In Camera" Peter Hammill Interview June 5 1999 Terra Incognita - Bath, England

Terra Incognita: A small recording studio tucked away in the gorgeous English Spa town of Bath. The door is opened by a tall man, thin and strikingly handsome. His hair is shorter and greyer than it once was and his face has aged well, with grace and dignity. His movements are as agile as his manner is warm and welcoming. He is busy for a moment, packing equipment for his performance later that day. Shortly he disappears to another room to fix us coffee, before returning and making himself comfortable. The room is lined with tapes, videos and a collage of images from his past lives. He smiles. Peter Hammill is ready to talk.

To many fans of Progressive, Hammill has remained somewhat of an enigma. The band he once fronted, Van der Graaf Generator, is well known by name even if only because they headlined the Charisma Records package tour at the dawn of the Seventies - one of their supporting bands was a young English outfit going under the name of Genesis. Never fitting any traditional mould, Generator forged their own path, with the wailing organ of Hugh Banton and Peter's hallmark voice (described of late as a "multi-registered miracle") being the most distinctive features.

Their line-up changed through the formative years, even featuring Robert Fripp as a guest guitarist on two of their classic albums: "H to He Who Am The Only One" (1970) and "Pawn Hearts" (1971). After the latter they took a break from the music business, before appearing again in 1975 with the organ driven "Godbluff". The band's last studio album was released in 1977, but in the artistic path of Peter Hammill that was just the start. His succession of solo albums, instantly recognisable for their raw emotion and expression, has been released at a frightening rate.

Without the financial resources of the commercial superstars of rock, his productivity and consistent quality should put many to shame. Bucking the prevailing trends that sadly have swept through many of his contemporaries, Peter's recent output demonstrates not a shadow of halcyon glory days but a testament to a man at the peak of his powers. The sheer smouldering emotional intensity of "Everyone You Hold" (1997), the deranged folky crossovers of "X my Heart" (1996) and the rocky exuberance of "Roaring Forties" (1994) make them essential listening for anyone interested in modern music taken to the height of it's artistic capabilities.

On stage Hammill is dynamite. Inhabiting the spirit of his songs he flips from role to role. His ability to switch between angelic whispering, sultry baritone singing and violent impassioned screaming is as unnerving as it is exciting to witness. Of late he has been touring with violinist Stuart Gordon, who compliments Peter's guitar and piano playing with great success. Peter's most recent live release is "Typical", a collection of solo performances from 1992. His ability to convey emotion through his voice and relatively simple instrumentation is showcased perfectly. Like all his albums it was released in his own label, Fie! Records. But to return to Terra Incognita on a rainy day in June: He is as articulate in words as he is in music. Part way through we are joined by cover artist and live mixer Paul Rideout, whose insight is invaluable.

Welcome to the world of Peter Hammill.

Progression: So, it's been a busy thirty years?

Hammill: [laughing] Yes, it has! And I hope it continues to be so.

Progression: To go back to the very start, when did you realise you could make a living in music?

Hammill: It's debatable really. Actually make a living out of it? Probably only after Van der Graaf had finished really. Van der Graaf never recouped. we scraped a living while we were in the band, and obviously we survived. I'm being a bit flippant but really I didn't see myself doing it for longer than four or five years when I 'officially' started in '68. because there wasn't really any template for doing that... Not even the template of the Rolling Stones. There was only the template of the Tommy Steeles of this world. 'all round entertainer' was the only route that you had... and head towards cabaret which I wasn't interested in from the outset. In a way I'm still amazed, to be honest, that it is possible to make a living doing this, particularly in the way that I've done it, which is not to do what I meant to do basically. But here I am, still!

Progression: So what did you mean to do?

Hammill: Insofar as I had an image of myself then, and insofar that I was planning then, my cynical point of view was that I would do it for four or five years and get maybe just an edge of recognition and an edge of success. If I'd seen myself now, then, then novels probably would have been the world. That's also not a particularly stable way of earning a living, you know?!

Progression: You are best known to many Prog fans for Van der Graaf Generator. What was the band to you? A group of people, a style of music, a way of life?

Hammill: Well it was a real band, which is also in a way why it had to break up eventually. It was basically the focus for all of our lives in the periods when it was in existence. It also explains why it broke up in the middle of its existence as well. Very intense, obsessive. very open obviously, and just fuelled by our enthusiasm basically. It was the way of life for six or seven years, to which everything else had to be directed. That's my view of a band. It was a democratic band, even though often it is not seen as being democratic because of my preponderance in writing. But it was democratic. We were actually one of the first bands to actually have things entirely in our control, insofar as they could be in our control. This is back in seventy five / seventy six. we had control of the elements of business and so on. It was very obsessive, and all of us were, and remain, very keen to be true to whatever was the effectively undefined but very real Van der Graaf spirit. So we would make decisions to do things because they were in the Van der Graaf spirit, or not because they were not within the Van der Graaf spirit.

Progression: If you had to pick one pivotal moment for the band, what would it be?

Hammill: There are lots, obviously. But. in Milan, for our first show we went and did the sound-check, then we went out and had a cup of coffee...came back and the street was full of riot police and a rioting crowd. And we managed to get in and get to the dressing room, and then the teargas started going off. From that point it really was not the same planet, basically. If I have to pick just one, but there are millions and millions...

Progression: You were part of the Progressive rock movement.

Hammill: Technically, as I'm at pains to point out, we were part of the Progressive movement but we were originally actually an underground band. In the chronology of these things there was a brief period before Progressive became "Progressive" in which it was underground bands, who were fundamentally quite a small group really. The Canterbury bands, Crimson were originally an underground band as well, Arthur Brown. this kind of era. So because we're just that nadge away, that's were we originally came from and then we were part of the Progressive [movement] yes. [laughing] and I interrupted before you got to the question so.

Progression: How do you view of the whole Prog rock movement and also Van der Graaf's legacy within it?

Hammill: Even at the time we began to get a bit uneasy with it. Partly because, going once again to the Van der Graaf ethos, one of the things that we were always desperately trying to avoid was "The Box". So our fear was that we were going to be put into a box. "this is what you do, this defines you, therefore carry on doing that". And we took great pains, absolutely, not to go into any perceived box. So from that point of view obviously being a Progressive band was a kind of a box. So we felt a certain kind of thing against that. There was also a degree of unease simply because of the way that we played. The reference to underground bands in not just trying to shuffle off the [Progressive] name. It's because the underground bands involved a little bit more chaos that Progressive. Progressive eventually became to be known for blisteringly fast guitar runs, keyboard arpeggios, and so on and so forth. and technique honed and well done, rehearsed and performed, but technique. rather than the chaotic element. And we were always a chaotic band. We were famous for it. our shows would always be very, very loud for a start, and out of any five shows two would be sub-par, two would be par, and one would be absolutely fantastic. Whereas even in the early days of Prog most bands were aiming actually to present the same show, often with the same solos, always with the same set-list. along the line of "this is entertainment, we owe it to our audience to present this thing that sounds not exactly like the record but very, very close to the record because that is what we do." Our attitude was that we don't remotely want to sound like the record and we don't want to play the same songs every night and we want a lot more chaos involved. So there was a certain unease in terms of out own relationship with [Progressive]. For myself, by the end of it all, it had gone technique mad. And actually one of the things that in the end upset me, and why I personally welcomed the arrival of punk, is that because equipment was so expensive in those days, and the vast majority of bands had banks of keyboards. and as such it was becoming impossible for fifteen, sixteen, seventeen year olds to form their own bands in emulation of the bands that they loved. Which has obviously always been the feeding element of the whole band ethos. Obviously now, because equipment is comparatively cheaper it is possible for people who love Prog bands to not necessarily get all those idiotic banks of keyboards because all of those banks of keyboards were only there because there was one solo that had to be played on this instrument, and another part had to be on that one. It was barking mad really! "I played a clavinet, me!" [laughter]. And Hugh just played an organ! And that was enough for us. just to try and get some voices out of that. But now equipment is cheaper, and it is possible for people to have just one keyboard, or maybe two, and get enough sounds. I think that was a big problem really, inherent in the whole thing. There was an element of pomposity as well I have to say [laughing]. just a little bit!

Progression: You never actually had a carpet on stage did you?

Hammill: No, no.no carpets! We never had any of that stuff actually!

Progression: Emotionally, do you still feel any links with Prog or is it something outside of your world now?

Hammill: I feel links with Van der Graaf, but I think they were. we were. a special case. But having said that we obviously were part of that era and, going back to your previous question, maybe the tides of pomposity were held back for slightly longer that they would have been otherwise [laughter] merely because we were one of the alternative tastes that were on offer!

Progression: Tell us a little about the birth of your solo career.

Hammill: There wasn't exactly a birth, and it does involve going back into the band and so on. The band did not just appear. normally when one speaks of Van der Graaf it is the classic line-up of Guy [Evans - drums], Hugh [Banton - organ], David [Jackson - woodwind] and myself. possibly with Nic Potter [bass]. Not the initial incarnation that had Guy and Hugh and Keith Ellis, and almost certainly not the original formation which was at university with Chris Judge Smith. And the two of us left, blue-eyed innocents with an appalling record contract, to pursue this career effectively as a duo. And we could do acoustic shows basically. Then Judge left, then we had the first band, then the equipment got stolen. all sort of problems, and in fact we split up after about six or nine months. At which point I immediately started doing solo shows. So this is sixty-eight. I was already doing solo shows. Then once Van der Graaf had started, while the band was going I did "Fools Mate" (1971), the first solo album. In the interregnum between the first and second periods, after "Pawn Hearts" and before "Godbluff" I was obviously getting on with doing four solo albums, and carried on in fact doing "Over" (1977) while the band was going, and so on. So there was never exactly a birth as a separate thing. "I've done the band, now I'm going to do the solo thing". They had already been going simultaneously even if, which often seems strange to people, the Van der Graaf members were playing on solo records. But it was clear to us that this was outside [the band].

Progression: Was it a very different fulfilment, recording your solo records as opposed to band records?

Hammill: I didn't have to argue quite so much. In fact I didn't have to argue at all! That was the definition. If it was a Van der Graaf record, even if I'd written the material we all had to agree on how we were doing it and what we were doing exactly. Whereas with the solo record obviously the responsibility is mine. Which doesn't mean to say that the others didn't play with commitment but that was just the way it was.

Progression: Who do you write for?

Hammill: Myself! I've never written for a target audience or an imagined, potentially greater, audience, or a specific subsection of the known audience. In the writing process I don't remotely think about how it will play to anybody else. The process is really to try and explain something to myself. If there is a song to be written then that involves looking at a situation or an enigma or a paradox, and just trying to get some kind of different angle on it for myself.. So this is not quite correct. I'm really writing the song for the song. It's not just a selfish act. showing off to myself. I'm writing because the song needs to be written.

Progression: Instrumentally you're best known for guitar and piano. Compositionally do you have a preference on which to start?

Hammill: It's whichever the thing springs from. Basically my compositional method normally comes out of improvisation. With piano it's normally completely free improvisation and then I discover that something has emerged. I'm normally a chordally based writer rather than melodically based. it's usually patterns that emerge. With guitars it's sometimes again a chordal shape but it's more likely to be a riff which will be less from improvisation. more just discovering a riff which can hang around for a while and I return to. They produce entirely different effects although sometimes something I've written on piano translates to guitar in order to record it and vice versa. Alternatively, these days with having the studio, I sort of start without piano, without guitar, without anything. just deal with blocks of sound. Chopping them around . for example 'that sounds like a chorus, I don't know what chorus it is at the moment.'

Progression: As a musician what do you feel that guitar and piano bring out of you?

Hammill: Piano definitely brings chordal patterns and particularly descending sequences. I'm not. especially not in live performances and even in the studio. I'm not that accomplished a keyboard player really. I hold my own to support the voice basically, but it's order and logic really for me - keyboards. Be it piano or whatever it is. there's a kind of logical matrix goes on. Whereas guitar, be it acoustic or electric, is much more instinctive and bodily.

Progression: You're famed for your lyrics. What inspires you in that respect?

Hammill: Lyrics. When I was talking about writing the song it's in a way because the lyrics and their marriage with, or opposition to, the music is the central essence of writing a song. And they are very much bound up together. It's trying to explore something which remains in a certain way mysterious to me. Sometime it's just word play, but out of word play one can of course get at something which has some value or information on ways in which to live life. Sometimes they're kind of salutary warnings to myself or to others. Whatever. again I'm lead by whatever leads me.

Progression: There are three themes which personally speaking seem to figure strongly in your lyrics. The first is science and scientific references.

Hammill: At university I was studying Liberal Studies and Science, which is a very catchall title. It was a very, very new course at the time and the idea was that. because it was the sixties it was still the era of the two cultures and the supposed opposition between the scientific and artistic culture, and my Professor was particularly keen on the idea of producing graduates who would have enough understanding of science to communicate it to society and vice versa. And that aspect of things did interest me very much. I was actually more of a mathematician than a scientist, although I was interested in science. And it's fantastic what has happened in these thirty years, because then it was two cultures and [artistic] people would not know or be interested in anything to do with science, whereas now anyone with their head screwed on has some awareness of a lot of scientific stuff. be it genetic engineering or be it space, or be or particle physics or whatever you like. There is more of a consciousness, in the Western world at least, of what's happening in science and how a lot of it is strongly metaphorical for the way that we're living now. So in a way the cultures have merged simply by virtue of each other. Coming from that background, and not wishing to be a lecturer in any way, it's natural for me to hit on something like entropy. a standard scientific term.If you know about it then you go "Yeah, actually. it is a strong reflection of what is happening ". and therefore if I know about this and it makes sense to me I should stick it in. Even if in this particular case my manager and my wife go "Entropy.what the Hell's that?!" As I said I'm not trying to set myself up as any kind of a teacher but whatever the artistic merits or demerits or a particular song or any body of work, if somebody has to go and look up 'entropy' in order to make the connection then that will have given them something else.

Progression: The second theme that particularly strikes me is that of memory and the mental state. There are many references dating back from early Generator songs to your recent albums.

Hammill: They're all over the place. Without memory we don't have any mind basically. So it covers all the stuff from simple recollection to this fact that you are in intellectual terms the sum of your memory. Whether that's the things you have to learn in order to do your job, take exams, what have you. in terms of social skills obviously. It's all built on memory. So it's one of the two main things on which our experiences are built, and I suspect that the other one is going to be the third category which is?.

Progression: Relationships!

Hammill: I was going to say time! In fact one can combine time and memory because the time songs and the memory songs are [concerned with] what it is that we're passing through. It's what we can remember, what we can foresee, and what our perception is of time as it passes through. So they're bunched together, those two. As far as relationships go. it's a bit barking mad to write a song like "Stranger Still" which is on the one hand actually is just about having a meal in a restaurant by oneself, and on the other hand is about entropy, space, time et cetera. It is a bit barking mad but that's where the song led me. The fundamentally most normal of songs are naturally relationship songs. Usually love songs, usually love songs gone bad because that's the point at which there's something interesting. there isn't very much that's interesting enough to write a song about in a relationship that's going along totally happy. That's why, not only in my case but in most cases, people write sad love songs. Within that of course it's obviously possible to talk about other things than just the relationship, than just the circumstances and the interpersonal stuff.

Progression: Out of your recent albums, to me "Everyone You Hold" was the most intimate, and it was the only one which features pictures of you. A coincidence?

Hammill: Ahh. a question for Paul! Paul is the cover artist so. I think we did discuss this didn't we?

Rideout: Yes.to me when trying to get the visuals [the album] was very much about the different Hammills. One Hammill talking to another. and therefore the different facets of one person. And we thought "we have to have the person in this time because we've kept him out. we've occasionally had some shots but not really made a big deal of it." So we had all the heads, and in one of [the shots] there is the one talking to the other.

Hammill: There was an element of "it's time to have a shot" which we had decided on, but we hadn't decided [on the specifics]. and this idea of leaning over and talking, showing the different personalities, was there and up for grabs. But we hadn't booked anything up until we went on tour in Argentina and met the photographer on our way through Buenos Aries, and took the shots on our way out! And so on. so there was a degree of fortune there. One of the problems about doing actual portrait shots is that ones relies so much on actually getting the result that you're looking for in the first place. So. I can't even remember what the previous one was where there were portrait. Patience (1983), pH7 (1979). there aren't that many altogether. I'm quite happy to remain murkily within the enigmas of the covers design generally! [laughter]

Progression: Is that a belief in separating the man from the music so that the content of the record is a separate entity from you?

Hammill: Well it shouldn't be really, because the man.... I mean there might be some kind of subconscious drift towards that, but it shouldn't be the case because evidently when doing the music I am still the man, and I should make my face visible for that purpose. So I'd say it was very, very low-grade sub-conscious. I'm neither embarrassed about putting myself up as being the person who does it nor desperately reclusive about it. You know. I am still doing this; I've got a reasonable amount of ego to carry on doing it.

Progression: Live work. is it something you've always enjoyed and how does it fit in with your recording?

Hammill: Yes.yes. And it's completely different to recording because you're on the spot, not doing the same show from night to night, let alone all the time. It has been an abiding feature of the last thirty years, on the spot performing. And often I actually, as it says in the liner notes of "Typical", sort of set myself little traps just so I won't be too comfortable because I think that produces a difference. And it keeps me engaged. I think apart from anything else, if I was just recording all the time then. there's an energising thing about doing both. Still, even though I've been doing [studio work] all these years there are still certain moment when it's [clicks fingers] gotta go for it right now.rather than just working a piece of it away. And the ability to do that, the training, to do that is largely from playing live.

Progression: You perform on stage solo, as a duo, as a trio, and with a full band. Is the one you choose just the one that feels right at the time?

Hammill: There's what feels right and what's economic as well [laughing] to be brutally honest. You know... it's not possible to go out with a band all the time, but they all have their merits and demerits. In fact for the last eighteen months most of the things I've being doing have been as a duo with Stuart [Gordon]. Because I'm not touring all the time it only adds up to three months of actual touring but there's a lot to explore in that. Obviously if I'm playing solo then I can go off on complete tangents. Duos, there's lots of tangents too. the minute you're into trios there's more of an architectural element in it. Bands obviously have the fullest sound and the greatest power but the most uniform of structures. For instance with a band it would be the norm on any given tour to start with the same first three or four songs always being the same, and the last three or four songs always being the same. And just changing things around in the middle. That's so that everyone can establish what the sound is, where they are, how they feel, whether they can hear everybody else and so on. With duos and solos there's usually one or two that are the same. the general shape of the thing can be more or less the same, but there are more possibilities.

Progression: Emotionally, which option in the most intense for you?

Hammill: It's very hard to say because the perceived time in terms of playing live is. in terms of normal experience of life the perceived lapsed time of doing an hour and a half show is only five minutes. So obviously one's having lots of emotion and emotional moments in the course of the hour and a half, but the way one experiences the time, at least for myself, is just in five minutes. And often the peak emotional moments will only be a couple of seconds within that. And quite often they are different emotional points that ones experienced by the audience, for whom it's a case of songs they know, songs they don't, things that are different. Subjectively it's entirely different for me, or for us. whoever I'm playing with.

Progression: As a brief note to the US readers, any plans to tour the States?

Hammill: I am, in October I think. But I'm still waiting to hear, as I have been for a number of years! Yes. there are serious attempts being made at least to do something over there

Progression: Recently things came full circle when you played with Van der Graaf again, just for one song. Did that feel like a step backwards?

Hammill: No, not at all. Obviously this show at the Union Chapel [Islington, London]. originally Guy was offered the space and then decided that he wanted to do a duo thing, which we've done at different times and under different guises. He wanted to do it with me, and then to involve people like Hugh because of the organ in the Chapel, Stuart [Gordon] and Manny [Elias - drums] because they were working with me. So we had this cast of characters that we kind of rehearsed. Basically Guy and I rehearsed it ourselves and slotted other people in. But from an early stage it became evident that all four of us were going to be at this show and it would have been a cowardly move for us not to have done something. So we said 'yes, we'll do something' so it was a question of 'what shall we do then?' Again this is an exemplar of the Van der Graaf ethos that what we should do was in the end Lemmings. Partly because it would be one of the more difficult ones to do, and partly because it was not the obvious one to do. So again we had very little rehearsal for it. Guy and I rehearsed and we had just one or two run-throughs a couple of days before with the rest of us. And the main point was that we managed to do it without having Van der Graaf on any of the posters or it being announced that this was going to be an event. We were all agreed that that was not what we wanted to happen. In the end the way that it came about was that there had been this cast of characters going on and coming off the stage all evening . solo things and odd combinations. and it was I think the penultimate piece in the show. So all of us had been onstage and the way that we worked it was passing over and almost segueing songs. So the point at which it was just the four of us on stage happened almost by subterfuge. And because it was Lemmings, and because it starts with completely free playing, it wasn't quite clear. So it was nicely done and obviously there was an element of nostalgia, but not an element of backwards steps.

Progression: Would you consider doing it again, maybe with a full show, or was the Union Chapel a one off?

Hammill: I would say it was a one off. One can't say 'never', and we do see each other. possibly by virtue of having broken up we don't hate each other. In fact we spent Hugh's fiftieth birthday on a canal boat together. So that's as close as a tour reunion as I think we're going to come [laughter]. We all got on, and we all got off. not without various alarms and excursions I have to say! But I think it's pretty unlikely really, but one can't say 'never'

Progression: And for yourself, what's next?

Hammill: In the room next door there are a lot of songs underway, there are two or three things already mixed.. It'll be out, the next one, or even the next two because it's a very broad spread of things. it might be out maybe later this year. Maybe by October but I somewhat doubt it. I hope to keep making music and making records as long as it fires me up.

Progression: Do you have a magnum opus in mind at this stage of your career. Some terrific final gesture?

Hammill: I think I sort of drifted away from the magnum opus thing some time ago. Partly it's a function of age, I think, that it's more interesting to look at things in detail rather than to do the grand 'Larry Olivier' great throw of the arms [throws his arms into the air over-dramatically]. I think that, just in terms of my own observation, that's the way the writing and maybe to a certain extent the performances, have been heading. But I simply don't know. I don't have and I never had a 'grand plan'. I still kind of just do things that take my fancy and tweak my interest basically. And they lead me wherever they've lead me in the past and I expect that they will lead me somewhere different in the future. The main thing is that I don't want to repeat myself.

Progression: Do you ever consider the legacy you are leaving behind you?

Hammill: Well...since I haven't stopped, no. Considering it like that would be something to do if I did get fed up with it or feel that I'm not actually doing something, or I feel that I don't have anything to say. Then maybe I would go 'Alright, maybe that was a reasonable crack '. Of course the rows of CDs are there and the fact that it'd take over a day to listen to them all is quite interesting, but it's the next bit of work that is the interesting thing. And I haven't reached that point of stopping yet. Progression;:One final question. Have you found peace as a musician?

Hammill: Oh yeah.oh yeah. Not permanent peace of course, but that's part of the function of doing it. It's a thing that makes sense. Both recording and writing, and playing live. makes sense. And that in itself is how I would define peace really. That things are in their proper place. Active peace rather than tranquillity. I'd say yes, that I've found.

Tony Emmerson