Philip Hagemann Interview with Bruce Duffie . . . . . . . . .

Composer Philip Hagemann

A Conversation with Bruce Duffie

Philip Hagemann (born December 21, 1932) is an American composer and conductor.

Hagemann was born in Mount Vernon, Indiana, the son of Harry Philip and Lorene (Knight) Hagemann. He learned to play the piano and the saxophone, and took music degrees at Northwestern University in Evanston and Columbia University. From 1954-1956 he served in the US Army. He was a choral conductor in New York, and has published 75 works for choir.

He has composed 10 one-act operas and two full-length operas. His first opera was The King Who Saved Himself from Being Saved (1976), a work for children based on a story by John Ciardi. Five of his operas are based on works by George Bernard Shaw; these include The Music Cure (1984), and Shaw Sings! (1988), which includes The Dark Lady of the Sonnets and Passion, Poison and Petrifaction. Other operas include works based on Henry James's The Aspern Papers, (which premiered at Northwestern University on the same night, November 19, 1988, that Dominic Argento's opera on the same story premiered in Dallas), Edith Wharton's Roman Fever (1989), and Oscar Wilde's The Nightingale and the Rose (2003).

Among his other compositions are two choral cycles based on the verses of Ogden Nash, A Musical Menu and A Musical Menagerie. His Christmas choral piece Fruitcake [shown below-left] which includes both spoken and sung passages, is a humorous version of the cake recipe, and has sold over 150,000 copies of sheet music.

The music critic Anthony Tommasini has written of Hagemann, "His music may lack a strong contemporary profile: his language is essentially tonal and lushly chromatic. Whole-tone melodic patterns recall Ravel". He added that "he injects grittiness into his music through the piling up of clusters and dissonance. He also writes effectively for the voice"

== Names which are links in this box and below refer to my interviews elsewhere on my website. BD

In May of 1988, composer Philip Hagemann was back at his Alma Mater, Northwestern University, to attend to preparations for the production of his opera The Aspern Papers which was to have its premiere the following November. Despite his hectic schedule, the composer was gracious enough to spend a bit of time with me for an interview.

Portions of the chat were used that fall to promote the performances, and now, in 2025, I am pleased to present the entire conversation . . . . .

Bruce Duffie:   Tell me the joys and sorrows of being an opera composer at the end of the twentieth century.

Philip Hagemann:   [Laughs] The situation is probably better now than it was pre-World War Two, or just after the War. There has been an opera boom, or boomlet, in the United States. Certainly there are many more opera companies, and many more productions than there were several decades ago.

BD:   With so much going on, is enough of the energy being devoted to new works by living American composers?

Hagemann:   [Sighs, then laughs] Some people would say yes, there’s quite enough, because some people are satisfied with the traditional European repertoire. It depends on who’s talking about it. People who are musicians themselves probably can’t get enough of the modern things, but maybe even that’s not true, because there are a lot of musicians who don’t really care about contemporary music. They’re also content with standard repertoire... but I may be rather pessimistic about it.

BD:   Where should the balance be between the standard European works, and even perhaps established American works, few as they are, and new American works?

Hagemann:   I wish that every company felt an obligation to regularly do a production of a contemporary American work. Certainly all companies don’t, and that starts right up at the Met and goes on down from there. The Met’s record has been really pretty dreadful about setting a good example for modern American operas. The Met is supposed to have one or two in the next couple of seasons, but they really have not set a good example. [Remember, this conversation was held in mid-1988, and as this is being posted in the fall of 2025, things have changed considerably.] The New York City Opera has been very good over the years, and they continue to be. Even with the various changes in administration, they have always felt an obligation to put on new American works, and I assume they will continue to do that. I’m not familiar with the situations of the regional companies around the country, but I guess some are better at it than others. Minnesota has a good reputation, as does St. Louis, but I would like to see a balance. The old favorites are favorites for a good reason. They are beautiful, and they have a lot of virtues, and naturally they should continue to be performed. But I wish that there would regularly be an inclusion of modern American works amongst the standard repertoire.

BD:   Are you a composer of operas, or are you simply a composer whose output includes some operas?

Hagemann:   In the last couple of years, I’ve done more work with opera than anything else. I’m a choral conductor, and I used to be a choral director in a public school system in suburban New York. My composing grew out of my teaching and my choral conducting. My first compositions were all choral pieces, and to this day I have more choral works than anything else in my list of compositions. I have published almost sixty choral works with several major publishing companies, and I will continue to do that. I just wrote a twenty-minute piece for chorus and orchestra and tenor soloist, for my own chorus this season. I love choral music, and I will continue to write that, but for the last few years I have been spending more time writing operas than anything else.

BD:   Is there a lot of choral writing in your operas?

Hagemann:   No, there isn’t really much at all so far. I’m practical enough to realize how difficult it is to get an opera produced, and so my first operas have been chamber operas, which don’t require huge casts or a huge orchestra and chorus, and various changes of scenery. I’m trying to make it possible to get these pieces put on, and if I have some success with some of the smaller operas, then maybe I’ll try writing something that could be called a ‘grand opera’ that has a chorus and the whole works. I’d love to do that.

BD:   Are these operas you feel you have to write, or are they on commission?

Hagemann:   They’re not on commission, no. I had thought about writing them for a long time, and it was in 1979 when the New York City Opera had a competition to select and produce a new one-act American opera. That was my motivation to finally do something that I had talked about doing for a long time. In fact, the opera that I worked on then was an early version of the one that’s being done at Northwestern University, The Aspern Papers. Before that, I had worked on a very short opera based on a children’s book by John Charity, so that was my very first attempt at writing opera. But I worked on this early version of The Aspern Papers as a one-act opera, and it had a ‘work-in-progress’ production at Indiana University in 1980. Then I put it on the shelf, and in the meantime, I wrote several others. Now I felt it was the time to go back and improve The Aspern Papers, to expand it to make it into a two-act opera, and for the first time, to orchestrate it and make some rather significant changes. So, we consider this a premiere of the final version. The earlier version is now best described as a work-in-progress, even though I may not have thought so then.

BD:   Are you sure that this will be the final version?

Hagemann:   [Laughs] When you look at some of the operas by Verdi, you have the Paris version, and the Rome version, and the Vienna version, and so forth. So, I don’t know what will happen! Maybe somebody will like the work, but say if only there was a chorus... Then maybe I’ll find a way to add a chorus to it for some other company some time.

BD:   How susceptible are you to suggestions from producers, critics, the public, etc.?

Hagemann:   Very! Richard Alderson, the director of the opera program here at Northwestern, made some very intelligent suggestions, which I have incorporated into the score.

BD:   What happens when someone else produces it, and then starts to tinker with it themselves?

Hagemann:   Ha! That’s not quite the same. Isn’t this the way it’s always been? There is a long tradition of composers changing the scores from performance to performance.

BD:   You are a conductor as well as a composer.   When you are conducting a work by someone else, do you ever tinker or make adjustments?

Hagemann:   I think the answer is no.

BD:   Are we getting to be too slavish to the score?

Hagemann:   Certainly, if I’m conducting an accepted masterpiece, or a famous work, I wouldn’t make any changes. When I was still teaching in school and working with teenagers, then I would occasionally make changes, because maybe I didn’t have a tenor section that could sing the tenor line that was in the music. In fact, this is the sort of thing that got me starting composing way, way back. The school music library didn’t have very many pieces in it, or maybe they weren’t suited to the choir I had that particular year, so I started making changes to adapt the music to the needs and the abilities of my students. One thing led to another, and I started doing arrangements of folksongs or other songs for my students. Then finally at some point I decided to do an original composition, not an arrangement. The first one of those was a setting of a poem about Christopher Columbus by Ogden Nash. It was a typical Ogden Nash poem, and the students liked singing it. So when we put it on the spring concert, and the audience liked it, so I submitted it for publication, and it was accepted! I saw it in print, and that was a very exciting moment to see my first piece of music published. I thought I had to do more of this [both laugh], and so I just kept writing and writing. Then I branched out into solo songs, and a couple of instrumental pieces, and works for chorus and orchestra, and some chamber music, and now in the last few years, more opera.

BD:   Are you still teaching in the public schools?

Hagemann:   No, I stopped teaching several years ago.

BD:   You’re a full-time composer now?

Hagemann:   I compose and have a few conducting jobs. In addition to my regular chorus, sometimes something will come along for guest conducting. I was musical director a few years ago for a production of Gilbert & Sullivan’s Iolanthe with the Columbia-Barnard Gilbert & Sullivan Society in Manhattan. There are also few music festivals here and there. I’ve done a lot of work with a music festival in Southern Indiana, at The Historic Community of New Harmony in South Western Indiana. They gave a wonderful production of Britten’s Noye’s Fludde one year.

BD:   Do you get enough time to compose?

Hagemann:   I do, now that I’m not teaching. That’s one of the reasons I left teaching. I just felt it was very difficult to come home from a long day of teaching, and sit down and compose for a few hours. If one is a serious teacher and does a good deal of teaching, it’s a demanding and very tiring job.

BD:   Can the same be said of composing?

Hagemann:   I don’t think it’s as physically tiring as teaching is. It might be tiring creatively or mentally, but teaching is tiring in every way. You have to admire good teachers a lot.

BD:   You received a degree from Northwestern University?

Hagemann:   Yes, my bachelor’s degree is in music education. I’m from Southern Indiana originally, a town near New Harmony called Mount Vernon. This is near Evansville, for people who don’t know that part of the country. I went into the Army for two years, where I played the saxophone in the Army bands. I was stationed in Salzburg for a while, and then sent to Frankfurt, and then a little town near Stuttgart.

BD:   Did you take advantage of the resources of Salzburg while you were there?

Hagemann:   Not as much as I should have, but some, yes. Then after the Army, I decided to get a master’s degree at Columbia University in New York. I decided that I liked the New York area, so I looked for a teaching job, and stayed there.

* * * * *

BD:   When you’re writing a piece, are you in control of the pencil, or is the pencil in control of you?

Hagemann:   I think I am in control of the pencil, but I don’t understand what you’re really getting at.

BD:   Do you feel you have some unknown inspiration that is guiding you along?

Hagemann:   No, I wouldn’t think of using those words. I don’t know if any of us knows what that really means. What is creativity, and the creative process when dealing with something as abstract as music and inspiration? I don’t know. I don’t use the word ‘inspiration’ very much.

BD:   What word do you use for that idea?

Hagemann:   I don’t usually talk about it! [Bursts out laughing] I don’t know. It’s sort of a mysterious process, isn’t it? I don’t think you can teach it. I don’t think you can teach somebody to be a composer, or probably a writer, or poet, or any of those things. One summer at the music school that is run in connection with the Aspen Festival in Colorado, I sat in for a number of classes in ‘composition’, which was what it was called. Darius Milhaud conducted or taught, and he really didn’t teach the students to be composers. They had rather free assignments to compose something. Then they’d have to bring in their music and play it at the piano for the students. Milhaud would make comments about it, and discuss it, but the comments were rather pragmatic, and down-to-earth. He didn’t say that the melody doesn’t soar, or use flowery aesthetic terms. It was always rather down-to-earth practical ideas about how something might have been written a little differently. He didn’t talk a lot, as I recall... it’s a long time ago. I think you can teach somebody how to write for instruments and voice, and give them exercises in the forms of musical compositions, and get them thinking about how the different instruments sound in conjunction with each other, and how they balance, and what’s practical on this instrument and that instrument, and what isn’t practical. You can teach obvious things like the ranges of the instrument, but the more mysterious things I don’t really think you can teach. When I taught theory at the high school level, I would give my students compositional assignments, such as writing a canon, or writing for different instruments, or writing using a certain type of chord progression, or certain types of chords. But how one does it is unteachable.

BD:   You can just teach the technique?

Hagemann:   I think so.

BD:   What advice do you have for composers coming along?

Hagemann:   I wouldn’t presume to tell other composers how to write. This is also something I should say... I didn’t set out to be a composer. When I was studying in college here at Northwestern, I didn’t major in composition. Indeed, I did not take a course with that title. I took the basic theory courses, and a course in what was called form and analysis, and a course in orchestration. Those were very important, but many people took those who were, like myself, majoring in music education. In fact, the last two were taught by John Paynter, who is still director of bands. The textbook that John had us use in the orchestration class, is a book that I still refer to when I forget something about the bassoon, and need to look it up. I didn’t realize I wanted to be a composer at an early age. In retrospect, I see that there were signs of it. In the theory classes, if we had an assignment that involved writing something original, those were the assignments that I usually got in on time, and got the best grades. I sort of fault my theory teacher... maybe if he had been a little more alert and perceptive, he might have seen this in me, and drawn it out of me earlier, and set me on the path of being a composer earlier.

BD:   Are you pleased at this point that you have turned out to be a composer?

Hagemann:   Oh yes, sure! I love it, and I find it very rewarding to compose, and to hear performances of my music. It meant enough to me that I gave up teaching on a trial basis, to see if I could be disciplined to use my time, and also to see if I could do alright financially. That year worked out very well, and I did not go back to teaching.

* * * * *

BD:   Let me ask a balance question. In music, where’s the balance between an artistic achievement and an entertainment value?

Hagemann:   You are asking about a balance between them?

BD:   Yes. Is music art, or is music entertainment?

Hagemann:   It’s both.

BD:   I trust there must be some kind of balance.

Hagemann:   [Thinks a moment] I find many great arts of work entertaining. I think Carmen is a work of art, and it is very entertaining. I must say, just to pick one specific example, I’m not enthusiastic about baroque opera, such as Handel and others. I certainly recognize Handel as one of the great composers, and perhaps any given aria, or section, or ensemble from one of his operas is very beautiful, and I admire it. It gives one a chance to hear good singers demonstrate wonderful vocalism... or what we hope will be wonderful vocalism! [Both laugh] But I personally am not entertained by Baroque opera. For my taste, the format is a little too formal. The structure is too predictable, with one da capo aria after another.

BD:   Then let us speak about your works, including The Aspen Papers. Should they be entertaining?

Hagemann:   I hope so. I’ve been very careful in selecting subjects, as I was in writing choral music. I have been very careful about selecting poems. With my choral pieces I used poems by Ogden Nash, John Ciardi, Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson, Langston Hughes, The Bible... This is very strong literary material. In operas, I have three one-act operas based on one-act plays by George Bernard Shaw. They were done New York in April of this year [1988], at an auditorium in the Fashion Institute of Technology in Manhattan. Two of the three had been done elsewhere, but one had never been done before, and that was the first time that all three were done together as an evening. Shaw was a master playwright, and these are comic one-act plays of his which I’ve used, and they really are entertaining. They are funny! Very often we go to something that’s called a ‘comic opera’, and we don’t really laugh very much. In these operas of mine based on Shaw, the audience was laughing a great deal. They are really funny because they’re based on very strong texts. I have also done a short opera based on a children’s book by John Ciardi, who was a wonderful writer. Of course, Henry James, who wrote the novella on which The Aspen Papers is based, was a master writer. So I work with very carefully selected texts or poems which have either entertainment value, or a good story line, with which the audience can get interested in what is happening dramatically in the opera. You could play these operas as plays, and they would be interesting or entertaining to the audience.

BD:   Then why set them as operas?

Hagemann:   Because you can add a new dimension. You can add atmosphere. The Aspern Papers takes place in Venice. You can read about Venice on the printed page, and it’s very nice, but if you write music which evokes a mysterious, decadent, beautiful, ripe mood, all of those things apply to Venice, or at least to the Venice of this story, then you’re enhancing the text. You’re adding another dimension to it. I don’t think that you should set something to music without adding a new element. At least you try to do that.

BD:   When creating this atmosphere, or adding to what is there, what are some of the strains that you feel contribute to greatness in music?

Hagemann:   [Thinks again] Something which progresses in an organic way that seems to be very inevitable. Something that seems to be very logical and concise. Beethoven worked very hard at this. We all have read that to get his pieces just so, he reworked them and reworked them until they were just right. There is a development in Beethoven’s music which goes from one measure to the next, or one phrase to the next, in a very logical, orderly and interesting way. I don’t like music which seems to have a lot of padding, where a lot of measures could be taken out. Conciseness and brevity are very important. In many ways, La Bohème is a model opera. It is really rather short. In total minutes, it’s only something like two hours of music. It’s a four-act opera, and if you have three intermissions it may be stretched out, but really there is not that much music. Puccini was very concise, and in most of Puccini’s music, every note means something. He didn’t just write music to fill time. So I like music which is interesting from measure to measure.

BD:   Are you conscious to make sure that your works have these qualities?

Hagemann:   I try to, yes, I really do. I may think I’ve succeeded in keeping them interesting all the time, and somebody else may not, but this is an art and not a science. De gustibus non disputandum est [in matters of taste, there can be no disputes].

BD:   What do you expect of the audience that comes to hear and see one of your works?

Hagemann:   I hope they will be engaged by it. I hope they won’t fall asleep. I hope they will find it interesting and beautiful, or maybe amusing, and have something that will get the blood flowing. I hope they won’t be passive about it. I hope they’ll be buoyed up and refreshed at the end, or moved at the end depending on whether it’s a tragedy or a comedy.

BD:   Have you basically been pleased with the performances you’ve seen of your operas so far?

Hagemann:   Yes, yes, I have. The New York production of the Shaw trilogy was very successful. I had a wonderful cast, with a different leading lady in each of the three operas. In the first one, which is called The Music Cure, Maralin Niska, a former star at the Metropolitan Opera and New York City Opera and many other companies, sang the leading role. It was her first New York appearance in six years, and it was exciting to work with her. In the second, called The Six of Calais, the leading lady was a mezzo named Jane Shaulis, who has sung a lot with the New York City Opera, and the Met [for 27 years]. In the third, which is a wild and wacky piece called Passion, Poison, and Petrifaction, the leading lady was Karen Beardsley, a young soprano whose career has really blossomed recently. She’s also the star of Where the Wild Things Are, an opera by Oliver Knussen, based on the famous and popular children’s book by Maurice Sendak. Sendak himself adapted it and designed the scenery when it was done by Glyndebourne, and several places in this country. Karen has sung the leading role in all of the American productions [in London it was Jane Manning], and will also be doing it here with the Chicago Opera Theater. In my trilogy, the other characters, and the male leads were also very, very good.

BD:   You’ve written these three operas to be performed as a unit. Could they be broken up and performed separately?

Hagemann:   They could be. They don’t have to be performed together. There’s nothing that relates them one to the other. They are three entirely separate stories. They work together very nicely as an evening, but if a company wanted to do one of them with something else, they certainly could. Gianni Schicchi is one of Puccini’s three operas in his Il Trittico, but that one, particularly, is often done by itself away from the other two, or with something else.

* * * * *

BD:   What other operas have you written?

Hagemann:   Besides the three one-acts based on Shaw, I wrote The King who Saved Himself from Being Saved, which is based on John Ciardi’s children book. I have also done an adaptation of Debussy’s L’Enfant Prodigue. It’s just been done once in New Harmony in Indiana.

BD:   Why did you adapt it?

Hagemann:   It’s a sort of an odd piece. It’s about thirty-five minutes in length, which is obviously on the short side. There are only three characters, with an optional chorus at the end. The story is very simple and very intimate, but even with this short intimate opera, Debussy wrote for an orchestra of huge proportions, including two flutes and piccolo, and two oboes and English horn, and so on down the line for this gigantic orchestra. Many of the large opera companies, which have a large orchestra at their disposal, probably would not be interested in a thirty-five minute-piece for three singers, and a lot of small companies, or even college opera departments which might like to do a piece for three characters which is thirty-five minutes long, wouldn’t be able to supply a sixty- or seventy-piece orchestra. So, I did two things. First of all, I did a new English libretto, because the English translation that was in the standard score is outdated, and doesn’t work very well in the 1980s.

BD:   It’s a better translation?

Hagemann:   At least it’s more modern. The original is rather out of date, and uses a lot of phrases which are a little bit awkward or stilted today. Then I reduced the orchestration to thirteen parts. Some people might put up their hands in horror of the idea of touching Debussy’s orchestration. It’s a fantastic orchestration, no doubt about it, but if my adaptation gives the work additional life, that’s all right. For those who can do the original version, wonderful, but if this makes it possible for other people to do it as well, then I don’t think that’s all bad.

BD:   You touched on one of my favorite subjects, which is translation. Do you like opera in translation?

Hagemann:   Yes, yes, I do. Some operas need to done either in translation or with supertitles. [Remember, in 1988, supertitles were a new idea, and not yet universal.]

BD:   [Smiling] That was my next question. Which is better?

Hagemann:   Last spring I saw Berg’s Lulu at the Met. I like that opera a lot, but many people were left cold by it, and one saw many people leaving during the performance. There were a lot of empty seats. The music is perhaps difficult, but the story is very strong, and certainly modern audiences like strong theater, and they could deal with that story dramatically. There are a lot of plays and movies and television films which are about subjects that are on a level with the story of Lulu, but the audience really couldn’t appreciate it. They couldn’t follow it. Some neighbors in my apartment building aren’t opera-goers, but they went to Lulu and regretted it afterwards. They felt that they had made a poor choice as newcomers to opera.

BD:   If it had included supertitles, might it have been a better experience for them?

Hagemann:   If they had known what the opera was about, and what the characters were singing all the time, their appreciation of it would have increased immeasurably.

BD:   We had Lulu here in Chicago with supertitles, and most of the audience stayed and cheered.

Hagemann:   Good! I believe it! [Note that the first two pages of the work shown at left are reproduced below.]

BD:   If your opera is being done in France or Germany, would you want it titled, or would you want it translated, or left alone?

Hagemann:   An opera in English being performed in Europe might have a better chance of being understood, simply because the Europeans are better at learning English than we are at learning their languages. [Laughs] I’m not evading the question, but no, I wouldn’t care. It might be difficult in the case of a comedy to get some of the equivalents of Shaw’s wit translated, and yet fit the music. It’s a very tricky business to translate an opera, or a song, or a choral work. I’ve done all three, and you have to not only translate the meaning, but you have to make the English fit the syllables of the music. Then, if you try to make it rhyme in the way that the original language rhymes, it all becomes an intricate puzzle to try to get it all put together. So, I guess it would be easier to project supertitles than to write a successful translation.

* * * * *

BD:   Do you feel that the college opera workshop is going to be the salvation of the modern American composer?

Hagemann:   It helps a lot, because the colleges have been much more adventurous in their repertoire than the professional companies. But that’s understandable, because the professional companies have financial considerations. They must raise the money, or sell the tickets, or perish. Colleges have a little less pressure financially, so they can take a chance on new works more than the professional companies can. They also may be the salvation in the sense of providing opportunities for the training of opera singers, since we don’t have an opera house in every small community the way they do in Germany.

BD:   Are you optimistic about the future of opera?

Hagemann:   It’s on the upswing. There are more companies and more productions. Here in Chicago, now you have more than just the Lyric. You have the Chicago Opera Theater, which I understand is increasing the number of productions that it does each season.

BD:   They’re bringing the Knussen opera next Fall, and Chamber Opera Chicago is doing well.

Hagemann:   One of the amazing things of opera in the United States is what goes on at Indiana University. It’s a major company! They do six big, rather lavish productions a year, plus a couple of things in the summertime. They also have an auditorium, a stage, and a backstage area that’s the equal, or indeed the superior, to most professional companies.

BD:   Tell me very briefly about this prize that has been given.

Hagemann:   I decided to give a prize to the School of Music at Northwestern last year, which they could use in different ways and different years. They don’t have to use it the same way each time. The first time that it was given, two years ago, it was a composition competition, and the recipient was a man named Michael Dilthey, who wrote a one-act opera called Pinderblock. The second year, in the spring of 1988, it took the form of a vocal competition, and the prize was won by a soprano, Sarah Pfisterer.

BD:   It’s very generous that you should provide this.

Hagemann:   [Smiles] What can I say? I was in a position to do it, and thought it would be a nice idea! [He laughs]

BD:   I wish you lots of success with the production this fall. Do you know the dates yet?

Hagemann:   November 19th and 20th, Saturday night and Sunday afternoon, the weekend before Thanksgiving, in Cahn Auditorium on the campus of Northwestern University.

BD:   Thank you for sharing some of your thoughts. I appreciate it very much.

Hagemann:   I enjoyed it! Thank you.

hagemann

This conversation was recorded in Evanston, Illinois, on May 12, 1988. Portions were broadcast on WNIB the following November. This transcription was made in 2025, and posted on this website at that time. My thanks to British soprano Una Barry for her help in preparing this website presentation.

To see a full list (with links) of interviews which have been transcribed and posted on this website, click here. To read my thoughts on editing these interviews for print, as well as a few other interesting observations, click here.

* * * * *

Award - winning broadcaster Bruce Duffie was with WNIB, Classical 97 in Chicago from 1975 until its final moment as a classical station in February of 2001. His interviews have also appeared in various magazines and journals since 1980, and he continued his broadcast series on WNUR-FM, as well as on Contemporary Classical Internet Radio.

You are invited to visit his website for more information about his work, including selected transcripts of other interviews, plus a full list of his guests. He would also like to call your attention to the photos and information about his grandfather, who was a pioneer in the automotive field more than a century ago. You may also send him E-Mail with comments, questions and suggestions.