Ayers: Well, we were going to do a live album, but since we don’t really play live anywhere, that was kind of difficult. We thought about doing a live studio album, but we couldn’t fit our 14 fans in the studio, and besides, Carl can’t play and mix at the same time (or chew gum, for that matter) so that went out the door. We’re considering doing a "Greatest Hits" album, but so far, Billboard hasn’t responded to our request for a list of which of our songs actually broke the top 100.
Dearing: No plans at the moment. As I've stated in other interviews (we do so many it's hard to keep track), real life has intruded a bit lately, so we'll let that get sorted out some before we go forward into anything else.
Groves: Personally, I've enjoyed the hiatus. As a group we really don't talk about future plans.
Henry: Right now I'm enjoying the breather!
Thomas: Right now it's just "wait and see" what happens with NEG.
Ayers: The only time that Mike’s absence on stage bothers me is when we come to one of his solos, and there’s this big dead silence. Then we all kind of go, "Oh yeah, Mike’s not here", and then there’s this big fight over who gets to take Mike’s solo, and the audience gets all confused…. It’s just a big mess.
Dearing: Absolutely not. While I obviously appreciate being missed, my job is a strange one schedule-wise, so if SH only did gigs I could do, there wouldn't be a whole lot of them (well,...even less).
Groves: I hate not having Mike [Dearing] with us onstage because it limits what we can play from a vocal standpoint. Instrumentally, to tell the truth, I don't really mind his absence. It allows me unlimited freedom as the only guitarist onstage. Now, if we gigged more than we do, it would probably bother me more. But if we gigged more than we do, he'd be able to quit his current gig and join us.
Henry: I love performing with Dearing: he is a great player and does add quite a bit. However, I don't think Salem Hill suffers as much as some people might think.
Thomas: Some of my favorite bands have been 3-piece, so "less is more" to me. Along with a player's absence comes the added responsibility of filling in the missing holes, which can translate into a renewed freedom of expression in a live performance. I don't try to take Mike's absence personally, because he is doing what he has to do to make a living. If Salem Hill could support his family, I'm quite sure that he would be at every performance.
Ayers: Actually, there’s no collaboration at all in the band. We just all play whatever we feel like, and quit playing when Kevin stops drumming. Well, all of us except Pat stop playing; He usually keeps on going for a few measures, because that’s the only time he ever gets to solo. Songwriting credits are given out by flipping a coin. Carl wins a lot, I think it’s because he always gets to flip the coin.
Dearing: Do you mean besides the derisive, brutal criticism? As far as I know it's not a conscious decision (unless they made one and didn't tell me), things have just worked out that way. Carl and I tried getting together to write when we were planning NEG, but ended up sitting around playing Beatle songs and eating pizza. The main collaboration comes during the recording phase regarding arrangements, parts or additional ideas ("You're not really planning on keeping that are you?"; "That sucks", etc.).
Groves: Actually, even the songs you reference above are collaborative only in the fact that they have 2 writing credits attached to them. The three tracks on Cat were lyrics I gave to Pat that he put music to. The track on NEG was a song that Mike [Ayers] wrote a middle piano solo for. There's also one you failed to mention way back on the debut, "Between the Two." My brother, Bill Neagle, wrote the lyrics, and I wrote the music. In every one of these instances, each contributor worked independently of the other. I think Mike D and I have written a song together before, and Pat and I tried once. Other than that, I can't think of a true collaborative writing session. It's not so much a case of "I don't want to write with you" as it is we all live 40 to 50 miles from each other, and just don't get together physically to write. When we get into the studio, the material is pretty much written. The real collaboration in our music happens in the arrangement and scoring departments. By that time, all 5 of us are fairly vocal in what we want to do with a song.
Henry: If Carl & I compose together in our dreams, would that qualify as a "subconscious decision"? The fact that the majority of the songs are written individually has no bearing on what the results are. Speaking for myself, tunes I bring in usually sound much better than what the demo spews forth.
Thomas: I haven't exercised my creative energy in this area because I feel inept when compared to the others. By way of analogy, if you were a Kansas member, would you be anxious to bring out your tunes after Kerry brings in The Wall, or Miracles out of Nowhere?
Ayers: Yeah, we made a decision to stay in house for producing; We once tried to go outside, but the cords wouldn’t reach, and it was really hard to push all that equipment around on the grass.
Dearing: Probably a bit of both. I personally haven't ever seen a need to go elsewhere (besides Carl's tin ear, of course), but that's not to necessarily rule it out in the future. The two main questions to address (as always) are a) scheduling and b) money. To clarify, it's extremely difficult to get us all in the same place at the same time. We're all within a certain geographical area but nowhere near each other. The only time we were all in the same place during NEG, for example, was for some of the rehearsals to get the material organized before recording started, then again for an aborted photo shoot after it was completed. An outside producer would probably be driven to distraction by all of that, besides wanting to get paid for his work.
Groves: I believe it's been out of necessity--budget reasons. Personally, I'd love for someone else to do it. It's the most taxing part of the project for me. However, I'd also have to trust whomever we chose. Conventional wisdom would say to go with a person familiar with progressive rock. But then I'd be worried that they'd want to stick a mellotron on every song, and stretch them all out beyond 10 minutes. On the other hand, I wouldn't want someone without some prog sensibility, as we are who we are. It'd kind of suck to have a Salem Hill record sound industrial or hip hoppy, etc.
Henry: While I would welcome a second party's constructive input (and negative, if need be), I think it has always been industrious for us to use Carl as the producer. Carl has a great ear, and is able to find that sound that usually requires a Doctorate in Twiddleology.
Thomas: I would answer yes, both preference and necessity. We can do what we feel is best for the song without the grief of dealing with an outside agent. It is out of necessity because we are a part-time band with limited funds. The money that is put into recording is better spent on purchasing the equipment and doing it ourselves, rather than paying someone to record and / or produce it for us. I would also add that Carl and Ron are getting better with each recording.
Ayers: I guess that would depend on what kind of jam band we label ourselves as; I mean, if we were to just be something ordinary, like say, a strawberry jam band, that would be pretty mundane, and we’d just get compared to other grape jam bands or raspberry jam bands. Now, a peach preserve band would be pretty fresh, although I myself would hold out for a label like apple butter band; That would be cool.
Dearing: I tend to agree that some of the jam bands should be considered progressive. I don't think SH could label ourselves that for one simple reason: we don't jam. That music's main appeal lies in the improvisational aspects which is something we don't do a whole lot of. I think one of our greatest strengths is in our arranging, which is the antithesis of the whole jam thing. That isn't meant as a putdown in any way (after all, Phish, Widespread, etc., are some of my personal favorites), it's just not what we do. I don't think a label in and of itself would alter either our perception or our reality - we haven't labeled ourselves anything. If broadening our audience means changing what we do in any way (unless we choose to do so), I'm not interested anyway.
Groves: Possibly, but at the risk of losing our current audience. Genre wise, the characteristics of "jam" music and "prog" music are polar opposites. Jam bands play in a free form, whereas most prog is carefully--meticulously, even--structured. The similarities, I think, come from the requirement that the good jam bands and the good prog bands have players that can actually play. No, I think that the audience for our music is out there, it's just that many of them don't know that we're out there. Now, all that being said, if we did become a jam band, I'd want to change our name to the "Wham Bam Thankyou Ma'am Jam Band." That'd be cool.
Henry: Really? Ever heard of Yes, or Kansas, or Genesis? I think there is plenty of precedent for success. Perhaps you mean on the current sales levels of Britney Spears or Garth Brooks or something, then no, there is no precedent. Currently, there are some bands that have some elements of prog, and I think the current musical climate is changing to embrace prog as a viable format. I don't believe it will achieve status as it once did, but who knows? If we relabel ourselves as a jam band, can it be strawberry, since I think strawberry jam is best.
Thomas: I don't think so. A label is just a label. Music transcends labels. We don't sound like a jam band, or the popular underground bands of today. We inherently appeal to a smaller audience, because we have more to say. It takes effort to fully digest the messages and the music of SH. Most will not want to expend that energy. I know that there is a large contingency of potential Salem Hill fans that we haven't reached. I just don't know how you reach them en masse.
Ayers: The biggest benefit of being part of the Cyclops family is that we actually have TWO eyes, and consequently have much better depth perception. And who says they don’t offer tour support; Why, just last week they offered to book us on a tour of Bosnia, Lebanon, Baghdad, Belfast, and a special command performance at the President’s Palace in Zimbabwe, providing he hasn’t already been assassinated by the time we get there.
Dearing: The main point is that Cyclops is NOT our English label, they are our distributor, which is a huge difference. The benefits work both ways: We sell records in Europe, they make money selling those records. Aside from the bonus track issue on the Robbery, they have NO input whatsoever.
Groves: I'd be lying if I said this very subject (tour support) hasn't been a sore point of mine in our current deal with Cyclops. We have tried very hard in the past to get them to fly us over for even a mini 2 week-10 show tour of Europe. Unfortunately, it hasn't happened. We've been offered decent money to come for various festivals, but never enough to fly all 5 of us over, lodge us, and pay us an adequate performance fee. It would take several shows to fill those requirements, and we've looked to Cyclops to orchestrate such a scenario. It just simply hasn't met with the desired results.
The benefit we get from our association with Cyclops is solely in matters of distribution. And from what we've seen, they do their job rather well in that area. Whereas we've been able to ship hundreds of discs over there (at great cost to us), they're able to distribute thousands at no cost to us. Still, we have been approached by labels (European and American) which offer tour support. It's just that their idea of "support" and mine don't seem to mesh at this point.
Henry: Since Cyclops services the Internet, and most of our sales come from the Internet, why not? They have the distribution in place that, quite frankly, we don't have the time or energy to pursue. Salem Hill does not necessarily ascribe to the 'follow the dollar' approach, and that's why this thing is fun!
Thomas: Good question. Presumably, we are selling over there, but I haven't a clue as to how many fans we have created, how prevalent our music is played, or if there is even enough of a desire to see us live. It's all a mystery to me. So far, the biggest benefit to me has been that Cyclops has picked up the first two projects, allowing our entire catalog to be available.
Ayers: Yes, I’ve heard those despicable rumors, too. They were obviously started by some bitter former band member or ex-girlfriend. The truth is, we are all members of an obscure sect who worship the ancient Roman Goddess "Vaginus Mirabile". This has been kept a secret to avoid persecution and burning at the stake. To deflect suspicion, we took the name "Salem Hill" and spread the much safer rumor that we were all devil worshippers.
Dearing: SH isn't a Christian band, it's a band made up predominantly of Christians, and there's a HUGE difference. The Christian market is even more rigidly pigeonholed (read: labeled) than the secular market, which is saying something. As you may recall, when King's X were at their most blatantly Christian (around FaithHope Love), they attempted to attract interest from the CCM scene to no avail, even though at the time they had a higher profile than just about anyone in that genre. It pains me to say it, because I want to like that stuff a lot, but I can't stand to listen to most Christian music - just like I can't stand to listen to most secular music. I'm sure there are artists who are "on the fringe" that I might like (if you know of any, let me know), but generally speaking, they tend to place the emphasis on the message rather than the music. My feeling has always been that if the music is more interesting, people will dig deeper to get to the message, which they probably won't if the music is dull and predictable. Does that answer the question?
Groves: As a Christian, I find myself writing from and about my beliefs (don't most writers?). But I try diligently not to hide a sermon in a song. It seems disingenuous, and is an insult to the power of the simple Word. Though I wrote some "praise" type songs for SH soon after my conversion, we've never made the mistake of inflicting one upon the public. In fact, I don't see a typical praise song ever being done by SH. And quite honestly, that's a good thing. With very few exceptions, I hate so-called "Christian" rock. 99% of what I've heard is homogenized, sterile, and derivative. It seems that once you're put into the "Christian band" box, you never get out, no matter how hard you try. And that box is quite restrictive. You can't sing about boy-girl love/lust, fantasy, secular stories, etc., without being portrayed as betraying the genre. And from the perspective of someone who has lived in the heart of the Contemporary Christian world all my life, make no mistake about it; it's an industry that tries to make obscene amounts of money by selling albums in the name of Christ. Personally, I just don't get off on that.
Henry: They are?!? Omigosh, let's grab some rope and kindling and strap them up by their Bible-markers! Unlike Christian bands that have a 'ministry', Salem Hill does not purport to proselytize anyone into any one belief system. All we are saying, is give peace a chance. No, really, all we are saying is that we live in a spiritual world, and that what we do has implications on all levels. We are all struggling to find out who we are, it's just that we also want to paint the roses as we stop to smell them.
Thomas: It's called pigeon-holing. We don't want it. Label us as a Christian band and you limit our ability to write about non-Christian topics, perform in non-Christian venues, and most important, you limit the scope of our potential audience even more.
Ayers: We get along as well as can be expected for being underground all the me; After all, it gets really cramped down there, and all those skeletons keep piling up, there’s just not enough closet space for them. That, and the SMELL…………….
Dearing: We're all friends, but that doesn't mean we spend every waking moment hanging out together. We're all grown men with jobs, families and other responsibilities that preclude much "hang time", but that doesn't mean that we either dislike each other or treat the band as some sort of corporate entity where we go punch the SH time clock.
Groves: There are disagreements in any organization. Salem Hill is no different. However, I wouldn't say that there has ever been a fight--at least not on a Stu Copeland vs. Sting scale. We're more of the "shut up and pout" type group when it comes to internal discord. As for being friends? Mike D and I have been friends since we were kids. That friendship has had its peaks and valleys, yet a lot of who I am musically is due to him. He's always "running scout" for me on new music. He tries to proselytize me on the stuff he thinks is good, and I usually come around after a few years of rejection. As for Mike A, he's a brand new friend. Although Pat and I have been friends for more than a decade, quite honestly I feel that it's a friendship that has just recently begun to blossom. But for most of my time in SH, Kevin has been my closest friend. My conversion can be credited to his tireless efforts. But then he moved out of state. Was it something I said?
Henry: Sure, there are various and sundry schisms that aren't uncommon to any band, like Ayers insisting that he should have a different keyboard for every song (sorry, dude!) and myself just wanting to plug in and rock out. This collaboration would exist even if we didn't play instruments, because there are common threads that link us.
Thomas: Of course there are fights. We've known each other for many years, and as such, have had to endure each others individual frailties. We have also rejoiced in one another's marriages, fatherhood, homes, etc. We have wept at loss, ill-spoken words, and the sharing of our individual struggles to make sense of life's vicissitudes. We have watched each other mature. We are more than friends.
Ayers: Dream gig…. Lessee, I guess that would be sex slave for the Go-Gos.
Dearing: I like different bands for different things. If I were able to play bass (my first instrument), it would be fun to play with the Allman Brothers Band (a huge influence from way back), Marillion (ditto), or maybe CPR (to get to sing with David Crosby). It might also be fun to take over for Chris Squire or Billy Greer for a day. I do hear that the Beatles have an opening...
Groves: Four words: Emerson, Groves and Palmer…'Cept we'd call it "Two Carls and a Keith."
Henry: Well, in dreamtime I've often found myself as Heart's bassist. Seriously, I think my dream gig has somewhat already manifested itself in my life: passing the torch of this thing called life on to my children. I recently saw 'Wingspan', and being a child in the 70's, was aware of the Wings, but had no idea Paul was able to haul his family with him around the world, and was still able to rock out whilst changing diapers and such. That would perhaps be my dreamgig, and would love to do it with Salem Hill.
Thomas: I would love to have a vibe, piano or guitar, and upright bass trio, playing jazz standards in a very up-scale establishment, making good money.
Ayers: Yeah, not to be a member ten years from now.
Dearing: None that I'm aware of - the band was actually around in various forms for a few years before that, so we're more accurately looking at close to fifteen years (ouch!).
Groves: It hadn't really occurred to me that this is an anniversary year. So I guess the answer to the question is "no, no special plans." Or maybe we could do a remake of "Evil One" off of the first album…oops. We already did that. Never mind.
Henry: Since the traditional 10th Anniversary gift is Aluminum, maybe I'll buy everybody a Coke and some Reynolds Wrap. I dunno, I may refer to the others on this: you never know what's up our collective sleeves.
Thomas: Not that I know of.