Tell me a little bit about your background and how you ended up in your dad's profession.
I originally wanted to be a composer. That's what I was driven towards. I started writing music for commercials when I was in college, although I studied literature. When I was about 16 years old, my father started losing his hearing — he needed someone to be his ears, if you like. He didn't want me to go into the profession, in any shape or form. I was quite good academically at English. He wanted me to get a proper job, I suppose. He didn't want it to be exposed that he was losing his hearing, since he wanted to go on working, so I started working as an assistant, out of necessity on his part.
This was around the time of The Beatles' Anthology?
Yes, the Anthology era. [1995] I was hanging around in the studios with him during school time and he'd want me to come in and listen to things. At first it was sounds like cymbals, because that's where his hearing loss was. He'd have a quiet word with me and explain certain things. I remember he asked me who I thought should be engineering Anthology. I thought he should get Geoff Emerick [Tape Op #57] to do it, because it just made sense. Also, when Paul [McCartney] wrote asking for a producer [for what became Chaos and Creation in the Backyard], around 2005, my dad asked me [my opinion] and I suggested Nigel Godrich because I thought he'd be good. He's not as much a music producer as he is an engineering producer. That worked out well. Eventually I had some success writing and producing while working with different artists. I worked on Anthology 2 with my dad, because it came at a break between my studies. I was perfectly happy working away on my own thing; I had no aspirations to do Beatles work. When the Love project came up, I had a concept. My dad wasn't around because he wasn't well at the time, and Neil Aspinall [head of Apple Corps] asked me if I could experiment with something that hadn't worked in the past. I said that I reckoned I could create something by just chopping the tapes up. I'd heard the tapes, because I'd worked on Anthology, and tracks sounded live to me. Since it was live recordings, I figured we could create a live show out of the tapes. It became much more psychedelic as we got more into it, but that was the plan.
Was the Love project a mash-up idea from the beginning, or did you think of it in terms of complete songs at that point?
No, it was a mash-up from the beginning. I wanted to create a live feel. I know that's a ridiculous thing to say, a live feel by doing mash-ups, but I already knew that I could get the drum solo. I already had the concept of the show opening with the drum solo from "The End," which I knew I could combine with "Get Back." It sort of worked out from there. The piano chord from "A Day In The Life" going into it... it just worked backwards. I knew when I spoke to Neil that I could do it. I wasn't sure if other people would like it or not, but I knew that I could get it to work. I didn't really have much connection with The Beatles at all before that. It came from doing the Love show, which thankfully was critically acclaimed. Working with The Beatles continues to surprise me. I didn't really feel deserving of it. It's quite a big mantle to have. I remember after I did my demo of Love, with four or five tracks, everyone got enthusiastic. I remember saying to a friend of mine that I'd been asked to do this thing, but I wasn't sure if I should do it. I didn't know if it was because of my dad getting me the job, or because it was passed down. I'd avoided deliberately doing any kind of Beatles projects that felt passed down to me, probably to my detriment. I just didn't want to go down that route. This friend of mine, who's a producer and engineer, asked me if I had any idea how many people would love to be working on this. He said that if I turned it down I'd be completely crazy. I figured if I could put the teenage bitterness to one side and stop thinking about what other people would think, I could just enjoy myself and be honored that I had the chance to work in that situation. So that's what happened.
Let's backtrack a bit and talk about the Hayley Westenra album Pure, which you worked on before you worked with The Beatles. What did that entail, and how was that different from the Beatles work?
When I started to pursue this, everybody thought I knew what I was doing, but I had no idea. Honestly speaking, I wasn't very good. I didn't have a huge talent, and I think I made some pretty terrible records. I ended up getting a job working for Rob Dickins, who was head of Warner [Music UK]. I made some pretty bad records for him. He taught me a lot — he would play me "No Scrubs" by TLC and tell me that he wanted projects to sound like that. I'd have a computer set up with Logic, and it made me realize that there are no excuses for not making things sound good. People don't care. You can't say that you didn't have the right speakers or whatever. People won't care. The benchmark is there; that's what he and my dad taught me. The expectation is so high. I learned how to make voices sound good, which is the most important thing. If you can make a record and the voice sounds good, you're halfway there. Then I left Rob Dickins to do the Queen's Jubilee Concert in Buckingham Palace. After that, I couldn't get any work. My manager told me that the only thing he could get me was Hayley Westenra, a 15-year-old classical singer. I told him, "No. I want to do rock and roll." He said that there wasn't anything out there. They sent me a vocal track. I put some strings, guitar, and piano in the back of it, and they really liked it. The album sold two million copies in the U.K. It really wasn't my style of music. A friend of mine said that once you learn how to make things sound good, it gets kind of boring. There are thousands of people who know how to make a record with the right EQ on it, and it's going to sound professional. With Hayley Westenra, she was just a really nice girl — she still is. The funny thing with that was that I remember Paul McCartney telling me, "Well done with that record," because it sold massively in the U.K. It sort of gave me success. I was offered so many classical, and crossover classical, records by everyone. I was the person to go to. I turned them down and didn't get paid for six months, because by then I knew I wanted to do The Beatles' Love project. I knew in my mind that it was going to work, and that's what happened.
How have your views of using technology evolved? Certainly you must be a cut and paste guy, having grown up in a world far removed from the one your dad lived in.
I wasn't, actually. I started in the studio when I was young, so I had to learn later how to use computers. A lot of the young guys who have heard the Love project, or other things I've done, think I'm some sort of guru, and you can hear their sighs of disappointment when I try to operate Pro Tools. I mean, I can do a mix, but when people start talking about using shortcuts it's like, "I know undo!" The Beatles' thing was interesting, because I thought when I did it that I'd do what everyone else does and create a tempo map. But as soon as I found out how to chop things in time, it didn't sound good to me. I actually used it like a tape machine. My sessions had no grid, nothing. I just did it by feel.
You didn't use a grid for Love?
No. I just found it too constricting. I wanted the songs to move.
Really? But surely there was some stretching...?
Yeah, if there was a song coming after another song, it had to follow the tempo. Then, when that [new] song took over, that would be the song in charge.
But that was stretching...
I had to do it all in my head. It's just more of a creative thing. I'm not anti-technology, in any way. I know Geoff Emerick is actually, slightly, anti-technology. I embrace it thoroughly. But the idea is the important thing, whether you're chopping up tape or doing it in the computer. It can sound bad both ways, no matter how good your technology is.
It's interesting you would say that. Do you have favorite pieces of gear and D/A converters?
I'm distrusting of someone who walks in the studio, looks around, and says, "I can't work in here." I think that you should just use what you have. There's no reason why anyone should complain anymore. That said, I don't like certain types of monitors. I don't trust them.
Yeah. Let's talk about what you do like.
I use Adam S3-As, which are older monitors. I like them because they're very good on vocals and snare drums. They have a ribbon tweeter; they're not good at top and bottom, but that's something you can worry about later. If you can get the mids right, you're generally okay. I use those, and I've used them for ten years. I haven't gone wrong so far.
What about D/A converters, plug-ins, and that sort of thing?
I used to use Apogee. I really like Apogee, and I like Bob [Clearmountain, Tape Op #84] and Betty Bennett, who look after Apogee. Recently I've been working with Pro Tools, and I've been using the HDX system. I've had some great experiences. I've played the game because I've been working on 5.1 mixes. I find that the discrete 5.1 digital world is great for film, but for music it sometimes suffers. In the Scorsese film, George Harrison: Living In The Material World, and when I was doing A Hard Day's Night, I ended up putting it on an 8-track, 2-inch tape because I liked the fact that it sounded like it gelled a bit better.
I think most people are pretty familiar with the 5.1 mixes that are on The Beatles' Anthology, and are probably familiar, as well, with the 5.1 mixes on the Help! DVD and Blu-Ray.
And I did Magical Mystery Tour between that.
Right, you weren't involved with the 5.1 mixes on either Help or Anthology, correct?
Magical Mystery Tour was the first 5.1 I did. Yellow Submarine (1999) and the others were done much earlier. I was doing Love, I think, when they were doing those. So no, I wasn't involved in those. They're pretty good.
You were obviously very familiar with what was there on the multitrack tapes. I assume that everything had been digitized over the last few years while you were working on Love.
Yeah. We re-digitized a lot of the tracks at a higher rate, with better converters. You can always do better. We were quite diligent with that.
