|
Flood Interview
by Adam Beyda Having worked on a mind-boggling array of dream projects with the likes of U2 (Achtung Baby, Zooropa), Depeche Mode (Violator, Songs of Faith & Devotion) and Nine Inch Nails (The Downward Spiral), UK-based producer Flood (nee Mark Ellis) is continuing his hot streak: He produced the oblique, striking PJ Harvey album, To Bring You My Love, and also the Smashing Pumpkins. Quite a load of success, yet Flood is far from the glib, backstabbing mover and shaker you might expect. Defying the odds, he is in fact a genuine, down-to-earth fellow who has made his way with integrity and good spirits. Starting at the bottom in the late '70s, Flood worked his way up England's engineering ranks, eventually making the leap to producer. He has demonstrated equal dexterity with both organic and synthetic music, recording artists ranging from Nick Cave to Erasure. ÒI'm sort of a Jekyll-and-Hyde character,Ó he admits, but his ability to work both sides of the techno/guitar fence isn't surprising given his approach to recording. He comes into a session with few preconceptions, treating each situation as unique. Rather than adhering to any particular methods, he relies on an amalgam of experience and open-mindedness to guide him. Very much the artist's advocate, Flood sees his role as that of facilitator, helping to direct and augment the creative process. And his nickname? Well, when London's Morgan Studios gave Flood his first studio gig in 1978, part of his job involved pouring tea. Apparently he was somewhat overzealous in his duties. MIX: So you began learning your engineering chops at Morgan Studios? FLOOD: Yeah. Morgan was a four-studio complex, and the first week I was there, they had The Cure doing their first single in one studio, Jack Bruce doing a solo project in another studio, Thin Lizzy doing heavy metal in another, and an orchestral session for some jingle in another. So from that point of view, the influx of different influences and different people was a really good basic grounding in just the pure technicality of things, seeing how different people work, from a rock 'n' roll session to how to record an orchestra with two mics. In some respects, I think that what a lot of people are suffering from, certainly over in this country, is a lack of grounding in learning a craft. From when I first started to when I first went freelance was almost six years, and I think that a lot of the time people don't really have that luxury anymore, to get that experience in different situations. If you're working as a house engineer in a studio, you're quite often given all the dodgy projects to do right through the night. You can afford to make mistakes there and try out things and ideas, then next day you go, hmm, why didn't that work? I'll ask somebody. Whereas now it's like from assistantÑbang, six months of engineering and then you're good for freelancing, so off you go. Put people in different situations now and quite often they won't rise to the challenge, because they haven't really been in that situation. MIX: Given your background, do you in fact engineer when you're producing? FLOOD: It's about 50/50. I tend to engineer more for ÒrealÓ bands than I do for the synth ones, perhaps because over the years, I've gotten pretty adept at programming, and I've got a pretty extensive collection of analog synths that I tend to use or encourage people to use. So for some reason, I tend to find it easier to step back in those situations. Also, maybe a lot of the time because you're generating stuff from computers and/or synths, as an engineer it's like, well there's the sound, record it, rather than, okay well I need to place a mix in a certain place to do this and try that on that. So probably my instincts are to get in where the sound is coming from in the first place; hence with synths and samplers, that's where the sound is coming from, so I don't worry about where the mic is. MIX: How specific are you in your equipment preferences and choices? FLOOD: No hard-and-fast rules. You sort of judge it on the situation as it merits. For instance, if it's a sort of synth band, they often have their own gear there. And you might suggest, let's use a load of amps to pipe stuff out through, and it would be those types of suggestions. There's nothing I would stand and die by. If anything, I would say that I'm still a very big fan of analog. If there was one thing I was to hold out for, it would be analog, 15 ips with Dolby SR. Where possible, not 48-track. MIX: What is it about 15 ips? FLOOD: Bottom end. It's not that it's more correctÑif you're pushing the tape, it doesn't come back exactly as you put it downÑbut the way that it comes back generally sounds better to me. You can have it so that you can record all your kit and bass and rhythm section and then park it, then dump a few cue tracks down to digital and do all the rest of your stuff on digital if you so desire. But if you've got a flappy bass guitar and you push the level, nine times out of ten, it'll come back sounding really throbby and warm and punchy. Do you cut tape much? Oh, yeah, all the time. I'll work analog when I'm cutting tracks and overdubbing, because in some respects, I can control the specifics of the sound far better. But after that, nowadays I tend to end up mixing possibly to 15 ips SR, and then transferring it to DAT, and then I'll edit on Pro Tools and Sound Tools for compilations or 12-inches. That's a good wayÑyou can spend a day in the studio doing a bazillion different passes and then take it home. |
