Anne Hilde Neset: It's a compilation of buskers and amateur musicians recorded on the streets of Vietnam.

Will Oldham: Of the records played today, this is probably the most likely that I would own in my present record collection.

Anne Hilde Neset: Does this appeal to you, the idea of making music unfiltered by the business of formally recording, marketing and promoting it?

Will Oldham: Sort of, but for me to enjoy a record - or movie for that matter - you have to have the sensation that it is a record of what is happening. A lot of records aren't that way, people prepare the music and then they take it into the studio and they record it, and it seems like something should be going on in the studio, something should be happening in the recording process for it to feel like it is a special event.

Either the song can be to some extent written at the time of the recording, or the guitar part, the one you hear on the record, is the first time you ever hear it played, combined with predetermined elements, so that it's not just all improvisation. Like the first Boston record or the new R Kelly record, those are two examples of where it seems to be all about the recording experience, an excitement going on how something is mixed or how something is produced and arranged, that's happening in the studio, or the energy of the producer is what's happening in the studio.

It's funny to see the duping of the indie band that goes on. People think they're going to go and record with Steve Albini and that's going to make a magical record, and all Steve does is turn on the tape recorder and show them what their music sounds like. And 90 per cent of the time it's unexciting because they play like they're having a band practice and then it's over. Then they think, "This is a magic record because Steve Albini made it". The recording studio is a very special place, it's not just being there that makes it happen. A decision has to be made, multiple decisions. It seems like most of the other music that we've heard today was probably prepared prior to the recording or with some knowledge as to what was going to happen before "record". When you go into the recording studio it seems like there should be no conception of what you're going to leave with.

...
p.23 Wire #238 December 2003

Thanks, this was interesting.

My answer, as a listener, would be "it depends". I enjoy both, say, Steely Dan and TFUL 282. It's always a matter of what you're going for. The proccess "showing" is way more of a post-recording stage editing decision most of the times, though.

Will Oldham wrote: It seems like most of the other music that we've heard today was probably prepared prior to the recording or with some knowledge as to what was going to happen before "record". When you go into the recording studio it seems like there should be no conception of what you're going to leave with.

I would agree with this statement whole-heartedly if I hadn't lived it repeatedly with my own band in the studio. The way a song sounds when it is born in the basement/garage can be completely different after "record." In these cases, adaptability is essential. However, in most cases, we book time with a limited budget, and therefore the bottom line is this:

The less time it takes you to track, the more songs you can complete in your alloted time.

This in mind, it is beneficial to be as well-prepared to perform your music as possible before recording it. If what Mr. Oldham is trying to suggest is that a band should not have a preconception of how the music should sound once it is recorded, then....DUH!!

Reading Will go through the thinking out of this idea of his is pretty painful. The two examples he gives are more toward the "artificial" extreme, so it makes you wonder if that's what he's getting at. Then again, I think Will Oldham's records are pretty artificial, so there you go. Additionally, would the collection of Vietnamese buskers sound different if they somehow "prepared" to be recorded on the street? Or even if they went into a studio?

I think a band shouldhave a preconceived notion of how their record is going to sound once recorded. I think this might be the "duping" Oldham refers to: bands that think Steve's name on it will somehow improve the quality. The band is duping themselves. It's got nothing to do with the role of the studio.

Dylan wrote:
I think a band shouldhave a preconceived notion of how their record is going to sound once recorded. I think this might be the "duping" Oldham refers to: bands that think Steve's name on it will somehow improve the quality. The band is duping themselves. It's got nothing to do with the role of the studio.

I agree that the band should know what they want, and if they know how to get it then kudos to them, but there is always the studio chaos factor that the band must take into account. If your shooting for a sound that either your band, the engineer, or the studio is incapable of producing, then it could potentially be a huge deterrant to acheiving the 'feel' that you are hoping to establish with your record. You should know your music, but it is impossible to know what is best for every song until you are already in the process of recording.

I agree. It seems like Mr. Oldham is saying that you shouldn't have any notion of what you're going to do before you step into a studio. I exaggerate for effect, but he seems to like the idea of letting the producer shape the music, whereas I actually prefer Steve's working method. I can see some point to Will's argument, because the studio should be utilised to a certain extent in shaping the material, but to not have any clear idea what will come of a session is a luxury that not many of us have.

In a roundabout way I think he's trying to stress the importance of sponteneity in a recording. Overpreparation can suck the life out of a performance, and I aggree with him in that sense. However, I think this has everything to do with the band's musicianship and nothing to do with the engineer and/or the studio (assuming the engineer and studio are capable of fulfilling the musicians' needs). It seems that by having a very capable, creatively uninvolved engineer in a professional studio only maximizes a band's creative possibilities. If they need to use an engineer or an outside source as a creative crutch, than maybe they are not ready to make a record yet.

Im not saying it's wrong to make records in this way, I happen to be in the process of recording one in this very same way right now. It just goes to show that every situation is totally different and while a specific process works on a particular project, that same method of recording can totally ruin another project.

I get to thinking too much when it comes to this stuff and now im totally lost.