I met Menomena (rhymes with 'phenomena') at their rehearsal and recording space called The Hot Water Bottle, a beautiful setting on top of a hill at the edge of Oregon wine country. Their album, I am the Fun Blame Monster (an anagram of "The first Menomena album") is a tremendous recording. Besides the excellent songwriting and musicianship, I was struck immediately by the album's interesting production style. It sounds equally organic and electronic. The band uses conventional instruments — piano, electric guitar, electric bass, drums, organ, etcetera — and you can tell that they are really playing the instruments, but it sounds sampled and looped somehow. In my research for this article, I found that they had written their own software, and that they had recorded the album themselves. I had to know more. So, after two interviews and three photo shoots, may I present to you: Menomena. The band consists of Justin Harris on bass and baritone saw, Brent Knopf on piano, organ and guitar, and Danny Selm on drums. They all share vocal duties.
So how did the band start?
Justin Harris: Danny and I played in a band, starting our senior year in high school, for five years. Brent saw one of our shows, introduced himself to Danny; they had a torrid love affair. That band broke up, not as a result of the torrid love affair. Brent was away at college during the time that we were still together, and then once our band disbanded, Brent graduated from college that same spring, and then when he moved back in October, we got together. That was in the fall of 2000.
Brent, were you in other bands while you were in college?
Brent Knopf: No, Menomena is my first band.
J: What about Shamrock?
B: I had this one show called Shamrock — 'cause it was a sham — and it basically consisted of me playing guitar and singing, and people saying I sounded like Alphaville.
And it rocked.
B: There was this drummer I was playing with. He didn't care about the music, and we were getting paid by how long we played. So it was about forty-five minutes into it, and we were kind of finishing up, and he was like, "Let me just solo for a while," and he went off into a ten-minute drum solo. [all laugh] So that was my previous band experience.
You don't have many rules, but now one of them is, "No drum solos!"
J: That's the funny thing. When he [Brent] got together with us, he was always like, "Oh, Danny, you should do a drum solo right here."
Danny Seim: Which is good because I can't. We never have that problem.
J: He thought drum solos were what bands do. It was kinda cute, and endearing.
B: The prequel to us three working together in any capacity was this total alterna-rock song that I wrote, and Danny put down the drums, and Justin put down a bass line for it. And that was way back in... '98? '97?
J: Yeah. We should have realized then that this would never work. [laughs]
B: I realized that then. I was just using you guys. [more laughs]
THE REEL DEEL
IATFBM was recorded using Deeler (DLR — Digital Looping Recorder), a software program that Brent developed originally as a live tool, but they soon found that it lent itself more to their songwriting and recording process. After I had asked a few questions about Deeler and how they use it, they voluntarily gave me a demonstration, which was very helpful. I was amazed not only by how fast everyone was able to get something recorded into the computer, but how easy it was. Once the software was up and running, it was a matter of simply plugging a mic — or an instrument cable, if they wanted to record direct — into the Mbox, then moving the mic around the room. Each of them was very comfortable with the process, and it's also a very simple, intuitive, and effective way of recording.
The software, which was created using Max/MSP (www.cycling74.com), is basically a multi-track phrase or loop sampler. It uses either the Mac's built- in audio jacks or an external card or interface box. There are ten mono tracks, each of which can play or record four phrases. So when one of the band members feels particularly inspired, he will plug in and start by playing his instrument along with the click track. It's always improvised. That person will play four variations (A, B, C and D) of a phrase, in groups of four measures, although the software can be set for a different number of measures. Then another person will go back and overdub four variations of another part, based on the previous person's work. So each track will record four loops, which the band will choose from later. As you can see, this creates many separate but intertwining loops, with the opportunity for many variations. This is how they create most, but not all, of their songs.
After they've all had a chance to go through what they've recorded, each band member will try a different arrangement of the sections, or they'll do it together, plowing through what they have until they arrive at a combination they like. As Brent explained to me, one of the benefits of working this way is that it takes the band's egos out of the equation. Everyone is involved in the process, and they're just choosing what works best for the song, from a bunch of pre-recorded files. He added that the band members are all too stubborn to tolerate taking orders from each other, and they're too impatient to "jam" for hours on end to perfect a song, so this process provides them with the perfect alternative.
Once they arrive at a combination of patterns they like, they learn the song and play it "like a normal band" into Pro Tools. The album was recorded using an Audiomedia III card, but they have since upgraded to an MBox. Part of Menomena's recording ethic comes from having such a limited number of inputs to work with. As Brent explained, "What were we going to do? All we had was an Audiomedia III. We couldn't have multiple mics for doing drums, unless we used an external mixer to get all our mics down to two channels, but we didn't have any of that stuff."
Why did you go to the trouble of creating your own software?
B: Going off the idea that Deeler is a much more flexible and versatile guitar loop pedal, originally the plan was to use Deeler live to get around — well, say we're a three-piece band, and we want to put down twelve layers, how do we do that live? So I thought maybe if we had a piece of software that could record loops on the fly, live, while we're performing, then we could layer stuff on top of those loops and have the computer play back those loops for us and be able to control the flow of the song; like, go from, say, a verse to a chorus to a bridge back to a verse, using the software, and I thought that would be a desirable alternative to the "karaoke" style of just playing maybe one or two instruments on top of a [prerecorded] track. The original purpose of Deeler was for that live performance approach. As it turns out, Deeler has been useful almost exclusively for us in terms of just writing. We've never used Deeler in a live setting to date. We just use it as a way to generate a bunch of ideas that we will, at a later time, assemble into a song. So Deeler gives us a bunch of loops. Several months down the line, we'll piece all those loops together into a song. Then we'll learn the song from that assembly. We'll learn it and then we'll play it live, then we'll maybe add some things, or take some things away, and then we'll go into the studio and record it like a normal band would.
So it's based on the click, which is going all the time. Then you play Pattern One that's four measures long, Pattern Two that's four measures long, Pattern Three and Pattern Four. Later, when you're building up the structure of the song, you choose from all those variations and patterns.
D: Every loop is the same length.
B: Right. The idea is that you have all these loops that will work together in some way.
From all different instruments.
B: Yeah, so it gives us a lot to choose from at the time that we assemble them into a song.
J: And we almost always add something else while we're arranging them — especially vocals — but other instruments too, that we didn't originally use in that Deeler session. We still have the freedom to add or take away whatever we want at the time of the arrangement and assembly.
D: Because at that time we're out of Deeler and into Pro Tools or something.
Into a more flowing, real-time recording program.
B: Right.
J: And then for playing live, we tend to go play the parts that make the character of that song. Those are obviously the ones we'll try to play. That extraneous stuff, like the tambourine or something, doesn't really make the character of the song, so it doesn't need to be played live.
So that's where your live show comes in. You record all the stuff that way [gesturing toward the computer], then you learn the songs [from the arrangements you create], and then you record them in the studio later. So Deeler is really a glorified sampler.
B: I'm sure there's a really good analogy out there, but to take a really bad analogy, Deeler is something that constructs Legos, and then at a later time we build those Legos into a shape, and then...
J: That's a bad analogy. [all laugh] We're more like... refining gold.
D: What about a bread maker?
Or a Play-Doh Fun Factory?
D: A bread maker. You know, where you throw in the ingredients...
B: Well, see, there's nothing you have to learn when you make bread. [laughs]
J: Gold, on the other hand... you refine it multiple times until it becomes this great, grand thing, which is, um...
The album! [all laugh]
J: ...which is the arranged version of our song.
So what were you not finding in other software?
B: Okay. Suppose you wanted to emulate what Deeler does inside of Pro Tools. You'd have to set a sync point, record-enable a track, add on pre-roll, start recording, put down a recording and then loop it, and then disable the record button, re-enable a separate track's record button, re-position the cursor and begin the process all over again. By that time, you're so focused on the software and all these different steps you have to do, you're distracted from making music. So the idea with Deeler was to minimize the interactions with the computer and try to preserve the continuity of the groove. And after I developed Deeler, a few months later, I learned of this program called Ableton Live that, from what I understand (although I haven't used it) it has a lot of overlapping capabilities. As far as I know, it seems similar. My lackeys are actually preparing an affidavit now.
J: Michael Moore is making a movie about how Brent knew about Ableton Live way before he actually developed Deeler. [all laugh]
B; There's actually a video of me just sitting at my computer for about 15 minutes doing nothing.
J: [dramatically, imitating Michael Moore] What was Brent thinking? Was he thinking, 'How can I make my software program look like Ableton Live?'
B: I don't think there's a single instance on the record where we used more than one mic.
And it was usually an SM57?
B: I think it was exclusively a 57 on the drums, a single mic getting the whole kit. I'm trying to think about something I'd want a band to read about us in Tape Op... we should say that if all you have is one mic, then use that one mic, don't wait [and think], 'Oh, I can't record my band until we have, you know, eight mics, and we have a budget.' Just do it.
J: I have to say something about this room. It's [he claps loudly, surprising Danny] very dead, which you would think is lame for recording, but I think it actually is beneficial. I've experimented with different placements of mics in the room, which did nothing [laughs] 'cause it's a dead room. There are obviously pockets in the room that are more bass-heavy, which sound pretty lame. The nice thing about it being dead is that we seem to get fairly accurate tones based on the mic, I think. There's not any coloring by natural acoustics [from the room].
For your sampling-based stuff, it'd be perfect.
J: Yeah. Any effects we use are all plug-ins, to make it kind of effect that real dry, recorded sound, maybe even more so than it would if it had other influences such as larger rooms, or reflective surfaces. On some of the saxes I used the mic on this [gestures to a large, square, plywood board behind him] and played the sax into this to get the sound to bounce, kind of like a plate reverb. So there was experimentation going on, at least by myself. These guys experiment in different ways too.
D: Most of the vocals I did were just recorded with that little Macintosh plastic mic — free — the little triangle thing.
The one that came with the computer? The PlainTalk mic?
D: Yeah. It sounds good. Well, I think it sounds good.
It sounds interesting, and that's the key. It doesn't have to be perfect in the classic sense.
D: It's just what we had at the time. Same with the drums. I mean, I think drums especially you can really fine tune. I read that Steve Albini [Tape Op #87] used, like, 35 mics on Dave Grohl's set when they were recording In Utero. The drums do sound really, really wonderful. At the same time, I think we'd all go crazy if we tried to use that much placement and really worry about that stuff. This mic is here, and we have to capture the spirit of the performance quickly, and just go with it, so we used the resources at hand, and hit 'record.' [laughs] Hopefully it turned out pretty okay.
B: Everything in the record we did ourselves, besides mastering. Jeff Saltzman mastered the record at SuperDigital. We mixed it, engineered it, recorded it, all ourselves.
D: Justin and I, our old band was very traditional. We paid for studio time, and it was largely a hands-off experience for all of us, except for one or two of the guys who knew that kind of stuff, and a producer in there some of the time, hitting buttons for us. The whole process of being there all the time — I had no idea, really, what was going on. I wasn't playing drums in that band, I was singing and playing guitar. All I knew is that the guy would say, "Go!" from that little booth, and I'd be all stressed out hoping that everything would be on pitch, and on key, and the right tempo. Throughout that time I started recording myself, and didn't rely on these huge microphones and huge budgets and everything, it was really bare-bones. That mentality transferred to Menomena, because I think we all kinda were at that point where we could start getting comfortable with doing things our own way and using our resources at hand.
Do any of you have any interest in producing other bands?
D: As far as producing other peoples' things, there are some people in the past that have just given me 4-tracks and said, "Make this sound okay," or, "Put this to CD." It's still kind of a new process to them that they can take this old cassette and put it on the computer. I like to help those kind of people out. That's kind of been fun for me. Nothing professional.
J: Personally, I don't really care to produce anybody else unless it's something I was really excited to do, and somebody asked me, but I wouldn't go seeking that out at this point. I'd rather just focus on producing our own music, and getting better at doing that. All of this is experience. I mean, to me ignorance isn't always bliss, either, like the whole "one mic" thing. I do want to learn more about the recording process and what ways work best, and do more experimentation. I'm not interested in just stopping at using one 57 and just saying, "That's all we do, 'cause that's our shtick." As pleased as I am with our album, I think we can attribute [its sonic character to] what we did, or how we did make it. I'm blown away that it sounds the way it does, and that it's as good as it is, but that's not to say that on our next album we can't pay attention to certain things to make that whole process easier on us. You know, eliminate some of the plastic surgery that we had to do to different sound files, just by recording them properly the first time.
B: I'm open to the possibility. I mean, if there's a band I like, and I can be of help in terms of producing or anything like that, I really enjoy that kind of stuff.
Do you see yourself bringing a band in here and letting them do this [Deeler]?
B: Well, it's up to the boys if I would ever bring a band in here. I don't know if I'd do that. It just depends on what their shtick is. Maybe an SM58 might be their shtick. [all laugh]
Do you plan to release the software, or are you just going to keep it under wraps because that's such a distinctive part of this band? I can see why it could go one way or the other. On the one hand, you'd want to get the software out there because it's such a useful and cool thing, but the other side of it is, it's "the sound" of Menomena. I don't know anybody else who sounds like that.
B: That's a good question. I don't know. I can't release it as it stands, 'cause it sucks right now, in terms of there being bugs, and it's really difficult to use, and [it has] a bad user interface. The newer version of Deeler, once I finish it in 2010, will hopefully be more usable.
J: It would be interesting, actually, to hear what another band would do with the software. Is it really Deeler that's making us sound the way we do?
B: There are two tracks on the record that Deeler wasn't involved in at all. Basically the final two tracks on the record.
Yeah, it sounded like "Monkey's Back" was recorded the traditional way.
B: Yeah, and written. It's kind of ironic that the songs that I determined the song structure are those final two, and all the rest of the songs, either Danny or Justin decided on song structure. So although I may have written the software, I never ended up taking the results of the software and piecing them together into a song for that record.
