>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: welcome to the program. earlier tonight, the republican presidential candidates squared off in boulder, colorado, for their third debate. as we tape this, the debate is just beginning. we will have full analysis and perspective tomorrow. >> you have to be patient and stick with it and all of that. also, i can't fake anger. i believe this is still the most extraordinary country on the face of the earth and it troubles me people are rewarded for tearing down our country. it's never been that way in american politics before. >> i would begin by saying that i'm not sure it's a weakness, but i do believe i share a sense

of optimism for america's future that today is eroding for too many of our people. i think there's a sense in this country today that somehow our best days are behind us and that doesn't have to be true. our best days lie ahead if we're willing to do what it takes now. >> i think maybe my greatest weakness is i trust people too much, i'm too trusting. when they let me down, if they let me down, i never forgive. i find it very, very hard to forgive people that deceived me. >> probably in terms of the applying for a job of president, the weakness would be not really seeing myself in that position until hundreds of thousands of people begin to tell me that i needed to do it. i do, however, believe in reagan's 11th commandment and will not be engaging in awful things about my compatriots here and recognizing it is so important, this election, because we're talking about america for the people versus america for the government.

charlie: ted koppel is here. he was the managing editor of "nightline" for 25 years. this is embarrassing to read. he received 18 peabody awards in many of the honors of a long, distinguished career. his new book is "lights out, cyber attack. a nation unprepared, surviving the aftermath." it considers the possibility of an cyber attack on the u.s. power grid. the senate passed its most significant cyber security bill yesterday. senator harry reid cited koppel's books in his remarks last week about the need for this legislation. >> three years ago this month the then secretary of defense leon panetta warned the united states of a potential cyber pearl harbor. cyber pearl harbor, direct quote. a cyber pearl harbor would be crippling, it would be a cyber attack on our nation's banks,

power grid, government and communications network. and it sounds scary. that's because it is scary. cyber terrorists could potentially bring the united states to its knees. its potentiality is upon us. a cyber attack is not far fetched. ted koppel, the renowned journalist, has written another book. and the author reveals that our nation's power grid is extremely vulnerable to cyber terrorism. imagine the toll of these attacks. massive power blackouts, no telephone, no internet capability, and that's on your cell phones or whatever phones exist. overwhelm first responders. an pin fra structure system reduced to chaos. charlie: i'm pleased to have ted koppel back at this table.

he's a great and dear friend and i'm pleased a, he's written a book that calls attention to what is urgently required to do to avoid a cyber attack. i start with the notion of what caused you to come to this book? >> essentially, what harry reid was talking about there. i kept hearing smart, important, high-ranking people from the president on down. i mean, the president has twice warned about the danger of a cyber attack on the power grid in his state of the union address. nothing in the press the next morning. the reference that harry reid made to then defense secretary leon panetta. here's the secretary of defense talking about the danger of a cyber pearl harbor. the next day -- charlie: meaning a surprise attack on america will not come as it has in the past. it will be over the internet. >> over the internet and it will

be infinitely more damaging potentially than pearl harbor was. no response, nothing. i mean, i think there was a small item in "the wall street journal." there was a small item in "the new york times." so i just sat down and i said to myself, i wonder what plans, if any, have been made for the civilian population? so i picked up the phone and i called the red cross. and i picked up the phone and i called the department of homeland security. and i picked up the phone and i called fema. and i got stuck in one phone tree after another. i mean, my first reaction was, nothing is going on right now. there's no crisis. if i can't get through to any one of these agencies in a time of absolute calm -- charlie: panic.

>> -- in a time of no panic -- charlie: during a time of panic. >> exactly. eventually you get through the phone tree and find a human being. the human being refers you to a website. and you go look at that website, and you can do it, any one of your viewers can do it tomorrow. look at the website for fema. look at the website for department of homeland security, red cross. and they cite every possible disaster that could befall the human race. i mean, an earthquake, a tornado, a hurricane, a blizzard. everything but death of the first born. is there one word about the possibility of a cyber attack? there is not. nothing. and every one of these references they make talks about having preparations for two, three days of food, two, three days of water, two, three days of your medicine. problem is i cyber attack could knock out the power grid for months, affecting tens of millions of people.

we need a plan. this is not a partisan issue. i mean, harry reid ought to be able to reach across the aisle there and talk to the folks. he and mitch mcconnell ought to be able to sit down and say, we really have to do something. charlie: if there's anything that ought to go beyond partisanship, this would be it. a threat to the nation. >> absolutely, a threat to the nation. and it is. charlie: so you knew there was a question. why are we so unprepared for cyber attack, especially on the electric grid? >> at that point my question was, i wonder if the federal government has a plan? and so i began talking to people. and -- charlie: you have seen no evidence of it so far? >> i see no evidence. i started talking to folks, started doing interviews. i talked to every one of the secretaries of homeland security, beginning with tom ridge, and going through to jeh

johnson. the ones who have left office were actually quite frank to admit, you know something, there is no plan. there is no plan. jeh johnson acted as though there might be a plan but he's been too busy to really figure it out. he sort of gestured to some folders up on the shelf of an office and said, i'm sure there's something in there somewhere. fundamentally when you say to him, what are you going to recommend to the american public? it was get some batteries for your battery-powered radio. charlie: walk through the process of how it might happen, and how would the attack come about, and that would be the consequences if one of the electric grids was compromised. >> well, let's start with the end. if one of the electric power grids is compromised, there would be no light, no cooling, no heating, no flow of water, no functioning toilets, in the cities thousands of people would be stuck in elevators but they would get them out of the

elevators eventually. but it could potentially be -- i don't know. you live here in the city, right? charlie: yes. >> how much food do you have at home? charlie: almost nothing for me because i eat out every night. >> but a great many people in this city eat out or call out for food or have enough food in the house for two, three days. very few people have enough food to last them for months. so i spoke to the then secretary of homeland security for the state of new york. i said, how many -- how much food do you have? oh, he said, well, we've got probably -- i think he said about 20 or 25 million m.r.e.'s, meals ready to eat. i said that's for the state of new york, right? exactly. the city of new york, you're talking about 8 million people. let's assume the folks upstate can take care of themselves. 8 million people, 25 million

meals. that's three meals per person. let's say they limit themselves to one meal a day. charlie: three days. >> three days. what happens after that? no plan. there is no plan. charlie: first question though, is there any way to stop it? or is it inevitable that this kind of attack will take place and we will have to deal with it. >> charlie, only a little more than a week ago admiral mike rogers, the director of the nsa. up probably read it in "the wall street journal." he addressed a "wall street journal" conference. he said, this is the head of the n.s.a., is inevitable that there's going to be a cyber attack against our infrastructure. i talked to lloyd austin, general lloyd austin, who is the commander of centcom. general austin said to me, it's not a question of if, it's a question of when. charlie: let me just make sure i

understand what you're saying here. it's not a question of if, it's a question of when, in is that there will be a successful attack? >> on one of our grids. we only have three cyber grids in the united states. eastern interconnect, texas has its own, and then the west coast. charlie: do we know if people had tried to attack the grids of the united states? >> we know they are already in the grid. charlie: we know. but they haven't pulled the trigger? >> they haven't pulled the trigger. and those that can do it -- the good news is, charlie, those who can do it, chinese, the russians, already have what amount to sort of like cyber land mines in the grid. and essentially by hitting a key on a computer -- charlie: like a desktop computer. >> like a desktop computer. and it could be anywhere. it could be someone sitting in ukraine.

it could be someone sitting in canberra. it could be somebody sitting in brooklyn. you don't know where they're going to be. charlie: and this is in fact the horrifying possibility of the internet. >> the horrifying possibility is two-fold. one, the internet was never designed to be defended. the internet was designed as one army intelligence officer told me so professors could exchange good ideas. and it's almost impossible to completely defend something that was never designed to be defended in the first place. that was in fact designed to be -- charlie: everything that's been done so for in that short history of the internet has been to expand its possibilities rather than defend it. >> exactly. and in the final analysis, charlie, when you look around, and you say wait a second, there are thousands of hacking incidents every day.

they target industry. they target banks. they target companies like target. they target the files of our intelligence agencies. they manage to get into the private e-mail account of the -- cia director. charlie: cia director. >> cia director. it is, i think, careless for anyone to assume we can do all of those things, all of those things that are happening every day, but don't worry about what is fundamentally a poorly protected piece of infrastructure like the -- charlie: so it is inevitable. the question is why is there no sense of emergency and urgency? why? >> keith alexander, who used to -- >> former head of n.s.a. >> he said, it's kind of crude, but we're up to our as in alligators. we have the isis alligator. we have the syria alligator. we have iran alligator. we have iraq alligator.

we have afghanistan alligator and you're coming to me saying yeah, i got this other alligator over here that hasn't happened yet but it might. and he said in the army, we have a special group and a special officer who's in charge of the future. what are the potential issues we need to worry about? i'm not all together sure, charlie, we have someone in our political system who is tasked with doing the same thing. charlie: but here's what i would suggest maybe, it is that it's more -- it has an increasing priority for them. i mean, keith alexander was head of n.s.a. and head of cyber command. those were the two jobs. and mike rogers has those two jobs today. it is a priority for them now. it is a subject of great dialogue between the chinese and

the united states. >> they certainly do, charlie. but remember the n.s.a. is in deep trouble in this country. charlie: right. courtesy of edward snowden. >> courtesy of edward snowden and much of what snowden reported turns out to be accurate. the question we have to ask ourselves as patriotic american citizens is, are we more worried about having our privacy compromised by our own intelligence agencies or by the intelligence agencies of the chinese and the russians and the iranians? charlie: and what do they want to do with the information? >> exactly. and in the time analysis i think we may have to come to the conclusion that we have got to give the n.s.a. a little bit of space. now, you spoke -- charlie: the balance between privacy and security? >> absolutely. and you know, the irony is

groups like google, for example, are out there saying wait a second, don't try and control what we do with the information that we gather from your lap tops that you punch into your laptops because you don't really think about the fact that the information that you put into that laptop is then being used by a lot of these private companies to do what? to make money. they sell it then to other merchandisers. charlie: of course they do. apple makes a big point about that. that's their argument, they don't sell information. they sell product. that's apple's argument to try to separate themselves from google. on the other hand the government and f.b.i. is very concerned about apple because they encrypt the products in which they cannot access them.

there's no backdoor. >> no backdoor. and yet one of the interesting things as you heard at the black hat conference, usually takes place in las vegas. where all of the hackers go and delight in pointing out to the various big companies, siemens, for example, has all of these scada systems they create. scada stands for supervisory control and data acquisition. essentially they run the computer system that keeps our energy grids in balance. you have to have a perfect balance between the production of energy and the consumption of energy. so siemens makes a lot of these scada systems. essentially the same scada system is sitting in california as is sitting in tehran. they're sold all over the world. so siemens says we have this absolutely hack-proof password that only siemens technicians can get into with these scada systems. and at one of these black hat conferences, one young man gets up and explains this and says this is what siemens says and here's that password and he proceeds to give it to them. so siemens had to send people all over the world to get into their backdoor and change the password.

charlie: rechange the password, yeah. charlie: obviously, have you heard a word about this in the

charlie: obviously, have you heard a word about this in the political campaign so far? >> yes, i heard one word from jim webb, who, of course -- charlie: no longer a candidate. >> no longer a candidate. he made a passing reference to the danger of cyber attacks and nobody paid any attention to him

whatsoever. of course, he's not in the campaign anymore. charlie: one other question we always ask presidents, potential presidents, is the famous, what if you got a call at 3:00 in the morning, which was part of the democratic debate in 2008, when hillary and president obama. but you outlined before we began this program a sense of what would a president do and how would he have to respond? and what would be, you know, the presentation to a president if there had been an attack? >> it's exactly the right question to ask. if we go back into the 1960's, when what we were worried about was the potential of a nuclear attack, we would have known exactly where that nuclear attack was coming from. the president wouldn't have had much time. someone would have called the president and said, mr. president, we got 28 minutes. they just launched -- the soviets just launched however

many nuclear missiles and they will be impacting here in the next 28 minutes. and within those 28 minutes the president would have then had to make a decision as to whether he wanted to launch a retaliatory attack. but he would have known exactly who was attacking and where the attack was coming from. charlie: today? >> today somebody walks into the president and says, mr. president, someone has just knocked out the texas power grid, houston, dallas, san antonio. they're all in the dark. it may be weeks or months before we can get it up again. and the president says, well, do you have any idea who did it? well, sir, we believe we have 57% certainty it came out of the ukraine. and the president says, wait a second, you're telling me you've got 57% certainty. what am i supposed to do with that? and who exactly in the ukraine do you think did it? and are you absolutely confident that it originated in ukraine, or when you start back channeling here, are you going

to find out actually it didn't originate in ukraine. it was just passed through ukraine but it came from chile. charlie: or pakistan. >> and before chile, it came from islamabad. and before islamabad, someone appears to have some connection with this in brooklyn. and now the president says, and what exactly are you recommending that i do and against whom? and his briefers sort of look at one another and say, we'll get back to you, mr. president. just remember -- charlie: make sure you get back to me within -- >> within how much time? just remember how much time it took when north korea hacked into sony pictures. it was months before the f.b.i. could say with any certainty. charlie: that it came from china -- or from north korea. >> and even then, when they realized it had come from north korea, exactly what did we do? we targeted a few individuals in the north korean hierarchy but

don't think anything that the united states did at that point -- i don't know what they said privately -- is going to discourage north korea from doing it again. charlie: in all of the people that you talked to in writing this book, who had the best plan that ought to be implemented today? >> well, the only people who really have a plan didn't form late it because of the danger of a cyber attack against the u.s. power grid. but the mormon church and many of the 6 million mormons in this country are about as well prepared for anything disaster as anyone could possibly be. charlie: why that? >> because they have been kicked

from the political posts the past 200 years. they were kicked out of new york and out of new york into ohio and from ohio into -- charlie: ending up in utah. >> ending up in utah. and throughout their history, they have been told by their leaders, by their prophet, you have to be ready for the worst. you have to be prepared. it may be a natural disaster. it may be that your husband dies. it may be that you and your husband both lose your jobs at the same time. get yourself a back log of food and many, if not most, mormon families in this country have at least a three-month supply of food. charlie: the president said in one of his statements we don't want to wake up in ten years and say why didn't we do something.

it is one of the things the president has said. >> indeed he has. charlie: and it seems the president is the person ultimately responsible for doing it. >> in his state of the union address. charlie: should he be held accountable for not doing something, just talking about it? >> look, the poor man has a lot on his plate. charlie: oh, stop that. a lot on his plate. sound like the people you want to talk to saying i'm busy, i don't have the time. the president is busy. i'm giving him a pass. >> i'm not giving him a pass. i'm giving you the answer you will get from the administration, the president has a lot on his plate. what is being done, for example, there is a required three-star general who is working together with a colleague. i've got a few paragraphs on him in the book. charlie: right. >> and their theory is -- it's more than a theory. they say look, the u.s. navy has been using the small nuclear generators on navy ships for the past 50 years and we have not had a single accident.

why don't we put these nuclear generators on military bases around the country so that, a, the military has a guaranteed supply of electricity? and b, the surplus of electricity that they produce could then be used to support hospitals and all kinds of infrastructure in the local community. wonderful idea. if indeed it is approved, it will take ten years to implement it. hasn't been approved. charlie: you should start today. >> they should have started yesterday. that's what i'm hoping -- i'm hoping that we will get a national debate started, charlie. not even a debate. a conversation. charlie: let me just talk about you. how do you view "nightline" in your life? >> oh, in my life? charlie: yeah. >> well -- charlie: here you are, let me do

this. one, born in england. went to stanford. ended up as a radio reporter for abc, was it? >> it was. charlie: and television, diplomatic correspondent. you said some wonderful things about henry kissinger because you covered him well. you and marvin calb and others when he was secretary of state. then we have the hostage taking. goes to you -- >> not really arledge goes to dan rather. dan, we have this late-night show, we're going to make it a personal anticipate the show. i would like you to come over from abc to do that show and dan says thank you but no thanks. charlie: anchorman of cbs news at the time? >> yes. i think what dan was doing, he was being the chief. because roger mudd was next in line to replace walter cronkite. and by taking dan away, he wanted, ruan wanted to create

trouble for cbs. so cbs had to offer dan the evening job, and they did. he offered it to my old friend tom brokaw. tom said thanks but no thanks. he offered it to roger mudd. roger said thanks but no thanks. so -- charlie: he offered it to ted koppel -- >> ok. ted -- charlie: was it to do a week of shows or two shows or it was a commitment to do what? >> it was a commitment -- at that point, remember it had been america held hostage, day 326. whatever it was at that point. and abc was losing money hand over fist because it was a special. it wasn't a regularly scheduled permanent program. so they couldn't put advertising on it.

and as each month or two goes by, they're losing another million dollars. and so finally the folks over at abc headquarters say, got to do something about this. and they say, well, let us -- let's turn it into a permanent program. and that's how "nightline" was born. charlie: when was that? >> that was in march of 1980. charlie: right. and it lasted for 25 years? in terms of you. >> in terms of me, it lasted almost 26 years. charlie: 26 years. why did you leave? >> look, i left -- charlie: everybody says to me look, i'm exasperated to have to tell you this. >> i'm not exasperated. it's just two of the sad realities about our business. sad reality number one is "nightline" at one point had been making a ton of money for abc. i mean really a ton of money.

but as cable television came along, satellite television came along, the number of competing programs on the air becomes greater and greater and greater. charlie: right. >> the cost of paying all of the salaries, my salary, the salaries of all of the people who were very loyal to the program and to me who stayed with the program and when folks in network television stay somewhere for 10 years, 12 years, 5 years -- charlie: 25 years. >> -- 25 years, they don't expect their salaries to go down at the end of each contract, they expect them to go up. so we're costing more and more money. we're earning less and less money, and there are folks who are very gently coming to me and saying, ted, these programs you do on foreign policy and these programs that you do on all of these serious issues at "nightline," they're awfully good. they really are. we can't deny it. but have you thought about -- they didn't quite say the

kardashians, but the implication was if we could just get a little more showbiz into this thing. if we could just lighten it up a little bit. if you could just appeal to a younger audience. and at that point i was 65 and i thought, you know something, it's time to go. charlie: at some point they didn't offer you what you wanted or -- >> no, it wasn't that. charlie: at some point they got tired of three days a week? >> i think they were tired of three days a week. i think they were tied of paying me an exorbitant amount of money for three days a week. and they were very nice about it. my old friend -- one of your colleagues -- charlie: president of the news division. >> brilliant job as anchor. looks better than you. looks better than me and is smarter than both of us. he's doing a good job. he said, how would you like to do "this week "? i don't think so.

don't think so. charlie: why not? you know, the argument is -- this is the perceived conventional wisdom and may be just that. you were not that interested in american politics. >> that's true. that's true. charlie: you're not a perfect fit for that and you knew it. >> well, wait a second. at that point in time, i think it was still feasible to say you don't have to do these sunday morning programs on domestic politics every single week of the year. you just don't have to. there are, after all, really important things going on in other parts of the world. there are really important things going on that had nothing to do with politics. and my feeling has always been that that should have been what these sunday morning programs do. but i get it. they have -- they have been very successful at doing politics and

nothing but politics. but i must tell you, i don't watch those shows. i listen to them. charlie: podcast? >> they're rebroadcast on c-span and sunday afternoons i go for a long walk and i put on my headset and i listen to all of the programs one after another. and they're all the same. they're all the same. there's nothing really new on them. charlie: ok. so whatever happened, happened as you described obviously. you and abc came to a parting of the ways. >> and it was an amicable parting. charlie: you had a lot of money and this big place on chesapeake bay and kids and grace ann was now happy to have her teddy back home. >> i hope so. yes. charlie: what did you do? did you get bored? did you write books? >> no, no, no. charlie: did you become a fisherman? did you develop new talents? did you do what george bush did? did you go and learn how to paint? what did you do?

>> no, no. i worked as an analyst on bbc america. charlie: well, bbc america, you're an analyst. >> i was an analyst. i did the same thing for npr radio. charlie: yeah, ok. >> at the same time. i ended up spending a couple of years working for my friends over at nbc news when brian williams had a brief fling with a magazine program. charlie: that's right. you were one of his -- part of that. >> i was a special correspondent. charlie: why the network? >> i don't know. yes, i do. i think -- charlie: sure you do. >> i think it didn't work because nbc kept moving it. it would be on -- whenever the hell it was on. monday night. and then they say would say we're moving it to wednesday.

and then wednesday night. we're going to move it to thursday. you can't build a loyal following, and you can't build a local following in two years. it takes a while. if cbs had lost patience with "60 minutes" after two years, which they might -- charlie: it took more than two years. >> it would have been gone. charlie: then they found sunday night and everything worked. >> exactly. charlie: what's interesting to me is i think you were "nightline." "nightline" was you. this was a case, you know, as famously churchill said about entering 10 downing for world war ii, everything prepared me for this. you were the perfect person to do that show and it was the perfect fit. >> while it was that show. but if it was to become something different, which clearly it has -- charlie: it has. >> -- i was't the right guy for that. charlie: that's true. you tried to expand to an hour and tried to shrink it back. >> i didn't try to expand it. abc was making so much money at

that point, they said do it for an hour. i said, i really think that's a bad idea. it was a terrible idea. we almost killed "nightline" in its second year. finally after about nine, ten months of doing that the powers to be conceded that this was not a good idea and we went back to half an hour. charlie: here you are 75 now. looking great. looking in great health. written a book that everybody's talking about. >> thank you. charlie: what else do you want to do other than spend time with grace ann? >> i might do occasional pieces for a good -- i mean, i'm -- i'm fascinated by sunday morning cbs programs. charlie: it's a good program. >> very good program. they do great pieces. they have been nice enough to say they might want me to do a couple of pieces. and doing a piece every couple of months, that would be lovely. charlie: and you don't need much money. you got all of that money. it's not an issue.

>> it's not an issue. it better not be an issue. because then i got to pay at any rate. charlie: i know cbs. but the idea is that it has to be a compelling story that you wanted to tell. >> it has to be compelling to me. charlie: yeah. >> i will give you an example of a story i would love to do. in mumbai, india, they are now arresting restaurant owners who are serving beef. now, mumbai, the former bombay, is a very cosmopolitan city but it is a largely hindu city. and even though there are muslims in mumbai who have restaurants which were attended by people like you and me who come from overseas, people are getting five-year prison terms for serving hamburger. that's a hell of a story. charlie: really is a story. >> i would love to do that story. charlie: and india has the second largest muslim population in the world. >> yes. even though most of india's muslims are now in pakistan. charlie: it's great to have you

here. >> charlie, it's always a delight. it really is. charlie: thank you. >> you make subjecting one self to an interview such a pleasure. ♪

charlie: steve martin and edie brickell are here. steve called their musical partnership a giant accident. this accident has led to two highly acclaimed albums, grammy and new broadway musical. conan o'brien said of martin, he's the first man in history to inspire the phrase, hey, everyone, quiet down, i'm trying to hear the banjo! followup to the grammy award winning debut album released on friday, here's the trailer for "so familiar." ♪

charlie: i'm pleased to have steve martin and edie brickell at this table. welcome. congratulations. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. charlie: you said this was a giant accident, this partnership. what did you mean? >> i meant that it was -- it was not by design. it was kind of a coincidence and then we had such great fortune come from it. i mean, i'm not talking financially, i'm talking artistically. it was just a couple of bits of serendipity that edie ran into me at a party and said, i would like to write a song with you. i had never written a song with anybody. so i'm kind of nodding, yeah, sure. i thought, this is edie brickell. i got to call her. i said i would.

and we got together. charlie: before you got together, did you send her something? >> yes. actually, the first time we didn't. i just came over to your house and i said, i got this song. >> we played but we were both so shy. i actually couldn't believe he was showing me a tune. i thought that would just -- the suggestion would just float away like feathers in the wind. and here he was. >> we didn't really know how to work together or how it was done. so i would play the song and edie would kind of walk around with it and we're both a little tense and finally she said, why don't you just record it and i will spend some time -- ok, i recorded it and she sent me a beautiful tune. which is in our musical now "sun is going to shine." charlie: tell us about the musical. >> it's hard to discuss. it's going to open at the kennedy center in december and

then it's coming to broadway in march. and it's -- the music is based around the type of music that we write. we agreed that we both love musicals and we both grew up on them. and one of the great assets of those musicals were very strong melodies, and that's kind of the way we think we write or try to write. we found a story and the story -- am i talking too much? charlie: what were you surprised about with steve? >> his heart. i knew that he was a really smart guy. everybody knows how funny he is. but he sent me a version of the script very early on. and he's written the most beautiful scene. and i wept because it had so much heart and love in it that i -- i was moved. i did. i actually saw it. then i went to pick up the phone, i said, i cannot believe you have written this. insulting, of course. the most gorgeous thing. charlie: you're much better than i thought you would be. >> i think edie and i work alike in that we're -- i don't think

either of us is crazy. we get along. we don't make demands. we collaborate and work together. charlie: what was your training? >> i don't have any training. singing around the house. charlie: is that it? >> my mom singing around the house. she allowed for a house that was not shy. charlie: music in the house. >> so much music. there was always -- it was like sound track to life going on. we were encouraged to sing along. charlie: what's the process for writing a song? >> well, with steve i'm inspired by his banjo track and personality and melody of the banjo. images just settle in my consciousness when i listen to it. all i have to do is pay attention and narrate them. and then the music obviously dictates how you're going to sing and what key. and just to pay attention and be in the present moment. >> you also have many ways of writing songs. the way we defined it is one

thing. but i know you could improvise a new song. >> i love to improvise. that's my favorite thing to do. just pay attention to what's flowing through consciousness. charlie: how does -- steve brings out the best in you. >> by the way, likewise. likewise. >> thank you. charlie: how does that work? just because she understands what your capable of -- >> here's what great what i think the best collaboration is, is when the other person is doing something you cannot do or not do as well. and so edie's lyrics, she's written the lyrics for our show and i think they're stunning. first of all, i didn't know -- when you write a musical -- whether you write a regular song, one person is singing. when you write a musical song, you have several people singing in their various characters. edie showed that she excelled at that, giving opinions, coming back and forth in the scenes. and you have an extra challenge in a musical that the song

doesn't just simply reiterate the scene that came before it. otherwise, yeah the audience goes yeah, we know that. the song has to reveal new information or new story or new thoughts. charlie: to move the story. >> right. charlie: you have said he doesn't write stock banjo parts. the music. >> they aren't banjo parts like i ever really heard before. they're very melodic and not that really fast -- not what i would expect. he plays in an original way, i think. that's how i hear it. charlie: you say this is not bluegrass, this is americana because you can do more things. >> well, you know, bluegrass is a very well-defined genre and it generally means guitar, mandolin, violin, bass but our music is -- i don't want to say

broader just using more instruments and swings a different way, away from bluegrass. not always. there are bluegrass songs in the show. but i don't define this as bluegrass musical at all. i think of it as music. charlie: take a look at this. this is about you and edie performing the grammy award winning song "love has come for you." here it is. charlie: is performing in front ♪

♪ charlie: is performing in front of an audience, singing and playing the banjo, is it the same sensation as stand-up comedy? >> well, actually in that show that you saw that we taped -- i'm so glad we taped it with the steve canyon rangers and edie. we toured that show for several years. it was constantly changing. so i'm glad we have some kind of record of the way it was at that

time. but it has a lot of comedy in that show. so it's actually kind of ideal because i don't have to do an hour and a half of stand-up, which is really, really hard. i get to, you know, break it up with a song, make some jokes with the band. make a joke with edie. and then start another song. and it's a nice, relaxing way to work. charlie: ok. this is a clip from the music video for "won't go back" off their new album. here we go. ♪

>> ♪ never, never, never, never going back ♪ charlie: here's what you went through, playing the banjo, it's like you're sitting at home and your spouse says to you oh, look i see jerry seinfeld is doing an evening of original songs he wrote for the bassoon. >> i forgot about that line. charlie: steve martin's playing the banjo tonight. oh, my god. but you passed that point. >> i have been playing for over 50 years. but i say i just started playing with a band. it was eight years ago now. so that's another thing too, to do.

charlie: why is banjo your instrument of preference? >> from the first time i heard it, i loved it. i loved it for several reasons. one, it had this -- it has this ability to be played at high speed, hard, driving, fast speed. but what i really was interested in it for was its capacity for melancholy. it's a very american sound. it's like -- copeland never used it but he sort of didn't need to. charlie: right. >> but i really love the idea of banjo with strings, which we do in our show. it's an emotive instrument. it's gone through a huge complex history. charlie: how did the musical come about? did you decide you had a narrative and story you wanted to tell? >> we had discussed that we both loved musicals. and it was a little bit of a

challenge in our mind, like yeah, that seems like a really good challenging thing. but then we start about it for probably six months before we started because we had to find the right idea. charlie: you said every time you get a new banjo, there's a song waiting to come out. >> yes, i found that to be true. if i ever bought a new banjo for one reason or another, you pick it up and start playing and go where did that come from? but you only get that one song per banjo. that's spontaneous. charlie: is it fair to say you didn't take the badge banjo seriously until later? >> i took it seriously but i had another life going on. i was doing movies and i would practice in the trailer. that's how you pass -- charlie: always a part of your life. >> yeah, always was. less present then as it is now. now it's really, really present. charlie: why is that? because you're not doing the other things and -- >> well, you know, we have something to do. we made two records. we have done a musical. you're always thinking and you have to write new songs for the

new album. and it's really a nice process. and also, you know, you develop friends. new friends, new people in your life that are -- i found the people in bluegrass to be so wonderful and kind and generous and talented and really smart. charlie: much success. it's great to see you. >> thank you very much. charlie: we really enjoyed it. thank you for bringing out the best in him. >> we're going to keep talking. just roll the tape. we will keep talking. charlie: we will have a long, long tape. but you did perform for us and i'm thrilled to have you here. take a look at this as we go away. ♪ we're supposed to be together i know i feel it down deep in my soul

we're never meant to be a part i keep you here inside of my heart i always have always will always, always, always will i always have, always will, always, always, always, will we're supposed to be together it's true i had my doubts but not about you we're never meant to be apart i love you now i have from the start i always have, always will, always, always, always will i always have always will always, always, always, will

♪ i always have always will always, always, always, will i always have i always will always, always, always will ♪

♪ narrator: our world today is wealthier than ever, but not everybody shares in the wealth. today's young business leaders are challenging this. changing the way we are thinking about money, its power, and its purpose. this is a new generation. this is the new philanthropy. beatrice trussardi is part of one of italy's most famous fashion families.