The Lodge @ London After Midnight Interview

London After Midnight
an interview with Sean Brennan

How did you come up with the name of Browning's silent film for the band and how did the name Ted almost got into the picture just before that? Tell me a bit about your period in Childhood's End and the memories you still recollect.
The name came from an obscure film from the 1920s. I grew up being into Film, being influenced by Theatre and Film Music and having a pretty thorough knowledge of Cinema. I chose the name only because it sounded like it fit the music. I never saw the film because no copies of it exist (the movie is about mind fucking someone into confessing to murder by making him believe in vampires and monsters after him; it's not really a horror film). I have no fondness for horror films or Tod Browning's films, really. There is a book on the film that tells the story with photos (and recently a DVD was put together doing the same thing). The movie isn't anything special. I just chose the name because it was a lost silent film and the title fit the mood of the music; I never thought anyone would ever know what it referred to.
The "Ted" reference you mention was a joke. I am so often asked "why did you name the band London After Midnight?" that I started joking that an alternate name was to be "Ted", which is a rather common name; kind of like saying the band was to be named "John" or something. It was just a joke made up out of frustration over getting asked that in interview after interview.
When I first moved to California, I briefly played guitar and keyboard in a band called Childhood's End (named after the Arthur C. Clark book). It was a gloom Punk band. We played one show and then disbanded. The other band members were insanely dysfunctional and destructive, so that wasn't a surprise that we didn't last long. I then immediately formed London After Midnight.

Would you mind telling me about your first musical incursions before the band's formation? In your early years, what was it that attracted you to Music in the first place (since you also seem to be into the darker side of cinema as well)? Did you have any formal education or are you completely self-taught?
I was into Cinema, but actually not so much into the darker horror side all that much.
As far as Music goes, I got into film scores, soundtracks to films, instrumental music and early electronic music. To me this had theatrical emotion that ordinary Rock music lacked, which was too often based around Blues. When I began thinking about forming a band, I wanted to bring some of that visual emotion to my music. I wanted to add some of the visual aspect that film music evokes. It's like, I hear music and see visuals: that's what I wanted my music to do.
I did take music theory in school and formal lessons for guitar - and some for piano (but I have played piano all my life). I also took lessons for other instruments, though I never really had formal voice training however.

Without wanting to sound unsurprising, I have to admit that London After Midnight's a musical hydra with little similarities to any group, although I personally notice some touches from this or that band once in a while. Nevertheless, I'm aware of the fact that you've been tediously pigeonholed over the years, especially from this professed "Goth" subculture; hence, I'd like to know your thoughts on this bilateral situation (kind of like a love-hate relationship) and why do you think that people need to label any sort of mathematical or indeterminate sequence of sounds? Would it be fair to presume that it's merely an extension of their commodity (because I think when one labels something it gives room to expand partitions without sense and allowance to reduction, in this case)?
To label any art is to limit how it's perceived. This eventually leads to limiting the artist as well. I do not classify myself as anything but a progressive liberal human male vegan. To label yourself according to some subculture is the ultimate act of conformity. I refuse to do this, which is why I shun the Goth label, or any label. And I refuse to categorise my art for the reasons I mentioned above.

Besides several other appearances in countless compilations and rare releases, you've already launched two full-length albums and a singular one containing live, rare and unreleased studio songs. In retrospection, how do you view each one of these gems in particular and do you regret anything in terms of musicianship or production? Grabbing the issue here, you're also about to release your newest piece, entitled Violent Acts of Beauty; could you tell me anything worth of relevance about it at this point (mainly concept and music-wise) and on what grounds did you decide to entitle it as such?
For the older CDs I had literally no budget, broken equipment, no one to play the instruments but me and I didn't know how to run the sequencers (for keyboards), so I had to rely on Tamlyn, yet he wasn't able to produce the keyboards the way I envisioned them sounding. I wrote all the songs and all the parts for each instrument, but production-wise, the older CDs aren't as good as they could have been - mainly due to all the limits I had working against me. I recently re-released them with bonus tracks, re-mastered, and recorded a few of the songs that needed it (like Black Cat and This Paradise).
The new CD is coming along great; I am so much excited and proud of this one. The new music varies pretty significantly. Some of it is very personal, but some of it is more reflective of larger issues, or written from the point of view of another person, like Love You to Death or The Kids Are All Wrong. Also, there is a touch of politics and revolution present, like with songs like 'The Pain Looks Good on You' and 'Feeling Fascist'. I came from a point of view of looking at the larger picture of why humans are the way they are, rather than the very personal direction that the CD 'Psycho Magnet' took. The new music is more aggressive and broad in its themes, and there will be many layers the listener can interpret. For example, the song 'Nothing's Sacred' is supposed to be God's response to the song 'A Letter to God' from the CD 'Psycho Magnet'. The lyrics have their own meaning but the music itself has a separate meaning as well. The song starts out kind of Rave sounding, which shocks some people, and then breaks into something altogether different. So the very title works on its own level, with people assuming London After Midnight to sound a certain way, but then they hear the music and see we are pushing boundaries. But they are pleasantly surprised, I should add. So the music and lyrics go hand in hand, but there are also messages to the very sound of the songs as well. Also, the song 'The Kids are all Wrong'; the title is a reference to The Who's The Kids are Alright, but the music and title reflect how mankind's priorities have changed - how apathy, violence and ego are more important than peace and evolution (ideals which much of the 60s counterculture embraced). There are many references to the 60s counterculture and the concepts of rebellion. There's a philosophy of empowerment and revolution to much of the new material. It's kind of reflective of the times we live in, where power is being stripped away from us and put into the hands of the corrupt. And most people aren't even aware or too apathetic to care. It's time for a new way; for change and to make people aware of the power they hold and the consequences of inaction. And this is reflected in my songs and approach to creating.

I know that you were (or wanted) to sign with Projekt in the early nineties, but due to Rosenthal's refusal, that contract never came to exist; in this day and age, do you still think it'd have been a good option to be on his label, or was it a fortunate happening (all things considered)? And speaking of record companies, how did you wind up on Apocalyptic Vision in Europe and Metropolis in America (who approached who and what are both parties' opinions on the overall work of each one)? Do you have any closeness to any artists in their roster? And just to wrap this up, I read that major labels had shown their interest in the band; is there anything new on this matter that you'd like to disclose?
That's totally false! Wow! Where in the world did you ever hear that story? Seriously, this is a bad and untrue rumour I'd like to clear up. London After Midnight never wanted to sign with Projekt. In fact, Sam Rosenthal contacted London After Midnight, asking to have London After Midnight on his label when he first started Projekt around 1990. He sent a letter that said "Anyone who gets praised as The Gods of Goth by everyone and trashed by the mainstream press deserves my attention" and that is all the letter said, so I had no idea who or what Projekt was, or who Sam Rosenthal was. It was just a handwritten letter, one sentence on some badly Xeroxed stationary. So I sent him what we send every other person who writes to the band: just general information. He was apparently very angry that we didn't know who his label was, for the fact of sending him free music and that we weren't flattered that he wanted London After Midnight on his label (in his letter he never even mentioned he ran a record label, as it just had one sentence, as stated above; quite arrogant to think I'd know who he was). So he wrote a very angry letter back telling us to fuck off, among other silly things. Commenting that "rather than using a Hitler sample on the song Revenge, why don't you sample people with good things to say, like George Bush (senior) or Ronald Reagan?" and that in itself was scary (since Bush and Reagan were these horrible right wing conservative and dishonest American presidents), yet Rosenthal thought they were good guys who I should promote in my songs (I was thoroughly amused by the entire situation). It was insane, as I had no idea what a "projekt" was or who Sam Rosenthal was and we never wanted to be on his label: he wanted us! And I still have these letters from him as proof. Years later he apologised for all his behaviour and anger and again asked London After Midnight to be on his label, but we had already signed a licensing deal with Metropolis. Projekt was too small a label for London After Midnight anyway. We did give him a song for a compilation however (just about 3 years ago). I guess his label is doing okay, but very specific to only ethereal type bands which don't appeal to me. But really, to say that London After Midnight wanted to sign to Projekt is extraordinarily inaccurate! And to further say we were rejected is even further from the truth and insulting. I don't know how these rumours and lies get started, but it's very odd.
About the other part of your question, London After Midnight have had interest from major labels for a few years now. We are negotiating and that's about all I can say at the moment. Apocalyptic Vision-Trisol was one of several European labels that wanted London After Midnight and we get along quite well with them. They have so many bands now, but I don't really listen to many. Metropolis was one of several labels that wanted London After Midnight in the United States of America, along with Cleopatra, Projekt and a few others, but Metropolis doesn't have any bands that I like on the label. In fact, there are many bands on both labels that I am embarrassed to be associated with, but that's another story.

I know you dislike people who don't know how to behave and are nothing more than a bunch of followers with no free thought and, in order to feel accepted by the majority, they feel they must be part of some group, or organisation. So I always wondered what were your thoughts on institutionalised religion and any other sort of doctrine that denies oneself of individual judgement, plus your opinion on the tarnished DeSade expression "God is the sole reason for which I can not forgive mankind"; do you believe in God or the Devil in the Christian sense, or do you merely view them as forces that enable us to disassociate right from wrong? Are you also a spiritual person with no ties to any preconceived dogma? To conclude, why would you like to meet God, as you say?
Organised religion is obviously a very destructive thing. Look at America, where you have rightwing Christian zealots (of which our embarrassing president Bush Junior is one) and look at other parts of the world like radical Islam, for instance. My whole philosophy is logic; I guess I should have been a scientist. I don't make decisions based on anything but logic and to think that people actually go so far as to kill and ruin people's lives over some ancient religion are sick and an indication of how primitive mankind really is. Hypocrisy runs too rampant in people's interpretations of religion; intolerance, cruelty and control are what it's all about, and that is destructive. I wouldn't say I am not spiritual, but I figure there is some logical reason and logical being behind all of this insanity (at least I hope there is). If humans are the most advanced thing there is, that's just a sad thing. But organised religion is all about control and that is a negative thing. Religion should be about being positive.

Once you said that if Bush would be elected, you'd have to move to Canada. Apparently you didn't, but what I'd really like to know was your estimation on the government status in your country (more precisely on what the republican party has been doing since its comeback to form) and the inattention of today's youth in political procedures. On a short note, how do you look upon the support Marilyn Manson addressed to the mentioned party regarding the election of Bush, since the former is generally an icon of Hedonism, Independence and Satanism (as in Adversity)?
There's a few things to address here: for one, I was joking when I said I'd move to Canada. But I would like to, it's more progressive and has a more liberal leader. I think America is probably one of the most backwards countries on Earth, but that statement wasn't a serious statement. The conservative Republicans are truly horrible people. Their policies and practices are cruel and destructive and I do hope that Bush is voted out of office in 2004.
As far as what Manson said, he didn't say he endorsed and supported Bush; he said if Bush got elected it would be good, because having someone so bad in office, would make for a better atmosphere for artists like him. It made the world darker and more troubled, which gave him more to write about. That was what he was saying when he said that about Bush. His reasons for "endorsing" Bush were purely independent (saying that a person like Bush would bring dark times, which would inspire and help bands like his). Dictators and oppressive leaders like Bush often inspire some really amazing underground rebellious art. I think this is what Manson was referring to when he said this about Bush, so he's totally just as you described him - into hedonism and independence. Manson is a very smart person and him saying this was kind of meant as funny, but it seems many misunderstood him. His only support for Bush was that he knew that Bush would bring dark and bad times upon the world, making a great atmosphere for rebellion and to let people wake up from their apathy.

How do you grasp such terms as Mainstream and Success - especially since your band has been thoroughly connoted with both? Do you think that has any sort of distress upon you and your band mates? And on the other side of the coin, how do you still look upon the underground scene and its inflexible or unbending regulations towards Accomplishment, Money and Notoriety (something a bit illogical, as there wouldn't be such a movement without the minimum financial reserves)?
London After Midnight is the epitome of underground. We, for 10 years, have been operating in a manner that defines "underground". Mainstream doesn't even apply to us. The number of people who know you exist doesn't change who you are or define you, but the way you create and operate does, so London After Midnight is far from mainstream, as it implies creating music for the masses, or creating something for the sole purpose of selling; London After Midnight has never done this (in fact, I cannot do this). I can only write what's in my head and heart, so this is why I have so little respect for most Goth bands, because they rip off other band's sound and look. If you listen to London After Midnight's music, we don't sound much like other bands and I try to do things differently. And the new music is very different also. My whole point is that I can't create anything just to sell it; it has to come from deep in my soul and I have to feel there is a reason to release it. This is why there aren't many London After Midnight CDs out. The music has to be sincere, not released to make money, or just so we can tour and act like Rock stars. That isn't me; it never has been me. I can only do this music if I feel there is reason to do so and that isn't mainstream in the common definition of mainstream as you're referring to.

The general branch of Pop has always been associated with that everlasting slogan "Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll". Does London After Midnight, or you in particular, have any lenience for it? Actually, do you think they can be linked, or is this just another fabric from the industry to attract the regular castaway to its purposes? In fact, what's your view on the current side of alternative music and, as most musicians, do you think there's a whole difference between the American and European hordes?
I never took a drug in my life. I am a vegan, I am totally into being healthy (regarding the environment and politics as well) and I would never fuck myself up with any sort of drug. I don't think that drugs or a hedonistic lifestyle go hand in hand with Rock music. I think Rock music should be all about revolution and rebellion. And to accomplish anything in that regard requires a clear mind. The cheap and easy way to be seen as "rebellious" for bands with no message, no soul or no talent, is to flaunt drugs or a hedonistic lifestyle which goes against mainstream society. It's like these bands just buy the "how to" kit for becoming a Rock star. Some bands just put on this uniform of a Punk Rocker, a Goth or whatever and they think it makes them "cool"; they think it automatically buys them street credibility, but actually just shows them to be total brainless conformists to those who know better. One exception to this I feel is Marilyn Manson, who does use these issues, but does it well and has much more substance to his art than just mindless shock, all the while flaunting the drug and hedonistic lifestyle. His art has layer upon layer of meaning that is often overlooked by not only the mainstream - who of course focus only on the superficial shock aspects - but also by many of his fans!

An end is but a beginning; however, I'd like you to make public any sort of news on the London After Midnight's camp (and perhaps on any other project that you or anyone in the band might have set off in the meantime) and feel free to add anything else you find significant to reveal.
I am recording the new London After Midnight CD. London After Midnight is talking with various labels about its release, so the new record will be out soon. London After Midnight has a very active online community off the website, which you can access and hear brand new never released music clips from songs that will be on the new CD. There is a German language forum there too, so come to the London After Midnight website, click on "Community" and join. See you all soon...

www.londonaftermidnight.com

© 2003 The Lodge

DISCLAIMER:
The Lodge doesn’t hold liability for third parties' viewpoints.
News, reviews and links are available as a consequence of the entities' support or promotional interest.
There are no set-up barriers concerning musical genres in this space: bigotry’s to be found elsewhere.