>> rose: welcome to our program, tonight david brooks of "the new york times" on president obama and the political deal in washington. >> with the key thing about this deal is how big it was. now it would have been easy to cut a deal over a couple of things, unemployment insurance or tax rates. but what they conducted and completed a very complicated set of negotiations. and that is not easy or automatic. and the fact that they could do a complicated and very big bill or proposal, that's impressive. and that shows there's some actual guts there, there's some actual ability to work together and create complicated legislation. so that's a significant as what is in it, the fact they really had this complicated negotiations. >> rose: was there essential unit within-- uniti within the republican. >> let's say there is debate in the republican right now. outside the leadership there

were certainly a lot of people unhappy with this deal. >> rose: and we conclude this evening with a conversation about music with sting. >> i think the idea is to create a unique signature like a fingerprint. with your voice. so that when you sing on the radio, whether people like your voice or not or like wh you do, they recognize who you are. and that's really what the x factor is. it is to the like sounding other people, you sound exactly like yourself. and also if you do that you have to have some kind of unique message to you, to your history, to the way you think. to your education. to your philosophy. >> rose: brooks and sting when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose was provided by the following. maybe you want school kids to have more exposure to the arts.

maybe you want to provide meals for the needy. or maybe you want to help when the unexpected happens. whatever you want to do, members project from american express can help you take the first step. vote, volunteer, or donate for the causes you believe in at membersproject.com. take charge of making a difference. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose.

>> rose: we begin tonight with a wrap-up of an important week in politics. president obama announced a deal on tuesday that will extend all the bush tax cuts for two more years. in exchange the republican leadership agreed to continue unemployment benefits for 13 more months. some within the democratic party are criticizing the president for caving to republican demands. the republicans have critics within their own party as well. house democrats who still control the chamber until the end of the year rejected the framework of the compromise in a preliminary vote yesterday. earlier today the president met with former president bill clinton. president clinton held forth for nearly 30 minutes after his conversation with with the president and here's part of what he said to the press. >> just about every day this week i've been making an argument as to why the agreement that we've struck to provide billions of dollars in payroll tax cuts, that can immediately help rejuvenate the economy as well as tax cuts for middle-class families,

unemployment insurance for folks who desperately need it, credits for college, credits for child tax credits, as well was a range of business investment credits are so important to make sure that we keep this recovery moving. >> i can only tell you that my economic analysis is that given all the alternatives that i can imagine actually becoming law, this is the best economic result for america. and i think it is enormous relief for america to think that both parties might vote for something, anything, that they could both agree on. and there is no way you can have a compromise without having something in the bill that you don't like. >> rose: joining me now from washington, david brooks of "the new york times". i'm pleased to have him back on this program. welcome. >> good to be with you, charlie, again. >> rose: tell me where we are at the end of this week. >> well, depends who you ask. if you ask some of the house

democrats or bernie sanders in the senate, barack obama has become the second coming of arthur-- sort of a swing to the sharp right. if you ask my friend charles krauthammer he is the greatest swindler forever and he has totally snookered the republicans and got a completely left wing deal. so i think what we've got here, we have a compromise. they reached a negotiation. obama had an extremely weak hand. the republicans are going to take control of the house in a couple of weeks. this tax bill was running out. they were about to be tax increases on everybody. there were a bunch of senate democrats from red state was wanted to extend all the tax cuts. so the hand was very weak. and so it was pretty much inevitable he was going to have to cave in and raise tacks on the rich, which he didn't want to do, and everybody else. yet in exchange for that i think his negotiators a the budget director and tim geithner i think struck a physically good deal given the circumstances. they got the extension of the unemployment insurance, or income tax, they got college scholarships, they

got a payroll tax. they got a lot of things which they wanted and so what we end up with, economically, is a budgette busting stimulus package which we hope works and politically something strange in washington, a bipartisan deal. i'm not sure it will hold but we actually had a negotiation. and nobody's quite happy with the outcome but we had negotiation. this is what politics is supposed to be about, i think it is right there. >> rose: so why did the republicans make the deal they made? >> well, they wanted to cut taxes. and they wanted to cut the taxes on the rich because in their mind, it will-- half of small business in this extremely fragile environment should not be hit for the tax increase. and it would just be devastating for them psychologically and probably as far as their incentives go to be hit by a big tax increases when the economy is really pretty still pretty rotten. and then the things the democrats wanted, some of the things the republicans are pretty amenable to, cutting the payroll tax and the other tough they could live with. i think the interesting things on the republican side, and there were a lot of republicans like charles krauthammer, basically the

entire right wing talk community are against it they came in saying we are trying to-- deficits and this explodes deficits. there is a lot of opposition on the right on those grounds. i guess the argument i would make to them is we all want to control deficits. we all want to control debt. but we're not going to be able to do that if the economy is like it is. we're just not going to be able to do that unless we get a healthy economy where people are going to be willing to take some hits. and so it's probably worth it to do short term stimulus to try to get to a spot maybe in a year or two where we can begin to think about some austerity measures. >> rose: a couple of points other people made one is paul krugman your fellow columnist said this morning, as you made the argument you just made, that in fact, while this may be a short term stimulus what it means is the economy is to the going to be good when barack obama runs for re-election. and not going to be trending well. >> yeah, well the difference i would have with paul is that i think he puts too

much faith in some of the models. so according to his argument is that in 2011 the stimulus will help the economy but in 2012 the stimulus will sort of fade away and so the economy will trend down. you know, i don't think we have that tight of control. we can't just turn the economy on and off like turning a switch. i think we try to boost the economy this year. you know, i have no great faith in stimulus but it is probably worth a shot. if we boost it this year, if we boost it over 2011 with payroll cuts with the other tax cuts, maybe we'll get some momentum. we'll get some liftoff. and so maybe it will help long-term. i don't think you can say we're going to churn in level x in 2011 and therefore it will go, the economy as a whole will go up by y and then churn down x in 2012. i just don't think we have that kind of fine-tuning control over the economy. so what we know out of this is we're going to give it another kick. we had the quantitative easing a couple weeks ago. the previous stimulus. we're giving it another kick it will probably produce some growth. i don't know how much but it will probably produce some growth. >> rose: and the president's

tone in all of this, i saw another piece by peggy noonan attack the president basically saying, you know, basically saying that he was saying i don't want to do this, this is the wrong thing to do, but i have to do t i have no choice. >> i think that is right. one of the things he learned i think, i think i can speak with somewhat informed view on this, is that you know, you come into the white house thinking you can pretty much run things. you're the president. but you learn you need outside institution, you need a lot of outside help. so you can't run the country on its own despite the cult of the presidency that sometimes develops. so he just couldn't-- he has to negotiate. he has his views. but other people get a say. and being president is about building bridges. i think he did a pretty good job of building bridges. now his tone in the press conference this week was fascinating. >> rose: yeah. >> because he was so exasperated everybody left and right, sanctimonious, purists, hostage takers, blackmailers. >> rose: that is what she was speaking to and what i am speaking to. >> one of the things he has to say is in politics you have a position. and sometimes you have to

move off your position. that's not a contradiction, that's just how life is. and so i would hope he would explain how politics works. a little better, maybe without some of the anger and rancor-- rancor o-- rancor he showed. secondly from what i heard from the white house today he has gotten over that and is in pretty good spirits. it is no disclosure to say he had lunch with some of his left wing critics today and he was in fine spirits. i think some of the frustration and peek, because maybe that was a piece of the moment, when he is being attacked from all sides. but you know, he's just got to say, hey, listen, i'm cutting deals that is how politics works. and he's got to be able to do that probably with a little more-- a little better description of his meth. it's not a purist game. >> rose: so what did we learn about him that he is in the end a, you said a what, network principles is what he showed. did we learn that he essentially at the core a guy who knows what his goal is and he will make deals,

he will be pragmatic to get there? >> yeah, i think so. you know, i've had this argument with my republican friends and i make the case until i'm blue in the face. i have had absolutely no success in making this case, that he's a liberal pragmatist, sure he is a liberal but he's willing to change because he is pretty much a pragmatic guy. i made this case to the american enterprise institute last week and every head in the room shook like i'm crazy. because they think he is very doctrine air, orthodox liberal who will never move. i think the events in the past week show he will move. that if you are a republican thinkinging there thinking about tax reform, thinking about entitlement reform, you actually do have somebody to work with. and if you are a democrat, you better say okay, let's make our positions, but maybe we can compromise. and if you are an orthodox liberal who thinks we never should compromise because the republicans are evil hostage takers, then i guess you should be nervous because he will make compromise. >> rose: so you were in a debate with paul ryan who obviously is a very smart guy who you have applauded, made a number of appearances

on this program, you didn't convince him of your definition of barack obama. >> no, no, i didn't. and it's funny. you see, and he's a phenomenally smart guy. the room was filled with phenomenalfully-- phenomenally smart people. i got e-mails from phenomenally smart people but it is a firm conviction on the right, at least until this week, that obama is very left wing, very doctrineair, very inflexible and that has explained a lot-- that is the sincere belief on the right. i don't share it but it's a sincere belief and it motivates a lot of conservative behavior that they don't have anybody they can negotiate with. and republicans, and democrats, by the way, think they don't have anybody to negotiate with. i think they are both sort of right and sort of wrong. >> rose: you made a point in the column today, others have speculated whether he will go clinton's route or will he go truman's route and attack the congress. and you argued, you know, that he shows in a third way. >> yeah, i mean but it's not the third way. he, you know, think of teddy kennedy.

ted kennedy, nobody questioned whether he was a liberal or not. yet i remember when he cut the deal with george w. bush on no child left behind. he had to make some real concessions there. i remember he spent a year negotiating with john mccain on immigration reform bill. he had to make some real concessions there. ted kennedy was a guy who knew that sometimes you couldn't get what you wanted. you have to make some concession. and i think one of his regrets later in life is he didn't make enough concessions on an earlier health-care bill. so that is what this is. this is not obama moving to the center. it is not try angulation where you try to rise above politics. it is taking out a firm position which he said in his press conference, which was he is against raising taxes on the upper-class. and yet saying the politics is what it is. the situation is what it is. i have got to make this concession. i would say to house democrats, who don't like the deal, well a, i understand the frustration because he didn't call. i understand house democrats made a lot of sacrifices for him and they feel there is no loyalty in return. i sort of understand that political thing.

but hey, they lost the election. they lost 63 seats. the dem-- the president was put in this very impossible position. he did pretty good under the circumstances. >> rose: some house democrats have appeared on this program and said to me, i saw no evidence that he fought hard for our point of view. >> yeah, you know, i think he did fight. i think you saw his position. but he could read the political tea leaves. you know, you had anthony wiener on the show a little while ago. and you know, they have-- you know, when i was watching then, i realized, wiener and obama, i think have different views of the world. wiener really thinks there is an implacable war between right and left and that what you do to win that war is you marshal your forces an hit them hard. and he was quite vocal about that. i don't think obama sees that. he doesn't want to fight that kind of politics. he sees a constellation of various interests out there. and he thinks you can negotiate. you can out cut deals. and so that means sometimes you have to come off your position, sometimes you have to divide your own troops. but that's how you

negotiate. and these are two very different theories about how government works. and we've seen them put on display. >> rose: you refer to the fact you know something about this and indeed you do. is it obama going back to something, back to lessons he learned as a community organizer, back to a campaign or is it obama going to something? >> well w i think, you know, after the election the people in the white house and others around him were saying what should we do. you know, should there be a clinton style reinvention. and i think he had the sense that maybe he was defined by the financial crisis, not by what he wanted to do. but i think in general it's safe to say he's not a person who believes in these reinvention campaigns. and so he wanted to, i think there was a sense that maybe they need to rediscover and not reinvent obama but go back to the core principles. and the core principles in the 2004 convention speech or 2008 speech was that he is a democrat who believes that we're one america, that we're one country.

and that we can talk to each other. and that was what drew nips to him in the first place. that was what he lost, i think, in 2009 and 2010. and now obviously he's got to win back independence and the way to do that, is to be who pu were when you won them in the first place. and so i think it is back to first principleses. rather than some move to the center or some reinvention campaign. >> do you believe that the independence are in play, that, in fact, as they went with him in 2008 and against him in 2010, they are prepared to move again based on their own analysis of what they see is in the national interest? >> yeah, i think they're still flexible. obviously a lot of them sided with with the republicans. a lot of them just dropped out of the electorate. but one of the things the independents don't like, they don't like the deficit, that is one of it. but one of the things they don't like is the way washington works. think about how americans live now. they're on facebook. they're using social networking sites. they're using the new

technologies and they're building networks. they're connecting with people. they're connecting with world college friends, old high school friends, old camp friends, they're behavinging way normal people are which is reaching out and bridging and building communities. and then they look to washington and they see people in the parties not doing that but building walls. and living in insurance lar communities. tand sus-- insular communities, it seems crazy. so i think a lot of the repull shun with washington is that washington is to the behaving the rest of the country is in this period of high technology, this period of really networking with. and so they liked obama because he was willing to say, yeah, i am willing to talk to this person, that person. and do deals. and he did it in harvard law skoochl he did it in the senate with tom coburn a very conservative republican. he stopped doing that. and i think they're in play if he is willing to do it again. >> rose: you say he stopped doing that. that means he became, in a sense, a captive of a wing of the party or he became captive of congressional democrats? >> yeah, this is sort of a

paradox to me, you think when you become president, you are the president of the whole country. you think it would make you broaden your reach. broaden your contacts. and now i've watched two presidents, george w. bush and barack obama, especially in the first two years of office, narrow their content-- context. and i think partly because their day is so busy, i think they come to distrust the outside world. they think only they understand what is really going on. but there seems to be some insurance larity provoking exercise to being president. and it has been destructive to both president sees. and o bachla, i think, did a poor job of reaching out to democrats in the congress. did a poor job of reaching out to republicans for sure, barely talking to people like mitch mcconnell. and did a poor job, frankly, of reaching out to a lot of democrats around washington who could give him some good advice if he asked. he had a very small circle. even within his own administration there are a lot of very smart people in there who don't really get a chance to see him and share their advice. and so there was an insularity

there. and it has happened to two presidents. and that part is probably got to change. it's funny talking to people in congress, democrats and republicans, they talk about the clinton administration and the george h.w. bush administration as pretty good at congressional relations, really making the calls, making the contacts. the last two administrations, not so much. >> rose: so you have a dialogue with the president. does he acknowledge this, does he understand this, that these were the mistakes that were made? >> i think i am a journalist so he treats me as a journalist. >> rose: fair enough but you could have a conversation with journalists, the last time i checked. >> yeah, no, that's fair. you know, so i'm not sure i know everything that goes on. i know what he wants me to think and what he wants me to argue. >> rose: well then, do you know whether he has looked at his self and said i was too insular, i didn't reach out, i made these mistakes, i was captive to a certain element of the party, and it wasn't smart. >> he never said that to me. and the people i know in the white house, i don't think i have ever heard them say he

said it to them. what they would say is that, you know, events happened. they had to respond to events. and in the course of that responding to the financial crisis, maybe they didn't get to be the kind of administration they wanted to be. and maybe they didn't get to change washington they wanted to. well, guess what, they have another chance. one of the things that is striking about washington these days is the number of back channel conversations that are now happening. even in public if you looked at the deficit commission you had dick durbin and tom coburn both embracing that commission. and that is reflective of a lot of stuff that is happening below the surface. in the last couple of days on npr and elsewhere, the president has talked about doing some tax reform. well, that, those conversations i think are pretty serious, maybe more serious than he let on. and i'm not sure they made any decisions. i take them at his word at that. but i think there have been pretty serious decisions about exactly how to do some big tax reform among republicans and democrats. there have been some other really big conversations that are going on.

about really fundamental welfare state reform. no big decisions but the atmosphere has totally changed for your basic public policy if are you sitting out there in the brookings institution this is like a superexciting time. because things are being fundamentally talked about, the question will be can the president force these private bipartisan conversations beyond the crust of partisanship so it actually comes out in public and we can have these conversations. and that's why i think this week was a good week. because he really has broken through some of the partisan crust, cut a deal, made a lot of people unhappy, up set the crockery but really loosened things up for the big conversations that we need to have. >> i will come to that. but did, when you talked to the people that made the deal with him, what is their impression. what did they say. >> culture moves slowly and ideas move slowly. and i guess i would say if people have really looked at barack obama and say hey, he's bill clinton or hey, he's something. i don't think there's been a

shift, a basic shift in his perception. i think they would say hey, he had no choice. and so it will take, it's not like nirvana has broken out here. and we're in a debating society. it's notñr there yet. but it was a step in the right direction. and the fact is, the fact is, this, the key thing about this deal was how big it was. now it would have been easy to cut a deal over a couple of things. unemployment insurance or tax rates. but what they conducted and completed a very complicated set of negotiations. and that is not easy or automatic. and the fact that they could do a complicated and very big bill or proposal, that's impressive. and that shows there is some actual guts there, there's some actual ability to work together and create complicated legislation. so that's a significant as what is in it, the fact they really had this really complicated negotiations. >> was there essential unit within the republicans from mitch mcconnell to boehner,

to paul ryan to other republicans. >> i think on this there is not a lot of unity, let's say there are debates in the republican party right now. outside the leadership there were certainly a lot of people unhappy with this deal. a lot of people think it's-- you know, we can't pay on reducing the debt. we are not even in office and we are already exploding the debt. so there was a lot of opposition in the republican party about this deal, a lot of unease about the things they gave up. and that reflects in general, i think, some serious debates going on among republicans about how serious to be about deficit reduction and how to be serious about it. the biggest debates over whether republicans should finally take on entitlements and some of that stuff, some of the members really want to do it. the leadership, not so much. and the big thing to look for, in the next several months there are going to be a couple of huge events. first will be state of the unit which will be obama chance to redefine himself for the rest of the term.

will he take up serious debt reex-- reduction. and then the vote we have on raising the debt. that will be a big debate about spending cuts. and then in april, in the spring, we're going to have rival budgets. the president's going to have his budget. paul ryan is going to have his budget. and they're going to be different. and so that will be the crucial moment of definition for both parties. i think ryan would like to have a quite dramatic budget, really cutting spending. and it's funny, i have spoke tone a lot of people who have really been counselling the freshman, the republican senate, freshman i think there are about 80 of them. and they've got one message. we came here, the government out of control. we came here to cut it. they say do you really want to cut medicare, do you really want to cut this dow really want to cut that. they say we came here to cut it. we came here to cut it. so they will impressing people as a probably more smarter bunch than maybe they are taken out for. they are not a bunch of yahoo!, knuckle dragger types but for their resolve to cut spending. and they are going to be pushing hard for some

serious spending cuts. right into the bone of government. we'll see if the leadership can tamp them down. if not, we're going to have a big fight in the spring over budget. >> rose: what do you make of the 9/11 vote on the relief for people injured in 9/11. >> yeah, you know, there have been a bunch of things that have happened. you know, this has been a good week. i think we've really had negotiations. but a lot of stuff has happened this week which is just back to the future. i mean it's just depressing. i think that vote. i think the whole legislative rig ma role over don't ask don't tell. where according to susan collins, and joe leiberman they had 60 votes, they had enough votes in principles to repeal don't ask don't tell. and they don't, they can't do it because of-- because the extraneous politics of it. and so i think we've had a series of things, again it's like good washington and let's say bad washington and less bad washington. we've had less bad washington with the deal. but bad washington is still out there. the game, the scoring of points and the trivialities.

that's still here. >> how do you explain john mccain? >> with you know, i don't. i covered, i loved covering himing. i spent a lot of time with him. one of my favorite guys to cover. and i have to say, just to be honest, i haven't spoken to him in several years. he has lost interest in speaking with anybody from "the new york times". you know, people have their theories about his shift to the right. people have-- some people are embarrassed by some of the ads he cut while running for office. i guess i have no special knowledge. the only thing i would say is, and i will say this in general, i've never met a politician who ran for president and lost and who was unaffected by it. people may think they're going to be unaffected by it. but people get affected by it. >> rose: some argue that we're now, and this is-- we're in a point in which he has got to explain things. and this is a point you raised. he's got to deal with big issues, tax reform would be one. but he's got to be able to explain things.

is that within his core competence. >> yeah, i think it is his core competence. explaining things in the same-- . >> rose: in the same way that president clinton can explain things? >> well, you know, for him, he's got to know what year it is, what the country wants. you know, my explanation for why he lost, he just didn't know what the country wants. he thought health care would be popular. you got to be in an insular place to think health care is gos to be popular. country is deeply suspicious of government is not going to be popular. he has to understand what the country wants. to me what the country, the core issue of the coming election will be american decline. 65% of americans think the country is in decline. people have a sense that china is rising 678 we're fading. that's the core issue. and they don't want their kids to grow up in that america. and so he's got to say what you need me for is to get rid of this gridlock which is stagnated our politics. and i'm going to dot serious things. and i think, you know, i think he's reasonably well equipped to be that

candidate. so i would not write him off. even if we have an unemployment rate about 8% in 2012. but he's got to really address that fundamental thing, fear of decline. it's not the economy, it's not everything else. it is fear of decline. that's what the election is going to be about. >> rose: more so than the role of government? >> yeah, you know, people have abstract debates about the role of government. but people in practice have very complicated views. and this last election was about the role of government because it was expanding so rapidly. believe me in the next year it is to the going to be expanding rapidly. >> rose: i think are you absolutely right. it is clearly to me the dominant idea, because people don't quite understand how to do things that they would like to do and how it fits into the construct of american decline. for example, it clearly needs to be a certain kind of investment. and can we afford to do that within the political constraints we have. but clearly education and investment in certain kinds of things that will make us

a more competitive nation also have an impact and are at the core of choices that have to be made. and you can explain those choices in a way that will bring people to understanding and support, is a critical moment. >> right, and what he's got to do is explain what america's role is going to be in the 21st century. my frustration of him, he gave a speech at georgetown which i think he would describe it as core economic philosophy. tand was called the new foundationment but foundations for what. i don't think he's really explained that. who are we. and i guess i would say is the beginning of an explanation that our role in the 21st century is going to be as a crossroad nation. because we are the only universal nations on earth, we're the only nation where people come from all over the world. and we've got ties to all over the world. and we're the place where people want to come because of 9 universities and everything else, to do their creating. and so we've got to be that place, sort of the crossroads, not a uni does polar power but in a

converging world with a lot of middle class to we ares, we're the place where people come and go and meet to do creating and to create brands, to create ideas. and how do we become that nation. are how do we enhance our role. we do a lot of research. spend a lot of money on research, spend a lot of money on universities. we fix our immigration system. and we create a tax code that rewards superstars to come here. and do what they want to do. and so it's-- that's the story or a story or the debate we fwheed to have. we had the 20th century where america was leading the race. well, we're not leading the race any more. there is a convergence of middle class global powers. an that's good. that's good for us. good for everybody. but it means the structure, the social structure of the world is different. it's not a race with us in front. it's a pact with a lot of people together. and what is our role in that pact. i think he's really got to define that. >> rose: that's a debate we have to have or we lose something important. >> yeah, no, you know, you

got to know who are you. we've always had great narratives in this country even when webster created the dictionary, i think there were about 6 million people in this country. and he said america needs a dictionary because we're going to be a country with 300 million people. they knew even then that this was going to be the big global power. and we had a sense that the course of empire moves westward. it moves it to us. and that was the underlying narrative for all of american politics whether it was henry clay or alexander hamilton or lewis & clark or jefferson, that was the underlying story. and we have crises where we think our story is going away at the end of the 19th century where there was the closing the frontier. and this created a crisis, who are we w we don't have any more land to explore. but that was solved. and those stories shape politics. and we're sort of without a story right now because of convergence of globalization.

and redefining it and showing how it is basically the same story but it's fit for a different time. that's behind a lot of the psychological anxiety that we face right now. >> rose: david brooks it is always a pleasure. thank you so much. >> okay, thank you, great to see you again, charlie. >> rose: david brooks from "the new york times". we'll be back in a moment. sting is here. stay with us. sting is here, he is a singer, a songwriter and a music legend. in a career that has spanned over 40 year he has never stopped he volume ofing. once part of the rock band police, he has also achieved great success as a solo performer. a member of the rock 'n' roll hall of fame, songwriters hall of fame. he has won, count them, 17 grammys, he has released more than 3058 bums. he says that this simply -- 30 albums, he says it makes him tired to talk about. it is what drives him, a curiosity that you can never really get to the end of music t is forever a journey. is his latest venture is a worldwide tour featuring his

classic songs reimagined for symphony orchestra. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ every little thing she doeses ♪ ♪ thing she does is magic ♪ ♪ without rhyme or reason

♪ rise up ♪ . >> rose: i'm pleased to welcome sting back to this table. >> good afternoon, sir. >> rose: how are you. >> i'm very well. >> rose: what did you think of that. >> with its's the first time i've seen it i kind of avoid watching myself. >> rose: but i saw you sort of stealing a look. >> i did steal a look and then i looked away, quickly, is that what i look like, is that what i do. >> rose: is that what i

sound like. >> it sounds all right. >> rose: do you think the sound has changed. >> i think the sound is much better now. the technology is so much better it actually does sound like music, now, it just sounded like noise before. but you know, working with a symphony orchestra, it's such a rich textured sound. it's fantastic to be in the middle of that. it's like being inside a wonderful stereo, you know. it's so, you know, when you have a rock band it's three rhymeary colors but with a symphony orchestra it a huge spectrum of fantastic light and shade. >> rose: this is your idea, i mean you basically said what would it sound like if i took these songs everybody wants to hear -- >> you know, i have these whims and sometimes i'm wise enough to express them and a whole group of people are like okay, let's do it that. and the next day it done. it is organized, i have a tour. but the initial idea was the chicago symphony who asked me to put together an hour's program for a benefit for them, actually. of my own material. so i like a challenge.

you know, i really do. so i went along there. i prepared an hour show and i wanted the orchestra, one of the finest in the world, to work hard. i didn't want to sit there and just play whole notes behind a balance add, kind of boring for they will. boring for me and boring for the audience. so i said let's get arrangements that really make them work to the best, the best they can do, steam coming out of their ears like they are playing straf inski. and that's exactly what we did. >> rose: but playing your songs. >> but playing with that kind of rhythmic focus and intensity and that energy. that is what i wanted. i didn't want them just sleeping. so that was the real success of the tour, frankly. >> rose: was it easy to do once you got them motivated? >> oh, yeah, totally. it wasn't difficult to get them motivated. the notes on the page got them motivated. because i couldn't stand the idea of condescending musicians saying yeah, here say rock star age we're we're playing rahman off, maybe you would. but by doing this we became a band very quickly.

and they ended up doing singing and doing choreography and having the time of their their lives, actually so we did 82 shows together and by the end of it we were a band. there is no question about it. >> rose: went from orchestra to band. >> yup. >> rose: roll tape, then will you see an interesting thing. the song alone, the song with with the orchestra. ♪ i wouldn't talk down to you ♪ ♪ i have to tell you just how i feel ♪ ♪-- with anothe boy ♪ roxanne ♪ you don't have to put on the red light ♪ ♪ roxanne, you don't have to put on the red lights ♪ ♪ roxanne

♪ you don't have to put on the red lights ♪ ♪ roxanne ♪ . >> rose: here's what you said about that song. i've sung this song on most of the 19s of my life. it is my job to sing it with some freshness and enthusiasm, as if i had written it that afternoon and not 30 years previously. then you say, i've's often-- also found something new in it. what do you find new. >> you know t is probably something somebody outside wouldn't notice but there is always this little incremental nuances in the melody you can find. and when you are working with a symphony orchestra

you have the space and the opportunity to explore those little areas. you know, with a rock band you are trying to get over the drums and just, you know, it's very strict tempo. with a symphony organize tra, it breathes a little more. and so you can explore it now. not only technically as a singer, but also emotionally. there is a different emotional feel to the song with a symphony orchestra than with a band. with a band it's kind of angry, and it's about jealousy and control. the song is more romantic with a symphony orchestra, a little more mature, a little older, a little gentler. so when a song can adapt to those kind of changes, it's obviously something there, that's what i think. >> rose: so is there another form, you could take this out and put it in some other format like a jazz format. >> absolutely, absolutely. >> rose: . >> you know f these songs didn't have any harmonic movement, they wouldn't translate. they would be one fit. but there is enough movement in them to warrant a symphony orchestra or a

jazz. there is cause in there that they would like. and so i'm very proud that they can have different kinds of lives in a different setting. >> rose: you can imagine doing something like this again? >> oh, i would love to do this again. i really would. i mean success for me would be the opportunity to try this again. perhaps with songs specifically composed for that setting, rather than trying to shoehorn a lot of old songs into that. but now-- . >> rose: songs you would write. >> songs i would write and arrangements i would write. i really felt galvanized by the experience and learned a great deal. and saw a kind of future in it. >> rose: should the first line of euro bit wear simply say-- your obituary simply say he lived a good life, he had fun. >> certainly, i definitely had fun. >> rose: but should it also say in the first line, songwriter before everything else? >> you know, if i couldn't sing, i wouldn't be a songwriter. i am a singer. i'm a singer. it all comes from having a

voice. and everything is backed up from that. >> rose: so it's singer. >> i'm a singer. >> rose: songwriter writing came to serve the singing rather than the other way around. >> i had to sing something. so my job is a singer. >> rose: so what do you know about your singing as a songwriter? >> what do i know about my singing, well, you know, i think the idea is to create a unique signature, like a fingerprint. with your voice. so that when you sing on the radio, whether people like your voice or not, or like what they do, they recognize who you are. and that's really what the x-factor is. it's not something like other people, you sound exactly like yourself. and also if you do that, then you have to have some kind of unique message to you, to your history, to the way you think, to your education to your philosophy. and that doesn't happen immediately. >> rose: what wells would a songwriter look to for what you do with words? >> you know, i'm interested in literature, always have been. i read a lot of poetry, read

a lot of good books. i was well educated. and so i try and reflect that in my writing. not to say that, you know, you need to be a poet to write a pop song. sometimes great poetry will not translate into great song lyrics at all. if you think of the wasteland, it's not going to be a song. sometimes lyrics are bannal but the process of putting them into music elevates them sometimes in the sublime. i don't quite understand the process. but it's not necessary-- . >> rose: you don't understand the process how something that looks bannal could become magical in voice. >> it can. it's surprising. >> rose: and why is it that great poetry doesn't fit automatically into a great song? >> it maybe doesn't need it it's already has its own music. >> rose: and could it be too complex or -- >> could be a little too complex, yeah. you have to be a little simple to write a good song. it needs, it's a balancing act. >> rose: i know about poetry

and i would assume about song writing too, what you need to do is to find the capacity to say something with the minimum amount of words that captures the largest amount of emotion, right. >> that's true. you are writing like a-- . >> rose: you are carving down. >> yeah, yeah, as opposed to writing a novel t is just expanding. >> rose: what you wanted to do that, was that easy for you, when you needed to have songs that you wanted to sing. >> i have always written songs. i wrote songs when i was from the age of 7. i don't know how good they were. i don't remember them, but i remember writing them and having the ability to think in rhyming cup lets, pretty easy about rhyming. >> rose: then you can make it as a rap artist. >> maybe i could. maybe i could. wrong generation. >> rose: where is the virgin territory for you? >> you know, i talked before about music being a never ending journey but it's also a never earnedding mystery.

to record what it is at the bottom of it. i think the perfect muss sick probably silence. and as musicians all we really do is you create a rather beautiful and ornate frame for that perfection which is silence. some of my favorite artists really use silence very carefully and very artistically. miles davis, for example, knew the value and the measure of not playing. so what he didn't play was this el ghent as what he did play. and i think that's a lesson i've always tried to learn. >> rose: playwrights like harold pinter understood how to use pauses and silent. >> and back et. >> rose: and back et. -- beckett. talk a look at this, englishman in new york, take a look at this ♪ he's the hero of the day ♪ ♪-- measures of our ignorance and smile ♪ ♪ be yourself no matter what

they say ♪ ♪ whoa ♪ i'm an all yen sneath i'm an english man in new york ♪ ♪ whoa i'm an alien, i'm a legal alien ♪ ♪ i'm an englishman in new york ♪ ♪ mercy ♪ you end up as the only one ♪ ♪ ♪ a candle burning in the sun ♪ ♪. >> rose: so are you coming back to new york more now, you have a son in school here. >> i have a son in school here. >> rose: so new york will be -- >> yeah. >> rose: grabbing more of your time. >> it's how many now for the next couple of years because of my youngest who is at

school here. we've livered in the city for a long time. we had an apartment here for over 25 years. so i feel at home here. i am an englishman in new york. i like to walk around the city. i find being a celebrity in the city very relaxing. and i think it's something to do with the self-esteem of new yorkers. they don't look upon celebrities as any different than them. >> rose: and that's different than london or different that berlin. >> london is a bit stranger. celebrities is something that they don't quite trust. whereas in new york, everyone is in their own tv show. you know, whether you are a taxi driver or a bus driver or-- you know, oh, today, charlie rose on my show. how are you doing. i like that feeling. >> rose: exactly. >> it's relaxing. >> rose: i know, i couldn't agree more. how about asia, though, is the asian market for music and performance different, more enthusiastic, is it -- >> well, i'm glad it's there. >> rose: of course, it's billions of people. >> i'm going there next

month in january. i'm going to seoul actually. >> rose: to do this. >> yes, to do with the korean orchestra, then a japanese organize tra in tokyo. >> rose: so you just show up and you can do this with any organize tra. >> you should. it is a miracle. you show up with the score and put it down in front of them and they play it instantly. a little tweak here and there but it's almost like pressing play in a studio. it's fascinating. >> rose: see, i would bet that they see its alike saturday night. i mean this is time to do something different. >> yeah. >> rose: you know. sting is here. let's party. >> but you go to asia is always fun. it's always interesting. it is a different kind of society. but you know, we speak a common language. muss sick a common language and that separation becomes. >> rose: when with you wrote englishman in new york, what were you thinking? >> and where were you. >> i was living in soho. and i was a very good friend of quinten crisp who was another famous englishman in new york, a very singular englishman in new york who was gay at a time in england when it was one against the

law, and two incredibly dangerous and yet lived this very singular, very brave, very outspoken life. and i found it very inspiring. i used to have lunch with him and he would be very funny and you are bain and witty. and i wrote this song about him, englishman in new york. it has become about me now. >> rose: that is exactly what i was saying. one more last one, will you recognize this one. ♪ oh can't you say ♪ you belong to me ♪ with every step you take ♪ with we have ree move you make ♪ ♪ with every vow you break ♪ with every smile you fake ♪ ♪ every claim you stake ♪ i'll be watching you ♪ since you gone ♪ i've been lost without a trace ♪ ♪ i dream at night

♪ i can only see your face ♪ i look around and its's you i can't replace ♪ ♪ i feel so cold ♪ and i long for your embrace ♪ ♪ i keep crying baby baby ♪ please ♪. >> rose: that was at the end when the police were breaking up. >> that was our last number one single. in 1983, i believe, yeah. >> rose: it was a seductive song and yet this was a dark time. >> it is an ambivalent song. >> rose: marriage breaking up, police break up. >> it is a he is duckive song. at the same time it is about control and ownership and jealously-- jealousy. historically it was this time of reagan's star wars program, you know. morning in america and yet was it so wonderful. i'm not so sure. and for me too, personally it was a tough time. because my first marriage broke up.

i was breaking up with the police, you know, it was the apex of my success and yet i was not happy. and so i learned a lesson, of course, that success and happiness are not necessarily the same thing. which was an important lesson to learn. >> rose: you surely knew that. >> you always hope that it is not the truth. you think if i just have one more hit i'll be happy. just get me one more drink, i'll be happy. it's not the truth, no. >> rose: so what makes you happiest now. >> the search. >> rose: it is the pursuit in the end t is the pursuit. >> i have a wonderful family. a wonderful wifive. >> rose: yes. >> but you know, i think happiness as a concept is kind of a bovine thing. human beings never really reach-- . >> rose: the cows get it, we don't. >> the cows are happy, we don't. >> rose: just a grassy hillside and they're happy. >> totally. so that's not our lot on this planet. we're here searching. >> rose: yeah. but for what you do not

know? >> you know, i enjoy the mystery. you know, i would never say i'm anatiest. i say i'm an agnostic and agnostic means i don't know. and i embrace not knowing. it is wonderful, we live in this incredible kos moss that keeps getting further and further away from us. how wonderful to be in the center of this mystery. we just don't know the answer. >> rose: the exciting thing the more you find out the more miss steruous it is. >> absolutely. >> rose: we are stool-- tools now that can tell us stuff we could never imagine knowing within the stronger our telescopes get the further the universal is away from us. >> rose: that's it. so what are you writing now? >> what am i writing? i embarked on a project that both excites me and ter fews me. i'm trying to write a musical play with a playwright called brian yorky who just won the pulitzer for a play called next to normal. >> rose: right. >> and it is based upon an

album i did many, many years ago about my home town new castle in the north of england, the death of my father, and the death of the industry which is shipbuilding. and it's a mood piece. and i'm trying to make it into a book and a play. and it is terrifying. and i wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat thinking what am i doing. how am i going to do this. at the same time i'm very galvanized by it. >> rose: also, you are it seems to me, to know a little about you, you are inevitably lured into the unknown. >> this is certainly the unknown, certainly the unknown. >> rose: but you will in the end -- >> prevail? there's no guarantee, you know. nothing worthwhile doing is without risk. i think you have to accept that. >> rose: and so what has been the biggest failure for you? i mean did you fear failure when you left the police. >> no, i haven't really had a failure, to be honest with you. i've had setbacks but i've never had a failure. >> rose: setback is what. >> setback is to the getting what you would immediately.

>> or one didn't work as much as you thought it might. >> rose: that is okay. >> you learn more from those setbacks than you would from massive success. >> rose: and some you just want to try knowing that the way, the barometer or the metric of success is different. >> totally. i mean i'm here to learn. that's success for me. whether that translates into a grammy award or a million selling album or whatever. it's beside the point. it's very nice but it's really not the point. the point is to learn something and evolve and progress as an artist, as a person. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> it's great to see you. >> it's great to be here. ♪ ♪ over the reaches ♪ ♪ under the skies above ♪ over the seas of silence

♪ under the darks ♪ over the reeves of pu-- ♪ over the skies above ♪ over the seas of silence ♪ under the dark star ♪ . >> thank you .

>> funding for charlie rose has been provided by the coca-cola company, supporting this ram since 2002. >> and american express. additional funding provided by these funders:. >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information sr services world i would.