Bill Maura got wind of the undertaking and proceeded to encourage and sway me in the direction of shooting it using his top-notch camera and editing facilities...all with his assistance of course. At that point, Bill said we could have the final cut edited to DVD. I was initially apprehensive in that, his suggestion would call for me to be in Hartford as that's where he is. The other unresolved matter was where to film? I don't have connections with anyone in Hartford regarding studios, so that issue hung in the balance for a period until I spoke with Greg (Field) whom then offered to us his Outer Realm Studio.


Why did you not record it with the Rooks?

As I've stated, this was going to be an experimental solo project to keeping me working. Kristin and Ken (Anderson) were involved with other music projects at that time and we were in between bass players, as usual.


How did you put the Fellows of Mortimer together and what lies behind the name?

It was never intended for anyone else to be involved to accompany me. I was just going to do some songs alone until word got around and then Greg, Dave Rave and Huw Gower were gracious and supportive enough to offer their services to the project. I would never have assumed that Dave or Huw would just drop their busy lives and shuffle off to Hartford over a period of months. Everything aligned just right and the timing of the project fit perfectly around everyone's schedules...at the beginning. Certainly, the longer it went due to how many songs we continued to film, the harder it became to get musicians and crew together in one space at the same time. It took a year but worked out beautifully in the end.

The interesting thing for me is that I had already made a decision sometime earlier to include Huw and Greg to finish Something Blue with me anyway. After the "Kristin-era Rooks" fell apart, I thought that those guys would be perfect additions to play on the album. It just so happened, somewhat coincidentally, that they ended up playing on the DVD as well. As for The Fellows Of Mortimer appellation, that was just a joke that began with me shouting out the word "Mortimer" at the end of a take during the filming. It made no sense then as to why I did that and it makes no sense now. I figured it would be better to make use of it rather than edit it out. Upon viewing now, it appears like I'm calling out the name of the backing band, where in reality, I was having a fit of distorted foolishness. The Fellows Of Mortimer were then and there born.


How different was it to playing with the Rooks?

Well, I must say that The Rooks have always been a rehearsed band to some degree. Meaning that when we were performing live, we'd supplement those shows by rehearsing once a week. With Mortimer, we never once sat in a room together to rehearse anything. I drew up for myself a tentative line-up of songs I thought I'd perform about two weeks before we started. The list was extensive and varied, including songs that were somewhat long forgotten as compositions. Most times on the day of a shoot, I would look at the list and choose accordingly to my mood. Also, songs like Long Ago and Only Hope For Winter were written directly in the middle of that project, so it was only natural to take a stab at filming them as fresh works. The guys behind me are so accomplished as players and open-minded to anything and everything, which made the entire process nonchalant and carefree. The result turning into a somewhat organic and uninhibited musical atmosphere, for me anyway.


How did you come up with the song selection? - there are some rarely played songs in there.

I merely went through notebooks filled with songs and chose in that manner. I also wanted to include some that were already recorded but rarely or never seen live.


A lot of the songs are performed on the piano and most of your new ones are composed there. What's the advantage? Do you find yourself composing different sorts of songs?

As this was not a Rooks project, I thought it would be fun to approach those older songs with a new outlook, which in turn sort of made them feel new again. Some of the guitar-driven songs like Better Start Right Now and Trip were never played at the piano. In that sense, I had to reacquaint and teach myself those songs again when I decided to address them playing the piano. I just thought that I could present the older material in new wrapping paper, as it were.

Over the last two years or so, I have written many songs at the piano. If you don't know, I've created over two-hundred songs on the guitar since I began composing. It tended to lend a great familiarity to that instrument which in my case, was not so good after such a long time. I found myself constantly going to safe and ordinary places at the guitar. I kept falling into my own self-planted traps which led to my work lacking freshness, range and depth. I became blinded by my own tendencies and sought out to find another way to continue. I found all of that at the piano. In turn, it has given me a newly revised way to approach the guitar now, in a certain way.

The advantage at an alternate instrument comes from walking blindly throughout the composing process and the only way to survive through that is to feel your way, and that is exactly what I'm doing now. Feeling my way through chord changes and voicings that I've never dealt with before on a guitar. It's a matter of survival, really. I don't want to keep writing the same songs over and over again. Let someone else do it.


You were saying that writing on the piano means there's a difference when it comes to composing the songs. Is there also a difference - and if so what - in how you finally present those piano songs in terms of orchestration/embellishment instruments you use?

No...not really. I only ever try to adorn a song with what it asks for. Each song has its own color scheme. Each instrument owns its own color. Those shades change depending on what other color is placed next to...or on top of it. I see those colors in my ears. I very much know what those elements will be before I even finish with the lyrics, most times. Guitar or piano...the technique is equal for both.


How easy is it to rearrange a song such as Reasons, which is relatively so well-known?

Reasons was rearranged by Huw Gower. He asked me if I planned to include it for any of the filming sessions and I wasn't so sure that I would. He arrived at my place one evening and proceeded to run his arrangement idea by me. I thought it was beautiful. He changed the key of the song to allow himself to do what needed to be done for himself on guitar. I adapted and altered my singing approach to align with the new strategy. We cut out the middle eight bars section and replaced it with a guitar solo. This all went hand in hand with my original scheme to reconfigure some of the older songs for this presentation. Mr. Gower did a great work-over. It turned out quite nicely, I feel.


Do songs written on the guitar translate easily on to piano?

Sometimes...it depends on the song, certainly. For me, it mainly needs to sing well at the piano. I have to find my certain comfort zone when singing a particular song at the piano that may have originally been written and performed at the guitar. Sometimes my vocal approach needs to be altered drastically in order for me to pull it off. Perhaps it's a psychological issue, I don't know.


It has been six years since the last all-new Rooks album. How frustrating is that? And how satisfying is to put out new versions of old songs?

It's quite frustrating, Richard. As you can imagine, a lot of compositional water has flowed under my creative bridge for many years now and I'm in an ongoing battle to find an outlet for most of it. I have three albums waiting in the wings...not including Something Blue. I don't have a recording budget so...time will tell. I'm in the middle of the next Rooks album (Something Blue). As soon as finances are available, we will complete it and go on to the next one.


The new songs are all rather fantastic but very different. Nightfall in particular is a favourite of mine - in fact, I think it may be your best. I know you said it was perhaps the hardest song you'd written to perform. Was that true here? What is the inspiration for the song?

Again, the new songs are all fruits harvested from turning to the piano for another vantage point at songwriting. Nightfall as with most of my work...just happened. I do find that I have to battle a bit more with these songs to try and wrangle out of them the most that I can achieve, melodically, chordally and structurally. It's not quite as easy as strumming a 1-4-5 with a relative minor chord progression on a guitar. Because I don't know instinctively where I'm going half the time on the piano, I have to almost leave a metaphorical trail of breadcrumbs for myself to get myself back home, as it were. It's a very refreshing way to work...for me, in that nothing is familiar and everything is anew adventure, if you will.


What is the inspiration/subject matter for Nightfall?

I was just trying to marry the appropriate lyrics to the existing musical setting...'Hear the cool autumn breezes singing...Thunder and the lightning live together and I realize our love.' Setting a mood, that's all. Like painting a picture.


Only Hope For Winter is an extraordinary song, nothing like anything we've heard from you before. Is this where you'd like to go? It is also notable for being much longer than your other songs. Is that something you're exploring -
different song structures?

It just happened. I will go anywhere my instinct needs me to be at any given time throughout a composing session. I just follow it. There's no choice. The length of Only Hope For Winter is simply what was needed to get the mood across...in that song. I certainly don't want to make a habit of writing seven-minute songs. Looking into alternate song structures goes along with the composing territory.


Like Nightfall, Blue seems to have a very melancholic air to it, not just in subject matter but phrasing. Is that the tone for your new songs, or a symptom of performing on piano (or neither)?

Probably a bit of both. There is a reason this batch of songs are on an album called Something Blue. Almost all of them have degrees of blue threaded through them and hopefully they will all reinforce the mood album that I'm looking to present.


The whole DVD - except a primal Down maybe - seems much softer than before. Is this a trend?

No trend, no premeditated plan. Perhaps it's more to where I was emotionally during that period of time than anything else.


You mention that the DVD song selections represents where you are emotionally; Where is that? It sounds quite melancholic - or at least that that WAS your mood...

Oh, I don't know. That was quite a while ago now. It doesn't represent where I am now. It's long in the past. I don't even think that it's worth talking about. It's really such an insignificant matter. Maybe it was nothing more than those were the songs that I just happened to want to sing...at that time. Who knows? You may be placing too much of emphasis on nothing at all.


Folk Hero seems a very playful song. What lies behind it?

The lyrics aren't playful. It's just a song...started a long time ago and finished at about the time just before Kristin went away. In fact, we began rehearsing it at the end of that time-line, maybe two or three rehearsals...I can't remember. I always felt that it was a good song, but it's just one of the numerous tunes that fell by the side of the road over the years for some reason. We've just recorded it last weekend and it will be included on the compilation CD that will accompany the forthcoming History Of Power Pop book by John Borack. It will be the first Rooks release with our two new members. Gower on guitar, Greg Field on Hammond and background vocals...Dave Rave helps out on bass and background vocals...and...Patrick Yourell is back on the kit. We actually cut three songs but we're concentrating on Folk Hero presently as we have to mix it and get it over to the book people for the CD.


What will happen to I Want to be Sure and Wicked Refrain - the two other new songs you recorded? I'd love to hear them...

We will finish them just to have them. I am constantly being asked for a track here and there for compilations or benefit CD releases. My answer is always the same in that, I never have anything to offer. I do have hours of outtakes from all the sessions but nothing resembling that of an unheard song. When we've gone in to cut an album, I'm very prepared where I'll have us cut only the songs that were meant to be recorded for each release. There has only been one song in our entire history that we cut for an album but didn't use, and that was a song called Love, in which we recorded for our first album. And that track ended up on a compilation somewhere.


Long Ago features very interesting vocals. Alongside the hushed ones of Blue and Nightfall. Is this something deliberate to extend yourself or is there some other reason?

Those vocal approaches are for the benefit of what each song required to complete their moods or sound pictures. They are all a part of the space that I was in when I wrote them. Tomorrow I could be back writing a screamer, I never know...although I doubt it. Look...I'm not twenty-two years old now. Hopefully, my songs are reflecting who I am currently. I trust that my work is growing gracefully along with my age and my outlook to the world in which I exist in. I always get a chuckle out of forty something year old musicians whom still try to write songs in content like they would have done twenty years before. It doesn't hold up for me. I don't find that interesting. Just as I don't want to listen to Brian Wilson writing about fictitious girls on a beach with ponytails at the age of sixty. I'd rather want to know what's in his head now...don't give me something that you THINK I'm expecting from you just because it's in your legend. A writer should reflect a personal knowledge. Not nesessarily with an autobiographical slant yet, with elements of contemporary experience. Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking Wilson in particular. I was only using his name
as an example.


One thing that is noticeable about the DVD compared with the Rooks (or your demos), is the absence of harmonies. Was this deliberate?

Yes...it absolutely was. One of the aspects that had forever annoyed me regarding The Rooks...as a performing band...was the constant lack of consistency when it came to harmony singing live. Some nights pretty good, some nights dreadful. For the DVD sessions, it took quite a lot of worry off my brow knowing that we could just go out there and play, with me singing, and everyone else doing what they do without me having to worry about that elusive and much sought after "vocal blend." For my money, I don't think that harmonies are necessarily needed in a live rock performance in order for a show to be a success. Quite often you'll see a band with only the lead vocalist singing anyway. Does it matter if Mick is the only one singing at a Stones show? Not really, for me at least. The song is there. If the recordings have harmonies, the listener will have those implied harmonies already implanted in his or her psyche and I feel, most times, they will be singing the harmony bits for themselves anyhow. Let's put it this way...would I like to be in a band that can harmonize well, at will, without the aid of often useless monitor speakers? Of course, no question about it. On the other hand, I would rather take the stage knowing that I can handle my end of the bargain as a vocalist without having to worry if everyone else will in turn, do their jobs on the harmonies end. Weak harmonies can very quickly bring down a show. I never had a doubt about The Rooks’ abilities to go out and play a good and lively rock and roll show. What always muddled it up for me was the shoddy harmony singing. We never really worked at it. The attitude was almost as if the singing was secondary, which was somewhat unnerving to me...seeing that we were considered, because of our studio work, a harmony singing band. I could always control what went on in the recording studio but as soon as we took the stage...they were left to their own devices.

Back to the question of the DVD angle, I didn’t want to have to worry about any of that. I still stand behind that decision and will most likely stand pat when it comes to any live performances in the future. Before The Rooks, I was in a group called The Broken Hearts. The Broken Hearts were a great harmony singing band but make no mistake about it, we worked hard and long in singing together to blend and phrase as a unit. Harmony singing doesn’t come cheaply and you have to put a lot of time and effort into making it work. We would hold entire rehearsals weekly, concentrating only on singing together. That was time well-spent and money in our performance bank, so to speak. The Broken Hearts could sing together, I’ll tell you that much. I will no longer stand for mediocre at best, live singing. I’d rather take care of the lead vocal myself and just let the band do its thing.


What does that mean for The Rooks live? You will stick to harmonies on records only now?

I don't know...do you think it matters? Do you REALLY miss that there is no harmomy singing on the DVD? In some way, I actually feel that it gives the show some edge, without all the harmonies. Dylan didn't need harmony singing with The Hawks...and those shows were fierce. Unless I could procure a REAL commitment from whomever would be harmonizing that we'd put the time in...perhaps then would I concede. But...do I want to toil that much now? Even if we put in the time, it doesn't matter a penny if the blend isn't there. It's not only singing the proper notes in pitch. People think that harmony singing is easy and that just anyone can do it. That is definitely not so. Harmony singing is an art. Background vocalists have to know how to work a position on a microphone. When to be on top and more importantly, they have to know when to back away from a mic as to not walk over the lead vocalist. You have to know when to full-on hit your notes and when to back away and approach your lines in head voice.Watch backing singers in clubs and you'll understand what I'm talking about. Ninety-eight percent of them are up there swallowing their microphones. Hardly ever will you see any of them positioned four or five inches off the mic. Everything is full-throttle and it's not the proper way to get it done. It's an art...and it's not easy. Most singers don't realize that there is a tactical method to singing background harmonies.


What lies behind February making it on to the DVD?

February? That’s not on the DVD. Oh the bit of it? That was just a sound check for Bill Maura and a camera check for John Bezzini during the filming of whatever song was being filmed at that time. I went into a bit of February off the top of my head to give them something for sound and camera and lighting references. To my surprise, Bill when editing, thought it would be fun to attach the short, impromptu take onto the end. Now that I think of it, I believe that February was on my songs for consideration list. It didn’t happen.


Any chance of it ever being properly recorded? Along with Only Hope For Winter, it seems two songs with positive messages for the coldest season?

Well, there is always a chance. I’d have to find a home for it in a proper setting on an appropriate album down the line, I guess. You never know. Also, the setting in Only Hope For Winter is summertime. The singer can only hope for the winter to arrive. I hate the summertime. I do not like the heat. As the lyric states; In the summer I am low, cursing everything I know. When the sun goes down there's only hope for winter. So it's written from that perspective.


The DVD, although very loose, also appears quite staged.

I’m not certain that“staged” is the term I would use for it. The musicians side was very relaxed. We didn’t formally rehearse and felt our ways through everything. As Huw stated the other day, the rehearsing only came within the number of takes that were needed to get us through, until we felt we had a presentable performance in the can. Sometimes we would do a good take, but upon reviewing on the control monitor, the lighting would perhaps be off...or the sound mix was deficient. We then would go out and perform the song again with the appropriate adjustments. Sometimes a light would fall over and make a crash or someone would stumble over a mass of wires, missing the shot. Without realizing it at the time, we actually WERE sort of rehearsing with every new take that had to be done.


There seems to be a lot of clothing changing, hats, beards - was all that deliberate? And just how many pairs of sunglasses do you own?!

Keep in mind that the entire phase of those sessions were spread over one year. Which accounts for different hair lengths and facial growth. We always took along various clothing items simply for the reason of not wearing the same things for any of the songs. The same with my sunglasses...it became sort of a joke that I brought so many pair of them along. Hartford’s at least two hours out of New York City. Better to have everything with me than to turn around later and not have the proper eye wear for the shoot. They were only for visual purposes...eye candy...no pun intended. Sometimes I would come out wearing a particular shirt and Bill would ask me to put on a differently colored one to match his lighting and background. It was all done very much extemporaneously, without a lot of prep work beforehand. Whatever looked good at that moment...we went with.

Look at it this way, there are twenty-one songs on it. How would it have come across if we wore the same clothes and sat in the same places for the entire twenty-one performances? Presentation was a prearranged aspect of that project, no doubt. Also, the fact that there was a lot of single camera direction can hardly be denied. Bill and John Bezzini...and all the guys sought out alternate areas within a somewhat confined space to work in. They would go around the studio and try and work out where to situate us and look for different camera angles and lighting techniques, so to give each performance a little life of its own. I think they did a tremendous job considering that we only had one camera going for the whole thing. The only two-camera shoot was for Only Hope For Winter. Believe me, it was not an easy task for them to keep it interesting. Billy did all he could to make it look like more than one camera was at hand through editing. It wasn't easy.


Were the things behind you also thought through - I'm thinking of Elvis' legs on Nightfall or the electricity generator on Love Said To Me?

The surrounding visuals in Greg’s studio were there long before we ever set up shop for that project. We didn’t realize it at the outset so much, but as the filming progressed and we looked at the rushes after each performance, it quickly hit us as to how much his studio’s eccentric decor was having an impact on everything. What you see on your screen is what you get when you walk into his studio. That lightning-volt...halo mechanism behind me on Love Said To Me was placed there purposely for the visual. The electronic activity moves along with the sound that is being picked up by it. It was just another one of Greg’s off-center toys that we thought would be good to place in a shot somewhere. As I look back, we couldn’t have lucked into a better place to film in. Could you imagine how monotonous twenty-one songs would have been if we’d have filmed in a generic studio setting?


How much input did you have on the visual/directorial side?

Hardly any as I recall. I was concerning myself with singing and playing. I trusted Bill and John...and later in the project, Brad Ragaglia, with those duties.


The fact that the DVD is you with the Fellows of Mortimer begs a couple of questions. Namely, what is the current position with The Rooks? Who is in the group now? - when I spoke to you 18 months ago, you said Huw Gower was in.

Huw Gower and Greg Field are in. We have spoken about going out and performing the songs very much in the same way as we’ve done on the DVD. One, to get our feet wet again and two, to try something different. I’ve grown very tired of the club scene, having the same twenty people show up every time. We are considering how to pull something like the DVD off, live. Without a drummer and bass player for starters. What it will grow into and when or if it comes to light will remain to be seen. As I’ve said, we just cut tracks with Patrick over the weekend. Anything can happen from here. We are in the discussion stage now, one day at a time. Playing the same venues and the same pop festivals leads to a whole lot of nothing. It’s spinning your wheels. I’m looking for more depth as a musician now. I don’t know how, or IF we even can find a way to make this work but it’s all on our table now. Who knows, you might see us with a full band attack in Britain somewhere. It’s all up for discussion and consideration. We will cross those bridges accordingly.


Why has there been so much upheaval in the line-up? I once read a quote that all great bands need to have a line-up change to be successful.

Oh, I don’t know about any of that. Honestly, in my peer group, no one is in their twenties any longer. People move on with their lives. It’s easier to be available and have less responsibility when you’re young. You don’t have as much pressure on you to get by. It also means a lot more to try and“make it”....for whatever that means...when you’re young.


But surely the Rooks have had one too many. How destabilizing is it?

As everyone knows, The Rooks have had a laundry-list of members changes. People come and go for various reasons. My goal was always to just get the music right. Some people fit into that plan and others did not. Now, it’s just going along one page at a time. It was so much more devastating to have a line-up change when I was younger. Now...it is what it is. It has no bearing on my capability or desire to write songs. As long as I can have band mates whom believe in what I do and trust my direction as a songwriter...that’s all I need.


Obviously Huw and Greg are busy people. How will that work out in terms of playing, practising, recording?

Those are all issues we are addressing now. Everybody is busy. I don't have any presumption that anybody would want to play with me for the long run. Kristin was an exception, as we were together for over ten years. She put her time in and I love her for that. She just couldn't fit me into her schedule any longer and...I don't think that she liked the direction that my work had taken. She couldn't rock. Money and action talk. If we can stay busy, I'm sure that Huw and Greg will like to play with me. If we can earn money in the process, then that's a definite maybe that they will hang in there. Music involvement is fun. If we can remain involved, then everything should work out well.


No bassist and no drummer. Any plans to fill those positions or is it a trio for the time being? How willing and flexible are Dave and Patrick? And what's the reason they're not in and Huw and Greg are?

We will take everything one day at a time. I thought it might be different to perform some shows as a trio as was presented on the DVD. Dave Rave has his own career to deal with. He was never a consideration to join The Rooks because he's his own artist with an active career who is constantly touring. He filled in on bass for Folk Hero because he was there. My intention was for him to sing background vocals, which he did very gracefully and...while he was there anyway, I asked him to take a shot on the bass. He plays a little. It's fine. Patrick is living in upstate New York bordering Canada. I'll take him in a breath if he's willing. He's a dad now. I don't really see that happening but you'd have to ask him. Like I said, at this stage whatever will be, will be.


Does Huw and Greg's presence mean a different outlook for The Rook's sound?

I don't think that there will be a drastic alteration of the sound. Huw is one great guitar player whom replaced another great guitar player. He and Kristin are different in that they approach a song in their own ways but...Huw and Greg still have to work in and around the material that I deliver. What will come with their services will be their individual ideas. I mean, I listened to a scratch mix of Folk Hero yesterday and...it still sounds like The Rooks to me. There can only be a great departure in the song stylings should I choose to go south instead of north. Kristin didn't play guitar on Wish You Well or Music Sound Sensation and those are still The Rooks. My voice is on them and my composing imprint is there. The same will happen with future work. Who is to say whom The Rooks are anyhow? We've had forty members in from the start, it seems like. Unlike most other groups, there is not one definitive Rooks for the history books.


When can we expect a new Rooks album?

Like I said, we're in the middle. I need money first to complete it. That's all I really have to say. If I could finish it tomorrow, no one on this planet would be happier than I. It's only a matter of time...or more time, I should say.


Who are you working with now? Do you have any solo plans?

I have no solo plans at this time. Anything I do will include the guys I've mentioned and perhaps others to follow. Anything can and may happen now.


Can we expect lots of projects like the Soundscape Studios CD, this DVD and the birthday CDs the website is now offering instead?

I don't foresee any releases coming out in the near future like those of Soundscape although...if an idea comes across, perhaps I'll go along with it.


What is your relationship with Not Lame? Do you still have one or are you ploughing a lone furrow now?

I have no contractual relationship with Not Lame. Bruce is selling the DVD and we are still friends but...that's about it.


You say money is the only issue for finishing the record. What are the prospects for financing for a new record? Where could it come from, Not Lame aside? What happens to the DVD money and the money from the CD Baby sales?

A bulk of cash was put up front to finance the cost of the DVD pressing including artwork duplication and jewel case housing. That money needs to be recouped. Sales income from the DVD is taking care of those interests with every purchase. And...CD sales are constant but the checks arrive in increments not large enough to cover the prices for sessions. Those smaller payments tend to go to bills and general living expenses. It's not cheap being in a band. Going away for the weekend, as we have just done to record, requires a certain amount of money no matter what. Somehow...and...somewhere...I need to find enough money in sum to complete Something Blue.


When can we expect to see some live shows?

Well...we're discussing our next moves now. Other than that, you'll have to wait to see what happens. Whatever we end up doing will unfold because we're still having fun doing it. We're very much under the music industry radar-gun now, so in order for us to do anything, we really have to want to do it for ourselves. At this stage, I don't see us getting any help from anyone within whatever industry is peddling music these days. All I can say is...it's starting to be fun again...and that's enough to keep me going.


It can't be easy being a professional Rook sometimes when there's no money to pay the bills etc.. Are you still happy with the life choice you made?

This is the only adult life that I know. I am not about to change professions now. Any other job I may have held in the past was just that... a job! Money is just paper. I'm alive...I'm here. I have the best life that there can be, for me. I'm a free man without having to punch a clock. While most everyone is staring at their clocks, waiting for their lunchtimes to arrive, I'm writing a song...listening to one, or just living. I have the best life on God's green earth. Music is where it's at for me man. What more could I ask for? Social Security? I'll fight the fight and go down listening to Simon and Garfunkel and when it's over, I'll know that I've done my bit.