Lost Interviews: Fred Lonberg-Holm

The following is the second in a sort of “Lost Interviews” series of email Q & A sessions I did for another publication, which, due to time constraints and general procrastination on this writer’s part, hasn’t seen the light of day for quite a while. Rather than sit on the interviews, they’ll be published at fakejazz.com… Better late than never, right?

fakejazz: Describe your development as a cellist. I know you gave it up for a while, and that your view of the instrument varies quite a bit from others' ideas of what the cello is and should be...

Fred Lonberg-Holm: Sketchy, at best! Was desperate to get my hands on an old beater cello my mom got from a friend of hers when I was about 2 or 3. She didn't know about half size cellos etc so I was told to wait until I was bigger. Found out in elementary school that they had small cellos and signed up for lessons. In about 7th grade got a pickup and started playing cello in "jazz" ensembles. Continued classical studies (while constantly getting in trouble for my outside activities) until about 20 and then quit the cello altogether to play bass and synthesizers in rock, new wave and noise bands. Went back to school to focus on composition and ended up returning to the cello to avoid the choir (where most comp majors fulfilled their ensemble requirements). Realized I was a cello player inside and that playing an instrument kept me connected to a/the community in a way that many composers find difficult (unless they stick entirely to the academy). The good thing about going away for a while and returning more on my own terms allowed me to re-develop my playing approach in a way that I found more interesting. Several years in the 80''s of fairly intensive involvement with the group that revolved around the A-mica Bunker in NY helped me develop a lot of the basic materials I'm still exploring today. Getting older has also helped me allow some of the tech stuff I picked up in the conservatory to steep back into the mix. I don't know how much my ideas vary from other cellists, but, I like to think that my relationship with the cello is pretty much my own. Sometimes I view it as a simple box with strings, at other times, I am amazed by how sophisticated and precise a manifestation human invention it is.

You say you don't know how much your ideas vary from other cellists. Do you know of many other cellists whose involvement in music has been as wide-reaching and various as yours? Do you see yourself as being set apart by your open-mindedness and experience in all sorts of musical settings (jazz, improv, classical, pop) as opposed to delineation on the terms of technique and theory alone?

Well... "how do you know what you don't know?" When it comes to other cellists I hate to make too many generalizations. There are certainly a number who have explored some pretty far-reaching ends of the spectrum. I was lucky enough to play with and know Tom Cora. Although he is less omnivorous, Tristan Honisnger, well... he rocks. Abdul Wadud also. As a kid I was very excited by Julian Lloyd Webers electric versions of the Paganini Caprices. Even though they are clowns, Ernst Reisinger and Yo-Yo Ma are taking the cello into some pretty wide ranging settings. These days I have been working on a disc of music of cellist Fred Katz (studied with Casals, played legit but also was cellist in Chico Hamilton 5tet for the best years and wrote the music for Little Shop of Horrors and... was an ethnomusicologist back when most Americans thought music from Europe was exotic.) Of course there are so many other people doing interesting things in a similar obscurity to that which I enjoy. I organized a two night mini fest of "out" cellists at the Knitting Factory back about 9 years ago and had no problem filling the bills (about six cellists a night). We could have made it 3 nights, but... Anyway, as far as being apart, I guess that most cellists, like most humans, prefer a bit more stability than I put up with. As a result, they get out of school and get a job and then... well, one friend of mine who plays in a professional orchestra leaves his cello at the concert hall and laughs at amateur musicians who get together to play just for fun. To him, I guess its like being an electrician. He likes his job, he does it well, but... no way will he bend conduit for free. (to be fair, he does also play in a string quartet (for money) but at least he does get to hear himself without a dozen clones every now and then). As for technique and theory... Those things are more universal than they might seem at first glance (or at least I like deluding myself into thinking that these days).

Of all the many people you've played with in either one-off ensembles or more long-term projects, who do you feel are some of the people with whom you've connected the most, or with whom you've really felt to be on the same page?

Like most humans, I am probably (hopefully) never going to meet anybody on exactly the same page (or at least not on every subject). I'm happy just to meet people in the same chapter... but seriously, while there are numerous people with whom I share little with, I have been lucky enough to find lots who I can work with (at least within the pertinent parameters). The list of folks would be very long and I really don't want to miss anybody so I will skip the names parts but... I don't think being on the same page is all that necessary anyway. Lets just say that everybody I work with has something to offer and if I am open enough and grateful enough, good things can come out of many circumstances. Right now I am fortunate enough to say that the people I am working with, whether singer song writers or skronkers or jazzbos or... are all interesting/interested parties and... thanks to them, I am still getting out of bed and playing some music.

Your ideas of a cello being a “resonant box with four variable length cords…” and not a “cello” in the more reverent, traditionalist sense are expressed in the liner notes to ‘Personal Scratch.’ Do you still feel this way? Do you prefer to modify or reconstruct your cellos physically, even in simple ways that a typical cellist would avoid? I know the use of effects is something that’s out of the ordinary, but is there anything you do to the cello itself? Since there's so much use of repetition and of simple melodic or harmonic materials, I don't really have a problem with being classified as a minimalist, or having the pieces classified that way. Some of the pieces on my upcoming double CD on XI are even more hardcore in the repetitive use of loops to create a kind of trance state.

Not to quibble, but I don't say in the notes that I don't think of it as a cello. Instead, I give a view of the cello. By reducing it to a very simple definition, I give/gave myself permission to approach it in a more free way than I might otherwise. What I said about the cello then, still holds, but I want to point out that a lot of people spent a lot of time perfecting the particular design of this specific box with strings and their work shows in how precise the instrument has become. To me, it sounds like a different instrument even if you simply tune the strings down a half step. The physics involved in the relationship of the different parts and the amount of pressure they are designed to receive changes very radically even with a few PSI's. As for modifications/reconstructions, over the years have messed around with stuff along those lines (unsympathic strings etc) but now am mostly using it as it is commonly found with the exception of a nice piece of elastic that runs through the bridge. Its handy for making very low sounds as well as scritches and extremely high harmonics. Otherwise, I use a variety of handheld implements which when placed in contact with the bridge or body, open other possibilities in terms of sound types (although they all invariably become filtered through the cello and take on a different presence than if I were to simply place a contact mike directly on them). Also, lately have been playing around with piezo discs (free hand) and a small hand held amplifier using the two to reveal resonant contours within the cellos body and string structure that are not limited by the fixed state of the bridge pickup. These days, archaeologists use acoustic pulses and voltage (measuring resistance) to find out what sorts of structures are underground before they dig. I'm not doing it in a methodical/cartographic way, but the inner workings of the cello have been made a little more apparent to me through these explorations. Most of this stuff though, is only really useful in certain, more chamber oriented settings. As soon as the primary source of sound becomes an amplifier, a lot of these details are lost. Then I go more for electronic manipulations of the signal (we all love stomp boxes) as well as the relationship between the speakers and the cello (with its fixed location pickup).

To clarify, I simply meant that your more open and functional definition of the cello, though, of course, still defining it as a cello, shows a differing view from that of the common, often reverential view of the instrument. You answered my question well nonetheless. Your view of the cello, and music in general, seems to be an all-encompassing one that not only consists of lots of different musical sources, by many non-musical ones as well. What do you see as the non-music influences that have had the most profound effects on your music?

Phew, well, am not sure how all encompassing my world (or anyone's, for that matter) is but... in addition to the obvious stuff (visual art, fiction, film etc.) have taken an interest in (been obsessed by?) a variety of stuff with some principle areas being design (furniture and autos in particular), sea shells, tornadoes/tsunamis/hurricanes, urban planning, transportation structures (rail, road, air / interfaces and designs) and history (especially American), electrical circuitry, death, sex, god, food (mostly as a consumer), textiles, multiple scale perspectives, mass production systems, politics/sociology/anthropology, acoustics (especially as applied to instrument design), stained/leaded glass etc. Alcohol and other mind altering substances have also influenced me at times (of course!) (not that I can compete with Ken Keesey or anything). All of these things have influenced projects at one time or another. But most of these things interest most humans at some level. Although I glossed over the art stuff, I have to say that several writers have really kept me alive in the last few years. Sinclair Lewis is my man! Also love Graham Greene and Booth Tarkington. Recently I read Keep the Aspidistra Flying by George Orwell and think it should replace 1984 as his most widely read book. On the film front, Bresson, Melville and Truffaut rule (the French!). Favorite artists have to be Klee, Noguchi, Schwitters, and Reinhardt. In a weird way, Cage has had a big "non-musical" influence on me too (not to dismiss his music). But actually, its probably the people I met as a kid that had the most profound impact. My parents always had room at the table and an extra bed for people who were interesting and as a result interested me in all sorts of stuff. Some of the most influential on me were Mott the Mayan ear plug expert, Robbie the bass player, Harry the dancer, Patti the lab tech and he friend Whip the ictheologist, and Mary the French scholar, but there was a pretty long parade of folks with things to do passing through. Another thing that probably had a big influence on me, and I am slightly reluctant to discuss it, but... for kindergarten and first grade, I went to school in Sweden. Even though I had lived in the US for the first 4 years of my life, I suddenly had to speak Swedish (even the teachers didn't know English). I looked Swedish, which might have made it harder, but... I got a chance to experience alienation at a very young age (and have my perspective expanded at the same time). When we came back to the US, we moved into inner city Wilmington Delaware and I went to the local, still geographically, segregated school (Wilmington desegregated when I was about 13). So, after having a bit of a culture shock by the Swedes, got another and different one from the African-Americans. I can't say that I know much more than I might have about race and racism issues in America but can say without a doubt that I know what its like to feel like an outsider (and have come to enjoy it - like Cage, have adopted the permanent tourist stance). Of course, I also got to know what it is to be accepted by people different from you. This gets me back to your earlier question about the same page. Have been thinking the only really important page I need to be on with others is the page that says its ok to be on different pages.

It’s interesting to see you list all of those non-musical factors, as opposed to most musicians who will list a few other musicians, and, maybe, visual artists and filmmakers. It strikes me that you’ve not only put a lot of thought into what informs your music, and not just to answer one little interview question. I’m betting you could probably identify at least one way that almost anything you’ve experienced has influenced your art in a small way… Do you feel that your music is a window, however abstract, of your life? I don’t mean this necessarily in the “I was sad so I wrote a sad song” sort of way, but more that as opposed to “writing music” for its own sake, you seem much more to absorb the world around you and filter it through a cello. I guess this ties into Cage’s idea that everything around him was art, and that cracks in the sidewalk and cars on the street were more interesting to him that abstract painting and symphonies…

One of my biggest shortcomings is my overly literate interpretation of the data I perceive. In the previous question you wrote... "What do you see as the non-music influences that have had the most profound effects on your music?" And so I purposely avoided music stuff in the prior answer. If you want, I can go on and on about the different musicians and musics that have gotten me excited over the decades but... in more direct answer to the current question. Yes. I think we are all the accumulation of our experiences. In my case, I work perhaps a little harder than some to try to keep my experiences and relationships as in line with what I want my music to be about than might be the average (or at least being aware of it, makes me aware of it in a way I might not otherwise be). As a result, I probably spend way too much time indulging my lazy side and keeping my head as free from the bizness as I can (or at least keep it at a level where I don't feel uncomfortable). But also, for my way of playing and writing and improvising, its important that I allow myself time to just sit and see what happens (maybe at a busy intersection, maybe in an empty room, maybe laying on the sidewalk looking at the ants and the cracks...) I have always held at least a part time job, and try to keep the music as central as possible, so it can be hard to find as much time as I like to just slack, but working harder to slack "harder" (or longer?) makes no sense, so... Of course this doesn't mean you can't be an Alpha type organizing/fund raising/alliance forming machine and still be a fine musician, you would just be a different kind of musician that I want to be. Anyway, so far I have been able to keep things fairly comfortable (balance wise) and haven't had to be too nice to too many assholes and don't have to form alliances based purely on utilitarian issues (at one point when I was living in NY and working for non-profit arts organizations; the chess game aspect of a lot of human relationships (especially artists) became very clear - leverage and force) and I didn't dig it too much, so... got out of the administration scene on purpose and found work as a shlep (it doesn't pay as well, but my freedom is worth more than the difference). When I was younger, I had a fantasy of creating a piece that somehow I could crawl inside of and live for ever in a beautiful state governed by logics and relationships of my own devising (I think there was a Japanese painter who actually disappeared into one of his works - according to legend). But then you realize how empty that existence would be, and come to appreciate the assholes because they are a part of the sociological "eco-structure" to which we all (ALL) belong to and without the jerks, we probably wouldn't have the nice ones either. A lot of jerks have made very nice contributions to the conversation on certain subjects too (not to mention, I too am probably the biggest jerk somebody ever met). Braxton in the late '80's told me that he had realized that his operas had a big problem in that there were no villains. I don't want to quote but basically he said that while it was nice to have all these beautiful people being so beautiful to each other, without conflict, there wasn't too much interesting to be said about the relationships. Anyway, I am rambling... but... yes, everything (even the stuff I can't see or hear) affects everything else and its all mysterious and awesome and...