back

M-It seems that you are very concerned about your status as a woman in the musical field, which is a male-dominated -even sexist- cultural space (as is the whole political and social system, for ex. the power structures of liberalism, which are bound to those of the patriarch ate). How do you view the situation of women in today's musical economy?

K- It is difficult to be a "woman as herself" in music as it is in all other spheres. The same blind spots, the same contradictions. The issue of status for me is one of strategy. An attempt to enter cultural space as a human being, beyond the bounds of my gender.

M- Do you think that the (male & female) musician is a neutral subject or do you claim a right for yourself to act upon a musical process as woman?.Which would lead to the question of identity (and therefore the questions of sexuality, class and culture) at the the core of musical practice.

K- No subject is neutral. We all have ground. I play music from my person.....that is i play from my sexuality, class and culture. i play from my geography, my fingers, my brain, my garden.

M- Which are the desires and needs behind your project of a female group of improvisation (Doramaar)? What kind of aesthetical and political project did you wish to build.?

K- At first with Doramaar, I was curious about the dynamic of just women playing. I was curious about what sort of music could by played in that atmosphere. With public exposure, sexual politics became more of an issue, especially for me. It became a feminist project. Any public presentation was an opportunity to attempt shifts. I hauled the others along with me which was a bit unfair really. They just wanted to play.

M- What are the difficulties you have to deal with within a mainly male group ?

K- When you play with other people you have to deal with personalities and group dynamics, gender plays a part in this. Sometimes large sometimes small, sometimes very exciting, sometimes destructive, depending on the time and the people.

M- In an interview with Opprobrium, you said that women express themselves through a cultural and artistic conservatism, they remain within those confines or are made to do so .Can you develop this idea?

K- Women do not always do this but very often. Public space is still dominated by male ideologue. Unfortunately in contradiction to much 'post feminist' belief it is still reasonably subversive and rare for a woman to enter there on her own terms.There are all manner of resistant strategies that are encountered from lack of emotional and economic support to out right hostility. It is not an easy place. I think it is pretty reasonable for women to react by being almost more male than male, a strategy that ensures their survival. Another is to be as orthodox as possible.

M- Thurston Moore said some years ago that female groups were the future of rock and feminist bands like the Rrrriot Girls bands seem to have made this particularly conservative mentality evolve a little . What do you think of those bands (Hole, L7, Bikini Kill...)?.

K- I agree with thurston Moore that female will be a big part of the future. Not female as or for male but female to herself....maybe we could throw in a civil relationship with the male. Public space that reflected all the stories that actually exist, without the dominance of one story, would be an interesting place indeed. At least more civil than what we endure now. For this to happen however women and all the other "others² need to present there, and present in such a way that it is their experience (not his idea of them) that is told and further that these stories be validated and have enduring presence in public consciousness. To not strangely disappear, suffocate under the weight of the one story as constantly happens now. That these stories evolve the one, enlarge it, move it , hybridise it, make something new of it. That they do not fall into the trap of a return to his story. I don't know these bands enough to feel if they are telling their own stories or a version of his. Maybe we are still at the stage of protest here. Which at least is a beginning. Meanwhile men could do themselves a favour and vacate some of that public space, return to their private spheres and engage in some emotional maturing there.

M- Rock culture is deeply sexist, most of its mythologies are built on sexism (maybe this reflection should be extended to the sexual misery that the capitalist industry encourages through its products). Women are represented in rock as objects of the male desire, even if they are subjects (Courtney Love, Madonna.. ). Does adopting an oppressive language to subvert it, seem to you an effective strategy? You say you are very critical of the rock structure. Do you think that the mere structure of what is essentially an entertainment musical form bears its own oppression?

K- Mere structure????. The structures we live by have a major determining effect on how we relate, whether that be within the family romance or rock culture, i wouldn't think it was ever "mere²?. Playing around with that structure, shifting its meanings may or may not be an effective strategy in an attempt to rearrange or destabilise those cultures. When one lives within a culture that oppresses, it can be very liberating to get angry, to get oppressive back but ultimately it is playing back into the same. Sort of pay back, nothing changes except who is sitting on top. Personally i am interested in exchanges that allow an expansion in all those participating. Exchanges that do not involve loss. That get a bit beyond the nursery rhyme. Not that this is easy or even that i am very good at it, but i am interested!

M- Isn't it excessive to say that structures are inevitably tyrannical, that they are an authoritative construction of the dominating patriarchal thought?

K- Yes it is a bit excessive i agree. Structures have their place, they are needed up to a point, they also can be liberating, they help, like the invention of the automatic washing machine. However they need to be constantly revised so that they do not lose their relevance and become oppressive and restrictive rather than enabling. Structures can also be deliberately used to dubious ends, the silencing of others in order to maintain a power elite for example.

M- It could be said that it is easier to exist as a female musician, within an egalitarian, directly democratic relationship with the other musicians in the field of improvised music, as it has no instrumental hierarchy, and also as it reflects a libertarian philosophy, a political project. How do you perceive those relationships.?

K- My emphasis in improvisation is on mutual exchange, on dialogue. A relationship between subjects, each person is responsible for their contribution. 'How' people speak is of course a result of how able they feel themselves to be and depends on the people again. This need not be hierarchical or fixed, but inevitably it is a human exchange and may involve power plays, explosions, ignorance, jouissance, amongst other things, just the same as any other musical form. It is a communication and all the failures and successes of communication methods are inherent in it. One hopes there is more room for negotiation because the 'structure' of improvisation (or my reading of improvisation) implies this.

M- There are many important female musicians in this area, women like Joelle Leandre, Irene Schwiezewr, Zena Parkins, Ikue Mori, Susie Ibarra. Some of them play instruments traditionally attributed to men, like drums. Do you see a real opportunity for women to express themselves in improvisation?.

K- Yes i do. I read improvisation as a language that gives the opportunity to go anywhere. To shift ground, to mix up meanings & because of this it allows speech that might not necessarily be heard . It allows me to speak at least. It presents gaps. To me it offers this possibility.

M- Do you have any affinities with the preceding scene (UT, Live Skull, Harry Crews,Mars..)?. Do you think they have opened new ways for rock and improvisation.? K- I know something of these people but not very much. I know UT found it difficult to be taken seriously. I cover sometimes some words to a song of theirs. Rock has been moving out for a long while now. It keeps mutating, alot of music contributes to that. I'm sure these bands have been influential some where along the way.

M- In her book, Susan Faludi wrote "Now you can be yourself, you can be ladies, you don't have to be power machines² about the patriarchal reaction against the offensive years of feminism. How do you react to this?. What do you think of the idea that a woman like Madonna, as a brilliant and successful business woman(which implies that she has accepted the rules of capitalism and its vision of climbing up the social ladder) has done more for the cause of women than a militant writer like Kathy Acker, or than the feminist demonstrators of the sixties and the seventies?.

K- Well, the Faludi question......I'm not sure in what context she is saying this and therefore am not sure what she might be meaning by it? I presume she is saying you don't have to be ugly and shout any more, you can be beautiful and quiet about it. Nothing is over, not much has shifted in the relationships between men & women. She's not saying its over, is she?... no no there are just possibly more effective strategies that can be employed. Passing on the inside. Pretend you're just a woman when really you are a man...? & Madonna, well Madonna is popular, she reaches alot of people. But who influenced her?. All these people are important for their contribution to the civil dialogue. People who reach only a few, inevitably influence those that reach many. Madonna does not live in a vacuum.

M- Shepp once said about his militancy for the cause of the Afro-Americans that he was making politics when he was playing. Would you say the same thing ?. Therefore, can we speak about a meta-music?. Don't you think there is a risk of a cultural relativism (based on sex in this case), as it happened for jazz, which became the means of expression of only one community?.

K- I would say the same thing, in that, any public act is political. Some say any private act too & i would agree. Walking down the road is political. For me other factors come into the act of playing music too. Philosophy, joy, communication, frustration, being a body etc. There is always everywhere a risk of restriction. No form is necessarily the province of one group only. Through time forms mutate and become meaningful to different people for perhaps very different reasons. Some women could claim improvisation to mean something for them if they wanted, I don't know if it would be a bad thing.

M- Which brings us back to improvisation, which only exists within its collective dimension. How do you resolve the ego problems in Doramaar and Rain (another band with Peter Stapleton and Danny Butt).?

K- Just the people thing again. I personally have had major difficulties with some combinations and very little with others. Being a painter and solitary for so long it was weird to work creatively within a group. Very quickly (or painfully slowly) i realised some golden rules for myself and have had little trouble since. It's an interesting exercise. Most important for me is that everybody involved be able to speak, so an attempt at addressing concerns can be made openly and not played out in some weird lagoon, to the side.

M- You say that no sound is innocent, which implies that music is also an ethical question. Where does this ethic lie?.

K- Did i say that ? didn't Eddie Prevost write a book titled that? I most certainly would have got it from that. Yes yes no sound is innocent. Every moment is a multiple of space, piles of meanings, pick any one you like. Within your intention, your choice, your act & its consequence, the ethics lie.

M- Improvisation also builds its own shapes, so can't it be said that it also has become an academical form, generating its own standards?.

K- Yes sure, sad but true. However if those standards are flexible and open to movement, I personally don't see much of a problem.

M- You seem to consider rhythm as an imperialist figure, as in this old Carles and Cornolli's opposition: the power of disco versus the dynamics of free jazz, which could today translate as: the power of Bpm techno versus the dynamics of free rock. What do you think of this?

K- Well you know .......the contest doesn't exist. These forms mean different things, they trigger different passions. I say each to their own and show some respect toward what the other desires. What opposition?. I don't know if i think rhythm is imperialist. It can be, but it does not have to be. I play bass, i use rhythm alot i think.

M- What do you venture in the aggressivity of free noise?. Doesn't this sonic violence backfire against you?. Don't you generate your own oppression, similar to the oppression of the sonic nuisance of the city?.

K- Free noise doesn't have to be aggressive. There are some sounds i find very difficult to listen to but this is rare. The sounds of a city can be very interesting. When women make an incoherent extremely violent sound, for say thirty minutes, & Doramaar did this once live, i would say it had more to do with liberatio

n. Men do it all the time the louder the better, & yes i often find it oppressive. Its ok to do it once or 2ce, maybe six times but there is other stuff in the world. M- What is the part instrumental technique plays in your music?. What is the part of the materiality of sound?. What does the choice of a lo-fi aesthetism mean?.

K- I like the idea of approaching an instrument unshackled by orthodox technique. To discover it with your ears & allow oneself to explore from that. Not everyone is able to do that and be happy to develop from there. Thats how i did it & do it & i would encourage anyone interested to give it a go. I really don't like the ten years of practice business. New Zealand is a land of DO IT YOURSELF' ers...just do it, see what happens. It requires a certain attitude i suppose, encouraged by this culture. This willingness to explore in relation to other players makes the music, the sounds. Decisions are made. The lo-fi thing is related. It is what you are able to do. Use it, don't drown yourself in expensive unneccessary equipment. Play the house, lots of things make sounds. I work with rock instruments mainly because that is what is here. Lo-fi recording equipment because that is all that is necessary and all I can afford. What my experience is.

M- Doramaars concerts always took place in almost complete darkness. What does this withdrawing of the body from musical representation mean about your relationship with it, especially as a woman?.

K- Doramaar played once in the dark, though i would have liked to have played more that way. We wanted a concentration on the sounds, to bypass the inevitable visual impact of women playing, to bypass the fact that we were women in fact. Be quiet about it. We wanted to be heard beyond what we looked like. It is an issue always with women, the look, and how much that interferes with reception. It means i have an ambivalent attitude toward the body, my body, the womens body in public. Understandably so, don't you think?.

M- Your first album, Copula, sounded more inventive to me. It used fractures more, it was more rhythm based, with ruptures. Terra Incognita was maybe more radical with its long, monotonous electric pieces, close to white noise. How do you look at those two recordings now?.

K- Terra Incognita is my favourite, it is more atmospheric and organic to me, a much more realised piece of music. Copula is early work.I don't listen to it. But Terra has something, a sense of powerful sea which i like. There are a number of master tapes of late Doramaar , maybe five or six which survived the fire. They have a similar feel to Terra. One day if everyone agrees maybe we will release a selection of them. I hope so, it would be a pity if only a few people had access to them.

M- I believe that Doramaar doesn't exist anymore. What are Adria Morgan and Sara Stephenson doing now?. What led to the termination of this project?. Do you have other projects within the field of improvisation using this feminist approach?. What are your other projects?

K- Adria Morgan lives in Auckland and i believe she paints there, maybe she is also interested in music in relation to film. I'm not sure you would have to ask her. Sara Stephenson has done some more recording i think but i have not heard it. She also does alot of screen printing. Sexual politics led to the termination of this project, sad but true. For the last year and one half i have played in an ensemble which includes Susan Ballard a very fine violin player. Peter Stapleton and Nathan Thomson (two men!) also play. We call ourselves 'Sleep' and our first CD 'Enfolded in Luxury' will be released by Metonymic, March/ April of this year. Every one in this band is quite aware of feminist issues but it is not a major focus. Peter and I play with Brian Crook still as 'Flies inside the Sun', we are working on recordings. I also play occasionally with Bruce Russell and Metonymic is releasing the second 'Pieters/Russell/Stapleton' CD early this year . All this music is improvisation. I think some times of forming another all woman group but at the moment i haven't the time.

M- Eddie Prevost said that the question every musician would like to be asked is "What kind of world would be sympathetic to the music we feel must be made?². What would be your answer be to this question?.

K- A world in which everyone has the opportunity to listen to whatever they want to.