Home  Music  Words  About  Contact

Interview with Kev Hopper (aka Spoombung) - 10/29/2004

Rick: How and when did you get started making music?

Kev: I was into the bass guitar. I wanted to sound like Chris Squire and bought a Rickenbacker bass copy when I was about 16 years old (around 1977). But I ended up playing in a punk band in my hometown, Ipswich.

When I moved to Coventry to study art, I'd begun listening to Percy Jones and jazz-fusion and bought a fretless bass. I joined a soul band with a big brass section and jammed with the ex members of the Specials and Selector. But at the same time I got a taste for experimental music, atonality and dissonance.

Would you say that punk-ness informs your current music in any way?

You must be joking! In one way punk encouraged me to get on stage and make a horrible noise when I was 17 years old - so I suppose I should be grateful for that - but in another it quickly became a repressive list of things you were NOT allowed to do: just really innocent things like play with musos who had long hair, for instance, even if you liked 'em and it was fun! Or learn more about music! Or make music with more than 3 chords (because that was what Hippies did). It sounds silly and petty now, but there were lots of sneery, disapproving gobshites around with no sense of humour or talent who made your life a misery. Most Punk rock sounded like Pub Rock ... really boring, shouty, 12-bar rock music. The worst kind of music there is. And everywhere the Punk Gestapo inspecting your record collection and watching your every move. It was like Nazi Germany! It really was! I was reminded of the same sort of atmosphere years later when Political Correctness was introduced into the workplace. All these really perfectly horrible people came from nowhere watching your every move, eagerly taking up the mantle of moral policemen with glee. Most people don't need telling what to do; they have an innate sense of how to treat each other with respect without patronising rules.

What experiences/groups opened your ears to experimental music?

Perhaps there are some people who simply have a taste for dissonance. Or they develop a taste for it ... like Guinness or Marmite. I'd always liked sound per se you know, natural vibrations in air! When I was a kid, I liked film sound tracks like the 2001 Ligeti stuff, Bernard Hermann, John Barry, early Jerry Goldsmith and his Planet of the Apes soundtracks, that sort of thing. Later on I liked early eighties bands like DAF, PIL, Kraftwerk, Palais Schaumburg - a lot of German music. I've always liked the sound of two adjacent semitones together, for instance. There is something exciting about hearing music vibrate and beat oddly - also listening for the textural evolution of elements rather than just the tonal development.

When Stump got going in 1984, my main influences were a track called "DMZ" by Brand X (don’t laugh) and "Suction Prints" by Captain Beefheart. Of course, it turned into something else in the end because there were 3 other people involved ... and should I really be telling you all this? Haha!

I'm a big Beefheart fan ... particularly his late stuff (Doc at the Radar Station). What about his music spoke/speaks to you?

So you're not into Brand X then? ;-) Erm - where do I start? Beefheart: I suppose it's the highly organized and arranged clashing of tones, fabulous off-kilter rhythms, the band as a total instrument, the wonderful beat poetry and presence of the man himself. My first instinct, with an instrument, is to find patterns with stark contrasts - then repeat. My second instinct is to put them all together. I think that's what's going on in the Beefheart stuff. My favourite period is around "Lick My Decals Off."

Are you self-taught or did you study with someone?

I'm entirely self-taught. Still learning. I only learnt to play 9th chords on the guitar 4 years ago, for instance. I still can't sight-read music.

Many of the best musicians I've worked with have been under- rather than overtrained. It sounds like you *value* your own lack of academic training. Do you? If so, what does your lack of formal training give you?

*Splutter* I am deeply, DEEPLY embarrassed and ashamed at any lack of musical knowledge I might have. I do NOT "value" my own ignorance in any way whatsoever! Okay, every year I might learn something new, get a little wiser perhaps, but I always have the feeling I'm playing catch-up on the basic knowledge a formal training in music would have given me. I'm an avid LISTENER; that characteristic can't really be taught and that's what informs me now. But that doesn't make up for it. When the opportunity was there - to learn music at school - I was listening to Diana Ross, Elton John, and Wings. I just wanted to pick up the bass and play along, not learn dreary piano tunes and music I hated. By the time I liked some of the "dreary piano tunes," years later, it was too late. It was impossible to go back to learning scales because I had a strong compulsion about what sort of music I wanted to make - and that didn't necessitate learning musical theory. I was already underway. The moment had gone. Apparently it's different in schools these days and they try and tap into your interests instead of calling you a moron because you don't like Mozart or something (I still loath Mozart, by the way).

What instruments (software, hardware) do you use?

Although bass guitar is the instrument I know best, I now rarely play it and it's gathering dust under my bed. I can't bear the thought of plugging into a big amp in our little London flat and pissing off all the neighbours. I also have the nagging feeling that I took the instrument as far as I could with my 1998 album entitled "Spoombung" which is almost entirely bass guitar (extended techniques, Cage­like preparations, etc.).

Sonatas for prepared bass ... now that's a thought! Did you attach all sorts of objects to the guitar strings? What kind of sounds did you get?

I used crocodile clips, bits of wire and paper and I combined that with a tapping and plucking technique I called "the Spoombung" which is an onomatopoeic word that roughly describes the sound. I achieved a very rich, multi-harmonious effect with the preparations. I was very influenced by Cameroonian music at the time. The pieces followed fairly simple rules and had a minimal, highly rhythmic quality,. I even had an "assistant," Rob Flint, who would come up on stage to move the preparations around while I was playing. Extended bass guitar techniques are almost the sole preserve of the jazz-fusion community and I thought it would be interesting to make a recording that was nothing to do with that and had its points of reference elsewhere (Cage, Frith, African music, etc).

Nowadays I'm perhaps better known for playing the Musical Saw ... although I have to say, I've also become tired of it and rarely slide it out of the gun bag for a wail. I play a simple nylon-strung guitar the most and a little bit of glockenspiel. Then of course there's Reaktor.

I've always thought of musical saw in the same sense as theremin: gorgeous, but very specific instruments (i.e., not "universal" like violin, guitar, etc.) that audiences latch onto due largely to their oddity. I've played theremin live several times, and the audience invariably gathers round the instrument after the concert in awe, like they were staring at an icon in a church.

They also forgive bad musicianship, i.e., playing out of tune, because they are amazed you managed to do anything on a hardware-store tool in the first place.

What kind of music do you make?

I make a sort of pop/experimental/electronic/acoustic hybrid. Erm ... that doesn't sound very clear, does it? Let me clarify:

My own stuff has melodies and chord changes, but I feel compelled to innovate sonically (the best I can) so the trick is to arrive at some sort of pleasing balance between the melodic content and the more ambiguous atonality of the electronic content ­ or to set up a series of contrasts between the two approaches. In the old days I would be content to stitch interesting sound together regardless of melodic continuity. I can no longer do that with my own stuff although Ticklish operates in a more open, abstract, sound-for-the-sake-of-sound way.

Why can't you do that with your own stuff anymore? Did you stop "hearing" it? Or did the lack of audience response (I'm guessing here) leave you cold?

When I began playing the saw around '98 I decided I would like to write melodic tunes for it rather than use it as a spooky sound effect. I'd spent years dabbling with samplers and making "experimental" music and I thought it was time for a change. I really enjoyed working this way; it's far simpler than making "experimental" music in lots of ways because I rarely had to think about texture. Now I want to combine that approach with using unusual sounds ... so in a sense, it's a doubly complicated challenge. I'm after some sort of synthesis between the two. That's why it takes me so long to come up with anything; and I keep insisting that I find music-making difficult, because I deliberately make it difficult for myself. Listening back to my recordings, I am generally more attracted to the more conventional stuff with melody and harmony. But the most satisfying stuff integrates both approaches, for instance, the "I Had Some Shoulders" track on Reaktions.

Please talk a bit more about Ticklish. Who's in it, what do you do, how often do you play out, do you have albums out, etc.

Ticklish are an audio/visual group consisting of Rob Flint doing improvised, live visual projections and Phil Durrant and myself contributing sound. Both Phil and I use Reaktor. We have made two recordings, the first on the German Grobb label and the latest, "Here Are Your New Instructions," will be released on the French Textile label, hopefully, late 2004. We have performed at many festivals in Europe and have been in existence since '95 with different line-ups. We moved to an all-digital format around 1999. We semi-prepare material and leave enough space for improvisation at each performance. Phil and I share similar musical objectives and are generally attracted to similar sorts of sounds. We particularly like squelchy organic morphonics and selected randomization. A lot of our music has a strong pulse without using drums or drum equivalents. We are also fond of things that relate to bodily functions speech - and -er-well never mind. He is a little more experienced at working with the software than myself and has a better technical knowledge. I am always nagging him to record his stuff rather than constantly tweaking his instruments. Phil records with many other people so I guess he doesn't feel the same urge, but I think he does his best stuff with Ticklish so I really have to nag him to stop fiddling. We exchange information and ideas together and post ensembles to each other. We make sure we understand what lines we're working on separately, and then combine the two threads to make the music.

Who are your main musical influences, "heroes," etc.?

There are almost too many to mention and each year the emphasis changes as I alternate "heroes" and discover new ones in all genres except Robbie Williams. I am often most influenced by those around me and my immediate friends, for instance Sean O'Hagan (from the High Llamas) - his use of chord progressions has rubbed off on me a bit and Phil Durrant's approach to electronic free improvisation. For electronic/experimental music I consistently return to the 90's recordings of Microstoria and Oval and the music concrete of Shaeffer and Henry.

How do you feel about the current state of popular/downtown (as opposed to Academic/uptown) electronic music? Does it excite you?

I feel it's very, very healthy! Does that surprise you? Well - the people that moan about the lack of innovation in contemporary music usually don't get out much. They don't go to concerts of modern music; don't keep up to date with what's happening and no longer buy albums. In short, they are no longer LISTENING. I have seen many wondrous electronic acts and heard some great new stuff.

For example ...

Mimeo, Oval, Alva Noto, Christian Fennesz, Ultra Living, DAT Politics, Peter Cusack, Jan Werner. The London free-improvisation scene is a also a rich and diverse source of interesting electronica.

The definition of "academic" usually means use of Max/MSP and the results of its adoption into academic circles. How you define the difference between that and music made in the bedroom by young people I don't know. It's certainly not as simple as usage/demonstration of software. The "academic" world still has its old obsessions; reacting against tempered scales, etc., but now all the courses have to be "post modern" they can hardly adopt an "us and them" attitude, can they?

I think groove has a lot to do with it. Downtown music tends to be groove-centric; uptown tends to use other models as inspiration for beat/rhythm. Do you agree? Are you groove-centric?

Hey, I'm a bass player; of course I'm groove-centric! Hmmm ... I think I know what you're getting at, that the acts that use grooves are often the least funkiest of the lot in that they are slaves to that tyrannical boom boom of the kick drum and the pea-soup hi-hat. But I think it's a simplification to divide electronic music into "groove" music and "non-groove" music and a bit of a non-starter as an argument. As definitions, they mean little at the end of the day. The fact that "downtown" don't know about "Gesang Der Junglinge" or anything about the early history of electronic music is largely irrelevant. And the fact that those at Goldsmiths studying composition don't know about Autechre is also irrelevant (although they probably do know about Autechre now because of the trendy people running these courses). You either make interesting music in your chosen genre, or not. I mean ... the clichés can be immensely seductive and pleasurable - fashionable breakbeats, for instance, and recognisable forms. Some make their music exclusively ABOUT clichés, for people FOLLOWING the clichés. They make an art of it. I don't think we should deny people their pleasure. Different strokes for different folks.

You are a Reaktor afficionado. How do you use Reaktor to create music? Do you use any other computer programs to make your pieces? If so, what?

The only other software I use is Logic to record and arrange with, so Reaktor is all I use to make sounds in the computer.

I continually record little bits and pieces little odd sequences and sounds usually with my own stuff or from ensembles I've modified to my own tastes. Very occasionally, I use them just as the author posted up in their original state. The recordings sit basking in their little folders waiting to be woken up like sleepy children called to duty.

At the same time I work completely separately in another universe on melodic material using the sampler in Logic usually a melody and chords. I gave up trying to get Logic and Reaktor to work together ages ago, so I make Midi files in Logic and import them into Reaktor. I try the chords out on the various instruments, together with a simple tape module that I use to play the odd sequences. I listen and make decisions what goes with what, etc. All the arrangement decisions are made later on in Logic.

Composing in this fashion often means working with quite disparate material, so I try and make brutal, bold decisions to delete excess samples at an early stage. If I have a total of 4 samples for a piece I will try and derive all the extra material from those actual samples by running them through my various machines so I preserve some sort of continuity. After I'm satisfied I've got enough material to work with, all further work in Reaktor is strictly forbidden as I arrange the piece in Logic. One of the main problems with Reaktor is that it encourages leisurely tweaking and fiddling because of the "infinite" nature of its modular construction. I have to force myself not to go into the programming if I'm making a song. I would actually recommend people buy Reaktor Session if they want to produce more music.

I am very attracted to devices that can "impose" chords on multi-harmonious, multi-textural, multi-ambiguous source material. So I am particularly fond of resonators for instance. I like ensembles that achieve a sequenced, rhythmic cranky and quirky effect via bizarre modulation of some kind. Deiter Zobel and Martin Brinkmann have made some of my all-time favourite machines in this respect. I also like self-generating, noise making ensembles - such as those made by yourself.

I must admit that my knowledge of event processing - not modules, sequencers, etc., is quite poor and I cut and paste all these things from people who know better. I love computers but I can barely operate them and frequently have to call on friends for help.

Every music its clichés. What are the clichés of electronic music? Do you think they are dangerous ... i.e., that they kill creativity, freedom?

The most obvious cliché among electronic groups improvising together is the drone. In the past I have been guilty, but now I strive to avoid it. In general, experimental electronic musicians are less interested in tonality, i.e., identifiable notes and chords. Think of the genre as a culture of musicians who like dealing with multi-ambiguous material from a tonal and textural point. Heaping multi-ambiguous material on top of other multi-ambiguous material often results in an identifiable drone, i.e., a prominent fundamental note which means that ironically, one ends up with the thing one wanted to avoid in the first place. It is also quite difficult to move from this position in a musical way without sounding clunky or foolish. There are of course, musicians who intentionally set up drones to create atmosphere, and some drones can be interesting if they are evolving, but in general, they are usually the most boring (beware of old Goths with laptops). The way to avoid the drone is to place the music in loosely defined "cells" with time limits and be conscious of the drone appearing at all times.

You will also find many electronic musicians filtering out mid tones (where all the "notes" are located) in favour of very high frequencies - grainy interference, static, FM, and scritchy-scratchy sounds are common - for the same reasons. You can add these sounds together without setting a fundamental key. The frequencies are high enough to avoid tonal identification by the listener. Sub-bass is also common because it's difficult to identify at the other end. Perhaps it’s just a style, rather than a cliché.

You're an enthusiastic friend of the online Reaktor user library. You seem to download every new ensemble posted there, and you often take the time to heap great praise on the creators.

Absolutely! I call it the "sharing culture." I think it's fantastic that people will work so hard on their own to create these fabulous software instruments. They deserve all the praise they can get and I sometimes wish more people would make comments and show their appreciation because it's such an unselfish, generous thing to do: to offer up something for free that others may gain great joy from, or even, perhaps, benefit from artistically or commercially. I love the open-ended nature of the sharing culture. I really believe that there will be documentary makers interviewing the Brinkmanns, Zobels, and Rachmiels in years to come, discussing how important and influential this period in technological history has been and how important "software creation culture" was in the early days when we were all here (present, past and future tense….)

Yes, it really is quite amazing isn't it ... all that musical creativity flowing "for free." This is, in my opinion, how it should be: music as a gift to the world.

Spoombung, you're truly a bright flame in these dark days. I look forward to the new Ticklish album and your new solo album which is due to come out ... ?

Early next year. :-)

Gruuvey!

Spoombung's web site is www.kevhopper.dsl.pipex.com. You can find his email address and several of his Reaktor-centric pieces on his Reaktions.com home page.