January 2004
[Link to FOS Interview]

]Tucker Martine was the man behind the mixing board on several of the records spoken about in this issue, including Marc Olsen, Downpilot, and Sanford Arms. Working at his own Flora studio or elsewhere around the country, he's increasingly in demand by artists who've heard and admired his impressionist mixing style. If there's a common thread in Tucker's work, it'd have to be that he always seems to sense what qualities make an artist stand out, and brings those qualities even further to the fore. His sound collage project Mount Analog will release their second CD "New Skin" in April of 2004, but that won't be all from Mount Analog this year. Further plans include the recording of original soundtrack music the group composed and performed last year at film festivals, to accompany a pair of Depression-era documentaries. When I spoke to Tucker, he was wrapping up a week of location recording in New York and heading south to Pensacola, Florida for a week of helping shape new recordings by Luaka Bop recording artist Jim White.

FEAR OF SPEED: What's with the whole "lo-fi" thing, Tucker? Seems kinda strange, because people who love it say what draws them to it is the intimacy. But sometimes the sound quality is so fucking horrid I can't tell what's going on, and can't really get lost in the music with so much sonic gristle in the way. How can that bring you closer, when you have to fight it? I mean, the human ear can only work so hard, to transmit stuff to the brain and heart...

TUCKER MARTINE: Well, it's hard to say without a specific example. I think in the best case, "lo-fi" is just a way of saying that the recording process embraces imperfections that make up the soul or the personality of the music.

"Lo-fi" for the sake of it doesn't do us any good. For me, I like the depth you get when you combine dirtier, localized sounds with wider, more realistic recordings. You'll usually get more dimension that way. This includes combining roomy sounds with close sounds and so on...all the while, not losing track of the centerpiece, which is almost always the song. It's a drag when the recording choices become a barrier between the music and the listener. It's important to recognize those boundaries. I want recordists to appreciate my work but I also want my mom or Joe Public, with no interest in the recording process - to be drawn to it.

Well, what does your mom think of your work? You're from Nashville, so she's gotta be no stranger to this zany thing we call show business...

I know she's glad to see me making a living doing what I love. And she recognizes that I wouldn't be so busy if I didn't sort of know what I'm doing. But I don't think it's the first thing my parents crave to hear. However... they really like Jesse Sykes' and Bill Frisell's music a lot.

We should all have such cool moms. But enough about them, dammit, and back to lo-fi.

I wonder if many folks who say they react emotionally to lo-fi are really reacting intellectually, but can't tell the difference. Y'know, "this is not polished, so therefore it must be unguarded and uncontrived"...

What makes something polished? Are the Flaming Lips polished? What about Radiohead? Those are very hi-fi recordings in my opinion and if they're polished, I guess I love me some polish...I just think it has immediacy, the ideas go directly from the hearts and minds of the artists through your speakers and into your own heart and mind. The same thing happens with old Rudy Van Gelder jazz recordings or plenty of records made in somebody's bedroom on a four track, with no idea what they're doing.

You're an engineer, a producer and a composer. Not to blow smoke up your ass here, but you excel at all three. Right now you're in NYC, recording Bill Frisell live at the Village Vanguard for a week. In a situation like that, are you given a pretty clear idea what your role is?

Yeah, this Frisell thing is more cut and dried than most situations. He plays his ass off, and my job is to make sure it gets recorded...and then mix it in the Spring. But I almost never do live records, so this is sort of an anomoly. I try to have a dialog with the artist before I start a project and make sure everybody is on the same page in terms of our roles. I learned that early - things go a lot smoother when that stuff is clear.

On one hand, it's a live show, and you're kinda there to document that. Otherwise you could stay home and do it at your place. On the other, you can't swing a dead cat in Manhattan without hitting a good engineer, so obviously he's flown you there to do more than just hit the record button.

Well, as you know - there's lot more to capturing the essence of something than hitting the record button. It's an entirely subjective art.

If you have 50 different people take a picture something, each one will highlight different aspects of the subject. And that has to do with the photographers own eye and sensibilites as well as the hundreds of micro-decisions that have to be made, without discussion, in the process. Some photographs will end up black and white, some sepia-toned, some clear as a bell, others grainy or washed out. Some will have the subject in the foreground, others might choose to show the subject in a larger context. As a musician planning to record, it makes sense that you choose to work with folks who hear your music like you do, who appreciate simliar textures and relationships of sounds.

As someone who's recorded him improvising in the studio and improvising onstage - is there a difference? Does the audience come into play, or is the dialog still pretty much between the musicians, while the audience sits and enjoys the show?

I think the audience and the "vibe" of the place is the entire reason to choose to record live rather than in the studio. Plus, Bill has made tons of studio records and he knows the importance of changing it up to keep himself honest. No matter how much you go for it in the studio, you always know in the back of your mind that you can listen back and try it again if it doesnt quite work. Or you can edit. Or overdub. But live, you only get one shot.

A record like that isn't so much about using the studio as an instrument or a compositional aide. I know recording live can be a scary way to make a record, but it captures something integral that it's easy to lose sight of when you have a bunch of studio time.

Folks like Jim White, Mark Eitzel, Howe Gelb... they've sought you out about the possibility of working together. The track you produced on the new Jim White CD sits along side tracks produced by Joe Henry, and that's pretty cool company, creatively speaking. Since Seattle isn't LA or NYC, is it word of mouth that brings this on?

Man, it's some kind of blessing because you just named some of my favorite artists and it's wild to think that's starting to happen. Yeah, it's all word of mouth.

Nothing speaks louder than your past work - and I'm just lucky that those guys have come across something that spoke to them... not some of the clunkers that are floating out there somewhere.

As many Seattle folk know, you also have an instrumental group called Mount Analog, with a new CD coming out in April. Mount Analog is very much wigged out chamber rock sound collage... if I listened closely, would I hear snippets of other people's records you've worked on in there, run through - as our friend John puts it - "the Tucker Vortex"?

That has happened a couple of times, but never directly off the record. I've used little snippets of, say, a viola pass that didn't get used. But by the time you hear it, it's been manipulated and the context is so different that even I forget where it started sometimes.

Do you get many calls to do remixes for artists that want your touch?

Not remixes, no. I did one for a band from Finland called Giant Robot. I guess most of the people I work with don't get their stuff remixed... I'm totally open to it though, if I like the music and there's something I can bring to it.

You play the drums with Laura Veirs as well. I gotta admit, given how busy you are as a producer/engineer - and how stacked up your commitments always seem to be - I was really surprised when you started playing out regularly with her. I've seen you play drums with Mount Analog, but to join another live band, on top of everything else...

Laura's a rare case in part because she's usually content to have the band if we can all make it, or play alone if we can't. Also, she's content to do a show with one or no rehearsals - just trusting the folks she's surrounded herself with and embracing the "seat of our pants" approach. I think everybody in that band excels in that situation... for a lot of bands, that would just make it sloppy and unrehearsed sounding. Her songs and attitude make it work.

There was this kinda recent article on Jon Brion, who's produced records for all sorts of folks like Aimee Mann, Fiona Apple and Grant Lee Phillips. He's known for playing almost every instrument there is, and being this gusher of creativity and ideas. And then he'll go on and on about the ions in the air moving around the speakers, and the almost mathematical part of recording and sound. Is that the kind of thing you think of when you're recording a band? Or do you just make sure you know it, so you don't have to waste time thinking about it at the moment...

Well, let's face it. When it's really working, there's something going on beyond anything you could learn in a recording book or in a classroom. In an effort to harness that, I have found myself rambling on about alchemy or some other ephemeral explanation. So I relate to a lot of what I've heard Jon say.

I've sat in front of the speakers and heard the sound evolve from so-so to unbelievable without me changing anything. At that point you do start thinking about air particles shifting and that kind of stuff.

In that same article, he was asked what his advice was for folks assemble their own home studios, as digital audio has made it affordable to way more people. And his reply was 'take the money you'd spend on several different kinds of average microphones, and get just one really great microphone- and then use that one on everything'...

That's a perfectly legal opinion.

Since we hit on digital recording there... it's seeming like even bands who still prefer to record in analog, for the warmth of it, expect that at some point everything will be dumped into a computer now. Mistakes that once took a whole day to fix, splicing tape and whatnot, can be fixed in fifteen minutes. Is this making artists lazier when the recording light goes on? Or is it makin' em more confident - they can experiment beyond their comfort level, get to a new place?

I think it's done both. There are types of records being made now that simply weren't possible 15 years ago. Take somebody like Jim White for example; he completely relies on Protools not only for the ability to cut and paste but also for the freedom it gives him. He can track with a great band, in a big studio, and then take that into his garage for a few months and experiment with it. It allows him to make lots of mistakes on his own time and try crazy sounding ideas, without some engineer telling him that's not how you do it. As a result, he makes these fascinating records that wouldn't be possible otherwise, and the world is better off for it.

Like anything, it's about the operator, not the tools. I haven't run into a lot of people abusing the tools that digital recording offers but that has a lot to do with my approach and what limitations we've agreed to place on ourselves. Because it allows you to do almost anything if you have the time, some people want to try every single possibilty before they make a decision. We call it "option anxiety" and it paralyzes the momentum of a project - aka a "lose, lose" situation.

With someone like Jim White, say... is he the performer and you the producer, or is it more collaborative?

Again, it changes radically from project to project but in Jim's case, he sent me a really rough 9 minute demo that was completely out of tune with anything including itself. He just kind of said "good luck". I spent the next several months off and on - rebuilding it piece by piece, editing it down to a tidy 6 minute piece. I had a lot of folks smear stuff on there - including you - and I would just spend hours and hours culling through what was there.

Finally I had something I liked and sent it to him. He said he really liked it and sent me a Protools session with my rough mix on 2 tracks and another 20 or so tracks that he added...again wishing me luck sorting through it all. I think he was suprised that I was able to salvage it with that much success. So was I, to be honest! So it was certainly collaborative, but not in any traditional sense.

I just listened to four records you produced - Jesse Sykes and the Sweet Hereafter, Laura Veirs, Down Pilot and the forthcoming Sanford Arms "Twightlight Era" CD. They share some qualities for sure, but it's nothing like the sonic fingerprint of, say, a Daniel Lanois or Mitchell Froom, where their own personality and vibe is apparent on the records. But I do hear people talk about booking you to get your "sound". So what *is* your sound? Is it not something that defined, something I necessarily notice?

It's definitely not something that's defined. In some cases it makes sense for me to be more transparent than others. And while I certainly have my own take on things, I'm too close to it to articulate what exactly that is.

Daniel Lanois usually plays a lot of guitar on the things that he produces and his guitar style is very distinctive. Same with Mitchell Froom and the keyboards...although when he produces records without Tchad Blake, they aren't as bold sounding. I think people know that I'll handle their music with care, and hold myself to as high a standard as I'll expect from them. Perhaps that's that sound you're asking about?

I don't think too many non-recording folks care about the specifics of microphones. Seems simple - you get a good one, set it up, hope the performance doesn't suck. But there's several different kinds of microphones, and one I'm really intrigued by is the 'ribbon mic', with the little metallic ribbon suspended in the magnetic field. I always seem to love the sound of things recorded with this kind of microphone. Stuff as different as soft vocals or a loud drummer bashing away. Why? What's with it?

I love ribbon mics too, on certain things. They tend to roll off some higher frequencies that other mics hype, so they have a mellower sound without sacrificing presence. A lot of folks feel like ribbon mics more accurately reproduce transients or the attack of a sound. The contrast between ribbon and condenser mics has a lot to do with how the diaphragms are tensioned. Ribbons are tensioned much more lightly which is part of the reason they have so much low end...but you can fall too in love with them like anything else. Just when you think it's the only way to mic a drum set, you find a situation where something else sounds a lot better. I love the way they respond to cymbals though!

Most people know "Binaural" as a Pearl Jam album title, but aren't familiar with the weirdly fascinating recording method it refers too, simulating the way the human ears would naturally hear things if you were at a live performance. The microphones are mounted on a fake human head to record the band, for chrissakes! Have you ever done any of this?

I havent done any true binaural recording. The hardcore folks have some pretty strict guidelines as to what constitutes true binaural, including specific playback guidelines. I've done quite a bit of field recording with a good stereo mic, however, and it still blows me away with how much depth you can capture. You get front to back as well as side to side. I think the results are pretty similar, the main difference being that the mics arent placed on a dummy human head. That idea is intriguing but - besides being expensive - I'm not convinced that it's a more intriguing sound than what a good stereo mic can get. Are we getting too tech-y here?

In 1994 I recorded a bunch of Gnawa musicians in Morocco with a good stereo mic and a cassette walkman which was released as "Eat The Dream: Moroccan Reveries". It sounds great! The label still thinks it was done to DAT. I did the same in Mali which will come out this year as Bush Taxi Mali but to a DAT. It's such an ear massage to listen to good music and sounds when there's that much dimension. Plus, it's mixed as soon as it's recorded!

I remember one producer/engineer talking about a CD he recorded and mixed. It was a pop record, so it was by no means meant to be weirded out. He was criticized for the record not being clear enough at times. When you sat down to listen to the CD, everything didn't seem perfectly placed and clear. And he said that was on purpose, because everything doesn't sound 'just right' in real life, and he was trying to make it sound like real life. Some things are off in the background and you have to strain to hear them, and some things are right up close. He wasn't introducing an artificial order.

Yeah, you can't please em all, that's for sure. You gotta just make the record you want to make and hope that it finds people with a compatible aesthetic.

Have you seen the Paris Hilton sex tape yet?

I'm waiting 'til it's available in 5.1.

I go to shows and see people making live recordings, and they have two microphones up on a tall pole, to get stereo. If they aren't pointing just right, the result will be, as you engineering chaps call it, "out of phase". Also, when recording acoustic guitar, I like doing this thing... rather than play the part twice, just replicating the first part, and putting the original on the left and the copy on the right. Then we inch the copy a tiny bit behind the original. It can sound more widescreen, but still uncluttered, like a single guitar. But I'm told this causes out of phase issues too.

It can cause phase issues, but pretty much everything is out of phase - it's just a matter of varying degrees and of whether or not you like the way it sounds.

Sometimes I can't get a sound to find it's own place in a mix, and I'll put it more out of phase and suddenly the music comes to life...so at a certain point, the science has to get thrown at the window and you have to react emotionally.

Well, after that lengthy and slightly fucked up preamble, here's what's in my craw. "Out of phase" means that if you listen in mono, it won't sound right, because the two sides will cancel each other out in some sort of mystical science equation. These days, when the cheapest walkman available is stereo... who gives a FLYING FUCK about mono?

The thing is, if you check it in mono and the sound goes away - your mix probably needs more work. Not necessarily because you want to listen to it in mono but because if the phase is that out, youre probably losing a lot of frequencies that exist at the source of that sound. Occasionally that's artsy and good - but often it's just careless.

Phase affects stereo listening as well as mono, it's just that mono will highlight the "problems" much more - so it's really just an easy reality check when youre mixing. If you make a few slight panning changes that improve the sound of it in mono, you'll probably be suprised at how much better it makes your stereo mix, too. But I try to look at phase as another possible tool or effect available when carving the shape of a mix. Tchad Blake is somebody who's using phase as a powerful weapon and he's proven that if you understand the rules of it, you can break them to great effect.

Thanks.

Word.