even if it's
"this is a load of bollocks!" rather that people just ignoring you.
PG: I?m not terribly interested in getting an emotional reaction of "this
is a load of bollocks". It isn't really what I started playing musical
instruments to experience.
ED: OK.
ED: We've been talking about improvisation and what its like playing to an audience
that's not use to hearing it. Did you have any apprehensions about doing that?
GW: Not really. You occasionally get hecklers at the Shed, don't you?
ED: Yeah ? so would that affect you?
GW: No, I would have ignored it anyway.
ED: So, we've been doing these coloured dots pieces. Now, you were there right
at the beginning. What were your first impressions?
GW: It was quite different and quite amusing.
ED: Did you think we?d ever go out and play them? Did you think how they might
go down?
GW: I didn't really think how they might go down, but I did want to go out and
play them.
ED: What do you think is the most random thing we?re doing? Do you think there's
a song, which stands out as particularly random?
GW: Well, the coloured dots ones.
ED: We have the coloured dots pieces and free improvisation? do you think one
is more random than the other?
GW: Well, the impression I got from speaking to my friends after the gigs is
that they all thought the most random one of the lot was "Who's Y'Daddy"?
and not the coloured dots ones.
ED: Well, that has got a lot of improvisation in it. Which gig was that at?
GW: The Charlotte gigs.
ED: Right. So what about your guitar? The one you have today is renown for going
out of tune regularly? do you think this adds anything to the sound of the band?
The random element, maybe?
GW: Well, the intonation on it isn't that good, at the high end it does seem
to be out of tune permanently, anyway. Which is mainly because the original
bridge on it was crap and died, and the new bridge on it is a lot better, but
it's not quite in the right place!
ED: I see. Do you think that if we pushed the randomness further it would be
detrimental to us getting anywhere?
GW: Not really.
ED: So you think it's a good thing.
GW: Yeah ? it's a bit different. Sometimes things that are a bit different actually
do far better than the things that are all the same. At least it's not stagnating.
ED: No. OK, let's leave it there.