John McEntire is known for many personas. Some see him as a musician, having played drums and other instruments in bands like Bastro, My Dad is Dead, Red Krayola, The Sea and Cake, Seam and, of course, Tortoise. Others know him as a remixer, pushing sonic boundaries and mutating tracks for bands like Moonshake and Red Snapper. Some might even know him as the guy who scored the movie Reach the Rock. But we're here to talk to him about his life as an engineer, producer and studio owner. In this capacity he's worked on his own records plus albums by Stereolab, The High Llamas, The For Carnation, Trans Am, Eleventh Dream Day, Run On, Come and many others — with quite a few done at Idful Studios during its heyday. Recently he's taken his "home" 8-track setup to the next level, turning Soma Electronic Music Studios into a full-time venture.
Let's begin by talking about some of your current projects. How much of the tracking did you do for the most recent Tortoise and The Sea & Cake records at your new studio [Soma]?
All of the recording and mixing for both records was done there, with the exception of a few little bits of Tortoise material that came from tapes we had made over the last couple of years. And Sam's [Prekop, The Sea & Cake] vocals, which he did at home. Other than that, all of the tracking and mixing was done at the new studio.
So, it's not like the big trend nowadays to buy your overdub studio, then record your drums at a bigger studio. These records weren't done like that?
No. Tortoise, in particular, has grown into this process where we are essentially writing and arranging in the studio. We tend to work better when we have immediate feedback from the recording environment. Even though I find that to be the case, we were a bit more prepared than usual this time around and had several ideas that were already pretty well formed when we went in. But I would have to say that two thirds of it was actually written in the studio.
How about The Sea & Cake record?
Musically, it was much more prepared, pretty much ready to go. By the time we started recording, all of the basic tracks and arrangements were written.
I imagine that's what inspired you to build your new studio, the need to record your own bands. Were there other issues involved?
Well, that was part of it, obviously. But above and beyond that, I wanted to put together a studio that would be accessible and useful for a lot of people, and that would have a wide appeal in terms of equipment and facilities.
What are you speaking of in particular? What formats are you using there?
Primarily 2-inch, 24- (and 16-track) along with Pro Tools 24 MixPlus. Those formats seem to the best solutions for most people's projects. For people who don't want to do a project here from start to finish, I think it functions very well on either end of the process. For example, the live room is quite nice, so you could record your drums, etc. here and take them home to work with. Conversely, we have interesting signal processing and mixing facilities, so you could bring in tracks that were generated elsewhere to take advantage of the mixdown situation here. I think making these options available to people is very important, and I'm quite pleased with the way everything has worked out so far. Another thing about the studio is that the whole design is very modular, so it allows you to configure the signal flow depending on which platform you're working with. Above and beyond that, we have a very unique collection of instruments: just about every kind of acoustic, electric, and electronic keyboard, a robust selection of modular analog synthesizers, heaps of other instruments, and a fine arsenal of outboard. I think that having all these things available, coupled with the modular design of the studio, makes it very easy to get in, get comfortable, and produce interesting work.
So, in building your studio, were there any lessons you learned through mistakes you'd want to correct if you had a second chance?
There were no major snags, though it took far longer to finish than I could have ever imagined. In a roundabout way, we had some of the experience of other people to build upon... specifically, one of the people who helped me [Bill Skibbe] worked over at Electrical [Audio, Steve Albini's studio]. He helped build that studio from the ground up, and had been through a lot of these issues already. He knew what to avoid, what to do from the outset, and it was extremely helpful. So in the end, I feel I was really lucky. Everything turned out great.
That's really good. I'm in the process of building right now, so this is a particularly important question that I'm asking everyone who has built a studio.
I obsessed about every little detail for a year and a half before any construction began. So by the time it got to putting everything in place, it all went very smoothly.
As far as the space goes, was it a space that you had previously picked out or did you move in there with the studio?
It was presented to me as an option in '98, which I decided upon almost immediately. It's in a neighborhood where a lot of us have lived for a long time. It's a building that's owned by a friend, and the space was just a vacant storefront, basically, forever and ever. So there was a lot of demolition involved, getting all of the old drop ceilings and wood paneling and all kinds of crap out of there. But from the beginning I knew it would be the location. Funnily enough, it was the first place Tortoise ever rehearsed, back in '91.
What neighborhood is that?
The neighborhood is usually called Wicker Park, though technically we're in the Ukrainian Village.
What's the story of Soma?
It's not really much of a story. It started out as something not very serious at all, and evolved into something a bit more serious through the years. I guess in the beginning, around '94, it was an Otari MX-5050 1/2" 8-track and a Mackie 1604 set up in a far from ideal space. The next major step equipment-wise was the Pro Tools III system.
So you were using a 16-bit system there?
Yeah, that was back in '96, and right around then I got the control room a bit more together. This was when I was working at the loft space. It was very gradual, putting the whole thing together.
Since you have used Pro Tools for a number of years, how do you handle backing up data for clients?
We do all of the backups onto DDS-3 4mm data tapes.
Could you explain that format?
It's basically just a tape that is optimized for data, even though it is in the same enclosure as a DAT.
Is it similar to AIT? I use those and that's all I'm really familiar with.
I believe the technology is pretty much the same, but there are several different flavors of DDS, and the 3 gives you about 18 GB on one tape, and transfers are typically 60 MB/minute, which isn't too bad.
Yeah, that's very good actually.
It's no problem to run a backup or restore at the end of the day, though it wouldn't be good for immediate restoration of large files.
Are you using something like Mezzo to keep track of everything?
Retrospect.
Are you satisfied with Retrospect?
Very. I've never encountered Mezzo but I've used Retrospect since the beginning and I think it's wonderful.
When you mix in Pro Tools are you sending out to a console or are you mixing solely in Pro Tools?
99.9% of the time the signal goes through the console.
That's the technique I find best as well. I often do the same.
It's so much easier to have an EQ in front of you. It's nice to have the tactile sense of working on the console, where everything is easy to see. And in general, I do prefer using analog signal processing, but they are certain things you can do in DSP that can't be done any other way.
Indeed, the Digidesign BNR plug in is just great. I've also found the Waves L-1 plug in to be a very valuable tool.
As far as effects go, I'm a big fan of Ina-GRM's GRM Tools.
What do they do?
There are several different modules, all slightly esoteric: A linear phase equalizer, a Doppler effect, and a "shuffler", which is essentially granular synthesis. There's also a real nice granular stand- alone called MacPod. Very simple, but it sounds great, and is perfect for processing single files.
What's some of your favorite gear that other people might not know about?
Something I picked up recently that I've been very fond of is this box called the Roland Dimension D.
What exactly does it do for you?
I suppose they marketed it as a "chorus," though it's clearly much more than that. It does funny things with phase, so I like it because of the way it changes the stereo image of the input. It's very useful if you're trying to get something to have it's own place in a mix without resorting to time based solutions, but it has artifacts that are really bad on certain things. For instance, you can't use it on guitars at all. But for strings and vocals, it's amazing.
Any other pieces of gear?
Well, I love all mechanical reverbs: Plates, springs, and chambers.
Do you have a plate at Soma?
Yes, three full size E.M.T. 140s.
I think people are going to start to seeing this as a Chicago thing: You have Bob Weston [#18] and Steve Albini [#87], who are some of the biggest proponents of ambience record- ing. There's Jim O'Rourke, who in a previous issue stated how he hates digital reverb. Are you also not a fan of the digital reverb?
No, I do like it sometimes. It can work really well on certain things. It's all about placement. For instance, I really like the Lexicon PCM60. Older, low sample rate/low bit depth digital reverb sounds great to me. Lots of coloration.
As far as old Lexicons go, I don't think there's been a better delay made since the PCM42.
I concur. The same is true of its little sister, the PCM41.
Now, you're known as someone who's very into old synths and drum machines. Has anything caught your eye that's come out in recent years?
Several things. In particular, there's a new modular system called Wiard made by Grant Richter up in Milwaukee. He plays in a band called F/i, and he is an electrical engineer by trade. His facility with analog circuit design is just amazing.
Is this a modular analog synthesizer?
Exactly. Check out www.wiard.com. He's owned and studied all of the classics: E.M.S., Serge, Buchla, ARP, Moog, and incorporated the best of a lot of those ideas into his designs. His modules are all really, really flexible, every one of them. Every detail has been addressed. Another nice feature is that you can purchase each module separately and use it as a stand-alone.
Tell me a little about the various modules.
Well, there are two different oscillators — one of them is a 256-step wavetable oscillator, which is great. There are two different filters, and he's prototyping another right now. There's an eight-stage sequencer, a dual slope generator, and a dual VCA/ring modulator. He's got lots more brewing on the test bench.
What else has excited you lately?
Another person who does incredible work with analog is Phil Cirocco, of C.M.S. He has done extensive work on my ARP 2600s, and they are subsequently some of the most useful instruments in the whole studio. He also builds his own line of modulars, which look wonderful. Other than the modulars, some of the more obscure electronic pianos have been exciting me lately. All of the RMI keyboards are quite nice — they recall the piano/organ sounds you hear on the Fela records. [and Quasi albums... -LC]
Do you use MIDI extensively? And if so, what sequencer(s) are you working with?
MIDI is a tool, and like anything else, it has its specific applications. I have to admit, though, that I'm not doing as much sequencing as I was say, three years ago. I had been using Opcode's Studio Vision Pro almost exclusively, but in the last couple years I have been working with emagic's Logic more, since Vision is pretty much a dead product.
So for instance, The Sea & Cake record prior to Oui probably had a good amount of sequencing.
The Fawn? Yes, more of the basic tracks were a result of samples and programming, so it was pretty heavy in that area.
The second track on that record ("The Argument") sounds like it's a live performance, captured into the sequencer with a fair amount of editing of the expressive controllers. Do you tend to work this way — performing into the sequencer, or are you more of a nuts and bolts programmer?
It really depends. The song you mentioned was definitely performance oriented. But like I said, that activity on the whole has really declined.
And what was the reason for the decline?
I suppose it was a desire to get back to more of a "live band" sound, with both Tortoise and The Sea & Cake. It seemed like there was a period around '97 where a lot of people, including myself, had samplers and were doing programming and getting into that side of things pretty heavily. But everything goes in cycles, and now I don't find that kind of work to be as important on a day-to- day basis. I do use MIDI a lot for writing, however. I think it's really useful in that regard.
Do you find shortcomings with MIDI? I have a lot of issues with computer sequencers, in that I don't find their timing to be up to par. But if I work on an [Akai] MPC2000, for example, I find the timing actually to be pretty rock solid.
I never got too worried about that side of things, but you're absolutely right. I was using all the Opcode products: Studio Vision Pro, and the Studio 4, and I know those have a reputation for being pretty loose. Conversely, the emagic products are known to be really tight. Not only Logic, but also their MIDI interfaces. Especially when used in tandem.
Let's take a step back and look at some history. Could you talk about how you got started as an engineer?
I guess it really began when I went to college at Oberlin, though I had certainly been interested in engineering before that.
Oberlin is known for having a huge music program.
It's not huge, but it is really quite good in a traditional sense. I got accepted as percussion major, but quickly realized that I was not interested in doing that. Luckily, I was able to transfer to the Electronic Music Department. The focus of that program wasn't so much on engineering per se — the department had a much broader curriculum, touching on composition, programming, circuit design, and sound design. I feel very lucky that I got there before the first generation of digital gear started coming in because my first year classes were spent learning on the classics: the ARP 2600, the VCS3, and the like. I'm sure that's not the case today. It was all very exciting to a young pup — in the big studio they was a Moog System 55 and a mid-sized Buchla system. Both really great machines.
I'm not really familiar with the Buchla.
The Buchla was kind of a contemporary of the modular Moog, also from the late '60s. Don Buchla was the designer, and he was really intent on creating electronic instruments that didn't have any precedence in terms of architecture or controllers. In his vision, there was no clear delineation between audio and control voltage signals and how they could function within the system. It was extremely open ended, whereas the Moog (I'm making a huge generalization here) was concerned more with emulation of natural sounds. With the Buchla, there wasn't even an attempt at anything resembling a standard keyboard. So he was forcing you to create your own control systems and parameters. It was about research. Morton Subotnick was probably the most well known proponent of his instruments.
And there's the instrument that has been mentioned so many times, the Putney (a.k.a. VCS3), which you received from there.
Yes, I bought it from the school when I left.
Could you explain what the Putney is?
It was made by a British company called E.M.S. It was also pretty early, the first prototypes probably appeared in '68 or so. In terms of the architecture, it has all the elements that we now consider to be standard: 3 oscillators (one of which usually functions as an LFO), a noise generator, an ADSR, a low-pass filter, a VCA, and a reverberator. But what is really great about these instruments is the way they devised routing the signal through a matrix board using pins.
Kind of like dip switches?
No. You'd insert a pin at the point on the matrix where you wanted to connect two modules. The horizontal row would be outputs, and the vertical would be inputs. It allowed for all kinds on unconventional signal routing.
What did you end up doing after Oberlin?
I moved to Chicago, and continued to play with a group called Bastro that I had joined in '89. I was mainly doing that, and working odd jobs. It was a couple of years before I started engineering at Idful.
Which was Brad Wood's studio, correct?
Yes. I did that basically until it shut down, and that must have been around the middle of '96. And in '93 or early '94 was when I first started playing with The Sea & Cake. Tortoise started to get a little busier around that time, as well.
Because of being in those bands, did the need to engineer kind of manifest itself?
Somewhat. I suppose I started, in earnest, while I was at Oberlin. I continued to do it on an ad hoc basis until I started working at Idful, then it became much more tangible.
Let's talk a little bit about your approach. A lot of people put a great emphasis on objectivity when mixing. Do you ever have trouble maintaining objectivity when mixing your own work?
For me that's never really an issue, at least with regard to my own projects. This is work that is subjective by definition. So, in that sense, objectivity doesn't even come into the picture. Beyond my own work, how subjective (or not) I try to be varies a lot for each project.
Going back in time, a lot of people consider Tortoise's Millions Now Living... to be a big step. I'm sure you've talked about this quite a bit, but some of the readers might not know. Could you talk about the process of making "Djed," since it obviously wasn't recorded conventionally?
It's funny that people have such a reaction to that track. At the time, I thought it was incredibly haphazard and not very well executed.
Really! So are you going to attempt to do it better one day?
Oh, no! God, no! [laughter] It's fine for what it is, and it's a pretty nice document of the time.
In that case, what are your issues with it?
Well, nothing really in particular, just a lot of little things that I can't even remember now. Again, I'm just speaking for myself. Maybe everyone else has much fonder recollections. I just remember, at the end of the session, having a feeling like, "Well, at least we finished the record." In retrospect, I think that TNT, as a whole, was put together much more elegantly.
I would definitely agree with that. Either way, would you mind explaining the process that went on behind "Djed"?
At the time, I was thinking of it as the antithesis to the b-side of the Gamera EP — you know the long track with the horns in the middle with all those short little pieces edited together? Therefore, the concept was that it would be very few ideas exploded over the whole side of a record. Consequently, there's very little content in that track. The idea was to make it work somehow, through edits. We'd record little sections probably no more than 5 or 6 minutes long and fill up the tape.
So this was done on tape, no Pro Tools involved?
Correct.
Wow, that's quite a feat.
We ran off a lot of different mixes of things, different combinations of instruments and effects, and put it all together. It was all edited completely on 1/2 inch. It was really exciting to have the challenge of working exclusively on analog. We tried to really push the envelope as much as possible in terms of what could be accomplished with that technology. Now, obviously 95% of all that is very easy. For instance, that little bit in the middle where it transitions out of the mallet section: that was an attempt to solve a transitional problem, and it became kind of a signature, for better or for worse.
So that was a happy accident?
I guess you could say that. I was trying to edit those two sections together, and it just wasn't working. It never sounded good, no matter where I put the edit. After a while, I ended up with this pile of scraps on the floor. Out of desperation, I said, "Fuck it." I picked them up and put them all back together, though obviously they would be out of order and some backwards. Luckily, it sounded good. Otherwise, it would have been time to scrap the whole track.
Yeah, it sounds great. I'd never think that upon hearing it.
I think that's one of the great things about working with limitations. You get situations where you are forced to get really creative to come up with solutions to problems even though you only have a few resources. That is in stark opposition to working on a computer where you have (seemingly) limitless possibilities.
With that, a lot of people say they use the studio as an instrument — the old dub philosophy. You guys have been one of the bands that have been quoted on it. When you said that, what were you speaking of actually?
I think when we first started doing Tortoise, 8 or 9 years ago, those ideas were much more revelatory to us. They seemed to apply directly to what we were doing. I suppose we felt that we had gotten past the confines of simply playing instruments together in a room and documenting it. It was really exciting that all of these resources (in the studio) could be used in a totally creative capacity, and it shed a new light on everything. So, in retrospect, it was easy to talk about things like that. Now, however, I wouldn't necessarily say anything along those lines because I think the whole process of making records has changed so much. People's attitudes and conceptions of what's possible when you make a record are very different than they were even 10 years ago. It's understood that when you go into the studio that there is always a potential aspect of the production that may involve a certain amount of "something" above and beyond the actual setting up of mics and "straight" recording.
Keeping with the philosophy thing, are there any philoso- phies to recording that you feel to be essential, that you take to every project?
I think flexibility is always the most important thing. But to me, in a sense, that's the absence of any particular philosophy or methodology. Even having said that, I know that I have certain tendencies and habits, but that has more to do with getting things done expeditiously. I think everyone has his or her own tendencies. But you know, I'm not wed to doing anything one particular way. I'll definitely do anything, if it seems worth trying. There are no hard and fast rules. In the last year or so, I have been more conscious of trying to do things that would be counter to what my normal instincts would be.
So that gets back to the objectivity issue we were talking about.
Absolutely. I find it funny how some engineers have developed certain ways of working and subsequently determined that their way is the best, and therefore only, way of working. A good example would be doing tracks for the John Peel show on the BBC. Going in there and watching those guys work is amazing to me, because they have such a completely different set of criteria. But they get the sessions done, and fast!
