TS: You grew up in Montreal, and when you were 16, you moved to New York City while signing briefly with RCA.  What was it like for you to arrive in a city like New York in the late 60s.

GV: It was a little later than that….I finished high school at 16 and went into first year of college at 17. It was only after I signed with RCA in Canada that I had a record out here and then I figured that I didn’t really want to record in Canada anymore. That’s a whole other story[…]around 18 I went to NY.

TS: What was it like going to New York as a Montrealer?

GV: Well…it wasn’t the best period for New York. Early 70s in New York was a dangerous place, a dirty place…it really kind of ran to hell a little bit. I think Giuliani did a lot of good work in the 80s and 90s to spiff it up a bit. But it was pretty much a hell hole in the early 70s. So it was a bit scary.

TS: What was Times Square like back then?

GV: Dirty! Dirty and trashy and…just a lot of hookers…you know, and people trying to hustle you all the time and…thieves… when I just got to the hotel someone grabbed my guitar and started running away with it…[got into] a chase on the streets. It was just one of those things. But still, it was the place to be, because all the record companies were there, and there were a lot of record companies in those days.

TS: How important have your Italian roots been in your career?

GV: To tell you the truth, in the beginning it was a hindrance. Because – you have to remember – by the time the early 70s came around, the whole world had been really anglicized, with The Beatles and all the British groups, European groups that came…and then the West Coast bands, the Doors and The Birds and all those…it was very anglicized. So when I broke into the scene in the early 70s, the whole Italian cache or mystery of the singer had really passed because it was more or less in the 40s and 50s, in Sinatras and Dean Martins and those people, their heyday Italian band. That era had passed. At least for the youth. So it was a bit of a hindrance for me because it was considered to be very passé to be Italian. So people used to instantly mock me as a “lounge singer” or as a “cabaret singer”…which I wasn’t at all. So in the beginning, until I made a name for myself, until I really presented what I was and what my intentions were, people had no idea.

TS: A lot has changed since the sex-symbol Gino Vannelli the world knew in the 70s, both in terms of your craft and your outlook on life.  What would the present day Gino Vannelli tell the Gino of 35 years ago?

GV: [laughs] Better not to look ahead. Just deal with what you got at the moment. Because if you knew everything that was going to happen to you, you’d probably [think] “Why move on?” It’s kind of like reading the last chapter of a book first – why should you?

TS: The style and tone of your music has also changed, or if we can say “evolved” troughout the decades.  Was there a battle of creative wills between the music you felt you should produce as opposed to the music the industry thought you should produce?

GV: We are in a – it’s quickly changing but – it’s a unique time in the sense that you know…musicians always made art for money, but never like they did in the 21^st century. And so there’s a balance and also a conflict. Remember balance (or healthy tension) is a conflict, by definition. So there’s also a conflict between art and commerce. How much art to put and how much commerce to put. People go 60-40 one way, others 80-20, some people are 100% one way, don’t care about the commerce at all, willing to starve, and some people are all commerce. And they’ll do anything to just make it.

With me, I think it was 50-50, but in moments where there was a master to serve, I always choose the art. Because I knew in the end that commerce was very contemporary, very fleeting. That what was considered commercial today or that day, what was considered marketable, could very well change.

TS: How important is marketing in today’s industry, and has it differed form when you were starting out in the industry?

GV: No, the principles are always the same – the methodology is different. I mean, the principles of having something marketable. What is marketable, that might change, but the principle of having something marketable that people relate to, that is catchy, catches the eye, catches the ear, or catches the sensibilities of someone, is important. Since the dawn of the video era, marketing has changed a lot. In the 20s and 30s, in the time of Crosby and Sinatra, and then Elvis…I mean, when Elvis came around, TV came around. And so that was the marketing tool. And then by the time the 80s came around, video came around. So in a sense, artists have had to broaden, have had to think of themselves as multimedia artists, whereas in the 70s it was possible to be just a very successful artist, like Pink Floyd, and nobody knows who you are.

TS: Do you think you might have been more successful when you were starting out had there been the technology that exists today such as internet and social media?

GV: Ummm…no. No. Because I would have chosen the same path. There would have been a lot of the same choices. And I would’ve chosen to sit home and learn how to write and practice and vocalize and orchestrate properly. I mean, you can’t get away from that. You can’t get away from the time it takes to learn how to compose. You cant get away from the fact that at one point in your life you have to read Victor Hugo or you have to read Plato or Socrates…you have to read the humanities, you have to read some Shakespeare…if you’re going to write lyrics, if you’re going to write anything that is based in any kind of truth – at least sociological truth- you have to have some basic knowledge of the humanities, of what existed before you.  And that takes time.

TS: Tell me about the book you wrote last year.

GV: Stardust in the Sand just started off by being liner notes for the Best and Beyond album and it just grew. People around me – the marketing people, record company and all – said, “Well why not just expand it?” and I decided to expand it. Just to write to my heart’s content. I never really wanted it to be this or that, a book of memoirs…I didn’t want it to be an autobiography…I just wanted it to be little insights, little observations, perhaps misgivings, regrets a little bit, awkward moments….it’s my perspective of what I was like, what the world was like, what led to the songs…anecdotes that might be of interest and humor and maybe help some other people.

TS: Your latest album revisits your greatest hits.  How have these songs, or your interpretation of them, changed since the originals.

GV: Well there’s always the second shot at something. People sometimes fail at the second shot, but…theoretically you should get it better [with] the second shot. There’s also the factor that technology should be on your side because I know the technology so much better today and I understand what more I could do with the songs. No matter how good musicians were then, musicians should be better today because they have the old musicians to study and improve on. And yet it doesn’t always mean that you’ll re-record something and it will be better. I really sat down at the piano and decided to dig up and really tear apart the songs again harmonically and study them and say, “Well if I just wrote the song now, how would I approach it?” and that led me to this recording.

www.ginov.com