E.C.: FACE DANCER was, in the beginning, a Progrockband. How come the band changed to Rock/Power Pop?

K.Scott McGinn: Well, basically it’s two things. First, we wanted to perform our own material and to support ourselves in doing so. There weren’t many clubs that would book a progressive rock band. This meant we had to play venues that required the band to play a certain number of “cover” songs, which means covers of Top 40 AM or FM songs. FACE DANCER tried to do this as cleverly and as infrequently as we could. This led us into doing more straight-ahead rock rather than the non-danceable progressive stuff. I also began to open up as a songwriter, so the band grew in that direction—creating songs, rather than “gluing” musical parts together to form “progressive” pieces. I still love a lot of the music from classic YES, GENESIS, KING CRIMSON, etc. Oddly enough, one of my all-time favorite songs is “The Nightwatch” by KING CRIMSON –no choruses, but definitely a song. The second thing is that the progressive bands didn’t have the fan base that pop/rock bands seemed to attract. The more popular the band was, the better looking the girls … well, you get the idea. We were young and had the fantastic notion that music and life were supposed to lean toward the FUN side. Also, there was (and perhaps still is) the idea that playing music that is or becomes popular means that one is not a serious musician. You can certainly point to some artists as having little talent and being simply “produced” to serve a function. But even the creation and distribution of such a product requires serious thought and talent on somebody’s part somewhere down the line. Once progressive artists become popular, are they still progressive? And what were they progressing to? I remember reading something years ago about the BEATLES’ “Sergeant Pepper” album being the forerunner of progressive music. In that case, progressive music started with very populist roots, yes? Plus isn’t the term ‘classic progressive rock’ one of those oxymorons like “jumbo shrimp” or “government intelligence”?

Wasn’t the guitarist Les Paul a progressive guitarist in his “invention” of reverb and echo? Is a band that performs simple music recorded with the most advanced technical equipment progressive or not? And if an artist spends a great amount of time creating a piece so complex that very few people can understand it, let alone appreciate it, is it worth it? Is that progressive and if so, what was the progress toward? A society that doesn’t understand most of what is presented to it? (Oops. We may have reached that level already.) I know we wanted to be entertainers, so wouldn’t we want to entertain as many people as we could? No, you can’t please everyone, but you can’t deny that there is quite some satisfaction in pleasing a LOT of people, whatever it is you’re doing, be it writing, painting, singing, hitting a baseball, cooking, etc. I think so.

E.C.: Looking back, what do you think about your 2 early albums “This World” and “About Face” now?

K.Scott McGinn: I thought the songs on both albums were well constructed. I think there were potential hits on each one. The songs on the first album had been played live quite a bit—except for “Heart’s at Home”—so we were faced (no pun intended) with what direction to take in recording them. We weren’t going to capture the energy on record that we had on stage, and when you listened to just the music, you weren’t going to see four good-looking guys in front of you. So we probably did more overdubbing, to compensate for that, than maybe we should have. But there was nothing ground-breaking about that. We still made the songs work on a live stage—substituting energy for all that extra stuff. It’s a trade-off you make in the studio, or a lot of bands do anyway. I did think the songs were over-edited and by that I mean most songs are too short. “Cry Baby” was butchered, for no reason. It wasn’t going to be the first single, so why not let it run its stage length, and edit it if releasing it as a single was warranted? That would be ground-breaking, wouldn’t it? “Band shortens album cut for release as single!” I thought “Can’t Stand Still” was totally ruined in the studio. It was my take on a ZEPPELIN song, “Trampled Under Foot,” I think. Our riff and theirs were similar, and the point of the song musically was to let the guitarists wail. The lyrics were inspired by an excited young fan who told me that when our music played, she “couldn’t stand still!” It was stupid to record it as if it would be a single. Conversely, “When You Said My Name” was re-done just for the studio and I think it works great. It even made me sound like I knew how to play keyboards.

Our producer on that record, Ritchie Wise, did an alright job on some things—guitars, backing vocals—but the overall sound was flat. It lacked the depth we wanted and were right about wanting. He seemed to have a lot of enthusiasm for the project. I thought it was sincere then, but I’ve come to doubt it. On the other hand, our second producer, Alan Winstanley could have shown a little more enthusiasm. He let Bill Trainor and me go for the drum sounds and fullness we wanted, but I should have done a better job with the vocals and I should have worked more with Mike Millsap, who had come in to replace, in a way, two people, David Utter and Carey Kress. They were not on the second album as a result of Capitol’s disinterest in the band, our ineffective management and my own mishandling of the entire situation. This version of FACE DANCER played together only for a few months before going in the studio, so we didn’t have a pre-conceived notion about how the songs should be recorded. We didn’t go overboard with overdubs, but when we played live, most of the material didn’t translate from studio to stage as well. Our core local audiences weren’t too keen with the band’s changes either. However, if the label had cared enough in their investment to at least half-heartedly promote the band, people who heard FACE DANCER for the first time wouldn’t have known we’d changed at all and it wouldn’t have made a difference. They would have judged us on what they heard on the radio. But in those days, if you didn’t get airplay, you could only hope to get some sort of break with touring. Unfortunately, as with the band before, we couldn’t make that happen. We did open for JUDAS PRIEST in Philadelphia. That was a pairing made in heaven, or on the back of a napkin. PRIEST did do a neat sound check, though. Singer Rob Halford rode his motorcycle on stage, the band played three or four chords, and then they broke to go eat. As long as the “echo” worked at the soundboard, I guess that’s all they needed.

Like “This World,” there are some pretty good songs on “About Face.” I think “My Girl,” “Forever Beach,” “Gotta Get Out,” “Pamela,” and “To Be a Man” all could’ve been “something” if the right people had been involved. We were forced to do an outside song, “Treat Me Right.” Insulting as that was, it would’ve been tolerable if THE SAME DAMN SONG HADN’T BEEN GIVEN TO PAT BENATAR!!! At the same time! Guess who had a hit with it? The head guy with EMI-Europe thought “Gotta Get Out” would work as a single in Europe. But I guess that seemed too far away for the Capitol execs to care about. Plus, what if we’d gotten popular and they had to support us touring? Way over there? If I seem a little bitter now, you should have heard me then—I’ve mellowed a lot.

E.C.: How come the band was named Face Dancer and what does it mean (sorry, I am Swiss)?

K.Scott McGinn: The “Face Dancers” were a species of beings that had a chameleon-like ability to change form in Frank Herbert’s Dune Messiah, part of his “Dune” sci-fi trilogy. I think one or two of the guys in the original band read the book. Because they were doing a variety of music—progressive, rock, country (yes, they even did “the Orange Blossom Special,” since one of the guys could play a fiddle) they figured the name would be appropriate. Ye-hah! Later, when we were entertaining serious record deals, we thought of changing the name, but FACE DANCER just stuck.

E.C.: From the beginning you wanted to be a rock star. Why did you never try it as a solo act then?

K.Scott McGinn: Well the term “rock star” might be a bit over the top. I did want to be in a band. I just wanted to be the main guy in the band, or one of the main guys. I liked my role in the “This World” group, because I was responsible for writing most of the songs. Carey Kress and I had chemistry on stage and we became a bit like some of the famous rock singer/guitarist duos, eg, Tyler/Perry, Plant/Page, and Jagger/Richards. The difference was that I was the bassist, not the lead guitar player and that was rather unusual.

I plan on forming a new band, where my songs and I will be the main focus, but I’ll need to have the right support players around me to make it work, for the audience, as well as for my own pleasure. When you can get people around you who are on the same wave length, it does make it better. I’ll try to put on a good live show, record some good music, and hope for the best.

E.C.: What made being a rock star so fascinating for you?

K.Scott McGinn: I’m no expert on this subject, but through my scattered readings and observations, I’d say a successful performer (and that is what a rock star is) is someone who derives satisfaction by pleasing others. I didn’t have a troubled youth, wasn’t born into poverty, and don’t have some sort of religious or social agenda. But I was an only child and I guess that because I was used to getting attention I wanted to continue having it as I grew. I must have displayed some talent, because I was always involved in “showbiz” stuff from the moment I entered school. But then, there are plenty of people with no siblings who have the same desires as I do, so I don’t know what else to say. It also may have to do with spending my time on things that please me, instead of things that don’t, which is selfish and impractical on a full-time basis. But who doesn’t like to do pleasing things, and who doesn’t do impractical things at times? I don’t have an obsession for money or material goods. I’d like to have money to live comfortably with my family, and to be able to pursue my creative interests. But I don’t need a freakin’ 30-bathroom mansion somewhere, or a phalanx of “my homeboys” following me around all the time. I think reasonable monetary compensation for one’s contributions is justified, with an emphasis on “reasonable.” Too many people are over-compensated for their art and their work. That part of being a “rock star” doesn’t appeal to me and never has appealed to me.

E.C.: Name 5 things you wouldn’t do anymore as a member of a rock band?

K.Scott McGinn: I wouldn’t drive after excessive drinking or indulging in controversial drugs. Probably wouldn’t be good to do those anymore, anyway. I wouldn’t have as many sexual partners as I did. Truthfully, I acted with restraint in that matter, but still . . . I was very lucky and don’t plan to risk that luck again, especially since I don’t believe in luck. Of course, now that I’m married, I wouldn’t have any other sexual partners but my wife. I would pay more attention to everything. And, as my friends and associates will tell you, I already pay attention to a hell of a lot of things.

Unfortunately, I would be reluctant to trust anyone (other than my wife, father, or mother) either professionally or socially. And to that effect, I would be prepared to stand up for my creative beliefs and would have to be totally convinced that I should alter my position before I would do so. I would work harder at my craft, even though, again, I HAVE worked hard already.

E.C.: Re-forming bands is very trendy. You are also working on re-forming FACE DANCER. Name me reasons why bands shouldn’t re-form.

K.Scott McGinn: Well, first of all, I’m not going to re-form FD. Thought about it. What we probably will do is one or two reunion gigs during the next year, just to “celebrate” the 30th anniversary of the release of “This World” and the release of the newly re-mastered CD. I think doing an occasional reunion of a band, with as many original members as possible is okay. And I think if a band wants to re-form, as long as the creative core of the band is mostly intact, that is alright as well. I say that, having done it by trying to continue or recapture the success of the earlier band by creating new music to supplement the existing catalogue. That we got a payday for it just made it easier to do, but it didn’t really work. You have to contend with the fact that the original spark, the original magic, is probably gone. Even if you have all the original members, it will never be the same. It might be good. It might be pretty damn good. But it will never be the same. So as long as you can deal with that, as long as your audience understands that (which most do), I say go for it.

But when it’s just one member who didn’t even sing the songs the group was known for and he puts out a group and calls it the “Original So and So’s” that’s not just wrong, it’s criminal.

E.C.: What was the worst experience with FACE DANCER?

K.Scott McGinn: Firing lead singer Carey Kress after the first album. And then performing without him.

E.C.: What was the worst experience with a record company?

K.Scott McGinn: Well, the lack of interest and promotion from Capitol with the first album, culminating in the firing of Carey (which Capitol would say was”our” decision, not theirs) was bad. But maybe being led to believe the subsequent changes in personnel and musical style would lead to their support of the second album was even worse. Like telling your girlfriend that you’ll stay with her if she just gets a breast reduction, then leaving her anyway after she gets it done. Kind of like that. Only worse.

E.C.: Internet: Curse or blessing for FACE DANCER?

K.Scott McGinn: Blessing! Are you kidding? Forget collecting royalties or whatever problems other artists have. The Internet gives me, as an artist, a wider, quicker, and more effective way to share my work. Plus it is a big part of the answer to the next question.

E.C.: What is the story of the re-release of “This World“?

K.Scott McGinn: To our surprise, we were contacted about a year ago by Rock Candy Records. They told us that they had gotten the rights to the master for “This World” and that they were going to trick it up and release it on CD overseas. This probably would not have happened as it did without the Internet. Someone saw something that made them contact someone who did something . . . you can tell where I’m going with this. And the Internet lets us contact our fans (now around the world) and let them know about it. They can get something they didn’t have before, which is great. Something is bound to come from all this and I have the opportunity to make it something good, so that’s what I plan to do.

E.C.: What made you write a book about your experiences with FACE DANCER?

K.Scott McGinn: I had been writing a lot on a sit-com project that I hope to do something with, someday, somewhere (a little Buddy Holly reference for you) and was in the writing mode. During a conversation with B.J. Weigman (who took over as bassist for FACE DANCER during the later reunions), he suggested that I should write a book about the band. Apparently, a lot of people wanted to know what happened, why we didn’t make it BIG. Also, Carey has been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, so I figured now would be a good time to put my thoughts down about the whole FACE DANCER thing. So that’s what I did. Now I’m just looking for a publisher.

E.C.: How much does your work as a chef influence your music?

K.Scott McGinn: Well, only in the sense that if most cooking is a creative (hopefully) combination of ingredients to create an enjoyable/functional food item, so then is writing and performing music a creative combination of the various tools available (words, instruments, humans) an enjoyable/functional process and event.

But let me try and break down the comparison more specifically. Let’s say a restaurant is like a band. There are restaurants that serve all types of food and there are varying levels of complexity among them. There are restaurants that serve a certain style of cuisine: ethnic, vegetarian, nouvelle, etc, etc. If I want a steak and go into a vegetarian restaurant, I’ve made a poor decision. If I’m looking for Italian and choose a Chinese place, well, I may get by with some noodle dishes, but you see where I’m going with this. If a person wants to hear country music and walks into a heavy-metal club, he could be disappointed. There are bands that play music to fit every occasion and every taste. Although they can be composed of very talented musicians, they usually can’t perform everything very well. Just like a restaurant that serves all types of food, some of those foods are going to miss the mark. But those bands and restaurants serve a function. There are restaurants that serve very complex and complicated dishes and some are a great joy to visit and some miss the mark. I know. I’ve been to both. I’ve cooked in both. I’ve had some responsibility for both. But cooking, like playing music, comes down to a very basic function: satisfaction. A restaurant wants to satisfy customers for the satisfaction of its owners and a band wants to satisfy their listeners and satisfy its musicians. The satisfaction the restaurant owners and cooks get involves money, prestige, and enjoyment about the same as the musicians in a band. I can say from experience that musicians win out in the sex department over cooks, though.

And if you cut or burn your hand in the kitchen, it’s probably gonna screw up your playin’!

E.C.: And finally, what do you sing in the shower?

K.Scott McGinn: Well, I don’t sing in the shower. But I do a lot of song-writing in my head, usually melodies with vague lyrics. Also, I’ll get a damn commercial jingle or the theme to a TV show stuck in my head for days—I think that happens to most people. Lately (although I’m not a big fan of the group) I’ve been singing “Rhiannon” by FLEETWOOD MAC. I’ve even worked the song up on guitar, although not the same way Lindsey plays it. People sing in the shower because the acoustics are good—all that tile. I used to play acoustic guitar in the stairwell of my dorm when I was in college for the same reason. Actually, when we recorded the second album at A.I.R. studios in London, they had a speaker cabinet miked up in an unused, empty bathroom for just that effect. Of course we over-used it.

If you were asking that question as a sly way of discerning my musical influences, or what I like, I’d say that I like a lot of different songs by different artists, but I’m not affected by music the way I was when I was younger, or even during my years playing professionally. Perhaps just as my attitude toward food was changed by “working” with it, so has my attitude toward music changed by working and living with it. While artists continually try to do more with songs in popular culture, musically and lyrically, if you break a song down to its basic, primitive form you find it was meant to have limitations, limitations that are a song’s fundamental strength. A song is not meant to tell involved, complicated stories or messages. Nor do I think it is meant to challenge people’s beliefs or persuade them to think beyond simple, basic thoughts and emotions. There are other art forms, other social platforms much better designed for complex expressions of the human condition. I’m probably going a little beyond what you wanted but since you’ve allowed me this forum…

When I was in college I was taking a course about American writers Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald. I loved them both, but both were very different. That they were contemporaries made them even more interesting. There was a school of thought on Fitzgerald that he used his main works as metaphors for the decline of western civilization. My professor (a great guy) would point out what Fitzgerald was really saying when he wrote such and such and it was very intellectual and it opened a new world to me. Then I went to another class, probably called “Critical Reading” where the instructor there (a grad student) urged us to simply try and concentrate on the very words the writer used and understand just what he said. Underlying meanings were not important. If you read “the water was cold” take it at face value. The water was cold.

Then recently I was watching Bruce Springsteen’s “The Making of ‘Working on a Dream’,” his new album. In addition to showing the physical process of the way the band recorded the music, he explained what the underlying meanings of certain songs were and what the song was essentially about. And it occurred to me, while it was very interesting in a sort of ‘knowing trivia’ sort of way, that he was cheating a bit. If he couldn’t explain what he wanted with the song from its lyrics and music, then he should have written a different song. Or maybe what he wanted to say, you can’t say in a song, because you need to explain it for people to understand it. Would a violinist, after finishing a performance, stand at the edge of the stage and say, “Though I didn’t play it this way, what I meant to play was…” No, he couldn’t do that. Tell me what inspired you to write the song, Bruce, but don’t tell me what it’s about. If you have to do that, maybe you’ve written the song wrong. I’ve done that. For example, on the album “This World,” I think “Red Shoes” is pretty easy to understand. It’s meant to be. But in “Hard to Please” I go a little overboard with the lyrics. In my mind the chorus was so obvious that I played around with the verses using some-not-so-obvious illustrations of the song’s meaning, i.e., people who are hard to please. And at times, I’ve had people ask me what a certain lyric meant, so while that’s neat that they were interested, it shows that I didn’t write clearly enough in the first place. See, in songs, that damn rhyming thing will try and mess you up, and sometimes the words you need to use aren’t the best ones to convey your message.

Now, when I mean songs, I’m not talking about operas, or symphonies or musicals, or even long pieces like YES and other bands do. I’m concerned with the basic function of what we consider songs in our culture: folk, blues, country, rock, pop, and those songs we’ve labeled as such. How a song is performed can sway your opinion of it or make you receive it in a different way than you did before. But I think that’s something that has to do with energies and molecules and matters that I don’t understand enough, scientifically or psychologically, to explain. In the end, there is a reason why we like some songs more than others. And I think it’s that struggle that writers who take their craft seriously—on any level—must deal with, whenever they attempt to satisfy their muse. But I’m probably over-thinking this thing. I don’t want to make the whole process of writing and performing a song seem like it’s more involved than it is. I think writers in any genre sometimes want to equate what they do with, like, the discovery of some new cure for cancer or the implementation of democracy in a developing country, to make what they do sound more important than it is. But they, we, don’t have to do that. It’s just a song, Dude. Rock on!