Only
Human:
Touching the Significance
By
Carol Wright
Portions
of this phone interview from March of 2001 were originally
used for the article "A Simple Thought: Music and Meaning"
by Carol Wright, which ran in the July 2001 issue of New
Age Retailer. Other musicians interviewed included:
Iasos, Constance Demby, vocalist Susan Osborn, soundhealer
Tom Kenyon, and Paul Winter -- all New Agers who would tend
to equate the meaning of their music with a high degree of
spirituality. New Ager Carol and Wendy-the-Humanist had
privately, heatedly, e-debated the reality of God and
spirit. [NOTE
FROM CAROL TO NEW AGERS AND RELIGIOUS TYPES: "Please don't
continue the debate with Wendy. Believe me, I've tried EVERY
angle and got nowhere. Like Tweetie Bird pushing a sumo
wrestler, there was a lot of flap but no movement. Please
don't bother her and just enjoy the obvious expression of
this grand and gracious 'human' spirit. It's a courageous
stand she's taken. I think so, anyway. Try it on for
size."]
Carol thought it would be intriguing to place Wendy's pithy
observations in the middle of the Music and Meaning article.
What, Carol wondered, would be the source of Wendy's
inspiration, if she didn't believe in a God. Carol: Many musicians I
talk to say they receive inspiration from angels or spirit.
What is your musical inspiration, if not spirit? How
do you give your music a human, gutsy
significance--?
Wendy: It doesn't really
matter what you think your motive is, as long as you're
motivated and you act. Obviously, to me, the motives are
going to come from my humanity and nature somewhere. But
maybe you prefer to believe it is coming from some invisible
pink elephant guardian in your living room. If you think
that is what it is, and it inspires you do something good,
fine, go with it. No harm done unless you start doing
peculiar things in public and the men in the white coats
show up. Short of that, I don't really care. It isn't my
business, and I respect your innate privacy.
But isn't there a natural
human desire to communicate and to explore our inner voices
and inner humanity? And I don't mean "voices" like the joke
about Joan of Arc wannabes. Even when we've been effectively
"brainwashed" in childhood not to be especially creative in
our lives, don't we still have some of the "muse" singing
inside of us? Why must the motivation I have and feel be
metaphored into stock clip-art spiritual icons? Seems both
disrespectful and demeaning.
For me the motivation and
inspiration to create is a reflection on our humanity, one
of the best sides of our humanity. It's a human need to
express, for one's own sake, and also so others can
recognize the common truths within. We have to discover that
what rings particularly true for one of us is probably true
for others as well. We try to reach for something lasting
within our humanity, since we are aware (being mortal human
beings) of our short span of years. Most of us want to touch
something of greater significance than just ourselves while
we are still capable of doing it. It's a yin/yang with our
need to maintain honest, highly ethical standards. Thoughts
like that don't require any external spiritual scaffolding.
I think they are noble and beautiful -- and quite enough to
live for -- all on their own.
And if you have curiosity
and are fortunate enough to have some skills and talent, you
work hard to develop them, much like an Olympic contender
trains hard to develop her/his natural athletic prowess.
There is nothing elite in that. It's fine to become an
expert from plying your craft, skills, and abilities,
becoming better in the specialty than most other people.
And, you hope, what you say will be worth saying, worth
hearing. You don't know if it is or not, but you say it
anyway, an act of Hope. Worth and value are things for other
people to judge, or for posterity ultimately to determine.
Isn't it worth doing your best? Sometimes the value is
swayed by a prevailing style or trendiness; if right now the
answer may be "no," perhaps later on someone does "get it"
and says "yes."
So that's the way it is to
create, methinx. You put your best crafted note in the
bottle, set the bottle onto the water, and hope that it will
float off to be seen by someone else, to complete the
communication. It's what we did so optimistically with the
gold LP records on the two Voyager space probes. Pictures
and words from Earth. We send the bottle out on the water
and maybe somebody eventually finds it and connects with it,
even deeply connects. That's what art's about.
As I'm trying to explain, I
don't think creative inspiration and motivation need
overlays of mysticism or any other additional narrative
baggage to explain them; it's just not essential. My best
guess conclusion. What I've learned during a lifetime of
searching and observing, trying not to be too gullible. On
the other hand, if mysticism, spirituality or formal
religion works for you, smile and go on with your life. Who
would be such a cynic to suggest we take away any venerated
anecdotes from anyone? If they provide a help, stay happy
with them. Life's too short. Don't go poking around the
roots of a thriving, living tree.
Carol: So is there any
"ism" you DO live by?
Magnetism and optimism
aren't bad. I admit, I'm a hardened realist and humanist,
more in the mode of Carl Sagan (his final book The Demon
Haunted World is a wonderful way to learn about such
issues). I'm very much like Ellie Arroway, the protagonist
of his novel and the sweet, poetic Zemeckis film,
Contact. (Wish the film could have kept the novel's
striking ending, though.) As an ex-physicist, physics offers
me a way to appreciate the cosmos in ways that don't rest
upon lovely old stories of traditional promise and hope. I
believe that ultimately these stories can be seen as an
interim step, not the equal of the best we know of reality,
and continue to learn about this galaxy we happen to
inhabit. For most of human history, though, we didn't know
anything at all about the science of the cosmos, so we
created fanciful narratives to "help explain things." It
filled a need, what had been a complete vacuum in our
understanding.
It can be dangerous to rely
on dogma, you know, an "unquestioning spirituality" to
define our world, especially right now with the highly
technological, fast changing society we live in. Stubborn
ignorance is seldom a wise guiding principle, however
comforting it may appear to be. Ignore warning signs and
bury your head like an ostrich, and a storm may quickly
develop, maim or kill you. A disease that can be
intelligently diagnosed and treated is far less likely to
pose a threat than one you merely anoint with a magic oil or
potion, and mumble some ineffectual words over. So I fear
the recent retreat away from knowledge and science, back
into the dark ages when we only had mantras and
superstitions (what was the average life expectancy in those
"good old days," 45 or 50?). Taken as charming tales and
metaphors, no harm is done. These traditions inspired great
art, too -- look at the masterpieces of the Middle Ages,
painting, music, architecture. And all of us have to develop
civilized values, compassion, a balanced morality, follow
"the golden rule." I don't pretend to have stumbled upon any
deep truths, although you could do a lot worse than Sam
Jaffe's High Lama's line in Lost Horizon: "be
kind." Kind and tolerant of other points of view, differing
beliefs.
But as far as giving you a
whole mystique as to where my music comes from -- that I'm
in communication with a god who (like Rosemary Brown)
dictates music through my fingertips -- that's simple
hogwash. If somebody happens to believe that stuff, and they
also go on to compose great music, I guess the hogwash is
benign. Don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Placebo effects are nothing to sneer at. My perceptions on
topics like this are shared by a good many other folks, much
wiser than me.
But for myself, since you
asked me, I appreciate that most of my inspiration comes
from vaguely remembered experiences of the past that I can
then rechannel in new directions. Seek wisdom, which is
really what remains when you've forgotten everything you've
ever learned. I think that's the way art works. Perhaps some
of my music is vaguely plagiarization, that I don't remember
the source and it comes out in my own voice, restructured
and rebuilt. Nothing new: Mozart could look back on Bach,
Haydn on Mozart, and Beethoven look on both of them, and
Brahms look back on Beethoven. It's the way music and all
the arts have been continued throughout human history.
Carol: So do you try to
be original?
I'm suspicious about
artists who set off only because they think they are going
to break ground into an all new path. Those are the ones who
usually break off and simply sink. "Tally-ho! Let's swim to
that uninhabited island I think I see there!" But it's not
even an atoll so kapoosh! Down they go, glub
glub. Many artists think they can force originality,
make it their goal, and think the major task is to be "new"
rather than "good." Let's first strive to be good, and if
you just happen to be original (because that's the way
you
are), great, it'll come out naturally! But if you're not so
much new, but you're just good, then at least your work will
be good. It seems a healthier way to set out, wanting always
to do your best, whatever happens ultimately. So learn your
craft, polish your chops, and get out there and come up with
something good, don't fuss about the "originality" yatta
yatta.
I've been remiss in the
"doing" parts myself, lately. I haven't been very productive
with new material in the past few years. I've allowed myself
to become tied down with remastering the reissues and other
distracting things. And it's begun to make me a little crazy
right now. I've got to get back to it, I need it. Creative
work of any kind keeps us sane, keeps us centered. It's just
a good thing to do by a human being. I wish everyone could
spend at least a little bit of time each week on creative
bits of any kind, to balance the rest of the life they lead.
It can be only for yourself, family and friends.
Yes, I have a very
non-mythological approach to the creative process. I think
it's simply healthy and natural, and it's something that
should be democratically available, one of those inalienable
rights. And those of us who happen to train more, who have
chosen to dedicate our entire lives to one niche, we can
demonstrate better what it's about, the goals. We have gone
at it sincerely, and we have given far more of our lives to
it. If that sounds elitist in any way, consider a runner who
ran the hundred meter dash faster than anyone else alive. Is
this just a showoffy elitist stunt? Don't be ridiculous.
It's something to emulate and applaud, isn't it? I think I'm
very good at creating new music; I'm a pretty decent second
rate composer. And I should get back to it, not shoot my
mouth off here too much longer.
At the same time, these are
worthwhile topics, ideas we should think about now and then.
Thank you for getting us on such substantive issues when we
speak. But, Carol, do you know how seldom you get to talk
about any of this stuff?
Carol: Yes, not often
enough. The issue of "music and meaning" (more precisely how
the culture seems to be destroying music's meaning) has been
haunting me.
You're right, me, too.
These are things should be thought about and perceived by
everyone -- I don't want to set myself up as any "Maven on
the Mountain." But on music I do have some observations and
conclusions from many years, and some of my opinions might
be worth printing. I sure don't take them as being sacred in
any way. What the joke about kissing someone's hand? "It
ain't a holy relic"? That's the way I feel about these
thoughts, but let's toss them out there to discuss, fodder
for a deeper thoughtful session. How much do you agree with?
How much is accurate? What misses the point? What related
points haven't we covered?
Carol: So where does
your inspiration come from?
Much of it is a
serendipitous gift, you don't really know from within where
the fires that burn within come from. At the same time,
since we're speaking about inspiration, I'd like to throw in
a good word for plain, old curiosity. If you are curious
person, you will probably have a lot that you want to know
more about. What would it sound like if?
I ask "if" myself all the time, for example, when trying
alternative tunings and new timbres and synthesized hybrid
instruments. Artists often ask such questions of themselves.
Gee, I wonder if I could write an entire symphonic movement
which repeated the same underlying 16 bar harmonic
progression, just as Brahms did in the last movement of his
Symphony #4? It was an amazing passacaglia, a form long
thought to be obsolete, yet he pulled it off
beautifully.
Challenges like that are
often a part of the creative motivation and inspiration. We
often want to know what something would be like "if," so we
do it for curiosity's sake. That's our inspiration, the
curiosity. We try to swim, or at least float. And the parts
that remain afloat are often the more interesting things
that come along in art. Perhaps a masterpiece can come just
from asking the right insouciant question or two. But where
are the curious? Don't you notice that people just seem to
wallow in what they already know? Jeepers!
Instead say to yourself:
"okay, it's usually done that way, but what if I try it this
way instead?" It's a nuts and bolts inspiration, but it's a
very real one for people like me. It is very often the
underlying motivation when slogging through the real work
and tedium that art requires. There are so many inglorious
days and weeks when you are just forcing to get it done. And
what can keep you going in times like that is curiosity.
"Yeah, but what if it works out? Gee, this is bad right
here, but that part worked fine and if I could only get --
maybe if I made that jump here -- and...!" You begin
thinking in those terms.
There is another side,
outside of the humanity, human nature, and need to
communicate, in which you really do things because you want
to find an answer to a question that your particular curious
mind comes up with. Thus originality comes about. You
probably can't ask a major question that hasn't been
answered in music already. But there still are sure a lot of
minor ones still out there waiting!
Are you going to approach
being original by doing something that omits deliberately
whatever came before, like using nothing but loud random
dissonant triads, no palpable melody or counterpoint,
nothing but non metered rhythms? This is all based on
"no-no, not-gonna" negativity. That's a nihilistic way to
operate, and it's ruined most music and art in the 20th
century.
What I'm suggesting,
tapping your curiosity, doesn't ruin anything. It's
positive, not negative. Tapping curiosity is something good
artists have always done, usually without even being aware
of it. That and sharing your innermost humanity with other
humans ought to take care of any reason to be an artist.
Human sharing and curiosity -- isn't that pair good enough?!
Plenty of room for seeking a path toward great art, if you
have talent and are lucky enough to pull it off. But even if
you miss, what you collect together while you search ought
be better than all of the forgettable pretentious pap out
there, because you'll have two of the best motivations for
doing it: your humanity and your curiosity. It's a lovely
combination. I'd preach that. That's my sermon. End of
soapbox.
Carol:
It's
a great soapbox to BE on.
I'm old enough now that I
can look back on a lot of my years and say, "you know what,
most of what went on was bullshit." But this plain
combination is not. This remains true. This is real. It's
not resting on clouds of air, on PR hyperbole and trendy
fashion, this stands on granite. And I will live by this. If
something better comes along, I'll change my mind, but for
the moment, this sounds like it's near the truth, and as
close to a religion as an old agnostic skeptic like me is
likely to get.
Carol: People who know
you might be disappointed that you haven't gone into a
single rant (in fact, you've been quite eloquent!), so let's
discuss homeopathy. Just kidding! How about this: What do
you think about the state of today's music scene?
Goodness. But we've all
finally fallen off the edge, haven't we? The bells and
whistles on today's new sequencers can be a smokescreen,
produce an illusion that real music is being made. But all
you hear is the same old string of tired sounds, monotonic,
clip-art driven, painfully self conscious, and much squarer
and less "hip" than anything our grandparents listened to
(NYC still has a handful of radio programs of older music --
so much vitality and variation, quite shocking to hear, the
contrast with the past lame decade).
Music used to be a human
endeavor. It pains me that tools and technologies I
championed myself eventually were used in the dumbing down
of most music. The drum machine pretty well destroyed pop
music, establishing a near-fascist rigidity and
narrow-mindedness. Classical music was also murdered off
last century, so it's rebooted and back at the beginning,
painfully learning how to crawl again, drool and crawl.
Jazz, about the same situation, perhaps a bit less drool.
Welcome to the 21st Century, where no one speaks out for the
ART of music, for the values behind it. We have a human need
to share with others, and we have our human curiosity. Reach
down and embrace those precious instincts within, when you
are wondering what to do next.
Truths like that should be
taught in classrooms, dammit. What are art, music and
creative writing teachers teaching instead? How to best
confound the next generation? What's that witty old saying?
"If you can't astonish them with your brilliance, baffle
them with your bullshit." I heard that when I was 22 or 23,
and thought then that it was absolutely apt for the "art" of
our times. It still says it like it is. Most of the media,
our culture and artpieces have become a sham, driven only by
greed and ego. We all get baffled by the BS. Well it's a
good way to fake an art, fake a life, but shouldn't life and
art be about something a little deeper, something more
profound, more meaningful than that? Um. I guess I have
become an old curmudgeon, sorry.
Well, you're the best
old curmudgeon I know. An A-class, five-star
curmudgeon.
Why, thank you, Carol, I
think I'll just take that as a compliment!
(Top
of the Page)
(Note:
This interview was inspired and set up by a longer interview
on musical and technical topics, conducted several months
earlier, which you can READ
HERE.)
Carol
Wright
has written about New Age music for fifteen years. Her
articles, interviews, and reviews have appeared in Napra
ReView, New Age Voice, New Age Retailer,
All Music Guide, and the barnesandnoble.com website. This
interview is her third interview with Wendy Carlos. Much of
her writing is posted at her website at
http://www.rockisland.com/~cwright.
or design may be reproduced without permission. All Rights
Reserved.
Back to the Wendy Carlos Home Page
Wendy
Carlos, CW: Only Human