Matus, Jim (Paranoise) (Part 2) (August 2002)

A Call To The Enlightened Ones: An Interview With Paranoise's Jim Matus

This is the second of two interviews that originally appeared at Progfreaks.com, this one dates from November 2001.

The first time that yours truly had the opportunity to interview Paranoise's fearless leader Jim Matus was exactly three months ago, barely a few weeks before the band's new album Ishq came out. Ever since then, a new sonic attack of progressive world music has been unleashed upon the Earth's populace and the face of politics and international affairs has seen itself changed through recent events, both extremely good reasons to try and get some opinions from Matus in an attempt to further unearth the musical and political philosophies behind this innovative band. Was I successful? You'll have to find out for yourself...

Marcelo Silveyra: Just like last time, let's start off with the non-political aspects of Paranoise and a bit of other paraphernalia for a bit before actually cutting to the chase. Actually, I'm going to begin with what might very well be the most simplistic and naïve question that I'm ever going to ask you. What is that Stonehenge-like symbol on both Private Power and Ishq?

Jim Matus: I have no idea. It is an actual object. I found it in the woods of New Jersey while I was roaming around high on mushrooms. At the time it seemed to me like some kind of an ancient symbol that was placed there by aliens for me to find. It's really just a three-inch piece of a metal grating broken off in this curious way so as to resemble the pi sign (sort of), or maybe even a double cross. As you might imagine, it has a deep and mysterious meaning for me personally, so I made it the Paranoise logo.

MS: You've mentioned in the past that one of the main flaws of Western music is that it has developed amazing levels of melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic complexity but unfortunately has also forgotten to get in touch with the innermost spirit of mankind by losing its familiarity. Many would probably argue that progressive rock is not supposed to be familiar. Your response to them? What genres or bands of modern Western music would you say are the closest to retaining that essential link found within world music (Paranoise doesn't count!)?

JM: By "familiar," I don't mean something that you've heard before, or something that has a "normal" sound; I mean almost the opposite. When I first heard Qawwali music, (Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan) it struck me as completely different from anything I'd heard before. There is nothing terribly complex about the melodies, and the rhythms are steady and simple, yet it seemed totally unique. This reminded me of some distant archetypal dream that lay dormant in my subconscious. The older, indigenous forms of music always seem to capture this feeling and I believe the musicians who play it do it because they are drawn to this "familiar" feeling they get when they play it. A symphony or a progressive rock band can create original melodic combinations and harmonic twists ad infinitum, but still not get in touch with the "reason" that we make music, which I believe is to transcend our normal three-dimensional grind. For me, some of the modern music that does this is seventies Miles Davis, and any jazz that's based on extended free improvisation. As far as "composed" music, I like Stravinsky, Messiaen, and Steve Reich. Any composer who cares how the thing sounds more than about being clever is on their way to achieving this "familiar" feeling.

MS: In our last interview, you mentioned that Pat Metheny and John Scofield revolutionized the way guitar is played. Now, since we share a liking for King Crimson and Robert Fripp's work, here's an interesting one ... A short while ago I read a statement from Fripp criticizing the way people adore everything that Jimi Hendrix has done, since his technique is not exactly proper. How important is having a correct playing technique and, just for the record, what do you have to say about Hendrix?

JM: I didn't read what Fripp said, but yeah, not everything that Hendrix did was solid gold. I don't care so much whether a guitar player is playing correctly or not and Hendrix didn't have the best technique, but who cares? He came up with a body of work in only about four years of recording that changed the way every guitar player thinks ever since. I would disagree with Fripp if he meant that Hendrix should be criticized for being sloppy or imprecise ... I can't imagine him not thinking Hendrix was a genius considering that half the time he was tripping his brains out, and just being able to point the guitar in the right direction on acid is quite an accomplishment.

MS: Looking back at both albums, Private Power is a rawer effort than Ishq, and perhaps a heavier one, too. Ishq, however, has a wider spectrum of world music included and the political statements are longer this time around. Since you are interested in pursuing this progressive world music idea for a while, do you find any limitations when working with the idea? Is there a conscious effort of making each album different from the other one although they exploit the same basic principles?

JM: I don't know if Private Power is "rawer" than Ishq, but Private Power was a little heavier as far as guitar sounds. This time I tried to create more complex textures by using my laouta and mandocello mixed in with the crunch guitar. I see Ishq as a smoother blend of the band and the samples. My goal is to make them sound like a totally natural combination. I don't so much care about being different next time as just following this stream of consciousness to wherever it takes me. Right now I can imagine at least two more albums that will sound roughly the same as far as being a high powered enhancement of Middle Eastern traditional music joined by other "world" sounds in new combinations with my own songs. I just made a connection with a singer and producer in Tunisia and we are trying to work out a way to collaborate on a few songs. I think we will keep getting better and expanding our parameters, and I can't imagine changing a winning combination just for the sake of being different.

MS: On both the aforementioned albums, you've included excerpts of speeches from the likes of Noam Chomsky and Terrence McKenna, while also writing down your own political statements and views in an effort to reach Paranoise's listeners. Can you foresee a time when the statements and excerpts will come purely from Paranoise territory? Or is this a way of contributing to the cause by getting wise words out to more people?

JM: I don't want to rule anything out, but I think using recorded statements from people who are brilliant minds and brilliant speakers is a great way to drill home a point. I did do some of my own ranting (less than brilliant yelling) on the song "Have More/Kayamba Dance," but in the end I let Chomsky take over for the final statement.

MS: Alright, now it's time for our little spotlight in the seldom-visited political arena! Before I begin with what is going to be our center of discussion this time around, however, there are a couple of interesting subjects that I think are worth a word or two. First one that comes to mind is the latest controversy surrounding Henry Kissinger and the unearthing of documents that reveal his participation in the assassination of important individuals in Salvador Allende's regime decades ago. The United States' intervention in Chile, which placed Augusto Pinochet in power, is certainly no secret, but there was no "solid evidence" against Kissinger for a while. The problem, however, is that Kissinger is unlikely to ever see justice while he's alive, much like Helmut Kohl in Germany and Pinochet himself. Isn't it ironic to see these criminals of "national interest" not pay for their crimes because of humanitarian reasons such as old age? Moreover, isn't it frustrating to see how these situations and controversies disappear from the public eye and conscience after a few days of heated discussion with no real results?

JM: It's totally baffling to see Christopher Hitchens come on MSNBC and basically lay out the facts (in his book) as to why Kissinger should be locked up and the key thrown away along with hundreds of other government officials involved in these war crimes, and the commentators just sort of laughing it off as a joke. We have a media that is worse than a joke. They are part of the corporate/government/media nexus that has lowered the IQ of everyone who watches. The United States is responsible for more genocide and terrorism than any other country except maybe Stalinist Russia, and the average American believes that we are the beacon of freedom in the world. This is quite an accomplishment by the media in keeping this from us, and this is what Chomsky's rant is about on "Metahistorical Disquisition;" the last tune on Ishq. If we had an honest and fair media these crimes would never have happened in the first place because the public doesn't stand by while innocent people are killed in their name if they can see what's actually happening. We are not an immoral people, and human nature is not brutal and opportunistic as we are told, and it's only institutions of "concentrated private power" that carry out these crimes in our name. We have no real democracy, because if we did, people like Bush and Kissinger would never get into power in the first place.

MS: Another interesting situation, which brings me closer to our central topic, is the relatively recent world summit in which several countries, mostly African, demanded an indemnity from the European powers that had exploited them via slavery and in which the official position of Israel against Palestine was sharply criticized and condemned, with the United States being the only country that defended the Israeli government. Now, we're going for two big subjects... One: is it logical or reasonable to ask for indemnification after so many years, even though many of the people who will pay for it with their taxes didn't have anything to do with the slavery exploitation of Africa (commercial exploitation is, of course, another matter)? And two: what do you think about the much more conservative and aggressive policy of Ariel Sharon in Israel, under which the peace process took a gigantic leap backwards? Is it possible to ever have peace in territories with historic conflicts, such as Israel, Ireland, and Ruanda?

JM: First of all, realistically, the idea of "reparations" is never going to happen. There is just no way of ever implementing it fairly a hundred and fifty years after slavery. But this doesn't rid us of the issue which should be discussed academically. I believe there should be programs or structures that are designed to help people who were not lucky enough to inherit wealth or property because their ancestors were slaves. There should really be a fundamental restructuring of government in general to address the huge inequalities in America. Thomas Jefferson said we should have a Constitutional Convention every thirty years to adjust the government to the changing world. Unfortunately the Constitution was designed to keep the power in the hands of the men who "owned the country" and it has changed little since it was written.

About Israel: The U.S. has done everything it could to keep Israel as our strategic "police station" in the Middle East. They have nuclear weapons when we bomb Saddam Hussein for even thinking about having a jet fighter. Total double standard, because we need the oil profits and Israel's existence insures that we rule in the region. There never was a peace process - there was a process to appear as if there was a peace process. Historical conflicts are based on struggles for power, and until power is in the hands of all the people and not just a few elite individuals, there will never be peace anywhere.

MS: Which means not anytime soon! Ok, with these two subjects aside, it's time to enter what is a very sensitive subject to a lot of people out there; namely the recent terrorist attack on the Pentagon and World Trade Center on September 11th. Something that has personally come across as disgustingly sickening is the morbid fascination of some people for these kind of tragedies, in which there is really no interest in the reasons or consequences of events or the innocent people who die in them, but rather just in seeing someone jump to their deaths out of desperation. Added to this is the usual "business" approach of the media, a large part of which has had no qualms about exploiting the situation for increased ratings and what not. Something that comes to mind when thinking about this is whether people (all over the world) get the manipulative media that they deserve...

JM: Wow! That's pretty harsh, but you're probably right in that we get the crap that's fed us because we're too lazy (and brainwashed) to do anything about it. The other side is the morbid fascination the media giants have for profits that come from good ratings - if it bleeds, it leads - and this was the bloodiest thing to come along since Pearl Harbor, so of course the media whores are going to be milking it for all it's worth. Unfortunately for the people who died in the WTC and their families, this was used to boost patriotism as well as to drum up support for the illegal war in Afghanistan. We're seeing a mind-numbing drumbeat of alternate images meant to get us angry and then more images to make us feel good that we're striking back. No one thinks that even if we nuked the entire country and killed every last living being in Afghanistan that that would prevent more terrorist attacks on us from guys who are living among us. Indeed it would make them more likely to hit us harder next time. There's NO logic involved in what we're doing - NONE, unless maybe what you want is an endless war well into the rest of the century against ghostly invisible forces who already live among us. Then this would all make perfect sense.

MS: Another thing that is rather preoccupying about the whole affair is the fact that a lot of people do not realize that, despite the unjustifiable brutality of the attack, it is not an attack without provocations or distinguishable causes. England and the US have been constantly bombarding Iraq after the end of The Gulf War and causing not only the deaths of children, but also a higher likelihood of cancer due to the materials used for bombardment, something that most people, of course, know nothing about. Osama bin Laden was, ironically, trained by the United States in what was once a brainless obsession with being hard on the "Reds," something that has only recently surfaced publicly. The incursions of the United States in the Middle East due to national interests such as oil, hidden under the guise of "the fight for freedom," are certainly no secret, and the aggravating situations keep piling on. Of course this doesn't justify the deaths of thousands of people, but isn't it important for people to be informed of these situations and thus learn what governmental activities must be stopped in order to truly end terrorism against the United States?

JM: Yes, right on! It's unbelievable when people say: "why do they hate us so much?" In every other part of the world the answer to that question is known by your average ten year old, but here in "Disneyland" we can't figure it out. As it turns out, we were supporting bin Laden's people in Bosnia/Kosovo as recently as a few years ago, and our CIA is still in bed with them in the heroin trade. The whole situation is rotten to the core, and we don't even want to talk about the fact that so many people seemed to know that this was going to happen and made a killing in the stock market right before September 11th. Or the fact that the Saudi King sent agents to New York City on September 10th to bring his daughter back home because he "needed to see her right away" - What's up with that? You have to be careful when you bring up a conspiracy theory because you are immediately branded as a "nut," so these things just kind of slide away and are not discussed.

MS: Talking about governmental activities, one of the saddest aspects of this entire situation is the fact that a lot of political and economic interests are at stake with the decisions that the American government makes now. Not having launched an attack could have cost George Bush Jr. a handful of votes next time around, having launched it could probably kick back the American economy into shape at least for a while [though that isn't the case -ed.]. And realizing that attacking a country in which most people don't even have anything to do with the Taliban's decisions is pointless, equals losing face in front of the rest of the world for many. Moreover, the experience of the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan proves that launching a full-scale attack on the country could very well be the equivalent of starting a new Vietnam. Not only that, but launching a specific attack against terrorists and their groups is certainly not going to end terrorism against the United States. That's when one just has to stop and think [about] what kind of idiots are running the show, [idiots who] care more about their careers than about kids going out and getting killed for nothing, isn't it?

JM: These are not idiots running the show. George W. Bush is not running the show. I believe there is a "shadow government" or "permanent government" that consists of military and corporate interests fueled by private money and think tanks and protected by the CIA that have been running this country since before the Vietnam War and they know exactly what they are doing. They make horrible mistakes once in a while but the train of thought is consistent with their interests. When Bush said: "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists," he laid down the new paradigm. Only months ago Bush was considered a buffoon and an arrogant unilateralist. Now, by declaring war on something as vague as "terrorism," he gives himself carte blanche to attack anywhere in the world under this banner. The world seems to have forgotten about his rejection of the Kyoto agreement and his insistence on a missile defense shield and abandonment of the ABM treaty; not to mention the fact that we are the only industrial nation that supports genetically modified organisms and refuses to label them. Our government has jumped all over this situation to use it for their advantage. They are hiding behind it to push for drilling in Alaska, more tax breaks for huge corporations, rolling back civil liberties, pushing fast track trade legislation and on an on. This war is a gift to the right wing agenda even if it turns into "another Vietnam" because it will put us in a permanent wartime economy, which is the only way capitalism works anyway. Taxpayers supporting the military industrial complex while the crumbs trickle down to workers whose real wages are kept artificially low and unemployment carefully regulated so as to prevent the most dreaded "inflation" (a raise in wages or labor costs). So with our privacy rights dwindling away in this state of virtual martial law there are no more worries as to how to crush any dissent or rebellion. We now have the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism, both well-designed tools to keep the public under control and inside the box.

MS: Unfortunately, the political marketing transcends the United States government, as Tony Blair proved by saying that this was "a fight of the free and democratic world against evil." That sounded to me at the time like the most idiotic phrase I could have heard and the worst time to promote all these ideas about the "free and democratic" world. Innocents die and all these people can think of is to keep promoting their "ideals." Anyway, as you have very clearly stated before, the "free and democratic" world is anything but free and democratic, isn't it?

JM: Yes, and since when are innocent lives ever considered in making foreign policy decisions? International aid agencies are saying that this could lead to the death of millions of Afghans in the winter with no food relief getting through, and yet this doesn't seem to bother Blair or any of the other "coalition" members a bit. It's just collateral damage, and to further "freedom" and rid the world of "evil" this is apparently worth the price of a few million civilians. The fact that the only language they can come up with here is "good against evil" is proof of how desperate they are to sell this to the world and how war in general just reduces everything to slogans and lies.

MS: Something that must be duly noted in the meanwhile is that a lot of people in the United States have already complained against what is a rather widespread "an eye for an eye" attitude, as well as against the outbursts of violence against American citizens or residents of Islamic beliefs and/or Arab ascendancy. The people, however, are not always in the position to make their voices be counted, something that this time around is absolutely necessary. If anyone out there reading this wants to help the United States against terrorism and against mindless violence, what is there to be done? How can people truly make their voices be heard when time may not be on their side?

JM: In the few months after September 11th, I've seen a tremendous resurgence in the progressive/left community. The Internet is jumping with new peace organizations and very eloquent analyses of what's going on. Ralph Nader is back on the scene and the Greens are outspoken against the war. Unfortunately the media spin is that the anti-globalization forces are suffering a setback and the WTO is back on its feet, but don't believe it for a minute! For me at least, it's really kicked my ass and made me more determined to make a difference. It also looks like every fanatical group on the right feels the same way. There's an increase in attacks on abortion clinics as well as on Arabs and Muslims. This is going to be a wild ride and people are going to be forced to "choose sides." But don't let Bush's simplistic menu of choices stop you. There is another way and it has a deep grounding in the environmental and peace and justice movements. I believe the right way to deal with terrorism is through the international legal system. The terrorists must be brought to justice, not hunted down "dead or alive" like this was a Western movie. Every voice counts and if you are against the war and it seems like you are surrounded by idiots, don't despair, you are not alone. I predict that it will take some time just as the anti-war movement in the sixties took years to gather momentum. The truth always finds its way out somehow and you have to just keep moving slowly forward.

Marcelo's Jim Matus interview part one | Igor's Interview with Jim Matus

[Paranoise ceased and Mawwal was born circa 2004 -ed.]

Discography:
Constant Fear (1988)
Start A New Race (1993)
Private Power (1999)
Ishq (2002)