Jump to content

Autechre interviews


Recommended Posts

Guest Tankakern



"In a world where home computers are becoming the norm and everyone and their grandmother creates algorythmic musical compositions in programs like Max and Facebook autechre struggle to maintain an edge by creating edgey music that not only walks the line between noise and music but takes that line, puts it through a comb filter, adds a break beat and puts it out on a little label called WARP (grizzly bear, battles, etc). i met up with rob brown, 1/3 of autechre, to talk about just what does it take to surrvive in today's economy."


I cannot stop laughing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest spraaaa

pffflllol alfricobas :lol:


12 Radio show for Oversteps. How / why?

is there another bbc mix or something is this just talking about the webcast?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what's for the future?

eden. i know a lot of people are cynical because the big bosses and fat men are running the world to a halt and the ground but if you just buy the newest equipment from such sites as harmony central, best buy, eBay, etc it shouldn't be a problme. people have gotta man tracks in this age


part words?


stay healthy and give it a dick.


so good

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest boredroom

Just around the time possibily before LP5 was released there was a qoute on a promo mailout that warp sent out, naming and shaming their biggest acts for keeping them running (sarcastically of course:). They included a detailed description of each of these artists involved and there was a qoute from Sean that said 'Both rob and I see sound as shapes. I only have to do this (makes a fist) and he knows what sound I mean' dunno if this is jizzband.. however :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Greg Reason

that would be Rob's shirt


They're both wearin the shirt :biggrin:

Edited by Greg Reason
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 years later...
On 10/26/2020 at 11:07 PM, splesh said:

Hey Aefx do you still have that interview about Chiastic where they mention mushrooms? http://autechre.net.ua is down


Alex Reynolds interviews autechre - 2001

AR - Alex Reynolds
SB - Sean Booth
AR - Hello this is Alex Reynolds from Grooves Magazine. Is Sean there?
SB - Hello Alex. This is Sean.
AR - Hi Sean how are you doing?
SB - Ah pretty good. Average. Well, above average. About 65% (laughs).
AR - Sorry for all the trouble.
SB - It's cool man, no problem. I should have a more verbose message on the machine. But I don't think it's very audible for international gates, it's confusing up me phone lines. Cause you got a noise gate on an international call, so you don't hear the message cause it's so quiet.
AR - I just wanted to thank you for doing the interview; I know you don't have anything to promote.
SB - No, not really.
AR - And I heard that this is going to be your last interview, or probably close to your last interview.
SB - Yeah, I don't know if it will be the last one, but uh yeah, I don't want to do any for awhile.
AR - Any particular reason for that?
SB - Not really; just want to lock down for a bit. It's just periods in life when you don't want to handle any of that, so you don't and that's that, really.
AR - You finished live tours. What are you doing now: just relaxing, working out new stuff?
SB - New stuff mostly, hence the lack of interviews (laughs). It's easier to write tracks when we haven't got anything else to think about. Yeah, it's quite good. But yeah, it won't be our last interview I just don't feel like doing any for awhile, so I just had to tell everybody nothing cause otherwise people just get on your case, you know?
AR - Any new ideas since Confield came out?
SB - Um yeah (laughs), yeah (laughs) you can't really stop it, it just comes, you know what I mean? It just something that happens. So yeah, a constant flow of shit. Always doing shit, I suppose. I mean, a lot of the tracks on that album are like getting on two years old, now. It's kind of like yeah, we've done quite a few things since we did a lot of that stuff, anyway. So, a lot of the stuff we did for the tour was, well none of was on the EP, so that was all a bit of rinse. And since we came back we've been developing shit, really. Yeah, it's a constant thing, there's no point where we are or are not making tracks, you know what I mean? If we've got a computer there's a good chance of thinking about working even if we're not working.
AR - How do you think Confield, do you really care how Confield was received by people?
SB - I don't really know, I'd have to speak to everyone, wouldn't I? Haven't got time, so. (laughs) Absolutely no idea how it was received, can't even bother to find out, even, really. So, I know what my mates think of it, um, I sort of get an idea of what their mates think about it through them. So yeah, I don't know, really. I mean, a lot of reactions based on are what people perceive your attitude to be. So, there are some people who've got no idea what our attitude is, so that's that really. Not a lot you can do about that, really.
AR - If Autechre was just starting out, do you think you'd be able to make an album like Confield?
SB - I have absolutely no idea! (laughs) I hadn't really thought about it. I mean if one had already existed already, yeah, there would be a much better chance. Do you know what I mean? If it existed already, eh, you'd be able to reference it and make it, so yeah of course you would be able to do it. I mean it's not a question of whether you're able. I don't whether we'd be able to just pluck it out of thin air the way that we did, if we'd just arrived on the scene. I'm not even sure if we'd be the same people, so we wouldn't be making the same music, for definite.
AR - I guess what I'm asking is if there were necessary steps between your first album and where you are now?
SB - Yeah, it's inevitable I mean if you do anything for a long time you get familiar with aspects of it and things become easy and transparent. You don't have to think as much. I mean the thing I've noticed all the time is just how natural things have become. I don't have to consider things at all anymore, you know, you just literally sit down and do what you feel like doing, because the machine has just become an extension and you don't have to think about learning about using it at all. It's like having an extended finger (laughs). But yeah it's sort of I mean I don't know really, I mean you can't really say, whether or not you'd do something "if", "if", because that "if" is just, if it's just far enough in the past there's gonna be so many things it would be corelative with, you know? You just can't possibly say, it's not even the sort of question you can answer honestly, you know? I mean I could just say something, but whatever, I can't be bothered anymore that's why I can't be bothered doing interviews; it's just too much bullshit game-playing, you know. It's like, yeah. I don't know -- it's weird that part of life, it's like you're expected to do it sort of thing, like you've got an onus on people that buy your records to explain what you're doing, even though you wouldn't even bother to explain it to your mates, you know what I mean?
AR - Do you think Warp would take a chance today on something like Confield, if you were just starting out?
SB - Yeah, Warp.. I mean, I don't know, it's hard to say. I mean, when we met em they were really taking a lot of chances and they were really against the grain at the time it was like pure hardcore. When we met em they seemed like the kind of the label that would really, I suppose they just let the artists do what they wanted. They just seemed that way, just from the stuff they'd been releasing. Like "A Word of Science" is pretty nash album and "Frequencies", even though they were like pretty unpopular, I thought they were wicked. They're obvious a label that are prepared to stick their necks out for something they like, so, yeah I don't know really. I can't really say what they'd be like if I met em now cause I know em too well, it's impossible to say, and it might be the same for them. I don't even know if something like Confield could have developed hermetically, completely hermetically, you know. I don't know if we would get to that point naturally without anybody having heard our material, it's impossible to say, you know. I mean this speculating about what the future could have been had the past been different, and that's just complete denial of the chaos of existence, innit? You know, you have to appreciate that everything relates to everything.
AR - I look at the covers to EP7 and Confield and I see fractals and crystals. Any theme to relate to the music?
SB - Well we don't do it by means of explanation, we do it because it something else that we're satisfied with aesthetically that we like and then we don't really plan any other consideration if there's something that we've developed a technique for or something that we've got an interest in there's a good chance that there's an aesthetic reason for it that's pretty pure, if there's an intent to be anything beyond that, it just tends to be the love of the thing in itself, you know and the way it relates to us, I suppose, I mean that's kind of it, and yeah the graphics are just another example of what we like, really.
AR - No statement about...
SB - No, not at all, no more than the way that I tie me shoelaces, you know. I mean it's just to what kind of people we are, and you know, I mean we've been doing our own graphics since, well since LP5. I think you've got a sort of idea of, I mean we're quite diverse aesthetically as well, you know, in terms of visuals, so but at least we feel we are, maybe we're not, maybe everything seems like its personal if that's the case, then i guess we've done a good job of being honest of what we like, you know, i mean the images don't really necessarily relate to the music anymore then that they're just you know what we like at the time, the same way the music is, really. Um, I guess the only thing that relates one to the other is that we did it.
AR - No statement about generative music...?
SB - No more than like the tracks are making statements about each other, do you know what i mean? I mean if you've got two tracks in a release, you don't say track 2 is making a statement about track 1, so it's just the same way the sleeves isn't making a statement about the music, do you know what i mean?
AR - No hint about you and Rob operating as a pair?
SB - It will do inevitably, because we did it, you know? What I'm saying the link is, is... if you want to create a tangible link, then we are it, because there isn't any other. We don't sort of go, oh well these tracks would look really good with this kind of graphic, it's more like, i really like this, i want to put this in the sleeve, what do you think? do you like this? yeah, i really like that, that's the kind of thing i'm into at the moment -- excellent, let's do it. And then it's on there -- you know, that's it, i mean we don't really think any more about it, really. It's just what kind of mood we're in at the time, same as the music, you know. I think that the fact that there's only us tying the two things together makes it more interesting, I think you know we're revealing more about ourselves over the years, when we're doing it that way, i think the less contrived you are about the way you present music the better, really, although there is an opportunity for expression, so it's good to take it and to do something. I wouldn't call it art in itself, though, I mean obviously it only exists as packaging for music, so.
AR - No message to listener; just information passed between you two artists?
SB - Inevitably when you produce something there's a dialog; but um i think in the case of sleeves it's just designing a package that we'd like to hold at that time. Um, I guess we make a consideration about the music, beacuse its, the music is usually already there by the time we get to doing it, but it's usually a case about just sitting and making something that we like, cause i guess if you like it then that's all you need; you don't need anything else related to it. We're not creating conceptual products, it's just an expression of taste, that's all, you know. We're not trying to say anything with what we're doing. We'reliterally just putting out what we'd like to be out there, you know, i mean i buy quite a lot of music and i think the world would be a better place if confield was in it, you know, if i could go into a record shop and buy it, i'd be pretty happy, i mean that's the only reason we do it, no other reason to make music really.
AR - Daily working relationship with Rob?
SB - Um (laughs) Don't know, a given day? What, like today? Ah, got up, drank shitload of coffee, walked in, turned on the computer, restarted it about six times cause this cubase is fucking me about, went out for more coffee, came back in, got a track going, farted about for a bit, realized i was going to do an interview in five minutes, then came in here (laughed) that's what i've done, i mean i don't know i mean it varies from day to day you know what I mean? (laughed) It's a bit normal, really, innit? (laughs)
AR - Rob...
SB - Yeah, and then he got up about five minutes after I did (laughs) and just like didn't have any coffee. That's the only difference, really. We've just been drinking loads of PG Tips. We're slightly misaligned caffeine-wise but apart from that we're on the same tip, really.
AR - Same room...
SB - It's really funny. We've got three computers in there. It's getting really intense, but it's quite good, acutally yeah. (laughs) There's so many ways that we can network stuff up now and we can be working on stuff simultaneously and sharing stuff. So yeah it's quite healthy. Yeah, like two of us poring over a 202 trying to program one melody sort of thing.
AR - Ever want to work apart?
SB - We do quite a lot. We do tracks on our own. I'd say about a third of what we release is either one of us on our own. Over the years it's always been like that, most of the albums, a third of them is solo tracks. I guess it's whatever you feel like, you know what I mean? We don't try to tie things down too much if we feel like doing a lot of stuff seperately, then we just do it. It just whatever happens to be there at the end of the year, you know. I don't think too much about it. It's just, you know what I mean? I don't think there's any point really in getting too bogged down in how you work, you know, cause then it's not really natural, you know you kind of force this thing. That's what you always get with these five-piece bands, you know? They're all fucking compromising and the music has no permanence, you know what I mean? If you've got something that you really really want to do, and you feel like you really want to do it, and the other person's not about it, then you just do it. If it's good then they'll like it, and that's it, really. That's how we are with it, anyway.
AR - Give and take...
SB - Everything from sort of casual "what do you reckon" -- "yeah" or "no" to "full-on sights" -- yeah, like every kind of reaction.
AR - Your popularity irks you. Why not change Ae's name?
SB - (Laughs) Yeah, we do all the time, but it wouldn't be a secret if I told you about it, would it? Obviously we don't always operate under the same name and don't always produce the same kind of music. I mean, yeah, it wouldn't be free if I was gonna dish out all the info in interviews like this.
The reason I'm bored with doing interviews is cause everything seems so obvious to me, you know. All the things I have to explain to journalists are just really obvious. I don't think I've ever said one thing to a journalist that wasn't completely totally patently obvious, you know? You know what I mean? It sort of gets... You get bored after a bit. It's kinda like playing tennis with someone who's really shit. But I mean.. I don't know, it's not my fault, so it doesn't bother me, really, stopping doing them. Anyway, I think journalists quite often think their readers are thick. And I think people know what we're saying most of the time, really.
Yeah, it doesn't stop me wanting to stop bothering. Dunno. I think I'm just more interested in making music. You just get to this point and you realize and you're being told that your music sort of relatively popular, how would you react? What would you do? Would you do loads more press and milk it? Or would you take the opportunity to maybe create something to be digested... If you know lots of people are going to digest something, would you make something normal and typical for them or would you try to make them something special I dunno, it's weird. It's like being a chef, you know what I mean? It's like you got 600 people in the room and you know they're going to love whatever you cook...
AR - Ever take advantage of it?
SB - Totally. The whole point of making music is to put something new into the world, you know. To inject a little piece of yourself and the more you can put in there, the more honest you can be with your expression, the better everything is, the more point there is in doing it. You only get one chance, really. Obviously, if we feel like our work is more successful, then we're going to use that to sort of make our work more successful, which is what most people do, to make our work better.
AR - What I meant was have you ever released something deliberately shitty?
SB - That's the fucking complete opposite of what I'm saying to you. What I'm saying to you is that you get one chance to make an honest expression and you fucking take it. And if you've been told, yeah, your album is going to sell fifty thousand copies, the best thing you can do is to make that album the best album that you've ever released, not to compromise it commercially at all because you're guaranteed the sales. The whole point is to ignore commerciality and be as fucking honest as possible, you know, and the closer you can get to that the better it'll be. That's how it is for us, totally. You know, most fucking artists that come out making music start off interesting and become shit. So, we just want to get more interesting and we're gonna keep getting more interesting.
AR - Software used and direction with software involvement in how Autechre
SB - I couldn't give a shit, really, I don't think about method too much. I just get into what I like. It's impossible to say what kind of music you'd be making cause you'd be reacting to things that wouldn't exist.
AR - Does software you use have any control over Autechre output?
SB - No, you have to define everything before you can even start. I don't understand what part you think the software is responsible for, exactly.
AR - Generative music...
SB - Well, no no what is generative music?
AR - Algorithmic music, random elements in system...
SB - This is the part you don't understand. You don't know what you're talking about. Do you know anything about generative music?
AR - Generative to me means generative algorithms, evolving systems of...
SB - So you know about mapping complex numbers against imaginary numbers, but what can you tell me about our music? Do you actually know anything about the way that we make music, or are we speculating? (laughs)
AR - I am speculating, so tell me...
SB - For start, the word 'random' -- it takes the shit right out of me. There's absolutely nothing random about what we do. There might be a lot of number crunching going on but there's nothing random in there.
AR - So you're not making instantaneous decisions based on whatever the computer is spitting out at a given time?
SB - Well I don't know, it depends what kind of action or reaction to a situation you've got. I mean, yeah, if I'm controlling a patch that behaves recursively then there's a vague quantum where I can only use my ears to determine exactly what's going on process-wise because I couldn't possibly see and process the numbers in realtime. Any sort of perceptive reaction on my part is going to play a part in the way that we react to the system, or the way we react as part of the system, but, like any quantum value as soon as you kind of ascertain what it is it changes. The problem with it is that it crumbles as soon as you discuss it.
I mean, all music is generative. Okay, any music. There's no.. as long as there's a rule and there's a determination in terms of process and you've got an algorithm. Any music can be broken down like that. I mean, it's really easy, the algorithm just becomes more complex in certain cases and simple in others. It might not have anything to do with how the music sounds, either. It might not be exactly directly or indirectly related. No, I don't use random number generators -- I fucking hate em. They're rubbish. I use a few chaotic operators but in terms of how much of it is bound to the system, I'm not really sure. Um, it's kinda like saying, if you program a drum machine, that the drum machine is writing the track. If that's the case, then we might as well not bother doing anything. I mean, should we give up? (laughs)
AR - What I mean is, is the instrument a third member of the group...
SB - No not at all. It just facilitates. It's just tools.
AR - Seems chaotic, like you're on the edge of losing control..
SB - The software is available, so as far as we're concerned we have to consider its use, and so we apply it where it is necessary, where it seems applicable. I mean, you know, they are tools, we're the people that are using them, there's a definite distinction got to be made -- you can't start treating software like it's got a personality or taste, you know? Taste is what defines people, it's what makes us different to software -- we're not software, you can't possibly consider a bit of software to be like a person. It's not "2001" -- I mean, it is, but it's not. We're not talking about fucking HAL, we're talking about a few bits of number crunching objects that don't really do a great deal until you feed them numbers and tell what to come out with.
It's like any generative processes are so-called lifelike algorithms, it's like cellular automatons supposedly replicating life-type behavior, it's fucking rubbish. They don't do anything of the sort, but they make really nice patterns. But I wouldn't imbue them with intelligence, just because there is intelligence behind their creation. It's like saying pyramids are clever.
It's silly, really. Yeah, I'm well into like messing with algorithms, 'cause I like the way things can interfere with each other, but... and I really like the exactitude of control you can get and the amount of math you can have within your system, or amount of system within the system, you know. I don't think any different now, to the way I felt when I was plugging a 202 into a delay unit that reads the square wave and generates a delay at that pitch and then changing the square wave width so that the delay unit gets confused. I don't feel any different now to the way I felt then, it's just the same, I mean, the fact that we're using computers to do it now, just makes it different set of criteria, different quanta.
I suppose the best part about it is designing systems from the outset using raw components, but that's not really different any from knocking PCBs up in college, so. It's all the same kind of thing, really. Electronics and the kinds of systems we use for programming are dead similar, that's probably why I use them. I don't do a great deal of codebase stuff, I'm pretty shit with code.
AR - CDs of programs that run and sound like Autechre?
SB - Yeah, we've done a fair bit of that. We've already done a couple of releases of recordings of systems that generate recordings. I think our first Fals.ch release came out about 18 months ago, maybe even two years ago. We've done a few things like that. You don't get the familiarity aspects, you don't get the sort of direct communicative aspects you get with recorded music.
AR - Why?
SB - Well, because it's not direct communication, really. Well, you could say that it is. There's a case to argue either way. For me personally, I don't feel like it's a "direct-er" communication, if you like, or it's not a succincter communication. It's kinda like writing fifty different poems, that are all very very similar. I tell you, it's almost like releasing every version of a track we'd do. Instead of doing eight versions of a track..
AR - Recycled tracks?
SB - No, a lot of them are just sort of remixes of the same track. Same basic premises with a few things changing. Might be based on the time between pressing stop and start, or something. Quite often its user input-based, but the users don't know that they're creating input, you know. I think these are the most interesting systems, really, cause they think its random, but you know it isn't.
AR - Try ideas on live audience?
SB - I love audiences; they're fucking brilliant. It's like a force-feedback. Yeah, playing live is probably better than dj'ing as well, I reckon I enjoy it more. Just like a constant... Yeah, I definitely know when certain algorithms produce certain effects, and tweaking certain algorithms in certain ways produces certain effects, and there are things you have to learn by trial and error, you can't... you couldn't possibly anticipate it sitting there in your studio. You know, you just have to go out there and try it.
I really like using generative systems in a live context, because you can set the degree of inputs to be whatever you want, because you design the system. If you want to make it really really hard to come out with something good, you can do, but you can have it so that you click one switch and the whole thing spirals off into a state that you can predict, but the way that it spirals off you can't predict. I quite like the random elements, it's like when we were djing when I was a kid and we'd get really really busy. Djing these days in clubs is pretty much a straight up affair, unless someone is really making a point about juxtaposing different kinds of music against each other, but I think with algorithms you can go to town in terms of tweaking, really basic things. I mean, recently the club stuff I think they're just getting into tracks that are a vibe, you know. Just ten minutes of a constant environment off in space, or whatever. Quite techno, really, I suppose. I suppose I just been getting bored with all this pop music. All these people want to do tracks that are like three seconds of one sound and three seconds of another sound. It's like, that's easy, you know. (laughs)
AR - Has an audience ever pissed you off?
SB - Yeah, lots. Fucking hell. Esp. in the early days. Felt like we were asking a little too much of people in the early days, a lot of the time. Yeah, fuck.
AR - Ever taken revenge?
SB - That's really fucking easy and childish. Um, I think it depends really, if it's actually giving someone a visceral rush, then it doesn't make any difference what you do. I think it just has to have a fucking effect. But I think if you're just doing it to annoy people and that's the only reason you're doing it, it's.. there's nothing contextual about what you're doing and if you don't find what you're doing to be entertaining then you've got fucking problems, you know what I mean?
I wouldn't go out there and deliberately wind people up and ignore my own taste in the process. I think one thing is just to play to yourself. If they're really pissing you off, then you just get as self-indulgent as possible, you know, that's what we do. I mean, whether they get pissed off with it or not doesn't matter beyond that point cause they're already pissed off with you, you know what I mean? I think if they don't like what you're doing the best thing to do is do it even more, but not to suddenly start making really loud, irritating noises is just a bit pointless, really. You know you're already in a position of power up there, no reason to be fucking Adolf Hitler, you know what I mean?
AR - Studio vs live process in making and performing music?
SB - I don't think it's ever going to be exclusively different, I mean, there are obviously elements of stuff that we've been working on at the time that end up.. you're relying on your own toolset, what was a menu of objects becomes a menu of little patches, and because you're constantly integrating things you've used in other systems that we've built, yeah, we can basically take things we've built around the album and develop them for live use, so a lot of the variables become user input instead of, say, an arrangement, if you like. Usually within the system we'll build something that controls a set of variables that makes the track progress in a certain way. We don't use any random processes when we're doing stuff, the whole thing is controlled, I guess. You just start the algorithm and then it just runs and it always does the same thing, so a lot of the time we'll take.. recombine and swap bits around with patches and create new things, then strip out variables and put in MIDI controls so that we can do it in realtime. A lot of what we do in the studio is realtime, but in a live situation you've got no choice but to make the whole thing that way, you know. I think the more things you can do on stage, the better, you know?
AR - Sound is growing more and more chaotic -- to run away from imitators?
SB - No, it's not a race, man, you shouldn't think about it like that, that's not the way it is. We're basically just about making things that are new and putting them into the world, and if people are copying the stuff that we used to do, then that's the way it is, you know. I think it's always been like that, really. But, yeah, that's cool. I'm not particularly conscious of what other people are doing when we're doing stuff, I think our stuff would sound like... I think we'd still be making Tri Repetae if we listened to that kind of music, you know what I mean?
AR - Chiastic Slide vs Tri Repetae, how did you get from TR to CS?
SB - Yeah, I don't know what it was, really. Did a lot of mushrooms that year (laughs). It might have something to do with that, maybe. No idea, really, couldn't say. We had a lot going on in our heads; yeah, a lot of realizations took place, you know, so. But that kind of happens a lot, you know, I think the less sort of methodical and contrived you are the more that happens.
AR - Any progress on a Gescom project?
SB - Gescom stuff going on. It's just whenever we get stuff together with our mates, really. We don't ever really plan projects, you know what I mean? Just kind of an ongoing thing, really. So, yeah a few things. Yeah, done quite a bit of material now. Most of it sort of goes between ourselves and our mates, you know, and gets played on the radio and stuff, occasional dj sets. Most of it's just music we made for us lot to listen to and we sort of release bits of it occasionally cause, oh I don't know, me mate's got a label (laughs) blah, blah, blah (laughs)...
AR - Thanks for doing this inteview.
SB - Yeah, so you're really into live programs, then?
AR - Yes. Lots of electronic musicians seem to be heading in this direction. University of Aberwrystwth in Wales working on DNA to music sequencing. Lots of groups exploring natural processes in music...
SB - It has to be something that you love, you know what I mean? No point in DNA sequences... It's kind of conceptually quite interesting but it might sound crap, and you know, if we thought it sounded crap then we wouldn't pursue it. We wouldn't say, "Well, like let's continue this project because it has to be a representation of a DNA sequence," because then you'd be sort of denying your own taste and I think taste is all that can define you in making something.
AR - It's just an example of a source of material...
SB - If you really like the way it sounds, then... It's such a slim chance of that being the case, and I think... you wouldn't be in control of the numbers, you'd be a slave to a number set that isn't anything to do with you. It might be that you really like that number sequence, but I don't think there's a great chance of that happening, not compared say to algorithms, where if you just keep increasing one number then another number changes and creates a nice curve, and you might really like that curve. But I don't think a DNA sequence is going to generate any really nice curves, I think it's just a set of switches, isn't it? I mean, it'll appear almost like a random sequence, so, I can't see it being that aesthetically pleasing.
AR - Different organisms with same proteins but each with different sequences, take a musical comparison of sequences.
SB - I think it'd just annoy me though, because I couldn't change the numbers. I don't think I could work that way. I couldn't work like that. Nah, I'm into extrapolating data but I think that you have to create it in the first place. You can't just start with somebody else's data, it's like, we're not MIDI files, if we're gonna do that.
AR - Evolution is creating new sequences all the time.
SB - Yeah, but why should we be observers? Do you know what I mean?
AR - So your goal is to create evolving systems of your own?
SB - Well, yeah, I mean there's no point in just being an observer of a system.. yeah, I mean it depends on how you define an evolving system, I mean. If it's something that always different every time you use it, then yeah, we are. But I don't think we're necessarily like biotechnicians, you know. And I also don't see the point in just playing the role of the observer, I mean if we were gonna make music using DNA sequences, it'd be really boring. I mean, we might as well become photographers, you know. I mean, what're you doing? You're just reiterating something that already exists, and, alright fair enough, it's beautiful. But you're not responsible for that.
AR - It's just one example...
SB - No, no, if you throw a rock in a pool you're responsible for the ripples. So using the ripples for information would be quite nice. But if you... and also, you'd be responsible for that, because of the angle of the rock going into the pool, and the shape of the rock, and the depth of the water would all be influencing the way the ripples worked, and you'd be wholly responsible for the ripples.
If you just take something that exists from an independent interaction, then you're essentially sampling, which is like photography and like a lot of other things, uh, which is not quite as interesting to me personally, though I do see there is a great forum for exploration, for communication or sort of comment within those areas. I don't think these are necessarily as interesting to us as those of synthesis. I think we're more interested in synthesis, really, generally.
AR - Electronic music seems to be hitting technical boundaries and examining natural processes...
SB - I think natural processes will inevitably going to be a part of whatever system you use, I mean, without electrodynamic properties we wouldn't have *any* of the systems, any of the systems used to make music, period. I mean, in terms of the sort of music we make, I think it's there inevitably anyway. I think, the trick is to be aware of what you like within that, just the same way it is with everything. Probably all it comes down to is taste, that's the only thing you can say is constantly there and is constantly feeding what you're doing, and it's the only thing you can possibly lay claim to.
AR - So no meaning, just taste.
SB - It's all about taste, completely about taste. Yeah, 100%. Totally.
AR - Thanks again for doing this interview and sorry about music journalism being an annoyance.
SB - Nah, it isn't, man. I think it's just generally, it's really hard for a journalist to do his job, where we're concerned, because we make it really difficult for him. And so therefore, they don't know what questions to ask 'cause they're expecting us to be difficult, you know what I mean, we don't make it easy for ourselves. We just look like we're having a good time all the time when we're doing interviews, and then its much easier for the next journalist to come along and say "they're nice guys". But it's kind of weird. You feel like you should be honest, to a point, I mean, yeah, why not just play the game and bullshit and keep everyone entertained. But I don't know, it's kind of like being a conjurer or something. I'd rather not.

Interview by Alex Reynolds from http://www.groovesmag.com/ September 28th 2001




'The Ultimate Folk Music' - May 2001

The Ultimate Folk Music. A little interview with Sean from Autechre. 1st of May 2001 in Berlin at the WMF.

De:Bug: This looks really heavy.
Sean: What?
De:Bug: The huge bus.
Sean: Heavy, what do you mean.
De:Bug: Looks like real rock business. What are you doing on stage really.
Sean: Just doing tracks.
De:Bug: How much equipment do you use.
Sean: Not much. A couple of synthesizers, a couple of computers. It`s not for equipment, it`s for people. We got Team Doyobi, Rob Hall, supporting us. And Hacker is playing as well. He`s been coming with us for a couple of gigs. Florian Hacker form Mego. We are friends. The reason for the bus is, that it is consequtive dates. No possible way to do it otherwise. The transportation costs would be astronomical. That then becomes RockґnґRoll. What we`re doing ist still cheap.
De:Bug: Just looked impressive.
Sean: Itґs because basically we donґt want any local DJs playing. Sometimes you come up, and there is only one band on, and three other things, and it`s very difficult, cause the context you appear in is completely wrong. It`s good to travel with your mates. Have a crew of people around you that`s consistent.
De:Bug: The last time you played in Berlin was, what the people told me, very strange.
Sean: Yes it was at the Volksbьhne, of course it was strange. But the people who were putting it on didnґt really know what they are doing. They are idiots.
De:Bug: Yeah i know them.
Sean: You know that they are idiot`s then. Ok. We got fucked up, we didnґt get payed and stuff.
De:Bug: Really.
Sean: Yeah they fucked us over and then sent us nasty letters as well. It was really bad.
De:Bug: And they do it all with cultural money.
Sean: Exactly. When we first got there we were really happy to play there, cause it`s the Volksbьhne you know. But then... Apparently Kraftwerk were in the audience at that gig, wich is really funny.
De:Bug: At least something.
Sean: At least someone came. Obviously concert halls, if youґre that kind of person, if you like sitting down listening music, then it`s wicked, but a lot of people want to jump about, and that does not work.
De:Bug: How does it actually work live with the crowd. Hard to imagine Autechre in a club.
Sean: Well the same at it is for a DJ. You look, you make adjustments, you look, you make adjustments. You bring in things and take things out, regarding to what the response ist from the crowd.
De:Bug: Not that dance orientated maybe.
Sean: What do you mean. I donґt know. I donґt really think of it as being dance or not dance. I never really made any distinction in that respect. I donґt know what defines dance music. Is it regular rhythm?
De:Bug: Well usually for the people dance music is defined by...
Sean: Steady 4/4?
De:Bug: Linearity.
Sean: Yeah sure. But your definition of linearity comes into question then. Obviously you strike a point. You could say that that is dancemusic because it`s a loop. Because you supposedly dance in a loop. Is that right?
De:Bug: Well.
Sean: Some people do. I think what we`re doing is what we want to hear when we go to clubs. I think they are all good dance tracks. I donґt know if they fit into the genre of dancemusic.
De:Bug: And the perception of dancemusic of the people. Wich is to say do people dance to it.
Sean: It depends where you are. In Newcastle or Manchester it`s a rave. There is no point where the audience stops to look at the stage, they donґt bother, they just keep raving as if thereґs a DJ on. Thatґs what i grew up with. When we started doing gigs we didnґt have all our gear at the front of the stage with light and stuff, we were in the corner. We did not really want to be any different from DJs because what we are doing is not different really. Just changing patterns on the drummachine is no different from putting on records. You are always choosing from a set of available things to do. Weґve changed a bit though, cause we write our own sequencers now, so we are not restricted in a way that most people are when they are playing live.
De:Bug: What kind of software do you actually use when playing live?
Sean: Programs and sequencers weґve developed ourselves using development environments. It`s pretty simple.
De:Bug: Environments on what?
Sean: On a MacIntosh. Like Symbolic Composer, Max & Supercollider. There is loads. About thirty that are really worth persuing as individual things. Itґs not really good to combine more then three though. It`s mainly trying to make as many things for us available to manipulate live as we can, when we are implementing it in the program. Because obviously, most people when they build a sequencer program, they got 16 stabs. We donґt work like that at all.
De:Bug: A lot of people are quite lucky to have something like a relooper patch...
Sean: Yeah. Thats not really fucking shit. Boring. I think it getґs to a point where everyone has the same tools. Everyone uses computers when doing music now. Thats become the norm.
De:Bug: With a certain kind of music everybody is using Max as well.
Sean: You could say. But that`s different. Youґre not so tied to it. It does not sound like anything. I would never be offended if everyone went out and bought Max. A few years ago i might have been if everyone went out and bought R8 Drummachine because we used them. You have to do so much work to get something out of it. And to get decent filters and sound you have to know what youґre doing. You canґt just plug it in and expect it to sound good. It`s not like reactor or something like that, where you got youґre guaranteed warm filtersounds, and thats their design. Thats all bullshit. I canґt bother with it. I`d rather do most of it myself. But yes, a lot of the people are using the same stuff. It`s just about working out ways of using it that people havenґt.
De:Bug: Would you say that software is still at the beginning, or that what it gives as tools is already so much, that you could go on with it an find new things for the next years? That they could stop development now?
Sean: If i didnґt earn another penny, i would not be upset about it, it`s true. Because i got everything i need, i feel, for a while. Got good relationships with the developers, so. I`ll allways be supported with updates, so I ainґt got any worries. As long as i keep contributing, it`s totally fine. It`s ideas for ideas, that`s how it all works.
De:Bug: Somebody has got to use these programs in ways that work their potential. What do you actually think software development for music is going to?
Sean: I think it`s going to be very open. I think iґll split. Itґs the same thing that has happened forever. You have little things that are implemented in academic programs, that later get taken up by more commercial companys in diluted ways. Just to represent that you can do that. Like Logic, where you know have this environment window where you can do all these "strange" things. Itґs quite obviously inspired by Max, there wasnґt any question about it. There have been things inbetween that were interesting, but by and large you are going to end up with two very different camps. The academic, open source sort of camp, and the commercial, leaching of the academic kind of camp, wich is allways interesting. You canґt tell whats going to happen in the next two days, so you wont be able to tell what is going to happen with software.
De:Bug: What would you like to happen.
Sean: Well. The obvious things. I donґt want my computer to crash as often as it does. Iґd quite like it if the batterys lasted longer and if they did not use toxic chemicals, if theyґd make powerbooks that didґt break, that have decent soundoutputs and soundcards, it`s hardware that could change. Software can be resolved, all you need to do is crack it and change what you want to change. The software part is just silly, cause it`s liquid, you canґt have an opinion on it. The hardware aspect is something where you are dealing with companys that are producing items and charging a lot of money for it, that could be better. I would quite like it if Macintosh made a pro-audio Mac, instead of all these pro-video Macs they are knocking out. Having a nice audiocard instead of having stupid API Video Card, wich is good if you are doing desktop movies, but absolutely useless for me. I donґt need lightning fast graphics. I need lightning fast sound.
De:Bug: And mabe an audio input. That was a silly one.
Sean: Yes, that cons. Whatever. Well i donґt really need the audio input. I donґt do a lot of realtime processing. You just put the file in.
De:Bug: Still itґs stupid.
Sean: Yes i agree, i agree, it would be really nice. Especially for live stuff. I`ve got loads of MSP stuff that i can plug into, but, notanymore. Got to play soundfiles of my own drive. Bla bla bla bla bla...
De:Bug: Where is Autechre going with this next album.
Sean: Nah. Nah nah.
De:Bug: Not a specific....
Sean: No. Not because we didnґt have anything specific in mind when we did the tracks. I donґt want to pretend now that weґve got something.
De:Bug: Not in a way of: we want this and that, but in a way of what you were working on.
Sean: Itґs just like that: Look at this, this is what we did. Thatґs all what weґre saying really. Just check this out. This is what we did this year. There is no specific reason that it exists, other then that thats what we wanted to hear on the days that we made those tracks. I`d be lying if i said anything else, It would be bullshit. Iґd just be saying it to impress cause it sounds good. I am not like that. I dont see the point in it. We exist, we do what we do, and we talk about it. But the music, actually describe it, trying to define where itґs coming from. There is no point. I had no concious thoughts when I was doing it. Not litererally. Not in terms of: oh yeah, I tried to do this with it, and that with it. It would not even make sense if I would be trying to describe it. Rob would understand. I donґt know..
. I read a lot of interesting books this year. A lot of theory. Philosophy i suppose.
De:Bug: What kind of philosophy.
Sean: People like Virillio and Baudrillard. Derrida as well. I read a lot of Derrida. Derrida is most interesting.
De:Bug: Derrida is quite endless.
Sean: Yes there is no real point in it either. I quite like that. He is not really trying to define or persue anything specific. It just kind of breaks whats available. It is quite like the way that humans think anyway.
De:Bug: People are always trying to pin him down.
Sean: I`ve got books that relate Derridas work to other philosophy, whole books that are struggling, really fucking trying. Little passages of Derrida with massive quotes from other philosophers trying to strike a card. But Derrida is just flipping what everybody else is doing. He is going, no, thats shit, no, no no, thats wrong, but this is pretentially right but hey, mabe itґs not and mabe I am full of shit. And he deconstructs himself as well. Endlessly. I really like the fact that it is just endless bits. It does not matter how far you go into something. It just goes on and you still have the same amount of information. Itґs just really lush I just really get into stuff like that. I donґt know weather itґs got anything to do with what we are doing, I donґt think it got necessarily, cause I think that a lot of the things you find in Derrida is things you find anyway when you are working, especially with electronic music, cause you constantly, and this is the difference between live and recording, in a recording situation you really are constantly feeding from what youґve done. And it really is a reflective process. Itґs completely about what necessary changes you have to make to what youґve just done to make it work. I think a lot of what Derrida says about society is quite similar to the way I see music. It`s hard to pin down though. It`s pretty rewarding. But apart from that I havenґt really done anything new this year, apart from moving to the countryside. Wich has been wicked. There is no hassle.
De:Bug: Countryside like in: a house of your own where no other house is insight?
Sean: Yeah, that kind of thing. With a studio next to the house not in it. So it`s kind of right there but not in it. I can really kick it whenever I like. It does not matter who is in the house. Rob moved to London. And Chantal and I to the country side. A really lush place. Itґs actually amazing.
De:Bug: Must be quite a drag touring when you know you could stay home and do what you like.
Sean: Yeah, but I really enjoy doing this as well. I think you have to have a balance. If you have a day job it`s good to live in the city and go out partying at weekends. For me itґs different. It would not make a point having to meet loads of other musicians for the rest of the year when I am not around touring. In a city where thats what everybody ever talks about anyway. Where I live noone gives a fucking shit about what we do. They don`t mind that we do it. They know that we do it. In the village. But it is a totally different attitude. They are not fucking obsessed with the detail. Like Sheffield. There is no other way to exist. You all go to the same places as you all know each other. Everybody is doing the same thing, or thinking the same thing.
De:Bug: I was actually quite surprised you got in here in time. Cause it is riot day today.
Sean: Yeah I know. Itґs going to kick off. I am really fucking scared. Itґs mayday.
De:Bug: Scared of what?
Sean: Well not really scared. Just scared of whatґs going to happen. There is going to be riots. The police presence in Frankfurt yesterday was really fucking on top. So many police it was silly.
De:Bug: They moved some 9000 police men to Berlin for these days. For a couple of broken windows and a couple of burnt down cars.
Sean: 9000 police. Fucking mad. I quite like Berlin. Itґs a shame that the few times we played here we played at such stiff places.
De:Bug: Can be nice.
Sean: But itґs not nice. I just want the people to get into it. I just want to party really. When we started doing this shit we had our own partys. In our houses. Put massive speakers up and gear in the corner. No one would really know what was records and what wasnґt and it didnґt really matter anyway and there was only about a hundred people there.
De:Bug: Thatґs about 10 years ago.
Sean: Yeah. And we were having loads of mushrooms out of a pot in a stove. Just buy a lot of mushrooms and get completely fucked. Just fucking moving around and messing with gear. At the time we thought it was a bit folky making music in your own house. Just for a few people who were there. It was allways like these stages in folk music. It is quite funny with computers now. It is really getting like that. Really getting that available. Like people all over the place could make music in their own rooms. I fucking love that I think itґs amazing. It was the party aspect and the invisibility aspect, the fact that people didnґt really know what was made on the spot and messed about with. I think thats a good thing. When we were starting in Sheffield doing live things, we did not have a lot of live gear. So we did not have an hour of a set. We were mixing it in. So people would not really know. We could do live remixes of tracks, changing things. Do covers, trying to get the gear to sound like what was before. With techno records thats well easy. Remixing on the spot.
De:Bug: Thats become difficult now.
Sean: Yeah. Different. Obviously what weґd like to to is talk to the local people at clubs and tell them. Allright, there is no running order, you just open the doors and we deal with that. But you canґt. Even now.
De:Bug: You are actually more promoted like a concert. So people turn up early.
Sean: We`ll work it out. I am prepared to wait. Next time we tour in europe hopefully we have a sound system with us. Thats what we did in the UK last time. We had a bit of money to spend and we spent it on sound. Same sound for every night. The best 3 or 4 thousand pounds I`ve ever spent. I like the consistency of it. You donґt have to battle to make it sound allright. You have enough variation with the crowd and the room. Obviously when you turn up with your own rig, you can run the running order as well. You donґt really have to do it in restricted places anymore.
De:Bug: How do you cope with the phenomenon "Autechre".
Sean: I donґt really understand it to be honest. It`s not something that I can identify with easily.
De:Bug: Even the label and the distributers are quite strange about it. Allright they first said, we only do one Interview in germany, and if you do a cover page, you get it. And you say. Well, ok, it`s Autechre, but we have not even heard their new record.
Sean: Really, is that the kind of shit you are getting? I mean I`ve told Warp that I donґt want to do that many interviews because I donґt have enough time. I am supposed to be programming now. All my mates have gone out shopping and I sit here with my computer. Weґve literally been doing interviews every day. I donґt want to do interviews every afternoon. I wake up, do my interviews, sit at the computer for five minutes to check my email, then I have to do soundcheck, then eat, then play, then sleep. Itґs ground hog day, I tell you. Thats the reason we donґt want to do more interviews. It`s just bullshit. I canґt be bothered to do them. Especially for america. They are fucking going insane. Itґs like trying to get us to do 10 interviews every afternoon. Five each. One after another. I ainґt got time. All we tell the licensees is: look, find all those that are the best ones and do them. I got better things to do then to justify what I do all of the time. I never have time to do what I do. I am just thinking about saying no more. I donґt know if there is a point in doing interviews anymore.
De:Bug: There usually is, otherwise youґd just fall under the "very unaproachable, very strange etc." banner.
Sean: I donґt give a fucking shit about how mad people think we are. I am not mad at all. I just want to have my one space and donґt worry about all the stupid pressures that people think they have to impose on us. Half of the journalists tell me our album is softer, half of them its harder, i donґt know what to think anymore. Itґs just there. There does not seem to be any general consensus. It is not really journalistic music. There is no big arrow saying: hey look this is the musical trick in our track. There is no point where all is revealed, or where everybody focusses on. Itґs about subjectivity.
De:Bug: Thats not really the problem. The only difficulty in not doing interviews is the sort of effect it has on other people doing music. They might be thinking: these people are so crazy I want to be that way as well. The only thing it actually transports for me, not doing interviews, is the idea of a musician as a genius.
Sean: Oh no. Thats ridiculous. There is no fucking genius in music. There is no fucking genius at all. Genius is just a fucking stupid word that people flow around pretending to know what it means.
De:Bug: Thats the thing that happend to Aphex Twin.
Sean: But he is everywhere. He does loads of press.
De:Bug: For a time he didn't.
Sean: It getґs boring. And I talked with Aphex about that. Compared to what you could do, no matter what that is if it is what you love doing, and it is your fucking head and you are really getting into it. An interview? What`s that. Somebody asking questions. And you feel like you know yourself so fucking well when you do this shit. I donґt know. Interviews never seem to get anywhere near to what you think you are. You can never just say it. All youґve got is what youґve done. And that really does represent for me what Rob and I really are and what we really want. Some music. We push it through. And it`s weired you have to justify it. It`s boring.
De:Bug: I`ll excuse for that.
Sean: No no, itґs not boring now, not really. This is a conversation. You donґt have a list of questions. Itґs not like: So, what new software did you make this year. And you are like: well it doesnґt really have a name. It just gets so awkward. I donґt really care about the image part of it, as long as you know that you can still sell records. The fame bit of it is just really ugly. I canґt be bothered with it. It is just totally wrong. Not at all. Besides we are two people and that kind of dynamism, accusations of genius, very very rarely get leveled at two people. Nobody calls them a genious if they are in a band. Unless they are John Lennon. Or if they kill themselves. There is more dead geniuses then living ones.
De:Bug: People who donґt talk are dead somehow.
Sean: Yeah, it is a lot easier to be called a genius if you never get the opportunity to fuck up. I see what youґre saying. This dark game of image manipulation is something I am quite into. Like subverting it, not into the normal rules. It seems like this old mentality. The best way to be commercial and get a way with it is taking the piss out of other commercial things. Do something commercial, but just do with enough pisstake in it to be accepted by the people who donґt like commercial things. And therefore cover all bases. Like the old Beck trick. Like really fucking clever, but a really 90s marketing idea as well. You ask youself, havenґt they thought of anything since that.
De:Bug: What do you think about "marketing" ideas like this one thing that happend to youґre album long before it was out. Somebody posting your album tracks with the right names with completely false tracks of other people on Napster.
Sean: Wonder who that was?
De:Bug: You know the guy?
Sean: No, not personally. After Warp accepted the album I had a list of tracktitles that i posted on the net to a little newsgroup, an Autechre discussion list, to see what happens. And thats what happened. I`ve got so many of our livesets that I have napstered. I think that Napster is actually quite good. I am quite into it. I never bother to record anything that we do. And it is just wicked to just go on there and get all of our livesets. All the kids with minidiscs and stuff have archived them and put them up there. I fucking appreciate it. I donґt have any problem with it, itґs quite a good thing. I mean if they are selling them to each other, that stinks cause I am not into people making money off it. But if they are just trading and stuff itґs fucking well, itґs what I did when I was at school and did not have enough money to buy records. I just had tapes. What I`ve done is that I retitled some of the livesets with tracknames of our album and left them on Napster for a couple of months. But nobody downloaded them. I was quite disappointed. But the files were so massive. All really highbitrate as well. It is quite amusing that somebody else did it as well. And they were quite well known tracks wasnґt it? I quite like that. Itґs probably someone I know.
De:Bug: Yeah. Seems like the one who did it said that he explicitly choose tracks that sound close to Autechre, and that people liking Autechre should know. But nobody seemed to identified them.
Sean: So a lot of people think they have the album when they havnґt got it at all. Thats quite clever. Who did it then. Probably the label. I can imagine Warp doing something like that, they are pretty sneaky.
De:Bug: They said they didnґt. They wanted to do something similar though.
Sean: Same thing for me. But it did not work. With Napster you really got to be online all of the time to have people downloading stuff from you. And I could not be bothered to find somebody who is, cause then it would have been theyґre totally responsiblitiy, wich would not have been nice. Loads of musicians use Napster to hype their own stuff anyway. Fucking mad. Its like: Oh well, I`ve got these slightly less good remixes of my stuff so I put them on Napster first so that people think they have my new single before I release my actual new single wich is better cause itґs got more edits in it and a few more DSP eccentries, bonus bits, itґs like this old hiphop thing of buying a remix 12" with a couple of extra little edits in it. Got too much to do though. Too much music to make.
De:Bug: How much music do you actually produce.?
Sean: Donґt know. In a good week probably about an hours worth. And that can be various lengths. The thing is with a lot of generative and computer stuff you are making programs, but you are not actually bothered to record the tracks. The programms are always going to spit out different versions of the tracks. I mean there are some that are consistently running from start to finish as well. Coded routine that works. But a lot of the tracks are really long cause there is no real end to it. Its an algorithmic process and you donґt have to have an end to it. I might fill a DAT with a track an listen to it while doing other things. I am totally recursive as well. Involved with Autechre. I donґt really listen as much to other peoples stuff as much as I used to. Quite into listening to our own stuff.
De:Bug: Itґs something that I have been waiting for years, that somebody comes out with programs as a music format.
Sean: Weґve already released one on the fals label, but only a little one. With music that performs a little visual process as well. Generative, always slightly different. I`ve sent quite a lot of these things out to people, but the problem is with copyright law as it stands, it does not support stuff like that. Itґs a great idea. Iґd love to give people a CD with the programs and say: There you go, thats the new Autechre album. But everytime the program runs it makes a different track, wich then has a different copyright, and the person who runs the program could put his copyright to it. You could release the tracks as your tracks. There is nothing for me to prevent that. De:Bug: On the other hand itґs a good idea that there is at least a resistance against the copyrighting of software.
Sean: Yeah and you canґt put a copyright to everything a special software makes. And it would be really stupid to do that. I mean these programs are just a patch. And whoґd copyright a patch. Youґd have to be a real moneygrabbing bastard to do that.
De:Bug: People are making money with less ideas.
Sean: Obviously i`d fucking love to release something like that, but it is just really difficult to earn any money with it. But I like using them for live. Thats applications and I can change the input live. And it doesnґt really matter if everything changes because thats the whole point of livesets. And then there is now debate about who performed it, because we performed it.
De:Bug: And you can get it from Napster.
Sean: Yes, I can download it later. Canґt wait to get home and look what has been uploaded. Audio Galaxy is getting pretty healthy as well. It is probably better for weired music, cause as soon as the news came out about Napster all the weirder stuff came up on Audio Galaxy. Less Berlinda Carlisle and more Stockhausen. It was good. Napster can really hurt small musicians though. People who havnґt got an established profile. Weґre quite lucky really. Weґve been around for 10 years, and if we have a new album out, people will go out and get it, it does not really matter if itґs on napster or not. People who are just starting out have a hard time though. And it is the same thing as what you were saying about people not doing press. I don`t want to go through life thinking that we set examples for people, cause thats not what we are going to do, we just do our own thing, but in the end, after 10 years in the business, people are going to look to you to see what your attitudes are. I do try to be sound as much as possible, and try to just say what I think. I could have changed my mind in 10 years, but I am quite prepared to accept myself as I have been changed so I don`t think Iґve got a reason to think that whatever I said is ever going to worry me. Not saying anything is bit like not doing anymore records, when you earned shitloads of money already. There is something weired about that. Saying I earned enough money so I am not releasing any more, or saying Iґve earned enough so I am releasing all my stuff on Napster now, blabla, kicking off like that, is preventing other musicians of getting where they want to be. Just a tactical manouvre. People who say such things are not people who really believe in it, but people who want to prevent other peoples success. Very simple. I think though, to be honest, the world would be a better place if every kid was given a laptop when they were born. Or at least given the rights to them. I think that would be wicked, cause then we`d have the ultimate folkmusic. Itґs silly: peoples idea of folkmusic seems to be that it`s cheap. And weґre already there. The lowest common denominator. Folk has always been economically defined. What we consider to be folkmusic is what became rock when it was mushed with rhythm and blues, wich is basically what most people did when they were in a garage band, itґs like the whole thing with indie, indie music, the cheapest thing to buy in the 80s was probably a guitar and a little fuzzbox, so they made guitar and fuzzbox music, wich has nothing to do with independent anymore, and there is very little independent music that uses guitars anymore cause it just costs more then computers, end of story. Computers are just the cheapest way for people to make music now and it is going to kick off, it is going to fucking kick off. Next 10 years is going to be insane. The next few years there is going to be a really major upsurge cause now it is not only kids that are into electronic music or dance music that are using computers it`s everyone. Anyone who is into music is getting one.


interview19.htm interview34.htm

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, kieselguhr kid said:

here's an old one from 2001; the guy just shared it on twitter  and i don't think it has been posted here before

Nice! Holy shit, I had the magazine that this was printed in. I had it pasted up on my wall as a teen 😆 
I bet I still have it in a box somewhere. I'm moving this month. If I find it I'll take a pic/scan and share it here!

I always loved this quote, it has had a lasting impression on me: 
"Like a tree seems to be like an inside-out lung sticking out of the ground. "

Edited by toaoaoad
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 10/30/2020 at 5:24 AM, Aefx said:

That's the fucking complete opposite of what I'm saying to you. What I'm saying to you is that you get one chance to make an honest expression and you fucking take it. And if you've been told, yeah, your album is going to sell fifty thousand copies, the best thing you can do is to make that album the best album that you've ever released, not to compromise it commercially at all because you're guaranteed the sales. The whole point is to ignore commerciality and be as fucking honest as possible, you know, and the closer you can get to that the better it'll be. That's how it is for us, totally. You know, most fucking artists that come out making music start off interesting and become shit. So, we just want to get more interesting and we're gonna keep getting more interesting.

absolutely the lushest shit right here

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2020 at 3:24 PM, Aefx said:

AR - CDs of programs that run and sound like Autechre?
SB - Yeah, we've done a fair bit of that. We've already done a couple of releases of recordings of systems that generate recordings. I think our first Fals.ch release came out about 18 months ago, maybe even two years ago. We've done a few things like that. You don't get the familiarity aspects, you don't get the sort of direct communicative aspects you get with recorded music.

Anybody bothered to figure out which release is he talking about? 

fals.ch archive is pretty well-documented and most of the 1999-2000 catalogue is up on bandcamp now, and i don't see anything suspicious of being Ae/Gescom in disguise. These artists are usually properly attributed and known by other activity no matter how half-assed/seemingly anonymous their aliases may look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Similar Content

    • By ignatius
      out in december

    • By cear
    • By kaini
      it's a mix made of wu-tang and (mostly late-period) ae. really good so far
    • By subsub
      Just seen news of this release from VOD....🤤
      LATE MARCH 2021
      VOD166: Hafler Trio / Autechre 7Lp-Box
      Lp01. æ³o / h³æ
      Lp02. æo³
      Lp03 ³hæ
      Lp04/5 5ah³eo
      Lp06/7 ha³oe
    • By splesh
      I brought up this thought in the dedicAtEd thread for Untilted but I think it is an interesting enough idea generally speaking. Here's the alternate order I came up with for their 2005 offering, Fermium is not removed because I dislike the song but because it feels like the odd one out. This is just my first attempt at this and I don't think I have a better sequence than S and R (fucking love this album the way it is as it is), but it is fun to try rejigger things a bit and see if there are some nice ways of changing the sequencing, just for fun

      1. LCC
      2. The Trees
      3. Augmatic Disport
      4. Ipacial Section
      5. Iera
      6. Pro Radii
      7. Sublimit

      Here's what auxien said about this new order/removing Fermium:

      "hm, not sure about Fermium on its own, feels naked like that. but it is a little bit of an odd one out on the album perhaps, so i see the case there. 
      random thoughts listening to this tracklisting:
      LCC as opener and Sublimit as closer is necessary, good work on not trying to fuck with that not sure about The Trees as track 2, feels a little too close in shape to LCC Ipacial into Iera is fucking great Iera into Pro Radii works pretty well Pro Radii into Sublimit works pretty well too  overall not as offensive as i'd expected trying to tweak what's pretty close to a perfect album. may see about doing an alternate tracklist of my own"
  • Create New...