Hal Willner, UCLA Live’s 2003-2004 Artist in Residence,
treats the multi-artist compilation a lot more seriously than most
others. After all, while many of the generic multi-artist discs you
see scattered in bargain bins are little more than shameless
cash-in attempts, for Willner, the medium is an attempt to explore
the unexplored. Pop idioms and commercial viability mean little
when you’re producing interpretations of Disney hits via Tom
Waits and Sun Ra, or commissioning John Zorn to reinterpret
Thelonious Monk. Now with a snappy new title to go with his
artistic endeavors, the new Artist in Residence has plenty more to
share. Over the past few years, Willner has moved out of the
recording studio, creating productions similar to his albums live
and onstage. The idea of scrounging up bits and pieces to create
something distinctly your own isn’t new. Think DJ Shadow or
Madlib scouring ancient vinyl archives to satisfy their own
distinctly postmodern turntablist fetishes. Think the Kronos
Quartet traipsing though the material of Steve Reich, Conlon
Nancarrow and Sigur Rós in under two hours at Royce Hall last
April. But what Willner has going for him is a shimmering track
record and celebrity clout, something he’s gained after years
as music director for “Saturday Night Live.” His recent
projects at UCLA have included two productions of “Never Bet
the Devil Your Head,” which had everyone from Lou Reed to
Will Ferrell reinterpreting works of Edgar Allen Poe with spoken
word and music, to the Harry Smith Project, which featured
contemporary acts performing songs off of the essential six-disc
set “The Anthology of American Folk Music.” On the
schedule for this upcoming season are “Shock and Awe: The
Songs of Randy Newman,” featuring Steve Berlin, Vic Chesnutt
and Elysian Fields, and “Let’s Eat: Feasting on the
Firesign Theatre,” which will reproduce sequences from the
legendary comedy troupe with John Goodman and Julia Louis Dreyfus,
among others. Ңbull;Ӣbull;Ӣbull; dB Magazine: What events led up
to your new position as UCLA’s next Artist in Residence?
Hal Willner: Well, it seemed obvious to (UCLA Live director)
David (Sefton), I guess. Since he’s been here, I’ve
been doing conceptual shows, or conceptual nightmares, I suppose.
The first one, the Harry Smith show is still going on (in other
venues), actually. But he and I were going to do a few more this
year, so he just called and said, “Why don’t you just
do this? You’re sort of doing it anyway.” But it will
be a bit more, I think. We’re planning on adding a few more
““ happenings, shall we say? I guess that’s what these
concept shows are.
dB: The idea of the Artist in Residence seems tailored for an
individual with your wide-ranging interests and track record. Have
you ever had a similar role elsewhere?
HW: Not anything official in that way. I was music producer of a
TV show called “Night Music” once, which David Sanborn
hosted. (At) St. Anne’s Church in Brooklyn, years ago, I used
to do two or three of these. But I just love having the opportunity
to do those kinds of shows where one takes a subject matter and
explores it and brings down the category. It’s a great thing
to be able to do that, so hopefully we’ll plan some more
stuff this year.
dB: How much more are you expecting to have planned?
HW: We’re talking about certain things ““ a Marquis
de Sade show (chuckles), some readings.
dB: You’ve done tributes ranging from Nina Rota to Disney
hits ““ do you have your own set of standards for what should
be taken seriously as art, or is it more what to do with how you
approach the material that makes the difference?
HW: I’d love to say there’s a philosophy, but each
one is a completely different thing. I’m 47, and when I was
young, there were a lot of variety shows on television. There are
not too many now. We had tons: from “Ed Sullivan” to
the “Hollywood Palace,” and all that. I was one of
these guys that took in the whole thing and was into the variety
aspect of it. I liked seeing a monkey act before the Rolling
Stones. Also, there was early FM radio that was based in rock
music, but you’d also hear Ornette Coleman in it and old
Orson Welles radio shows. That kind of formed the foundation of my
tastes for that. So basically the first one we did, the Nina Rota
album, that was just a natural impulse. The idea to do something
with his music in the vein of the multi-artist thing just came
naturally from watching those TV shows, from seeing all of Harold
Levin’s Woody Guthrie homages at Carnegie Hall. The Newport
Jazz festival when they did all Ellington. It just seemed like a
natural thing to do. Then, the Thelonious Monk album followed it.
That was basically because I felt that right before he passed, his
music was much more than it was being given credit for. It
wasn’t just jazz. That music was rock ‘n’ roll to
some people, and the songs were written structurally like pop
tunes. So I wanted to see what all artists from Doctor John to
Peter Frampton would do with it. And then all of a sudden, I had a
series ““ and I just went to myself, “Who do I want to
explore next? Oh OK, Kurt Weill.” Then I saw an album of
Disney songs on my wall and I thought, “Oh, that would be
fun.” You know what I mean?
dB: And now Randy Newman’s work is the next in line for
treatment?
HW: I’ve always loved Randy Newman’s music. And it
initially started with someone who had an idea to do an album. I
kind of ““ for whatever reason, maybe because it’s
different ““ enjoy doing these conceptual live shows more than
albums these days. I don’t know why. But in lieu of going out
and trying to do it as a record, they just mentioned, “You
sure you didn’t want to do this live?”
dB: There’s a kind of postmodern aesthetic that colors
your projects as you take preconceived material and thrust it into
a different context to make it wholly new. Over the course of your
career, have you seen an increasing interest in that kind of
approach?
HW: When I started doing these, it was pre-tribute record. In a
weird way, mine were some of the first. Now there’s a lot of
people doing multi-artist things, but I’m not sure what to
think of them. You know, they’re intended for a lot of
reasons. For myself there’s the desire to combine artists
that are well-known with artists that are not known at all; it
really is an exploration. But whatever subject matter we use, it
has to at least be strong enough to hold up ““ I mean, if you
look at the artists that appear in any of these compilations,
they’re really varied.
dB: How much deliberation goes into your choice of artists?
HW: Sometimes when I think of a project, it’s like,
“This is obvious, this is obvious,” and then sometimes
through the process I’ll think of new people, or some people
will suggest others. And honestly, someone might call me on the
right day. That has happened. I’m walking down the street and
some artist says, “Oh God, I’d love to be on your
““ .” But I think a lot of film directors work like
that. You’ve got a project, and then it becomes a big part of
your life, and as it gets closer it gets bigger.
dB: How does your role of producer change depending on the
people or material you’re dealing with?
HW: It depends. Obviously, you’re responsible, so the role
itself doesn’t change, but you’re never sure how much
you have to get in there and say stuff. It depends on the project,
but in most of these live shows it’s usually the same: You
sort of set up the situation, and with very very little rehearsal
time try to make it work. And right now the Newman show, as of
right now, the songs are picked. We don’t know who’s
doing what, but the songs are picked, so that way we’re
making the set list before most of the artists are chosen or talked
to.
dB: Why have you chosen that approach?
HW: Because it feels like, structurally, then we know what
we’re doing. But that approach is new for me. You know the
shows may get more professional and less dangerous. I mean, I
don’t know if you’ve seen any of them …
dB: I went to last year’s Halloween show at Royce
“¦
HW: Oh, you saw a great one. I think that was a 95-percenter.
Usually when we’re working like this, what we’re doing
is just putting combinations together that have never been done.
You know there’s going to be something that’s going to
be amazing. You know there’s probably going to be something
that’s not going to work. And sometimes it’s a mixture.
That last Halloween show you saw, it just worked, completely. I
don’t know when you came in, but we were still rehearsing a
lot of Antony’s songs when the audience started coming in.
There were two things ““ the thing with Chloe (Webb) and Lou
(Reed) ““ that were never rehearsed. We did those for the
first time on stage. And then there were some things of the show
that were rehearsed properly. So you know, that’s what I
mean.
dB: You’ve seen many individual talents do the
interpretations you’ve wanted them to do ““ what do the
best recordings and performances do to, or with, the originals?
HW: Some people are totally faithful (to the material). Some
people do things to where the song’s almost unrecognizable.
It depends on the artist ““ and I’d like to have a
mixture of it all. We’re exploring this work ““ while at
the same time trying to make it a nice evening.
dB: Do you find it hard to find avenues to showcase your
elaborate productions?
HW: Right now, it’s kind of a difficult time for music in
general. It’s not something coming from me, it’s in the
paper, you hear it from the record businesses and the arts
programs. And with these shows ““ well, we’re not doing
pop-MTV-Christina-whatever. I would never call them self-indulgent,
but the motivation is that it’s something we want to do. So
it is harder; there are less avenues to go through right now. But I
think it works another way. I think there’s so much good
music out there right now, and it’s just because it’s
so easy to make CDs. Anybody can do it in their bedroom. Making a
record when I started out was a major achievement. Now, I’m
sure there’s hundreds of thousands of records being made
every year. I just saw this 15-year-old kid who just made this
great folk rock record in his apartment. So, yes, it’s
rougher than it was 10 years ago. But who knows? We’re still
doing it.
dB: I’ve been looking at a lot of the Edgar Allen
Poe-related projects that you’ve done over the years. Have
you learned anything about the adaptability and versatility of
Poe’s work over the course of your different endeavors?
HW: Yes, definitely. Well first of all, the Poe one was not my
idea, actually. After the Mingus project, I figured I wasn’t
going to do these for a while. I just thought it was time to move
on. I do them now when someone else has the idea for it. Anyway, we
did an album and about five live shows and what we discovered was
yes, this was beautiful writing, but we didn’t have to be as
pure with it. We started finding that we could edit the stories
(chuckles). When we started out, we didn’t edit them ““
we thought we couldn’t do that. But over the course of a
number of shows, we tuned in on how he wrote and felt justified in
editing them for a live stage and that we knew the material well
enough to do that.
dB: How often do you get the fear that an idea of yours just
isn’t going to work?
HW: All of the shows I think are going to be disasters.
There’s not one where I didn’t think the worst was
going to happen. Because we’ve never ever been properly
rehearsed, ever ““ not the way that you’d think a show
would be rehearsed.
dB: Have there been any projects that have been just too
ambitious to take on?
HW: Always. I’m sure there are hundreds, but you know
eventually a lot of them happen. For years, we were talking about
doing “The Seven Deadly Sins of Marianne Faithful.”
That was talked about for 10 years and it finally got done.
I’ve been thinking about doing another music-television show
““ it could happen at some point. That’s just part of
doing this; things will happen if you don’t forget about
them.