Andrew McKenzie

The Hafler Trio began in 1986 as a conceptual, sound, and visual project and is continued to this day by Andrew M. McKenzie. A thorough explanation of the project can be found at: http://brainwashed.com/h3o/whatis.html. Originally from the UK, McKenzie currently resides in Estonia and has released work on the Crouton label – crou016 and crou027 (with Willem de Ridder). Over the course of a series of recent email discussions, here are some select statements and observations from McKenzie that provide some insight into his thoroughly engaging work.

“Performers receive messages on how to act from many sources: from the
location of a performance in space and time, from the movements of other
participants involved in the performance (who may be persons, spirits,
winds, animals, birds) and from stories that recount movements through
space and time. What do performers know that enables them to respond to
cues with appropriate actions?” - Helen Myers, musicologist

Commentary:

I would say that the performer needs to know very little intellectually -
however, they must be prepared for the eventuality that one of these
‘messages’ may arrive without warning at any time. In that case, perhaps
it might be better to use the word ‘opportunity’ in its place. It might
not be going too far to say that knowing something may even be an
impediment to this desired state of readiness. A performer is probably
operating with some degree of expectation towards the performance
situation, and this in turn could easily be just such an impediment in
itself. Being able to act is the next part of the process, and in my
experience, this is usually the weakest part of the circumstances. The
degree of discipline and ability to hear in order to perceive what must be done are very rare; still rarer is the capacity to deal effectively with what must be done. It is much more like fulfilling a duty without question than a conscious choice, and as such, removes the performer from
the equation in a very real sense. Lastly, I would posit that this is not
only applicable to performers, but anyone engaged in anything that aspires
to the non-mechanical. The ‘creative’ does not come from a human place,
and is not simply a re-arrangement of data, as many seem to think it is.

On “taste”

‘Taste’ has one definition, that is, “that which is appropriate”. In
addition to this, a number of other things about the question need to be
examined. ‘Important’ may be ‘appropriate’, but in most people, their
sense of either will change over time as a natural function of
accumulation of experience. Also, the situations will have changed from
moment to moment, and may require a very different response at any given
point. Also, the sense of ‘person” may (and hopefully should) change a
great deal over the course of a lifetime, and this will in turn change
everything connected with such a judgement. It is not possible to change a
small part of oneself and the rest not to be affected. Lastly, for most
people, ‘taste’ is something they have inherited from their environment,
and does not belong to “them” anyway.

On “collaboration”

Not all of the people or collaborations bear the same characteristics, so
this question makes suppositions that cannot truly be addressed internally
as if they were true for the larger part of the query. However, one way of
looking at these things in a very abstract, anonymous way, is that they
introduce the possibility of hazard into the situation as I experience it,
in a way that may further give the possibility that this disturbance can
give something unexpected in the real sense of the word. In this way, the
natural process of development and cessation are consciously approximated
at certain points, rather than have an unpredictable, ‘random’ factor
disturb the process(es) automatically, and normally, destructively.

On “abuse of creativity”

One way of looking at this would be to say: the creative impulse will not
be abused, but will in turn abuse, or punish, those who would seek to
abuse it. This is expressed in many other areas in other ways, but they
all essentially speak of the same situation - the creative impulse comes
from a place that cannot be accessed by any intellectual process, neither
controlled by it. It is, more properly speaking, as far as one may speak
of such things, something that can be attracted by favorable conditions,
and my endeavours are to create situations where these conditions come to
a state of fulfillment as much as is possible for me to arrange. If I have
built a house, and forgotten a crucial pipe in the plumbing, when the
water is turned on and flows into the plumbing system of the house,
disaster will ensue - but this is not the “fault” of the water. Rather,
the water is the vehicle for a sort of “natural justice” that will
“punish” me for having been negligent. That is also to be expressed by
saying that the vision of the ideal conditions for the situation which
involve the idea of running water (a function of the system of a properly
functioning house to include this for the sake of argument) was
incomplete, and therefore, *I got what I had visualised*. When one prays,
makes rituals, invokes whatever muses one wishes, one has to be aware that
we get an answer that we intellectually, or even emotionally, do not
consider to be an appropriate response. But that response *is genuine and
correct*. The onus is on *us* to be prepared for the answer, whatever it
may be. There are many fine points of these two (and there are many more)
ways of looking at a response to your question, and many of these are
contained in the output over the years - or perhaps are potentially there
for those that would look.

On “improvisation”

I would have to say that in all walks of life, all activities, every
single time something is attempted, there is reason to suspect that
creativity can enter, if one is open to the possibility, and is
sufficiently prepared. Thus, the requisites would be the appropriate
preparation(s), firstly, then, a willingness to look at the situation for
what and how it is, and not through the filter of wrongly used
imagination. The last, and most important, perhaps, and thus the hardest
for most people, is the ability and development through training to listen
actively to whatever else is involved in the situation. I would say that
in contrast to the old saying about the way to a man’s heart being through
his stomach, is that the way to a man’s soul is through his ear.

On “learning from one’s mistakes”

Naturally, there appears to be a choice as regards learning. Whether this
is truly the case for each person is a matter for them to evaluate, and
cannot, as far as I know, be seen from the outside - the results, however,
can. A “mistake” is a loaded word for most people living in the
industrialised capitalist societies which exist at present. Rather than
this being a label for an outcome that was not expected because the
procedures directed towards its outcome were inappropriate, it carries the
hidden meaning of “failure”. This makes real examination of the forces
involved well nigh impossible in any empirical sense, as the viewer is
blinded by the sting of “not being successful” - something which is at
present tantamount to a new cardinal sin. this in turn stems from the
Aristotlean idea of duality, the original binary on/off, yes/no,
right/wrong [and so on ad infinitum], which cannot be used to move beyond
this stage except by the destruction or complete negation of “the other
half of the equation”. What is most profitable in my experience is (at the
least the earnest and continued attempt) to keep *both* the ‘options’ in
mind, without judging either, for as long as can be borne. Then, at a
certain point, something else becomes possible, but this is another area
altogether not served best by attempts to explain in this fashion.

Is h3o misunderstood?

I’d be very interested to see even a partial list of these
misunderstandings. I have the distinct impression that I would learn much
from such a presentation - and the person compiling that list would too.
The word “obvious” is definitely one which has been examined at length by
better minds than mine; some of their conclusions are definitely factors
that I take into account. Many years ago, Jean-Pierre Turmel (of Sordide
Sentimentale) wrote a tremendous essay about this subject, which was to
have a big influence on many of my contemporaries. I do not, however,
think it went far enough, and it was couched in such a way to make it
possible to abuse the ‘formulas’ contained within - possibly the
translation from the French had something to do with this. However, I
would seriously challenge the assumption that much of what I have been
involved with is *not* obvious. It may be complex, but that is an entirely
different matter. I often feel that people mean this when they say that
Hafler Trio items of whatever sort are “obscure” - what is really being
addressed is that they are complex, and this is contrary to the flow of
most endeavours; it is as if we are trained to reject the complex, because
we do not have tools or training in their operation to deal with it - even
though this is how most observable creation can be truthfully described!
(this does not mean ‘complicated’, please note). Whether they are elegant
(solutions) is something I don’t feel I can discuss with true objectivity,
except for some projects. as to the ideal working of the process (which I
will assume to be in this case the communication of the ’stuff’ to people
through any given ‘medium’ with the label ‘the hafler trio’) would be that
the person on the receiving end is as prepared to work on the creation of
the experience as I was in midwifing it into the world. That this ideal is
seldom reached makes, in the end, not a jot of difference. The aim is
perceived and seen clearly; at this point, it has already happened, and
the manifestation of creative principles involved is inevitable. I could
no more bite my own teeth than stop it from arriving.