Autechre Rare Autechre Interview 1998

[fizzy]

Hi! I found a rare autechre interview in german language from LP5 era. Could anyone translate it in english please???

Autechre_Interview_Keyboards_de_08_1998.pdf

[jaderpansen]

note: this was done rather quickly and certainly isn't a perfect translation in terms of grammar etc, but i think the words and meaning are all correct, i interpreted everything quite literally. it was a strange read in the first place. like the introduction mentioning coil and z:f as projects of autechre despite the fact they mention those very acts as bands they like in the interview... but that's exactly what it's saying! there are some more strange mistakes and weird mental leaps in the questions, please believe me it's not because of the translation...

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

With 4 albums, accompanying maxi-singles and different side projects like recently zoviet:france or coil autechre have worked themselves to the top of experimental electronica. With their fith longplayer "autechre" and in this keyboards-interview the british duo proves itself as innovative as tight-lipped.

 

BETWEEN STYLES AND STOOLS

 

If you want to get more than one liners out of sean booth and rob brown during conversation you got to have the same amount of patience you need to find something like a thread, that is: a theoretically substantiated concept in their sound-structures. It's not like the sheffielders would make the ideal cast for the avantgarde-flick "rebel without a cause". quite the opposite, they know so well about the irritating effect of their music (which is almost without any example) they ponder each of their words as if they were standing in front of bars of a court of justice, expected to explain your honour if they made themselves guilty of the delicts "electro" or "ambient".

This fits into their current music like bit to byte. Because just when you got the impression autechre were inviting you for a dance on their newest album they displace the beat - like in the track "fold4wrap5" - so intentionally and drastically that even the most measure-confident foot starts to drag.

The tandem's tactic in the interview isn't any different. As soon as a statement from one hangs in the air as an assumed official autechre announcement, the partner puts it into perspective with an equally more/less plausible commentary. In the end the inquisitive reporter is just a little bit more informed than in the beginng of the meandering chat.

Are autechre doing coolly calculated "head-music for aphex twin-fans" like well-meaning critics say or do they work intuitively "on a gut level"?

the step-by-step increasing perplexity has its good side though. It saves the one who's engaging in the adventure autechre from responsibility to decide if he wants to taste the mysterious soundscapes in the electro-lounge of a club, as an ambient sound-wallpaper in his own living room or anywhere and anytime as an always entertaining, though no less exhausting answer to the noise attacks of artists, whose claim to be the elite of contemporary electronic avantgarde is far less justified than autechre's.

well, sometimes it can be comfortable to sit between all styles and stools. sean booth hits the nail on it's head explaining the multi-compatibility: "music never exists independently from the environment in which you listen to it." a statement rob brown nods to, so we do have a quasi-official declaration after all about which we'll gladly think again while listening to autechre in the future.

 

 

(K=KEYBOARDS, S=SEAN, R=ROB)

 

 

K: your new album sounds different than the ones before. it's not that much "ambient", more abstract and not as accessible upon first listening. Did you consciously go into a new direction?

 

R: no, only after finishing it we realized the new album sounds different to the ones we made before.

 

K: your record label states in the info text that you had reinvented yourself with this new album.

 

S: Well, we don't think we changed direction.

 

R: no, the album just represents what we were recording during the last year. It's not like we say "let's go into the studio and make an album in the next month or two." the album's just a collection of our favourite tracks from the last twelve or thirteen months. i mean, we were always working like that; we do pieces and when there's enough of them we choose the ones we like best. then we put it out and hope that people with similar musical backgrounds as our own will dig it.

 

K: how would you describe you background to people that aren't familiar with autechre?

 

S: (to brown) electro, kraftwerk?

 

R: yeah. when we were introduced to each other by a friend it was just a week until we started to work together; we realized quickly we were on the same wavelength. he (booth) had worked with tapes and i had done collages, turntable mixes, pretty crazy stuff. then we combined the few pieces of gear we had and tried to...

 

S: do "bad music" together (laughs)

 

 

K: did you have any releases before that?

 

R: no, our "history" started when we met. i mean, of course we were interested in music before that; our parents were constantly listening to records.

 

s: but we're from artists-families, not musician-families.

 

K: you mentioned kraftwerk. do you generally dig the new german electronic music from the 70s?

 

R: yes, but alot of that stuff we only discovered long after they were already out.

 

S: we got to know kraftwerk after electro.

 

R: the first music we bought was electro, in which people like kraftwerk were being sampled. We liked their sounds but heard them from second hands; other people did the preselection, if you want. but then we did research on the originals and discovered great stuff.

 

K: for example, apart from kraftwerk?

 

S: roedelius.

 

R: yeah, roedelius is unique.

 

K: do you feel that you're working in a kind of tradition to what roedelius did?

 

R: you'd have to ask roedelius. anyway he's phenomenal. when we heard his stuff the first time it immediatly clicked. on the other hand we're still busy discovering that early electronic stuff; we haven't been in the buisness for that long after all.

 

S: personally, i don't think we belong to any kind of special tradition. actually our tradition would be anything we listened to some time.

 

R: yeah, depends on how you'd define tradition. tradition is what influences you, isn't it?

 

S: it just means being aware of the fact that alot of music has already been done before when you try to do something new.

 

R: but i believe we don't take alot of foreign influences consciously. actually we're working pretty much for ourselves.

 

S: we're probably more influenced by our surroundings than by any kind of music.

 

K: But one can hear a hardcore-influence.

 

S: you mean metal?

 

R: yeah, sure we dig metal - unsane and stuff like that.

 

S: the funny thing is that when we met we almost had the same record collection. we had lots of electro stuff, because we both were into that. then each of us had some records the other had missed - pretty ideal. i mean back then, around 87 hip hop had gotten pretty lame compared to earlier, when it was fresh and strong. so we began to get interested in other stuff, we filtered and built something out of it that's our own.

 

K: do you work in your own studio?

 

R: yes, we have a little bedroom studio, small room. totally sufficient.

 

K: what does your equipment look like? guess it's rather lo-fi.

 

S: yeah, most of it is very cheap stuff we accumulated over the years. but you can get alot out of it; it's more attractive to us than say "ensoniq versus akai". still we do work with ensoniq.

 

K: and with what sampler? with a MPC?

 

R: no, we don't work with stuff you can find in a gear-reference book at all (laughs). we use the gear differently to the way the manufacturer made it for anyway. the features made for the normal user are usually not the ones to work out the most creative stuff with. we're always looking for ways to use the gear in a different way than their proper determination. we'd rather find a flaw in the system and work with that.

that means we use the flaw, for example a little loop-hole in the program and work building on that. the americans build stuff you can work creatively with, since almost all of it has little flaws.

 

S: i think all these featues are only built in to sell well. the americans seem to love to give the user a wide array of choices, while japanese care more about solidity and reliabilty.

 

R: yeah, you get what you expect. but what you get isn't necessarily what's letting you work creatively, y'know? we like to work with stuff that's already attrited and maybe a bit broken, too.

 

K: i guess in that case you don't frequently buy new stuff?

 

S: well, we do keep track of what's being released. but we buy very, very rarely indeed. last think we bought was a Kurzweil K 2500.

 

R: actually with all equipment to us it's important to see how open-ended it is.

 

K: you mean if you'll be able to use it as long as possible and then also maybe "against the grain"?

 

R: yes. foremost what we use has to be "transparent". we don't care about being able to say "oh, on that track we had a wavestation!". it's exactly the opposite to what we want. we want gear of which we can be sure we'll be able to control it quickly. the equipment is tools, nothing more! sure, every piece has it's strengths and weaknesses, but they shouldn't be so distinct that the gear takes place of the personality of the musician and gets more important than the one who uses it.

 

K: what latest investment did you like best in that regard?

 

S: the kurzweil, i think. and before that pro-tools, that's also pretty good, logically built and easy to use.

 

R: and the ensoniq-sampler, the ASR.

 

S: but most of the stuff we find interesting isn't the one we buy, but what we build ourselves.

 

R: yes, the stuff that works best for us we built ourselves.

 

S: some patches for example, just stuff we braze for ourselves. but actually it's not even important with what kind of gear you work. you just use what you've got and try to use it as a platform to produce music - music you haven't heard before, y'know?

 

K: what do you think about the discussion "analogue vs. digital"?

 

S: we use anything! the question is simply what piece gets the job done in the shortest time. genereally i think the whole a-vs-d discussion is pretty redundant, you can combine both. only depends on what you're up to do atm.

 

K: alot of people nowadays rely on vinatge-keyboards again.

 

S: we don't, although some vintage stuff is pretty interesting indeed. the mellotron sound for example is pretty weird and also the gear's concept is fascinating. but only if you combine it with your own sounds it starts to sound really interesting.

 

K: so you don't like preset sounds.

 

S: no, not at all.

 

R: it's about advancement.

 

S: even if we had a mellotron we'd exchange the tapes with our own sounds.

 

K: but that'd mean to rebuild the mellotron in means of sound.

 

R: no, it means to develop the sound further. i mean, all that vintage stuff is there already, why try to imitate it? what's important is to take the best parts and change the sounds creatively.

 

K: might this attitude be the reason why you're celebrated as electronic-innovators everywhere?

 

S: who says that?

 

K: music critics. but are you even interested in what critics say?

 

S: nah. (laughs)

 

R: but it's nice of them to say that, isn't it? It's meant to be a compliment after all.

 

S: yeah ok, but that's not the reason for us to do things. we do it because we dig it ourselves.

 

K: how much of the stuff one can hear on your albums is played in realtime and how much is programmed?

 

S: depends, really. there are segmens that were recorded live and which we recorded from tape when we needed them. others are programmed from beginning to end, meaning the programs play the music for us. but when a piece's finished you shouldn't have to ask if it was programmed or played. the only thing that counts is if the music's good and new in some way.

 

K: so you never work with presets?

 

R: well, we used to think using preset sounds is boring. actually it's true; if you leave them how they are nothing's happening on the creative side. but in the meantime we startetd to use pre-programmed stuff in certain arrangements, too but in a way you can't identify the shit basic sounds anymore.

 

K: do you follow a special method starting a new track?

 

R: somtimes we start with self recorded "field recordings", sometimes some sample. could be anything.

 

S: in principle every sound is interesting, meaning you can start with anyone.

 

R: often we'd play around with some sounds all day. in the end we may have some five second loop with a certain feel to it. after that we try out what you can do with it, trying to find it's potential. during that process the strong sounds become stronger and the weak ones get left behind.

 

K: a little interposed question, that doesn't concern your music: what's the correct pronunciation of autechre? strangely, a british friend of mine pronounces it "otäschre" (otashre), and your german label calls you "otäkre".

 

R: both sounds good (laughs)

 

S: it's pronounced differently everywhere. in france and canada they say "otäschre", in london "otäkkre".

 

K: how do you pronounce it yourselves?

 

R: we say "otäkker".

 

S: yeah, that's northern english. somewhere else in england the word sounds different again.

 

K: that's why i think the name fits your music well. it can't be categorized to one style, you can listen to it in different ways.

 

S: exactly. it's also funny the new album sounds different from stereo to stereo, while our old albums used to sound the same everywhere.

 

K: why's that, maybe because of the lo-fi quality?

 

R: well, we didn't try to make it sound escpecially bad...

 

S: but it's true that we worked on a much lower level of sound synthesis this time commpared to the past, when we worked with as many different sounds as possible. the advantage of using few and especially cheap sounds is being able to listen to the tracks differently every time. we realized that the more sounds are used in a track and the more "polished" they are that track becomes defined to a certain feel. in the new tracks on every listen focus on detail shifts.

 

K: but thereby the tracks get more abstract too.

 

R: what does "abstract" mean? It means having multiple possibilities to listen to a track because the feel is not clear.

 

K: don't you know how a track should sound and feel in the end when you begin working on it?

 

R: no, that exposes itself during the working process.

 

S: depends on what kind of taste we have on a certain day. i guess you can only find that out during work. only when a track is finished in hindsight we know how we felt that day. that means we learn from the tracks, from the way they developed and manifested.

 

K: for example let's take "vose in" (from "autechre"). upon what did you develop that track, from a beat?

 

S: no, from the main melody. everything else's built on that.

 

K: what's easier to you, starting a track or finishing it?

 

R: good question, since the tracks are very open-ended. with alot of them it's very hard indeed to decide when they're finished. that's why we often leave a track be for a month without knowing if it's definitely finished and maybe we'll still put some new layer on it. meanwhile we did new stuff which brought us to new ideas so when we take another look at that track it'll be easier to decide if it's ok or not.

 

S: we also feel free to destroy tracks we did. we never force ourselves to perfect things, quite the contrary. the search for perfection is a trap, it's easy to get obsessive.

when you're aiming at perfection you might spend 3 weeks working on a track you might as well have done in one afternoon.

 

K: how do you work during mixing?

 

S: to us mixing is part of the process and not a seperate work-phase.

 

R: yeah, all's happening at the same time.

 

S: we don't work with the method "first the sequencing then effects then the mix".

 

R: we work totally instinctively with no plan or different work phases. we might do the drums first or the rhythm or whatever, EQ the whole thing and continue from there. everything is flowing from hither to thither, from one point to another.

 

S: that's why the elemetns aren't existing seperately from each other as layers in a track; one develops from the other.

 

R: i'd like to call it a form of "actionism".

 

S: yeah exactly, everything flows. i mean we use multi-track-techniques too, but more carefully than we used to; we use less tracks today.

 

R: yes, it's less details independet from each other, everything is molten together. in the end we cut some new line into the cake to break everything up again.

 

S: most important thing is the balance being right. but we don't wait to do the balancing of the different elements til the end, when you'd usually do the mix. actually the mix is fixed already. with everything we do and every time we add new elements we have the complete mix of a track in mind.

 

K: that's what you do as a live act, going from pattern to pattern to pattern.

 

R: yeah, everything flows together, you can't divide it.

 

K: so actually there's no difference between your studio-workflow and the live act.

 

S: no, no difference, it's the same. it's like deejaying. when we go on stage we do it just like in the studio. the traditional concept of "playing live" is actually pretty strange anyway; intrinsically it's all about selling tickets, which really isn't our problem.

 

R: yeah, doesn't make any difference if we're on stage or in the studio, the procedure is the same. "live" the only thing determined beforehand is the midi-clock. everything we need to get started is "realtime-movement forward"

 

S: some sequences as basis, that's sufficient.

 

R: some simple events we screw around with then, if you want (laughs). it's easy, it's effective and you have alot of possibilities to try out new things.

 

K: you do remix jobs, too. with what criteria do you select?

 

S: none. we don't reject anything, there's no preselection. it's just about wether we're busy atm or not. remixes are something we like to do in between, because it's creative work, too. i mean every remix has it's own demands, none is like the other.

 

K: did it ever happen to you that you found a track you had to remix so bad that you rejected it?

 

S: nah, you can get something good out of any track.

 

K: how do you work doing remixes?

 

S: depends on the piece and in what format we get it. if it comes as a pro-tools-document and immediatly exists in pro tools, we can make something with it very quickly. we can handle it like some layers for example and work on that basis. but some tracks don't come as layers, only individual parts or samples. and to some tracks we didn't even listen before, we only know the individual parts.

 

R: actually that's the most interesting.

 

K: because you then have more freedom to something own out of it.

 

S: yes, exactly.

 

K: but isn't there danger that a track will sound too much like an original autechre track in the end?

 

R: doesn't matter really, does it?

 

S: no, cos it's still their material. we ask them to give us anything they need for a track. when we've got it we work with it and let them decide if they like it or not. they can throw it away too for all i care (laughs)

 

R: we dont take remixes so seriously as to think "oh, our name will be written under it, we have to do something totally exceptional". because the basic material isnt ours, it's theirs. what they'll do with the stuff we did for them is up to them.

 

K: if you'd do music for films you wouldn't have that freedom.

 

R: interesting question. but why did you think of movies?

 

K: well, some of your pieces i could well imagine in a movie. did you ever think about doing scores?

 

R: what kind of movie should that be?

 

K: an abstract, experimental film in black and white.

 

R: well, well! (laughs) we were approached by some movie-people but most of the time they wanted pieces we had already put out, nothing special for their movie. but that isn't really interesting to us. i mean, we had the opportunity to write something new for a film but we never had the time to work on a soundtrack for three months.

 

K: would you do it if you had the time?

 

R: sure. we like movies after all.

 

K: what kind?

 

R: oh shit (laughs). changes from day to day just like our taste in music. our absolute favourites?

 

S: i like the early cheap movies of david lynch, some from aaron lipstadt, "dark star" from john carpenter. i guess we like really cheap and weird movies best. but also some totally normal ones; kubrick's "shining" is one of our absolute favourites.

 

K: because of the story or because of the music (of bélà bartók, krzysztof penderecki, györgy ligeti, wendy carlos)?

 

S: well, the music is important alright. it's fantastic in "shining" as well as is in "2001" (dir: stanley kubrick, music: aram khatchaturian, györgy ligeti a.o.)

 

K: what kind of music do you like apart from that?

 

R: hard to say. i mean, our taste in music doesn't really change from day to day but sometimes you think of that name first, sometimes another. i guess most of it is obvious stuff everyone likes: electronic, chain reaction, angelo badalamenti, coil, zoviet:france.

 

S: we have a broad taste really, up to stockhausen and satie. always depends on the situation in which you listen to music; it never exists independently from the surroundings in which you listen to it. i mean, for the bathroom satie is brilliant, but after that i might immediatly swith to public enemy. and for driving you car "autobahn" by kraftwerk is of course appropriate, cos it's perfectly linear music.

 

R: but we do that like a game. i mean when we're on the road we always think about what kind of music might fit into some kind of situation or to the landscape you're passing by. we're having fun finding the appropriate music; we dont take it very seriously. we do it kinda cynical and laugh alot about ourselves.

 

K: what would be the ideal situation to listen to autechre-music? it's neither dance nor ambient music in their actual sense.

 

R: no, it's music for listening; that's why it wouldn't be bad to use headphones. but actually we don't really think about in what kind of environment our music is listened to; we couldnt control it anyway. i mean, when we play live the situation is different every time, too. like when we were playing in the volksbühne in berlin it was a very neat, "dry" ambience; but we also play in techno clubs where it's so loud the speakers are fluttering. it's two different situations we cant control, too. we just adapt ourselves and try to optimize the situation in a way the kids get the feelng it was worth their money.

 

S: i guess we dont really fit into any category, too. that's why promoters often have a hard time with us, cuz they dont know where they should let us play - in a trance-club? i mean the kids in berlin were crazy enough to book us for a theatre!

we also had the experience that before we came on stage they were playing reggae for 2 hours. we never know what's coming up (laughs).

 

K: you haven't been been doing gigs in germany for a long time. will that change anytime soon?

 

R: we'd surely like to, one just has to invite us. i guess we're not getting invited that often cuz people don't know where to put us.

 

K: do you still visit clubs yourselves?

 

S: in sheffield, you mean? rarely, these days.

 

R: yeah, it's a bit sad actually; we only go to clubs in which we play. i think that's because it has become an overkill with the clubs.

 

S: well, i do go out sometimes, although i have to say there's not that much good stuff happening in the clubs anymore like some years ago. i mean, sometimes i go see hip hop or metal bands, despite the fact everyone looks at me dumbfounded. you know what i mean? noone i know goes to see metal bands...

 

R: except scott paul.

 

S: yeah, scott paul. but most of the guys i know from the past don't go to clubs anymore. they'd rather drive around on their bikes or get into fights (club each other).

 

R: yeah, cuz there's not much new happening anymore these days, at least in england. that's why peple hold back. they'd rather wait for the next big thing instead of having fun with what's going on at the moment.

 

S: it's like holding something in your hand and at the same time thinking about what you could hold instead...

 

R: ...or as if you're starting conversation with someone who in the same minute starts to talk to someone else. the only thing coming out of that is missed opportunities; because who knows if you're gonna like that "next big thing"!

 

K: would that be a message to the readers, not to wait for the next big thing?

 

S: i'd say: don't let anyone tell you what to listen to; just buy good music. don't buy any crap.

[fizzy]

note: this was done rather quickly and certainly isn't a perfect translation in terms of grammar etc, but i think the words and meaning are all correct, i interpreted everything quite literally. it was a strange read in the first place. like the introduction mentioning coil and z:f as projects of autechre despite the fact they mention those very acts as bands they like in the interview... but that's exactly what it's saying! there are some more strange mistakes and weird mental leaps in the questions, please believe me it's not because of the translation...

 

Wow! Thank you soooooo much for the translation and spending your time!

[Guest Scrambled Ears]

great interview...but, satie for the bathroom? come on i dont think the furniture he was thinking of was made of porcelain.

[Guest nsixqatsi]

GREAT INTERVIEW

 

thanks so much for the translation!

[Sam]

Fantastic interview! So they dig a bit of metal?? Haha, that's cool.

[Guest Caustic]

Excellent translation mate, thanks.

 

S: i like the early cheap movies of david lynch, some from aaron lipstadt, "dark star" from john carpenter. i guess we like really cheap and weird movies best. but also some totally normal ones; kubrick's "shining" is one of our absolute favourites.

Dark Star? Hah that film is so cheesy. :laughing:

[Guest James Fucking Cagney]

word awesome interview

[Terpentintollwut]

R: but we do that like a game. i mean when we're on the road we always think about what kind of music might fit into some kind of situation or to the landscape you're passing by. we're having fun finding the appropriate music; we dont take it very seriously. we do it kinda cynical and laugh alot about ourselves.

 

 

Very nice to hear them say that.

[six]

Cool interview. Cheers for taking the time to translate.

[ascdi]

yes, thanks a lot!