Following the release of Suzanne's self-titled debut album in early 1985, the first Suzanne Vega Band was formed, featuring Michael Visceglia on bass guitar. Five years later, he remains as the onyl member of that original line-up. In this exclusive interview, Michael tells of how he came to embark upon a career in music, recalls those early days in the clubs and colleges of the United States and discusses the development of the band.

When I was ten I started taking piano lessons, and I moved into a few guitar lessons when I was about eleven. I studied classical guitar for about a year and a half, and later on I studied jazz guitar for about a year.

When I was about twelve or thirteen, a local band was rehearsing in my garage and I used to go down and watch them. Then my father came down one day; they were having some trouble with their bass player, and with a little bit of pressure about "Since you're rehearsing in my garage, why don't you give my son a chance to play in your band?" That was my first real band; we were playing all the radio songs of the day, some Jimi Hendrix, Beatles, Young Rascals. We used to wear sequins and jackets with medallions on, like Spinal Tap, you know - Listen To the Flower Children!

Were you writing songs?

Oh, yes. I've always written. And I have my own tunes out on records, particularly on an album that I did with Spy.

Can we talk about your work with Spy?

Well, around 1976 I joined John Cale's band, touring. We did a tour of England and Europe and after a year and a half of that it was turning out to be a really bad experience - the whole thing. He was a really hard guy to work for and I was really kind of disillusioned. I have a bunch of friends in New York, and they were feeling similarly about what they were doing, so we decided to put our own band together and see where that would take us. We did this band called Spy, which went through a few different incarnations and basically lasted about three years. We got a record deal with Don Kirshner; his other band was Kansas, and we were a very Kansas-type band. We did one record which didn't come out very well, and it cost a fortune, and I guess they decided we really didn't have the goods after all. So, we were dropped, the album was released with a very big whisper, and that was the end of it.

You played with Kate and Anna McGarrigle on their album Dancer With Bruised Knees...

John Cale was asked by their producer to help on that album and they needed a bass player for it. I was still in his band at that time and he recommended me. That was a really good experience because I got to play with some really good studio musicians - some of the greatest in the world actually - and it's a really nice record. I played on four tunes, including the title track.

What about Flo & Eddie?

The Flo & Eddie thing turned out to be mainly good. They're very funny and they've done some very good stuff, especially when they were working with Zappa. I enjoyed it a lot; it was hard work - a lot of touring - but it eventually got to be more of an oldies act than anything else. I played with them for a long time, but it became a dead end. I thought, 'I have to leave this otherwise I'm going to be forty years old and presenting myself as an oldies act, and I don't want to do that.' I knew I had to get involved with something that was more vital, so I quit. I had no other job - I hadn't met Suzanne at the time - but within three months I had gotten this thing.

How did you and Suzanne first become aware of one another?

Well, I had heard of her. I mean, there was word of her around New York. And we had a mutual friend in Lucy Kaplanski; they actually had an apartment together for a while. One day I was doing a club thing with Jon Gordon, playing country rock in this club called the Lone Star, and he mentioned to me that he'd just been working with Suzanne - that she'd got a record deal and so on - and at some point she might need a band, and he'd keep me in mind. Then one day she did need a band, and he recommended me.

The album was already finished, so your first work with Suzanne was touring?

Right after the first album was done, she started playing in April of 1985. The first tour we did was without a drummer. We went out for seven weeks in the United States. It was just Suzanne, myself, Jon Gordon and Peter Zinsmeister, whose stage name is Peter Zale. It was hard; we played small clubs, and we were travelling in a trailer pulling a little... what we call a U-Haul, - a tiny little box with wheels that had the equipment in it. All of us were driving, and we stayed at little flea-bag hotels. We went all over the United States, east to west.

The audiences were small, sometimes it was only twenty, thirty, forty people. But as the buzz was getting bigger, the audiences started getting bigger.

After that we added Sue Evans - we decided it would be nice to have a drummer in the band - and the second time we went around to these cities, we were playing larger and larger crowds, larger places.

The first U.K. show was at the London School of Economics, October 24th, 1985...

Yes. I think that Suzanne had it going here right from the beginning; for some reason they really took her to heart, almost immediately. Suzanne always did much better here than she did in the States. I don't know why, but for some reason here it's always been more and more, bigger and bigger, very quickly. After the L.S.E., we were back in the States; it started happening, especially in the colleges. Not as exciting as over here, but it was picking up.

That line-up with Sue Evans, did it feel like the first "solid" Suzanne Vega Band?

Yes, but it never felt permanent. Sue Evans is a very successful studio musician in New York, and I knew that no matter how much she said she was into the band, that eventually it was going to be a great conflict of interests for her. Peter was more of a jazz-influenced, fusion-influenced keyboard player. With Jon it was a combination of things; I guess he was a little dissatisfied with what he thought the future was going to hold, and he was torn between coming out on the road and staying at home, so I think he opted to stat at home and concentrate more on other things.

The Albert Hall shows in 1986: It's a very prestigious venue, lots of history, the Bob Dylan connection, etc... Were you conscious of that on the night?

Oh yes, and I think it comes across like that too: it was a very reserved show. In the video of it I don't think they got rid of that sense of reservedness about it, even with editing. It's a very formal setting; it was a similar feeling when we played Carnegie Hall in New York.

Were you aware of just how things were taking off?

Well, I could see that it was getting bigger, but I never thought we would have a number three song in America; it never seemed to me that Suzanne would have that kind of appeal - that she would go Top Five, which is a very big success.

Luka was a surprise to all of us. When the tune was done, everyone was saying 'This is going to be a hit, this is going to be a hit,' but we've all heard that before, so we didn't really know. Then we started hearing reports on how the radio stations were really into it, it was getting heavy rotation, and it was selling really well and just started climbing up the charts, and we started watching it... When it got into the Top Forty we were amazed, and when it got into the Top Twenty we were astounded. When it got into the Top Ten we were agog, and when it got into the Top Five we just couldn't believe it!

Was there a time when you thought it would go all the way to the top?

Oh yes! I started believing it after a while - it was hard to ignore. And everybody was saying 'I think it's gonna go up, it's gonna go up to number one!', but it got to number three. Everybody was very happy; it was a great success to get it that high.

How did it feel to be suddenly in "the mainstream"?

Well, it was good because I think it gave everybody the feeling that now people are more familiar with the sound and they're open to it and will listen, maybe it could happen again if we came up with the right thing. The chance of having another hit is now probably greater than before.

Yet both Gypsy and Solitude did badly...

Yes. Well I never thought Gypsy would happen, never. But Solitude Standing, I have to admit I thought it had enough going for it. But I guess it was just a little too off-beat. It would have meant a lot to the band too, because that was one of the band-composition songs.

You played two very large shows in '87, at the N.E.C. and Wembley. Were you nervous? Did you worry about adapting the show for larger arenas?

I guess the larger venues were really experiments to see if Suzanne could project, and I think she can. It was no problem, it really seemed to work. We just added to the production value - made a nicer stage presentation visually. I thought the N.E.C. was definitely the better of the two shows.

I wasn't nervous at all at the N.E.C. show. I sometimes get nervous; playing in London, playing in New York, they always seem to be more nerve- racking because I know they're very prestigious; the audience is usually full of luminaries - people that I respect and want to impress. Thos situations get your adrenalin going a little more than usual.

Does audience reaction make any difference to the level or quality of your performance?

It makes a lot of difference, because it's not like the medium of doing a record, where the initial reward is hearing the product and responding to that; doing concerts is a very interactive event. Sometimes you go out there and they're totally there for you - screaming, yelling - and that makes you feel good, it makes you feel relaxed and know that you're accepted.

What we do is very, very hard and usually the only reward - the main reward - is playing a good show, performing what we do. For that hour-and- a-half each day, hopefully it will justify the twenty-two-and-a-half hours of logistics and boredom and tedium and travelling, and everything else that goes into making it work. This music demands a lot of concentration because it's delicate, it has a lot of dynamic range to it, it demands a lot musically, and it takes a lot of attention and concentration. So if the show isn't rewarding then, oh boy, the day is kind of shot, you know.

The shows where you really feel the music, get lost in it, those are the best; that's what you strive for in any artistic endeavour - to really commune with the Muses, and to feel that you are actually a part of the music. Those are the peaks of the art, and it does happen; I've felt that, and it's a great feeling.

How is your enjoyment of the music affected by the fact that this is your job, and you have to play the same songs, again and again?

One of the reasons for doing this is because I don't feel I have the constitution for a routine nine-to-five kind of existence; I'm not demeaning it, I'm just saying that I haven't done that in like fifteen or sixteen years - it doesn't suit my lifestyle, my style of being. So I never want to feel that playing music has any connection with that routine, even though there are obvious relationships when you're playing the same things night after night. Sometimes it's not inspiring and you feel like you don't want to be here doing this, but you have to, and it becomes the job more than the art; when it feels like that you have to just push through it. One good thing is that there's this little break in the show for us: we go backstage and kid around, drink some Perrier, and talk about how the first half of the show went; we can get a little breather, then go back on and have a fresh attitude.

Is there a conflict between the part of you that loves jazz - and presumably improvisational work - and this role where you are basically reproducing the album live?

Well, no, because my sensibilities run classical too. I mean, ultimately I would love to have the improvisational ability of a jazz musician - that to me is the highest art form; but to reproduce something faithfully, if not exactly, night after night, and do it in an inspired way, is a good sensibility.

You are credited with co-writing Language with Suzanne. How did that happen?

Well, she had the basic idea of the song structure. We all started bouncing ideas off each other, but it seemed to lack one part - a different section just to take it away from the basic structure. So I came up with this idea for the bridge, which I thought had a nice harmonic change to it, a nice mood change. It just moves the song away a little bit, out of the same chords and the same movement.

Which gives you more pleasure: the situation where the "creative spark" is at work, or reproducing the music live?

That's a good question... They both have a high value, and I guess one is the completion of the other. It's very rewarding to come up with the creative ideas that fit into the compositional arrangement, and then the coming to fruition of that is the performance of it. I think they both have their value, and are both different.

Do you think that having a cohesive band unit has produced a better sound than the session musician approach of the first album?

Oh yes, I think it's definitely the right thing to do. It feels much more complete. The first album doesn't have the impact of a band; it sounds like a project. Personally, it's something that I've always wanted; the reason I haven't immersed myself in striving to become a studio musician is because I've always wanted to have a band identity.

Do you see your work with Suzanne as a long-term commitment?

Well, I hope so. I really feel that I have a lot to offer, and I hope that my value has been proven. I have been with this from the small beginnings, and I would love to see it come to fruition - I think there's still a lot of growth potential.

You have now been relieved of your duties as backing vocalist... You react to that with some pleasure!

Oh, total pleasure! That was a giant leap. My singing ability is not of the standard for this kind of thing; I never had the right, pure, tone qualities - I'm much more of a rough singer, and I'm really glad that I don't have to do it anymore.

Do you have a favourite song in the set which you particularly enjoy performing?

It's a toss-up between Small Blue Thing, Ironbound and Cracking, - I still juggle those three around. I think that they're lyrically the nicest tunes, and I like listening to them; I like the way they're structured, there's a lot of feeling, and I think they showcase some of the best parts of Suzanne.

What artists do you particularly like listening to?

Well I guess my favourite is still Peter Gabriel. I think he's in line with what I feel is the best about this business: his songs, performances, state-of-the-art production. His whole presentation is totally first-rate, there's nothing deficient about him at all in my eyes; nobody comes close to him.

As for bass players... Chris Squire, John Entwistle is a great player, and I think Mark King is a very good player too. But Anthony Jackson is astounding, probably the best American bass guitarist.

So, what is your favourite sandwich filling?

My favourite sandwich filling would be either salmon, or peanut butter and jelly. Sometimes a combination of both!

Up to Suzanne Vega Home Page

Submitted by Steve Zwanger

VegaNet@aol.com