Gang of Four (Interview)

People give a lot of lip service to the lasting influence of the Gang of Four.  You've probably seen it.  Reference will be made to "angular" rhythms and "edgy" guitar riffs and while this is all more than true, you really have to listen to what the band were actually saying to realize how completely prescient they were; especially now, sitting in the rubble that Wall Street and its international adherents have wrought.  This was, and still is, an ideas band that put a lot of thought into what they were saying and how they said it.  They grapple with what it means to be alive in the millennial West, and though they surely lean way left they don't peddle in ideology.  In I Love a Man in Uniform they sing "to have ambitions was my ambition", which is simply one man's desperate cry to belong, and why they remain completely relevant in 2011.  Their new album, Content, keeps up the fight with passion, engagement and good tunes to boot.  I talk to Andy Gill about the forces that continue to shape their music. 

Let me first say that the new record sounds great, and songs like “You’ll Never Pay For the Farm” are simultaneously accessible and uncompromising, which is an amazing trick to pull off.  It sounds the complete opposite of an old school reunion; like there is an urgency behind this record.  What was driving you?

I think the same things drive me and Jon as they always have.  I sometimes think one invents stuff because no-one else is supplying what you need to hear. I didn’t get into this to be a rock star, I just like to make things. And when those things have a meaning, when they are cultural artifacts, that’s even better.

We have always been obsessed with groove, and to make all the elements work equally together, side by side.

We make music where every segment plays an equally important part, but has a relentlessness that takes you somewhere else. It s supposed to get under your skin and make your brain dance. It can, and does, become part of peoples DNA.

Its purpose is to resonate with people, to be a rallying cry that we know the meaning of .

You guys have turned out to be perhaps the most prophetic of the late 70s bands, both lyrically and musically. Capitalism has eaten itself alive, and people are still dancing to your choppy rhythms.  Does the accuracy of your vision back then surprise you?

It's hard not to sound pleased with yourself isn’t it!  Jon and I thought long and hard about what the words would say; they represent both very complex ideas and yet are totally simple: it is a hard one to pull off.  I’m glad that we completely avoided left wing sloganising and concentrated on making some accurate observations about how we all live and think.  Musically, it was a whole new language. See answer # 1.

Have your thoughts on the purpose of your music evolved?  Do you still see it as shocking people out of complacency? Or is it just (pardon the term) entertainment?

I think the purpose of the music has not changed.  When I look at writing a song I feel I am asking very similar aesthetic questions as in the late 70s.

I don’t believe we have ever tried to shock, we actually try to be accessible, and in some sense, use the language of pop music.  But I suppose there was a kind of shock to hearing this new stuff for the first time.  A jarring, galvanising effect.

It’s great to hear your aggressive guitar tone intact on the new record. When I hear that metallic attack I always thought of you brandishing a sword.  What were you thinking in developing that sound?

When I worked with Danny Saber on the remix of  I Parade Myself,  he said the same thing. He thought it was like the sound of fencing.

Not sure what I was thinking, but there were some abstract paintings I did at the time where there is a very rigid graphic structure, looking a bit like a railroad bridge, and then marks which work against that.  I think the guitar is meant to work in the same way -  sometimes it is to create structure, both harmonic and rhythmic -  and sometimes it is meant to be anti-structure.

In Who Am I? you ask “who am I when everything is me?”  Are you concerned about loss of individual identity?

In a sense, Who Am I? traces through the development of America as an analogue of the development of all ‘western’ democracies, and it literally asks ‘who are we‘.  It starts with a surreal dream sequence of early American characters, like the mysterious figures on tarot cards,  cripples, thieves, pilgrims -  they all play their part in making this world . Then the focus moves to the 1st person , the me that has inherited this world which has now distilled into money and shopping. And we are dysfunctional, confused, unable to identify ourselves.

It’s amazing to me how so few bands today actively comment on the culture. Even the most heralded “alternative” bands, save perhaps the Arcade Fire, seem lost in their own little worlds.  Do you see it this way? Do you think musicians should be more engaged?

It’s impossible to generalise and there are always pockets of inspiration, but it's tragic how little really oppositional work is being created.   I’m amazed at how few musicians take on modern life, and that almost no one wants to write about these amazing, difficult times. Where are the songs about the Iraq war?  Actually, keeping these subjects “separate” tells you a lot about how the ones who are most comfortable in other people’s misery are happy for things to stay as they are.