Q1.
You have written about your "deep inner shift" between 1986 and 1988 and your subsequent "estrangement' from your past and from society in South Africa. This must have been a deeply challenging time when you were really not certain of who you were or what you were doing, although you seemed to know clearly that you wished to be a musician. It strikes me that this must have been a period of great vulnerability for you. You had broken the "norms' of accepted behaviour and whilst you had made the choice to do this, you must have been ridden with doubt from time to time. How did you cope during this very challenging period?
A1
At first i was hiding it all inside. I was at the time a student at Stellenbosch University, studying to become a minister in church. I was really losing my stability in believing in a personal god. The faith complex within me faded, was strengthened anew, to just fade again. Cycles of doubt and anxiety and new insights. It amazed me how, through the creative application of language (supported by the Bible), i could still have a meaningful life within the church, even as a leader, without revealing my deepest doubts. As the faith structure slowly crumbled, it made way for a closer relationship to my body for instance. This in turn liberated my mind and senses so that the world could be seen and experienced in new and more open ways. This was seen and felt by others and often interpreted as spiritual growth. It would all depend on how far i could walk this road of new enlightenment (and darkness) and still be accepted within the faith community. Thus, I 'coped' by virtue of the fact that doubt is only one side of the coin. Doubt prepares the ground for new insights and as long as those can be meaningfully shared, one is saved from becoming alienated. I also coped by keeping conversations alive with those who had a sympathy and some understanding for my journey. Even though i often felt that such conversational friends did not fully grasp all my questions, conversing serves as a channel for emotional sharing, and that flow of feeling contributes to keep one's sanity in tact.
But then again, i also did NOT cope. I often broke down emotionally, taking flight with my bicycle into the mountains. Some relationships broke off including my first serious love. And a deep darkness grew inside of me as i had a strong sense that i would not ultimately be able to remain within the embrace of the faith community i grew up in. Communications with my mother (my father died when i was seven) also became very strained and convulsive. I was losing my anchors and the only way to cope with that was to consolidate, economize, digging deeper to find possible seeds for a small and new beginning.
I was able to finish my degree and church activities without breaking down completely. I switched my studies to music and found a room on a farm to stay in. A new relationship developed with a rebellious woman older than me. Some lose links remained with the church, but for all practical purposes i was out. I then threw myself completely into the world of music.
Q2.
Having seen one of your workshops and been so affected by not only the music but also the effect it had on all the participants and indeed on all those watching, it seems to me that what you are doing is opening a doorway to their intuition and "giving them permission' to break with conventional teachings and "norms' and allow themselves to "taste' their own extraordinary natural creativity. How do you feel about this analogy? How does your thought process work in the process of conducting one of your performances or workshops?
A2
The analogy is apt, albeit only from a more objective point of view. Conducting such a workshop, however, does not proceed from any conscious aim to break norms or make people discover themselves. Often such aims only succeed in creating yet another norm or rule that prevents the surprise of true discovery. The reality is also of course that no such liberation is guaranteed and even if a breakthrough is made, this might not be a pleasant experience, nor one that has any lasting effect.
I call myself the 'HA!' man exactly because i lack a rational basis for what i do. 'HA!' is not a rational concept. It is an expression, but an expression of what? It can certainly convey something, but that something is never fixed. Nor can it be taken for granted that it will be meaningful. And this is where the vulnerability sets in: nothing that can be held by the conscious mind can serve as an anchor in this process. I enter in silence. I proceed from an animal-like state, a pre-conscious state (that corresponds to a prehistorical state, or child-like state), i most often use no words until well into the process.
I cannot lead participants towards an outcome. I can only be, and through being facilitate an environment that may be of expansionary value for those present. So if you ask me about thought processes, i can only confess that thought processes in itself are counter-productive, unless you include under the umbrella of 'process' mental events like paradoxical thinking and meditative states - both of which serve to counteract a dominant mind so that feeling can flow through.
The question should rather be, how to describe the state of being you are in while you conduct such a workshop. Then i would refer to three basic aspects of being, all of which play a role in the process: the instinctive, the mental and the emotive. On a gut or instinctive level, silences and raw physical power emanates. On a mental level, meaning is expressed in metaphorical and often paradoxical ways, like, if you'd like to express yourself freely, then be totally focused; or, you are a fountain - do not do anything until you feel wet. Finally, on the motive level - which forms the crux of the whole event - feeling myself, the atmosphere around and each participant as while as the whole group - therein lies the deeper art, a dialogue of sensitivities, a play with colour, an openness to be human with each other.
It is in this sprouting of a certain state of being that the creative moment can occur, whether on a raw or experienced level, no matter. And when it occurs, even that cannot be taken for granted, or be properly defined. Nor can it be captured to be repeated. Most often, rational approaches to creativity tries to capture that 'which works' so that this can be outlined for repeated use. For the effect that you experience to come about, even the most sublime moment of artistic expression has its natural ending and needs to leave space for the next unknown.
The conclusion is not an outcome nor a product, but an event that lived with the fullness of flow.
Q3.
You mention that working in education and with young people is given special focus. What is it about working with young people that is so inspiring for you? What is it that you are trying to convey to them?
A3
The most obvious answer is that being young naturally leaves more scope for spontaneous expression as life is still largely unformed and free from too many constraints of surviving and succeeding in society. Secondly, creativity in itself is a youthful exercise, as it makes itself busy with that which is new and fresh. Given this, it is not much of a conscious choice for me to work with younger people. There's a mutual attraction at work here.
It does not close the door to working with other age groups too, of course. Creativity in that sense knows no boundaries. A good friend of mine that is turning 100 years old this year has this as one of his motto's: that to live a lasting life one needs to remain creative all along - something that he has achieved to a remarkable degree.
What i do get back from young people is their raw energies. They give me the freedom to be far more playful on stage than what is possible with adult audiences. And i think that my regular performances are emboldened by spending good amounts of time with younger people and especially pre-teenage children.
Again, the question of 'conveying' something to them is not quite apt, as i hardly have any 'message' in mind relating to them. I do exude a certain energy and my primary responsibility to then is to be myself in a most creative way, rather than to deliver a message or 'things to remember.' I believe that the meaning that is 'left behind' (and is reflected in the many outpourings of excitement, even life-changing experiences) springs mainly from what happened between us, rather than that which happened from me to them. Yes of course, i do enter with a certain focus and specialized experience, but all that is rather lame without that which is coming back from them, including their own creative beings. If change, or the breakdown of constrictive norms, is what is to be achieved, that comes about more effectively by acting-from-within by all who are present, rather than from a one-way process of conveying.
Q4.
Entertaining and performing appear to come easy for you and yet your performances are not choreographed affairs. When I saw you run the workshop in Zimbabwe it was a spontaneous event and it was that factor that gave it its magic. However this approach is in conflict with an accepted business philosophy that "for all things to move forward effectively, a clear structure and goal should be determined'. It is of course a very effective method in that it gets things done, but having a blueprint for the entire process seems to negate the possibility of any additional creative intervention. In other words in adopting the process, they sell themselves short. As an artist, how do you feel about the concept of "releasing the expectations of outcome'?
A4
I have already touched upon this. I think working towards the future is a devil. Yet it is a hallmark of human consciousness probably since the dawn of civilization. We have smartly developed linear structures in our minds, indeed to 'get things done' and make survival of a species possible on a scale never seen before on this planet. Yet working towards goals all rests on a fundamental illusion. And that illusion is that the future is attainable at all. We do not walk our lives on a line from the past through the present until the end of the future. We always remain in the present. In fact, if we would be able to reach the future, it will lose its meaning. The very essence of the future is that it is more open and unknown, just like a far-off horizon is to the traveller. Once that horizon is reached it is no horizon anymore. Behold! Another horizon lies ahead.. It is only in our minds that we can sustain the illusion that 'one day we will reach the future.'
Indeed, there is no magic in working towards a future goal. It sucks us dry from being surprised and it makes us fearful of discovery. Working towards a goal is an effort to narrow reality down to more elementary elements that can more easily be manipulated. But we are paying a huge price in the process. We lose balance. We keep on leaning forward. We lose the fullness of living in the present. And we neglect our past - that which should form a counterweight to the future. The result is not what we wish it to be, i.e. being more effective and economical. The deeper result is that we are never satisfied. Because we believe in reaching something that can never be reached. And so we created a world that forever dreams about and is planning to fix things for the future. Yet all along it creates such a web of complexities and intractable problems just because we fail to reckon with the whole. And the whole lies in and all around us. Not just in front of us.
I could enter a workshop with the idea that i want to inspire kids to become musicians. Or i could enter it making music and by chance infect those present to make music too. In the first case, i shape my work to serve the future. In the second, i work as a matter of present interest. In the first, i present. In the second, i am present. The first might just put a few kids on a trajectory to become pianists singers and band players. The second makes musicians of all for that moment. In which scenario were things really getting done?
It is a deep question, pertaining to all aspects of society. In the economy for instance, do we 'grow it' in order to 'create wealth?' Or do we look at that which is at hand and sustainably accessible and economize our material lives around it?
The trick is that the musician that was made from living for the future plays and looks differently from the one that unfolded through spontaneous expression. And these two are often cast in opposition to each other. The future-crafted musician specializes and achieves abnormal levels of skill that impress others into a humble silence. The organic musician that always just made music, however raw and unpolished it might have been, who experienced growth as a side-effect and not as a conscious goal, that musician is the one that could deliver magic with simple means, that might also impress, but without humbling others. The first adds music onto life, the second uses it as an expression of life. The first carry music with great effort and commitment, the second breathes it. The first's fulfilment lies in the glory moments of achievement, the second's fulfilment lies in being music each time it is expressed and can be carried through until its last breath.
If by "releasing the expectations of outcome' you mean that those expectations should be relaxed, i would again put it in paradoxical terms: the outcome that lives in you as a longing can only be achieved when it is forgotten. Being on stage often means to me to take those very real desires (of technical mastery of an instrument for instance) not as an outcome, but as a bundle of energy that can be invested in the present moment. Therefore, the conscious desire is brought into the whole, rather than projected away onto an abstract timeline. The result is mostly that the outcome do appear eventually, yet the primary experience and focus is not that of achievement, but that of continuous fulfilment, with so many more aspects coming into play than just the future.
It is in this sense that much more is getting done than when you narrow your scope in order to take a shortcut. Our future-obsessed culture get things done indeed, but pretty much only on a surface level. It all shines well, yet leaves layers and layers underneath in a neglected state. And then we wonder why we are afflicted with cancers, environmental doom and all sorts of depression?
Yet on this world-view stage i can also just be, rather than provide directives as to how to operate with a presence-consciousness as a business for instance. As an artist i can only be that consciousness within my limited means, throwing seeds to the unknown. Healing, like the magic you describe, is no achievement.
Q.5
You have obviously
had to work hard to develop your "work base' over the years with a lot
of hard work on your part networking amongst friends and admirers across the
world. There must however have been moments when you wondered where the money
to buy your next meal would come from?
One of the great concerns that people may have in making a decision to "step
out' and follow their own hearts is that they simply will not be able to finance
themselves or their families or their way of life. You clearly made a decision
to get on and make this work, despite the concerns that you would have to
earn a living. How have you coped with this and what would your advice be
to someone considering "stepping out'?
A5
There is a very simple, yet serious realization that came over me through the years. And that is that money do not make people. People make money. Put in another way, money was not first, people were first. There can be people without money, but no money without people.
There is actually quite a strong parallel between the future and money. Both are abstractions. And both are made into gods that we choose to serve. 'Living for the future' or 'Live to earn money' are both expressing the desire to narrow life towards means that can be manipulated more easily. If i have money, i can buy all this stuff. It gives me power. Or if i have a clear goal, i can order my life effectively and remove doubts and gray areas. But again the illusion: just as the future cannot be reached as it always remains secondary to the present, just so can money never deliver the power it promises, because money derives its very meaning from people and not the other way around.
Yes, money has been a big theme all along my path as an improviser. I was often told how i could apply my talents better in order to earn more (become more famous). Yet i have never been out of money, except once when i had to ask a friend for about 20 pounds just to get by (a friend who offered to help me anytime i really hit the wall). Through the years of hitch-hiking in South Africa my overheads were minimal. I never lacked. But after buying a car and computer and building amplified music sets on three continents, my overheads rapidly rose and i was vulnerable to robberies, constant maintenance costs and especially transport costs. I often had fantasies of riches and fame and were rather open to being taken up in the more mainstream arenas, yet, always stopping short of giving up on my core focus of spontaneous (present-orientated) music making. Currently, after 20 years, i am doing financially just well enough to survive in a healthy way.
The reality is that in order to make this shift (towards a life and living that is deeply connected to my core being) i did go to lengths that most people would probably shy away from. For a decade i had no vehicle, hitch-hiking my way with a backpack on my back - which contained all my material possessions. I broke almost every rule in the book of modern day survival. I did not ask myself 'what do the people want.' I did not research where my 'niche-market' would lie. I did not insure myself. I did not try to make money out of money. I did not go after sponsors or grants. I definitely did not have a 'steady income' as an ideal.
So what did i develop then? How did i secure survival in a money-obsessed world? I can only say that i did three things. I asked myself: what do i want to do? And answered (the answer took years to reach me) that i want to go on stage with nothing. Then i asked myself: what is my success as an artist? My answer very early on was this: people. In relating to people, connecting, networking, communicating, in the exchange of meaning.. This i saw as the very basis of my 'career' - my insurance, my joy and my inspiration. Thirdly, i applied myself to these two things and all that it implies and entails: spontaneous performance and relating to people - audiences, hosts, friends, supporters, strangers.. Thus, my life consists mainly of performing and communicating and then moving along these life-posts of stages and people connections. And just like the future becomes a side-effect of the fulfilment of the present, so money becomes a side-effect of performing and relating to people.
I cannot give any specific advice. I can only be witness to the act that living from the primary elements mostly takes care of the secondary. Money is a devil too. We simply should not allow it to blind us to the fact that we created it in the first place.
Q6.
You have alluded to the fact that you have often played with well-known people in important locations and the opportunity has been there for you to move country and step out and become a respected world recognised musician. Yet you have chosen to stay close to your roots and the continent from which you came. There is obviously a driving force behind this decision. With the potential of fame and international recognition there for you, what is it that keeps you from taking that step?
A6
How much i have the potential - as an improvising musician - to become a known player on the world stage is a moot question. It actually begs the question in what way can the vulnerability of spontaneous performance survive the cranked-up lime lights of our global culture?
The added question should be why did i not then choose to shape my art into a more sellable commodity? And furthermore, is it really a requirement to be based abroad in order to become world-recognized?
I have never closed the door to entering more illustrious avenues as such, and there were many such encounters through the years. But even as i pursued these, they mostly reached dead-ends that i can mainly ascribe to at least two factors: they usually demand a higher level of specialization (especially in order to be able to 'box' you into a more recognizable category) and they had to compete with a rhythm that i have already grown with patterns of touring and voluntary commitments to people and places around the world. I therefore hardly ever found myself in a begging position and i gradually gained more and more confidence to say: 'well, if you would like to have me, take me for what i have become. Otherwise, peace!'
Often people would be very taken by my work and would feel frustrated that i am not known much more widely. They then wish me to find my 'big break' somewhere along the line, or they would reprimand me for not promoting myself properly, or letting myself be promoted properly.
Perhaps i should put my position regards these comments in negative terms: that yes, it is my fault that i find constant high levels of fulfilment, whether i play to 10 or 1000 people, whether in a location of no consequence or in one of note. I therefore lack the inner drive to climb the ladder so to speak. I am a weak achiever..
But i have made my peace in this regard. Working spontaneously is really digging into a more original field of music making and as such it is more about planting seeds than tending orchards full of fruit for masses of people to eat. And working with seeds asks for its own kind of input and nourishment. I therefore certainly find more nourishment in the continent of origins (Africa) than in a northern one where spaces are cramped out with orchards and lots of human fruits.
I do believe that there is still much scope for my contribution to be made effective on a wider scale, even if simply by natural growth as i move on in my (more primitive) way. Yet at the same time i am aware that i chose to work on a level that is not exactly conducive to mass consumption. Again, if i have to be recognized more widely, let this sprout from where i am based. And if i ever have to shift base, it must be for far more reasons than just to add quantity and fame to my name - both of which carries problems and limitations of their own.
Besides, i truly
love (South) Africa and am glad to be able to call it home..
HA!Man 11 May 2012