How did you get your start in recording?
Well, I was always into music and my parents' records, and I knew what I liked when I heard it. Simultaneously, stumbling into playing in a band, and being in a position where I was making music, I realized I couldn't get it to be the way I wanted it to be. It was such a foreign language; it was so abstract to me. I had no idea how to express myself musically, or how to capture it in the way I wanted to hear it. It was a powerless feeling - I'm talking about when I was a teenager. I got through making a record and toured on a punk rock, DIY level. It was with a band called The Hippos. I started it when I was 15 years old. It was a learning experience. That was about the time when Pro Tools came out on the consumer level - I was 18. Before that, I was all about 4-track recording. I had more luck with the Tascam than I did with Pro Tools. It had a lot to do with the limitations directing the process, which, years later, brought me back to the analog recording I do now. It's something about the audio quality, but it's also a lot about the process when you're using analog equipment. Anyway, when I started recording, the studios had Pro Tools and I couldn't figure out how to get it to sound right, so I experimented at home. I found that to be more interesting than touring or being in the spotlight. That's how I got into it.
Tell me more about using tape.
Well, it's not a secret that there's a sonic quality that comes with it. Experimenting, I've found that I enjoy 1-inch, 8-track and 16-track, 2-inch formats. I'm not married to any one method that I do at any time, but there are different parts of the process where I like to include tape. It's for the sonic quality, but also for the space of mind - you're trying to get real performances. There's a different mindset it puts you in when you know you're recording to tape. You record all the way through [the song]. Sometimes less is more. That's a clichéd statement, but it's true. Even with mics, less mics equals less phase issues, equals fatter sound. A simple mic situation can get you the fattest, most modern sounding recording you can imagine. Whereas the more complex drum recording can be used for, on the average, a '90s sound.
Since you're part of a younger generation of producers, I'm a bit surprised that you're using tape regularly. Are you tracking to tape, or using it more as a mixing technique?
All of the above. I really like it. I'm not always working with rehearsed bands, so I've developed a way to incorporate the best of digital and analog. I usually half normal my patchbay so that the mic pre's signals are going to Pro Tools and my tape machine at the same time, and then going from the tape machine back to Pro Tools. So they print simultaneously, but on the playback you don't monitor [directly] from the tape, you monitor from Pro Tools. I'll do that at my own place. As long as nothing is wrong with the tape's signal chain (which does happen with old equipment), I slide the tape [track in Pro Tools] back so it's where it's supposed to be, in terms of a click or pre-recorded material [to compensate for the latency in the tape machine signal]. And I get the sonic characteristics of some of my old machines - like a Scully or Ampex 1-inch, 8-track. It is different every time, and I do a lot of modern recording that has nothing to do with that process, but oftentimes there's an element of that in there.
You've worked with an especially wide variety of artists. Is there a common thread that runs through your music or a philosophy that you maintain through all these different projects?
It depends upon whether I'm playing on it or producing it, in the musical sense. You'll hear go-to synths that I like, styles that I play guitar in, drum sounds that I like, or hi-hat patterns that I default to. In general, I think my production is more about my approach to the project or to the artist. Sometimes I'm co-writing, sometimes I'm in a session recording a band-type situation in a more traditional facility. Sometimes I'm doing it in my place, which is very much a functional, practical facility with no console. I could probably draw some sort of thread explaining how I wound up at all these places that would generally make sense. A couple of times it's been a cold call, or a friend who knew I could be a problem solver coming in to help a record out. An artist like Cass McCombs made the whole record Catacombs on an 8-track mixed down to a 2- track, meanwhile Usher's "Climax" is completely different. But the way I approach the artist is the same. "What can you do that no one else can do?" I have to find that unique talent and try to pull it out. And simultaneously I try to make it sound as fresh as possible, in the scope of that artist. Never defaulting to something that "is working" or "has worked." We fall flat as often as we succeed, but it's those moments where we succeed that are the moments that transcend. They are the reason we're making music.
Right. You're someone who's producing, not just "engineering." You're part of developing what the artist is going for.
Starting back when I was 15 to now, I've been in every possible part of the process. From being in a band, to engineering and producing a band, to being on the couch while the engineer is engineering and I'm strictly producing, to writing with the band, to working with hip-hop artists that I went to high school with and producing on an [Akai] MPC, to working in various DAWs and producing inside the box, to vocal producing, and to mixing. I've done all of it, and it's all about keeping perspective throughout a situation. I believe in working with a mixer who you trust and know, if for no other reason than to check what you've done. Oftentimes, with the work that I'm proudest of, the final mix doesn't sound that much different than the rough mix. But it's nice after you've slaved over something for as long as you have to get the perspective of someone who you trust. It's not just about the top mixer, it's about one you work with who understands you. Similarly with engineering, if someone can spend the day getting everything mic'd up and sounding in the ballpark of what they know you like, and you can walk in with fresh ears and fine tune it, that's the best case scenario. As someone who has done all of the above, I understand it from all angles, so I can do what I need to do. And I try to stay out of it as much as possible, honestly. Another part of my philosophy is that the goal is to not fuck it up, not do the wrong thing, and not lose the magic. That can mean surgically removing an amazing take from some GarageBand recording and inserting it into a better performance of the rest of the music that was recorded all analog in a studio.
Having the perspective to know it's more important that the take was magical than whether it was on a [Neumann] U 87 or a [Shure] SM57.
Or the built-in microphone on the laptop. Absolutely. I'm not a gear elitist.
Right. It's almost a postmodern approach. You can take everything from the past, pick and choose any parts of it, and mix them together if that's what the context calls for.
That is how I feel. The minute you become rigid about "it has to be on this mic or that mic" you've lost perspective. It has nothing to do with that. So many of the coolest records ever are a low quality sample of an older recording, and the vocals [most likely] have been recorded on a [Shure SM]57. It doesn't have to be a Telefunken [ELA M] 251 in the middle of a super nice studio to be magical. There's a long history, at this point of recording, and there's a lot of information, and it gets mixed up. I think people confuse the gear for the process; or they [think that if they] remove one part of the recipe that they're gonna have the same final prepared meal. You can't just use part of it. There was a time when the bands were able to be in the studio for months at a time and feel really comfortable. That magical thing just happened, and that's great. But the odds of that happening if you just book three days at a very nice studio and try to rush it - it's better to do it in the space that you have, in your own comfort zone, so that the rest of it isn't part of the equation or distracting. And you never know what's gonna happen, so record everything. I mean, if it's not good, erase it and try not to hoard files. But you're looking for that magic moment, so keep recording and let it happen. It's all about staying loose and adapting.
I read that working on True Romance, the Charli XCX album, was an important project for you, in terms of collaborating with a singer and finding your voice.
I grew up listening to punk bands; I skateboarded and it was part of the culture. I happened to go to a high school where there was a big hip-hop scene. I became friends with a lot of rappers, and so I found myself working on a lot of hip-hop. That was what was exciting around me. I started with a karaoke machine, and then an early version of Pro Tools, using [Akai] MPCs, as well as other drum machines and samplers, and I made hip-hop records. I did have experience working with these solo artists, but my world was being in a punk band. I was in different bands throughout my twenties; we played shows and we met other bands. I was recording my own band and that became my world. That's when I met Vampire Weekend, Grizzly Bear, and lots of different bands. Then I met Cass McCombs; I made a lot of records with him for this label, Domino. The owner of Domino [Laurence Bell] introduced me to an artist named [Devonte] Dev Hynes, who was trying to find a new sound. He'd had a thing called Lightspeed Champion, but he was developing a new idea as Blood Orange. I made those kind of records, and they were sort of classified as indie rock band records. I wasn't writing with them as much as helping get the vision across. I helped come up with a cool aesthetic and a cool sound that felt fresh and new. I also helped pick what direction they should go in, within their own material. The classic type of producing; it was very hands on. Then when Charli came around, she was really young, and there was something really special about her, but the direction hadn't really been formed yet. There were always people who wrote with singers; that's been going on since the dawn. But, in my own personal world, it was a little bit taboo. It didn't really happen that much.
To have the producer write the track in the studio with the artist?
