Medical Media Group: You commented on this sufficiently.

Peter Hübner: But re­gard­ing the Ger­man phy­si­cians we have a spe­cial for­tu­nate situa­tion. Here we have that pro­fes­sional group, which next to its own pro­fes­sion cares most for prac­tic­ing clas­si­cal mu­sic. That means: al­most all phy­si­cians in Ger­many are lovers of clas­si­cal mu­sic, and this means in prac­tice: many phy­si­cians prac­tice play­ing clas­si­cal mu­sic or at least play jazz. In Ger­many we have many great doc­tors' or­ches­tras in all kinds of medi­cal dis­ci­plines and also quite a few Jazz bands. And the jazz mu­si­cians are, as is known, also lovers of clas­si­cal mu­sic - but what scares them here and leads them to Jazz is the ar­ro­gant fuss of many clas­sic stars un­der the mar­ket­ing strate­gies of the big mu­sic con­cerns, some­thing they of course do not want to par­tici­pate in. This fact of prac­tic­ing clas­si­cal mu­sic is, in my eyes, the main key for the suc­cess of Medi­cal Reso­nance Ther­apy Mu­sic in the field of the medi­cal ex­perts - but, of course, not to for­get the sci­en­tific medi­cal re­search! But the same is true for the phar­ma­cists – even if in a much more lim­ited man­ner.

Medical Media Group: With your Medi­cal Reso­nance Ther­apy Mu­sic, have you some­where come across op­po­nents, across peo­ple who do not want to rec­og­nize it – due to a nar­row vi­sion, for in­stance?

Peter Hübner: No, per­son­ally I did not come across any re­sis­tance, nei­ther from the side of the phy­si­cians nor from the side of the phar­ma­cists, I only met rec­og­ni­tion and sup­port – and this in­ter­na­tion­ally.

Medical Media Group: That is, you do not have any re­sis­tance re­gard­ing Medi­cal Reso­nance Ther­apy Mu­sic? But at least there must be conservative forces like the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal in­dus­try, which fear for their busi­ness?

Peter Hübner: With the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal in­dus­try I do not have any prob­lems. I have writ­ten to the big phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies, that I have a posi­tive at­ti­tude to­wards a co­op­era­tion with them, and they were able to ac­knowl­edge this offer and in gen­eral they re­sponded very posi­tively. My opin­ion about the whole field of con­ven­tional phar­ma­ceu­tics I have ex­pres­sed al­ready at vari­ous oc­ca­sions.

Prob­lems how­ever be­come ap­par­ent par­tially in the field of or­gan­ized mu­sic ther­apy, that is, there where the build­ing up of po­liti­cal power struc­tures is con­cerned – up to the great con­trolled mu­sic ther­apy train­ing in­sti­tu­tions, which more or less are in the proc­ess of build up.

But I as­sume, that it is pos­si­ble to come to an agree­ment here, be­cause we com­ple­ment each other. Ac­cord­ing to the pre­sent un­der­stand­ing in sci­ence Medi­cal Reso­nance Ther­apy Mu­sic is a sci­en­tific mu­sic ther­apy with ob­jec­tively veri­fi­able re­sults, while the con­ven­tional mu­sic ther­apy of these bigger in­sti­tu­tions is psy­cho­ther­apy with mu­si­cal or mu­si­cal-tech­ni­cal aids, and thus be­ing by na­ture be­yond sci­en­tific ob­jec­ti­fy­ing – which in no way be­lit­tles con­ven­tional mu­sic ther­apy, though.

But: just as this ap­plies to the clas­si­cal com­poser, in the very same way it ap­plies to the mu­sic thera­pist: in the field of tra­di­tional mu­sic ther­apy his ef­fi­ciency and achieve­ment is solely de­pend­ing upon his origi­nal thera­peu­tic talent and for sure not upon any kind of train­ing – how­ever large-scale in struc­ture it might be es­tab­lished un­der gov­ern­men­tal rec­og­ni­tion. With the real mu­sic thera­pists I never had any prob­lems yet, I con­sider them – re­gard­ing the com­mon na­ture talent – as real col­leagues and so they do with me.

But with those run-of-the-mill un­tal­ented mod­ern mu­sic thera­pists I have the same dif­fi­cul­ties as with the cor­re­spond­ing com­pos­ers pro­duced at the mu­sic uni­ver­si­ties and mu­sic acad­emies. And im­por­tant mu­sic thera­pists re­port to me the same.