Vangelis Papathanassiou - Beyond the myth of mass culture

The preparation of a new album and his well-known concerts for the Acropolis museum were the main professional obligations that brought Vangelis Papathanassiou for a while in Greece, time enough to give us the luxury of a more thorough contact. Nevertheless, that was just an excuse for our meeting. The subject matter of our conversations was totally different, and goes back to our relation to his overall presence in discography. Particularly since this is differentiated from the past with regard to its expressive level as well as its diversity. However, it is undeniable that Vangelis Papathanassiou's relatively recent releases beg the re-examination of his older material, beyond any prejudice encouraged by his mass acceptance.

A re-examination that helps us trace the deeper creative essence, one that remains essentially unchanged over the course of time, like the characteristic mark of his personality.

The interview was conducted by Argiris Zilos and Christos Tsanakas.

Tassos Sakkas participated in the additional discussion and edited the text.

We met with Vangelis Papathanassiou twice in December after his concerts at Odeon of Herodes Atticus on 25 and 27 September. In our second meeting, a few days after the first one - time necessary to clarify the ambiguities and contradictions, as well as to overcome the awkwardness and caution from both sides - we got to know the friendly and everyday dimension of a much-discussed creator, a dimension that may be obscured by the imposing and majestic tones of his oeuvre.

If Vangelis Papathanassiou rarely gives interviews, this is due rather to his bitter experience in the past, where a lot of times his views were distorted and turned into an object of self-promotion for some "general purpose" journalists. It is also a result, as he urged to clarify to us, of his own idiosyncrasy, since he prefers an unbiased and laid-back conversation rather than a professional style "point-by-point" interview. There is, however, another reason for his reservations: that he personally differentiates his position from those composers that, at every given opportunity, take the chance to theorize by "analyzing" their work. Ηe leaves, thus, the first and the last word to music.

A music that, in his opinion, has an obligation to reflect the ethos and responsibility of the creator's personality - since he admits that the work is something greater than the one who conceives and realizes it. He also proposes that melody is something so perfect and charming the more effortlessly it is released and for that reason he seeks the greatest possible immediacy in the creative process. A fact that makes him resent the alleged technical ease provided by most modern digital systems of musical creation and processing. But let us leave aside the "off the record" discussions that took place and move on to Vangelis Papathanassiou's views, that were recorded in these two rather persistent and, admittedly, tedious - for both sides - conversations.

Is there a purpose in solitude, i.e. the choice of a career?
Let's not put it like this, it's natural for a person to work alone. Much more so than working with others.

Are the reasons for participating in a band always commercial or is there a faith in collaboration?
Very few believe in collaboration, it is usually a convenience with a commercial purpose. A creator, in particular, always works alone. The trend of forming groups started relatively late, after 1960.

Could it be the necessity of the times?
Which music are we talking about? Because when we talk about bands we refer to one musical genre only. Beyond that, there are symphony orchestras or, in general, musicians that gather together to create a more complete sound than a single instrument could.

Let's stay a bit more on this point, because there are things that we would like to see as exceptions... In any case, they concern an audience that, generally speaking, has, so to speak, lived a "rock situation", witnessing the effect of a collective vision on the musicians.
It's very simple... Once, in 1950-1960, there was a combination of sociological necessity, so to speak, and spontaneous collaboration of various musicians. We are talking about that specific period only, because afterwards the situation started to take a commercial form; both companies and musicians understood there was a substantial response from the public and so we arrive at an insincere situation. In other words, a decline, a degeneration occurred, way earlier than we think. I insist that spontaneity ceased to exist after the '60s.

Do you accept spontaneity as a cause for forming a group?
When something is, at least, done for fun and for a reason, it is acceptable. Now, if it's about calculation and anticipation of what the public likes...

Better not delve into such territories, that doesn't interest us at all...
But here lies the answer to how things were then and how they are now. Back then, there was a historical necessity, as it was later realized. Today we have a series of standard products.

Nevertheless, there is still today an "underground" movement with rock origins and "art" tendencies, that can produce works of contemporary expression with particular compositional ambitions and, at the same time, reflect a community spirit like the one of the 60s. Some realities exist even today and not only in the 50s or the 60s...
Maybe...

Beyond the artist's need to self-expression, are there levels to the character and the form of a musical practice? Through a jam-session which, usually, has nothing to do with a strictly structured creation, there is an interaction between musicians that often leads to the conquest of an idiosyncratic and dynamic expressive level. Doesn't a musician sometimes need this creative turmoil, even if, as a rule, their work is completely specific and defined? Can the result of such a situation stand as high as a definitive and documented creation?
If it is a special moment from which something worthwhile comes out, then... why not? I have personally participated several times in jam sessions. After all, that's how most things occur in jazz.

The discussion then turns to less subjective matters. Vangelis Papathanassiou's releases do not include such "spontaneous collaborations". So, the issue of the musician not being represented by his released material is raised, since the latter conceals part of his activity.

When a musician decides not to release parts of their work, like you have, isn't their public image incomplete?
Of course it is. After all, even though my records so far have differences between them, they represent only a very small fraction of my work.

But what are the reasons for choosing what will be made public?
To begin with, there is a very large production, vast in quantity, that is very difficult to make public. There is also a logic that you follow when you start addressing the public, there are some freedoms that are not initially provided to you by the record companies but you earn them little by little with proper work. Finally, there is no reason to constantly release new works when the world is already overloaded. The most important thing for me is to keep working and be productive whether or not something is going to be published or not.

But doesn't the musician feel a responsibility towards an audience that would want to participate in his artistic concerns?
Yes. Personally, I would very much like you to know all of my work, but unfortunately this is not possible. Then we would have a more proper conversation, taking into account all the aspects of my work.

Has the freedom you have earned in the music business enabled you to release some works lately that deconstruct the image that was created with your earlier work?
Such projects existed before but at some point a record company decided to release some of them. My own attitude is to constantly compose and when there is any opportunity for this music to pass to the public, it happens. I've always tried to be at peace with myself.

There was a time when your works had some commercial success in England - "Heaven & Hell", "Albedo 0.39" - and your work satisfied the public taste. Was that planned?
The record company wanted me to do something commercial. I personally cannot understand what is commercial. Those who claim to understand, are talking about what was commercial in the past. But yesterday and today are two different things. What I'm doing is what I think at the moment.

In 1975, when "Heaven & Hell" was presented at the Royal Albert Hall, "concept" albums were a common thing...
As a work it was quite different from what prevailed in England at the time. If we compare it to other albums of the time it has nothing in common, although that's for you to say. I find myself in a difficult position when I say that a work of mine was entirely different.

When you left Paris in 1973, had you come in contact with the rising French avant-garde?
There was no avant-garde in France then, everything was a rehash. Creation there has stopped since the time of Édith Piaf, Trenet, Bécaud... Since then, nothing has happened in France, a place that back in the 1930's was a cultural centre. From the 60's on, art was non-existent there. The French put logic first and creation second, they are extremely theoretical and conservative. What is left now is fashion and cuisine.

So England is a healthier place from an artistic point of view?
I don't know, because England is content to exploiting micro-revolutions. The only revolution that really took place in England in recent times was the birth of punk, which has also degenerated. Nevertheless, I prefer living in England. They have a system that permits to better develop relationships and create work. It is also an exporting country, which means that it receives much less influence.

If a steady accumulation of influences, or rather the continuous introduction of artistic expression from abroad, is capable of wearing down "domestic creativity", that is not the case with the influences which are, essentially, both necessary and inevitable, since composition is, by no means, creation from scratch. In particular, the work of Vangelis Papathanassiou, apart from the particularity of a Greek who has been living abroad for years, presents relations with foreign cultures both from an artistic philosophical point of view and as a feeling.

Did you have an interest in non-European cultures during your career, whether for their music or their philosophy?
Simply put, all these things coexist. Every time I hear folkloric or ethnological music, it arouses my interest. What I have come to understand over the years is that there are significant connections between the musical traditions of various countries. There are, after all, common truths, common human values. Although in minute details, two cultures can have no point of intersection, the basic elements of their tradition are common.

Do you think folklore can satisfy certain needs of a person living in a post-industrial society?
Personally, it doesn't satisfy any need for me; it coexists with other expressions and I either feel it not. Essentially, you have to take this music as a root, as the beginning of something. I don't think pure folklore expresses the world today; it's just the raw material.

In some of your works there was a certain non-European feel without being directly related to a similar subject. It was something more abstract. Were you personally involved with Eastern philosophy, for example?
I move in a space that has no borders, not only between countries but also between planets. You start somewhere, let's say where you were born, but music reaches you from everywhere. All the different expressions can then be analyzed, but the work must first exist, either initially - as an accumulation of information and stimuli, and then as a creation, where all these elements pass through the personal filter and end up in music - or when the creator becomes the carrier of a global vibration and channels it somewhere through technical means, so that it can be heard. Since I have experiences with both of these ways of creation, I think they are completely separate and equally interesting.

This second point of view, for the process of creation as a transfer of a universal vibration, is something beyond the standards of European music.
European culture is overrated. In relation to the world tradition and harmony, it is like crumbs that we have idealized and raised to the center of the world. But, generally speaking, every culture contains more errors than truths.

Because it is a partial, closed system?
Rather because it was created to serve things outside of man's natural tendencies.

But in an environment like today's, how can one have a non-romanticized contact with nature?
When we get out of this vicious circle, we will see if and to what extent this contact is substantial. I think that two things can basically help to this direction: first of all, it is necessary to put a stop to this wave of misguided and ulterior-motive information on all levels and, more than that, to have less oppressive living spaces. The situation, though, is left to the personal responsibility of the one who undertakes a job. In other words, it's important that the result of their work is ethical and harmless. Personally, as a creator, I make sure to move within this framework.

There is, however, in your music, more health and balance than I can handle. I would, for example, be very interested in a work of yours that would radiate a lack of this psychological balance.
That's how my life is. I try to protect this balance by trying to maintain some contact with naturalness. Of course, there are moments when I create under intense situations, but this intensity is not channeled into my music. It just exists internally. I don't like the hypocrisy of excess. When something reaches extreme situations it can prove harmful if it's not spontaneous and natural. The latter, however, is an ideal case, which is, I think, quite rare.

There have been examples, however, particularly in the field of pop, where the hypocrisy is so deep and theatrical that it ends up being an absurd truth giving important works.
Maybe... This is something completely outside of me.

Therefore, according to Vangelis Papathanassiou, creation is an individually done processing / utilization of data, whether these come from the body of a musical tradition or from other, more universal places. But how can we test the result of such a creation? With what data can his albums be separated from the garments of paraphilology and be, in one word, demystified?

Since we are forced to talk only about a small portion of your work - that which has been released - let's dwell a little on "Soil Festivities", perhaps the most unified album of them.
In general, however, "album" means several pieces, possibly different from each other, placed in a unit with a certain continuity.

What are these "soil rituals"? [an effort of the interviewer to render the title in Greek, which however results in a slightly different meaning]

Look, I don't have the luxury of talking about what I do, like people who explain their work. I don't explain anything. It would be possible, if I could, to talk for hours about "Soil Festivities".

Was there an image?
There were images - although usually when I compose this is not the case, there are other stimuli. In this particular case there were images from my childhood: my garden. And beyond that, various things that happen inside the earth on a microscopic level, things that have a huge dynamic, from something miniscule growing, to the thousands of worms and ants that go up and down in a handful of soil.

There is an inner calm in this work, in the sense of coming to terms with certain things.
It corresponds to my childhood - my garden was very nice.

There is something very personal, we could say.
Everything is personal. I could work on many albums based on this subject.

How could one perceive "Mask"? The title is violent, strict...
The mask is a universal and ancient element. "Mask" is more human, based on interpersonal experiences through the ages.

What will be the next step? There was the collaboration with Milva, which is a different story, this beautiful popular song...
But it's possible to write melodies, songs... It pleases me a lot. It's also a matter of time; I don't have enough. This is my life. Even if I stop working with record companies and making records, I'll still be composing in the studio. After all, there are albums that cannot be released at the time. Possibly after a few years. It doesn't matter, what matters to me is that I keep working. Besides, I don't have an obsession for releasing records all the time.

So, when you are preparing a work, isn't there an audience to which you address it?
Of course not. If there was, the music would be very confined, calculated even.

There are some cases, though, such as the Greek art folk song where a work, from the moment it concerns an audience, made sense to be made public...
Yes, but I am moving in different areas...

This differentiation of his position from both after the fact self-boasting composers and constricted, calculating musicians, leads to an interesting metaphor: in a concert, where there is a fairly specific audience that the creator is "addressing", is the music is calculated, or are other parameters at play?

One could refrain from attending the Odeon of Herodes Atticus concert because they wouldn't expect to listen to a complete work, like "Soil Festivities".
In any case, I had nothing planned, so I didn't know what the final outcome would be. The location played an instrumental part. It wasn't a random place. Well-known pieces were also performed, but this wasn't necessary. There were simply 7500 people who wanted to hear something they knew and loved. Otherwise there was no commitment. In the two concerts I played different things and if I was in Japan, for example, something else would have come out.

In an earlier interview, you said that wherever you go and whatever you do will have the Greek identity. Does that contradict what we are saying now? Since the place one lives and creates affects the mentality of a person, is it possible for someone to remain truly Greek after so many years abroad?
Luckily, I stayed abroad and so I managed to keep my Greek identity.

What if you had stayed in Greece?
I prefer not to answer... However, ask yourself if in a country with such an unhealthy atmosphere due to pollution, with a sad and damaged physical environment, if one could still be able to create... [translator's note: Vangelis refers to the state of pollution in Athens back in the 1980's and 1990's, when the smog was still an issue].

At this point we put the Greek reality behind us, not so much because there is no reason to discuss its... unhealthy situations, but mostly because there is a point that is worth examining from another angle. It was mentioned before that the work of Vangelis Papathanassiou, although connected with the body of past creation, constitutes something different. The term "different", of course, is valid in relation not only to the work of others but also to the work of the same creator. How to understand his development as a musician, but also, how is the uniqueness of music writing reflected in different works?

After fifteen years of work there is a project that is logically a starting point for someone else or a reference point for you...
As I said before, nothing is completely new. Things belong to a chain of evolution that connects them to the past. What is important in a work, though, is how the composer interprets it, by borrowing from nature and not from his "colleagues". When I have nature at my disposal, what need do I have for the works of the past, that are a derivative situation?

But if your language was utterly original, it would be incomprehensible both to the public and to the experts.
A musical note is the same for all people, regardless of nationality, regardless of different languages. And the musical language is international because everyone takes the same sounds as a starting point. Why should I create a language that no one understands, since I am a human with all the basic human functions? The mistake made in the evolution of modern music is the attempt to break the chain of tradition. Such a thing cannot be done. Everything is the same, there are just different points of view. Picasso e.g. was important not because he made "big noses" - already existing in African masks anyway. He had a power and he had the genius, for sure. Forms are not important, the thing is how you use them. To have talent. In music, the revolution came, in my opinion, with electronics, that gave new possibilities. In that respect, I say that I did something new, especially in my first works, regardless if I used familiar musical phrases. Whatever you do, you can't step outside of the laws of nature. Whether you make symphonic or electronic music, you move within the limits set by nature.

Have you ever tried, even to amuse yourself, to tackle with symphonic music, which is certainly closer to tradition than synthesizers?
Yes of course; no such works of mine have been released so far. When we say symphonic music, of course, we don't necessarily mean something like Mozart did. It doesn't mean there are specific movements - such stuff is for Colleges - it means that you use a multitude of sounds and that there is a core that gives a strong unity to the work.

If "Soil Festivities" was written as a piece for a symphony orchestra wouldn't it be different?
It would be different in terms of some sounds, but not in terms of organization or structure. Of course, synthesizers have ended up impeding directness, because manufacturers are irresponsible and unethical and do not respect a basic human benefit: the zero-time gesture. If acoustic instruments have survived, the most important reason is that they allow you this immediacy. Thanks to technology, electronics have come to allow this possibility too, but then came a point where we forgot all about that and moved to computer buttons that are not meant for musicians.

What is the difference between a musician and someone who just pushes a button and likes the sound that comes out of the machine?
The difference is in the expression. Playing a synthesizer instead of playing backgammon is quite "therapeutic" but getting excited with a machine is a bad situation. It's not enough to make a sound, it must also represent you. Or to be precise, the difference is a "zvtsfstrrrodaksss..." or a "flassstokomikotradxchl..."

Do you believe that the gradual detachment from forms, whether they are rock 'n roll or swing or symphonic music, helps the musicians to express themselves?
I personally don't see things that way... Maybe if you asked someone else things would be much easier. The difference with me is that I don't fit into these molds. Form comes as a consequence of creation. I would ask that you prefer the latter...

An answer, given not in an ironic mood but in a friendly and quite humorous tone, an answer addressed mainly to "lovers of the form" rather than to the "Sound" [translator's note: reference to the magazine's title], gives rise to a harmless, but quite cunning question... Most likely (!) at this point of the interview, we do not "exchange words"; it's just that the conversation is getting more lively... a while before it ends.

Was there a specific moment in your career when you felt the need to cut off all contact with the commercial circuit, that you decided it wasn't for you, or did you have that need from the beginning?
Because I started at the age of four I had - and this is a good thing - no idea what "commercial" means, or an "album". Later, my first band, Forminx, was a completely spontaneous effort of all the members. We had some really good time and although we were very successful, what interested us was getting together and playing. I've never had any particular fondness for commercial success, although it almost never leaves my side. It sure is weird to say it doesn't concern me when my whole career hints to the opposite, but I personally think it's enough to do something healthy without adding to pollution, because music is the best medicine but can also be the worst poison.

I would like to return to the subject of Greek expression... What does it mean when "a Greek makes music"? What if you were English?
First you are who you are and then you make music. Being Greek means exactly that. I can't have a whole conversation to explain why I'm Greek, nor am I looking to find my roots. I myself am my root.

It seems you tend to avoid giving concerts...
In terms of technique, it used to be and, up to a point still is, quite difficult to create on stage a sound worthy of a work. A concert is a risky affair because, among other things, it takes frequent appearances to build rapport with an audience. In addition, companies have a whole mechanism to try to exploit every commercial opportunity, which is exhausting. Then I lack the quality of self-centeredness that is required to function on stage. Let alone that organizing a concert disrupts your normal pace of life.

But you must surely feel the need for live contact with your audience...
For a concert to take place, it must be planned at least six months in advance, which of course also depends on what kind of concert you want to perform. In other words, when you feel the need to communicate with the public, you don't find the space, and when the space is available, you don't feel the need. So you have to make a compromise, which is bad. There are of course special cases, like the one at the Odeon of Herodes Atticus.

Dieter Meyer of Yello has mentioned another reason for not giving concerts: He said that music is something like painting. Can you imagine a painter painting on stage?
I'm engaged in painting too and I can say it has things in common with music but they're not the same thing. After all, music has another, less personal effect on the person. Painting is done by you, while music is done through you. Painting does not pre-exist while music does, it would exist even if there was no man on earth.

Interview by Argiris Zilos and Christos Tsanakas. Tassos Sakkas participated in the additional discussion and edited the text.

Translated from Greek to English by Dionysis Boukouvalas and Spyros Tsiolis