I'd like to talk, I just don't know what about.

Someone said that "a music interview is a conversation between people who can't write with people who can't think for people who can't read." Consequently, I have coined my own definition of a music journalist: "the only person who thinks he knows best what people want to listen to."

Maybe we'll talk about what my music is made of. It seems to me that these are "crumbs of life".

 

Probably not in the form of manna for birds?

Perhaps ... At least for me, music is one of the staple dishes. It is very strongly related to life (existence, duration).
It creates a certain pulse, rhythm, variability over time. Without volatility, there would be no life. And afterlife music may be interesting, but in the afterlife. Walking on the ground with our feet, we have a lot to do during this journey. As far as I am concerned, a lot of this stuff revolves around music. As I write, it treats like creating mini-worlds where something is going on. I like invoking "ghosts".

 

What does it mean ?

When I compose, I hear how sounds create images and emotions. Dynamics guide me, the most important thing is that different scenes should be reflected in mirrors. They don't really exist, so they qualify as ghosts ...

Any inspiration?

For example: the inspiration to write "Requiem for a Man" was the feeling that at the end of the 20th century we were saying goodbye to humans, with their traditional features, the so-called humanism. The mass man was raised on a pedestal, a monument was built for him and shaped according to the will of the sellers of the mass subculture. Cruelty is in vogue, stupidity comes in value. I wanted to express my regret for traditional values in music. Man more and more reminds me of the disappearing turtles from the movie "Pieski świat", which, in search of water, wade madly in ever greater sand. Until recently, there were enclaves that made it possible to escape from the rush of civilization: nature and art. Both are effectively destroyed.

It sounds quite pessimistic ...

No. When I realize what's going on around me, I can do something in spite of it.

Exactly what about creativity?

Crafting these days is a bit tricky: pretty much everything has already been invented. But thank you, I'm not complaining.
I'm not trying to be avant-garde. There are things in music that excite me very much.

 

What are the considerations about a human doing here?

Once it was thought that art existed for itself, man was irrelevant. It is very important to me. Of course, considerations about a human  cannot replace music. Yes, the image or the subtext can be treated as a complement to the sound, but the sound itself, or its structure, are always the basis of the work. If it does not evoke emotions, it means that the piece is bad, boring.

You can associate music with pictures, but it's not necessary. It is a bit different with music for the theater: here the scenes impose themselves. Then you have to say something more with music, something that is beyond the picture.

​

What are you saying?

Sounds speak for me: tones, noises, knocks ...