Here is the first interview with this month’s special guest Elliot Koretz, talking about general aspects of his career.

How did you get started in sound design?

My first industry job was as an apprentice editor in the shipping room at Disney Studios. I was exposed to all types of editing (picture, music, and sound) but I was attracted to sound for not only what I saw as the ability to be very creative but for the autonomy of working independently of the director and producers who seemed to be always in the picture editors room. At Disney I met a sound editor who was also moonlighting at Neiman-Tillar, a leading independent sound house back in the day. He saw my interest in wanting to advance to editor a little quicker than what was the norm at Disney and offered to put in a good word for me there. I was offered assistant editors position and took it. While there I was first introduced to electronic editing. This was approximately 1980 and they had, as far as I know, the first system that was used for this, ACCESS. That’s really pretty amazing for so long ago. I think the first show I ever cut on electronically was a tv show, “Aloha Paradise” It was a kind of “Love Boat” on land and the sound needed was pretty straight forward fx. But I do remember one particular episode where the story line had a man who was interested in a divorced woman with a young child. The kid was opposed to this relationship and at one point bites the guy on the leg in kind of a comical manner. This lead to what I believe may have been the first “design” moment of my career. I layered a celery snap with some sort of other big crunch and………I was off and running as a designer.

After that I moved around landing at a number of post facilities for a while. I was an editor at Stephen Cannell, which turned out to be a great place to learn to cut action sequences. On shows like “The A-Team” you had a week to cut an entire reel (approx 12 min) of Dia, FX, BG’s and Foley. And inevitably you had a scene like this: Our heroes were in some sort of large vehicle, traveling pretty fast on a rough surface, being chased by a helicopter that was shooting at them. They meanwhile had constructed some sort of rapid firing gun that was shooting nails or some other projectiles……..and little to none of this could be created just straight out of the sound library.

These kinds of sequences needed multi-layered design and remember this was on film. Many units and also much of the final result of my work couldn’t be heard played together until the dub stage. On an old fashion film sync block you could only hear three or four “channels” at once. Anything wider than that and you had only your experience and imagination to visualize the combined sound.

I think doing this kind of design work way back then really helped me understand how to efficiently combine elements to get the sound I wanted.

I spent some time at Soundelux when the company was still pretty young and while there moved into cutting sound on features. (Still editing on film). I did return to tv editing and ended up working first as an editor then as supervisor on the show, “MacGyver”. It was another busy design show with the lead character always inventing something to beat the bad guys that required creative design work. After a successful first season the producers wanted to change to an all-electronic post. Soundelux at that time was not prepared for the huge investment in equipment and ultimately the show was moved to a newly created facility, Modern Sound. Over that summer they built a new mix stage, foley stage, and editing rooms using both Synclavier and 24 track editing systems. I was offered to continue as the supervisor of the show and accepted. After a very brief training period at the offices of New England Digital (the creators of the Synclavier) I jumped into the world of electronic post again.

The problems we faced were immense. This was 1986 and the technology was still in it’s infancy. There were not yet sound libraries that were “digital” and the decision was made to purchase a copy of the library of a leading sound supervisor at the time, Fred Brown. Then the issue was storage. The best we could do at the time was to digitize onto floppy discs. They could only hold a few seconds of sound each so you can imagine the challenges that caused. This was truly the bleeding edge of technology.

It was at times very exhilarating but often very frustrating to be at the forefront of this transition. There were times we struggled to achieve what was extremely easy to accomplish on film and other times we saw how cool it was to work in a non destructive environment with new tools to manipulate the sound.

After that season I moved around again to a couple of different facilities but then found what turned out to be a long-term home at Weddington Productions. The three owners at that time (Steve Flick, Richard Anderson, and Mark Mangini) were doing some of the most creative sound design anywhere. There is no question that was the turning point in my becoming a much more accomplished designer. Working with the talented people at Weddington constantly challenged me to step up my game and really think hard about what I could do to impact the movie sonically in every detail.

While there I made the full time transition to ProTools and it’s world of opportunities that cutting digitally has brought to all of us.

All these pieces of the puzzle have helped form what I do today. At Universal where myself and my crew have 5.1 editing suites and all sorts of plug in devices I reference all that experience from both the film and digital worlds when conceptualizing the design work I do.

How has been the evolution of your work and how your approach to sound has changed over the years?

Well, in some ways it’s changed dramatically and in others not so much. In a practical sense I mentioned the switch from film to digital. I really embraced it and all the flexibility it gave me while staying in my editing environment and not having to wait for a reprint of something or a specialist for processing. It’s just more efficient and much easier for me to experiment with sounds. In a more subjective perspective I think I grow after every film I do. I am a very hands on supervisor and I feel that one of the perks of being in charge is that I get to choose which elements of the project I will personally handle. I still try (time and budget permitting) to be very old school in my method. I like to pull and organize the fx and bg’s my editors will work from (I always encourage and give them the option of going beyond the pull) and give them a “cut list”. I think that method lends itself more to continuity and flow of the sound of the film. If I can’t do that then I meet with the editors, run the reels and give as much info as I can to them and review the work later. I think one of the bigger changes in my approach in recent years has been to make a concerted effort to co ordinate with the composer more. We all have been in the situation in a mix where we are fighting for the same sonic space with the music tracks. If I know where the music is working and in what frequencies and what type of rhythm I can attempt to compliment it and not fight it.

I wonder how sound design has changed the way you listen.

I think I listen and think about emotions. What are we trying to say to the audience? Like with music I don’t want to fight the dialog so I see fx, bg’s and design as a tool, sometimes very subtle other times not, to promote the directors’ vision. I listen for bridging opportunities to use sound to connect scenes. I always remember on the dub stage for the movie “Speed” Greg Landaker (not sure about spelling) the lead fx mixer suggested some great ideas to do just that. The frenetic pace of the film lent itself to fast whooshing elements to bridge cuts. It was just one more layer to make it a more finished and cohesive movie.

How has been your work with directors? any particular story on that?

You touch on a very important question. I think that just as important as my design work on the film or maybe sometimes even more important is my rapport with the director (and the picture editor as well). We as supervisors and designers need to be very politically astute and sensitive to the personalities we work with. Some clients like a “take charge guy” who they are counting on to lead the way in the sound post. Some want a person that gives them exactly what they ask for…and nothing more. I guess what I am saying is that we need to size up who we are working with and as early as possible give them what they need. As wildly creative as we are we can’t lose sight that we are a service. I don’t believe that one style will fit all.

I have been very fortunate to work with some amazingly talented directors. When people look at my resume they usually want to know about Michael Mann. In addition to working on and supervising some of his television shows I supervised and did the design work on both “Collateral” and “Miami Vice”. Michael is without question a creative genius and a visionary that has given us some amazing tableaus. The challenge is that he is so demanding of himself, often working 20 hours days for seemingly months on end and he expects his team to keep up with him at all times. I think he has his ideal of the visual and sonic harmony he wants and has little tolerance if you are not on board with him. If you understand that it makes your job less difficult. People always want to hear horror stories, the truth is that the hours were long and tough but as I was mentioning in the previous question when you understand who you are working with and what they expect of you then you as a supervisor can depersonalize challenging situations for you and your crew and keep everyone on point.

I did a film with the amazing Irish director Jim Sheridan. He was a very easygoing guy with me and my crew and regaled the dub stage with wonderful tales, as is the tradition for storytellers like him. His style was more to allow me the freedom to bring design ideas to the stage and then he would give input.

I love when a director really understands and supports what sound and sound design will bring to their film. I worked with Gavin O’Connor on the film “Miracle” a few years back. He wanted realism throughout his film. He wanted hockey players that could act as opposed to actors that could skate a bit and for sound he wanted the most realistic sounding sports movie ever. We did extensive recordings of skating and hockey crowds and then mixing with Mike Minkler and Myron Nettinga we got a terrific soundtrack. Gavin was so incredibly appreciative of the work we all did and that’s always refreshing and nice to have.

Another great collaboration has been with the director Thor Freudenthal. His name may not be familiar to everyone but I think it soon will be. He is a very talented young director. I worked on “Hotel for Dogs” and “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” with him. Both films presented unusual design challenges and Thor was very supportive to make that sonic space that we all hope for available in the final mix.

All these directors I just mentioned understood the value of doing field recording for their films. Whether it’s getting out to Miami and recording onboard speed boats at over 135mph (Yikes!), Directing a crowd of 5,000 people chanting “USA, USA” or dog ADR sessions (Story on that to follow), working with someone that gets the concept of what we can bring to the film by doing these things is always a bonus.

I wonder how you approach the different roles you can play on a film, such as sound designer or supervisor. Any preference?

I really enjoy them all. Unless a particular film is just too demanding a job for me to exclusively hold both titles I will try most often and handle those myself. To accomplish that I am fortunate enough to have worked with for almost ten years one of the best assistants (who also happens to be one of the best field recordists, great editor and also talented mixer) Bruce Barris. His wide range of skills allows me the freedom to be creative while he has handled some of the other aspects of the workflow. He has been an invaluable partner in the design process.

And speaking of that I do see the work we do as a collaborative effort. I am most definitely the point man with the client but it is the entire team that I count on. With the budgets so tight these days my crew is often small. Everyone has to be really capable. I try and spend quite a bit of time with each member keeping them up to date with as much info as I can.

On some of my films for one reason or another I have assumed the role of ADR supervisor as well. I do really enjoy getting the opportunity to work with the actors.

So I guess that although design is probably my favorite part of the job, as I like to say “it’s full service” and I’m good with hands on the other tasks as well.

What are your favorite tools to work with?

I think it’s rare that I use any effect out of the library without doing some sort of tweaking to it. I use quite a bit of the standard plug ins that are included in ProTools and also the Waves bundle, Izotope (particularly Trash), AltiVerb, and Speakerphone to name a few. Multiple layers of sounds addressing different frequencies are the key. I look for new plug ins and applications all the time as they are rapidly growing.

Do you have any special method for dealing with deadlines/creative challenges?

Well, that’s not very easily accomplished. It’s time management. I think one of the most important skills in that regard is having the dub stage experience to really understand what will play and what will be less important in the overall mix. Sizing up the key sequences and looking at how much time you have to spend on them is crucial. I find this does not come naturally to everyone and I help my crew know what areas to concentrate on.

Is there any of your projects that you remember for being the most challenging or favorites?

Which of your children do you like the best, eh? So hard to answer. I will pick out one but I probably could find examples in almost all my films.

A couple of years ago I did a family film, “Hotel for Dogs”. On the surface it seemed like a fairly simple movie to do. There were some Rube Goldberg like mechanical inventions to design but otherwise I didn’t at first see any challenges or possible difficulties. Was I off the mark…..by a mile. The movie had many dogs in it (it was titled Hotel for Dogs…..right?) a number of them feature performers. The conceit was that they sounded like normal dogs. Nothing comical or unrealistic in their performance. It turned out that in every single bit of production the tracks were filled with the sound of the various trainers urging on their dogs to perform with whistles, clickers, and other devices that basically made the original sound track unusable.

So now I was faced with the reality that I had to replace every single sound all the dogs made for the entire movie. There was no library in town that has such a variety and complete sets for all these dogs. I was in serious trouble until an incredibly serendipitous event occurred. Some of my crew members and I were walking to lunch. We were working at Universal and sometimes we would cut through the theme park to eat up above us at City Walk. As we walked through the park I noticed there was a stage with the sign that read “animal act”. There was a worker standing in front with a dog beside her. I told her I was a fellow employee and what I was working on and asked, “Do the dogs in the act follow commands to bark?” She assured me they did and led me to backstage to meet the trainers. Turned out they had worked on my movie and actually some of the same dogs were here in this live show. After discussing what was needed with the trainers we set up a date and brought the dogs down to the foley stage for a “doggy” ADR session. Each dog responded to silent commands and barked, whined, sniffed and growled as we recorded them. I now had my kits for each of the main dogs in the movie.

Cutting their tracks was like doing voice replacement for about eight actors throughout an entire movie. Dogs never stop making sounds. They are always panting and licking and doing something that required considerable thought. I would find the most evocative material while still “keeping it real”.

The satisfaction came that in the final product my work was truly invisible. The dog vocals fit perfectly (being from the same dog in many instances) and no one would ever suspect that what they were hearing was not production. The work did not call attention to itself but never the less was some of the best sound work I’ve done recently.

What are your favorite films for sound?

That’s another loaded question. There is such great work out there. I go all the way back to classics like “Shane” and “Forbidden Planet” as early examples. And certainly I used to try and destroy my speakers playing “Top Gun” and then “Days of Thunder” at dangerous volume levels. The work of Ben Burtt, Gary Rydstrom, Randy Thom, Ren Klyce….I could go on and on. When I worked with at Weddington the movies that we were doing, Die Hard, Apollo 13, Speed, all the Joe Dante films……..were so incredibly well done. And recently my colleague at Universal Scott Hecker has put out some of the coolest tracks (300, Watchmen, and Suckerpunch) with Chris Jenkins and Frankie Montano mixing. I thought Avatar was an incredible piece of work knowing the difficulties in having to conceptualize design when you may still be working against a storyboard. I love movies. Always been a film fan and it’s just too hard to narrow the field on my favorites.

This is a good point to mention mixers. To understand how to collaborate and help them do their job is huge. I can’t emphasis enough my belief that it’s a team effort and although I do plenty of premixing back in the editing room I love that another set of very talented ears listens to the material and can add their expertise to it. I always try and meet with the team as early as possible and include them in the process.

Is there any advice you’d like to give to other sound designers out there?

Well, I think the key is to think divergently. Outside the box. Don’t be confined by the laws of nature. That’s how little kids think and that ability seems to disappear as we grow up. I know that there are sounds that have to be exact and correct but emotional sound has a huge role in design. And the practical advise is to put your ego aside and listen to what the filmmaker is saying and present yourself in a manner that instills confidence that you are the right person for the job. One of my favorite stories that help bring that point home is this. Walter Murch and Randy Thom were participating in a forum about sound. When Randy was speaking he told a story of how when he meets with the director he regales him or her with visions of incredible design to come with all sorts of amazing nuance and the client is wowed. They know they have he right person. The the meeting ends, Randy goes into the privacy of his editing room and says to himself, “How the f*ck am I going to do it?”

So don’t let them see you sweat. Bring your best attitude to your meetings……and then go back to your room and start panicking!

Seriously, this has been a lot of fun. Thanks for the opportunity to share some stories. I hope this has been informative and a little entertaining.

Let’s get started with this month’s special. Below is an interview I had with our guest Harry Cohen, talking about the general aspects of his career.

How did you get started in sound design and what’s been the evolution of your career?

I backed into sound design by accident; I showed up at EFX studios in Burbank to do some piano overdubs on a new-age-y album, and met the staff. They were a music studio just getting into post production. The owner asked me if I would help with some sound effects for game shows they were posting, since I knew synths pretty well. Three days later he asked me out of the blue if I was interested in trying my hand at doing sound fx for a film. (a super low-budget film !), and for better or worse , I agreed. I stayed with EFX for about 12 years, and slowly we built a reputation and started getting better films. Looking back , it was like a rare alignment of the stars or something; so many talented people were associated with that place. (Paul Menichini, David Farmer, Ann Scibelli, Tim Gedemer, Tim Walston, Mike Kamper, Gary Rizzo, Mark Fishman, and on and on). Later, I accepted an offer from from Wylie Stateman and Lon Bender to join Soundelux. Except for a 6 month period where I was ‘on loan’ to Soundstorm, those are the only 3 facilities I have worked for. I’ve been with Soundelux for more than 10 years now.

What are your biggest influences inside and outside the world of sound?

Well , of course , all the great sounding films over the years, and, all the other sound professionals I have worked with. Many people are so open and willing to share what they know, and that is probable the greatest resource we can tap.

I think also that being a musician has had a lot of influence on how I hear things.

How you deal with deadlines and creativity? Is there any special method you have for staying creative?

Aha ! Deadlines and creativity… I find that fear and panic have great effect on your productivity ! But seriously, my thoughts on it are that when you are crunched, you tend to work longer hours, and that after several hours of working with the problem and your material , something ‘clicks’ in your brain , and you go into this mode of being focused and productive. So often we go back to the stuff we did in a hurry when under time pressure , and realize that it is good ! Unfortunately, this is not a great way to work all the time; it tends to take a toll on your life. But I am not one who can be creative all the time; it comes and goes, and I have to take advantage of it when I am ‘in the mode’.

DS: What are your favorite tools in the studio and the field?

In the field , I love my Sound Devices 722. The small portable Zoom type recorders are also super convenient for casual and ‘stealth’ recordings. I have been doing most of my recording with either a Sennheiser 416 or 418; I also love the Neumann 190i. This year I intend to try some larger diaphragm mics. In studio, pro tools of course is the main platform, but I also work in Logic, Max msp, Reason, and other standalone programs. Kontakt has become an important tool for me.

DS: What’s your take on technology and how do you think it has affected the way you design sound today?

Well, looking back, I used a synclavier and a rack of outboard gear. Complex patch-ups were often hard to re-create. Now, if I need 3 more eqs and 2 more compressors, a couple of pitch shifters and some reverbs and delays, the computer isn’t even breathing hard. Also , there are constantly new plug-ins and
new sound technology coming out. I try to experiment with new stuff when I can.

How would you define sound design? What is the essence for you?

Sound Design has really come to mean two separate things. In the larger sense , a sound designer can be someone who is involved with the whole sound of the film; the creation or supervision of all the elements,(except the music) and how they fit together, the arc of the soundtrack, actively working with the mixers to realize the directors wants and vision for the film. But, it also means the guy(s) (or gals) that are tasked with creating and organizing the cool sounds themselves.

Much of what we need does not exist in the real world; or there is a creative ‘re-purposing’ of real world sounds to be something else. Its hard to be both of those people; they are both very time intensive. In practice, my work falls somewhere in between the two, which is to say that I am usually present during the mix to contribute a voice to the shaping of the track , and to manufacture lots of last minute adds and fixes.I do a lot of work with supervisor Wylie Stateman , and we tend to see a lot of things the same way, in terms of what we are trying to accomplish with the sound.

Harry Cohen and Michael Keller

What have been your most challenging projects and why? Any favorites also?

Challenge can be lots of different things. Earlier this year I helped out on Green Lantern, doing the evil monster, his thrall, and any ‘evil energy’. My first day on the project was also the first day of predubs ! That was a particular kind of challenge. Each film presents its own challenges, and while that sounds like a cliche, it is very true. I once told Wylie that if I was really honest with a director at our first meeting, I would say that I have no idea what I am going to do for his film. The film will tell me what it needs……to which Wylie replied “You’d better let me do the talking at that first meeting !”

As far as favorites; the first ‘Blade’ and the more recent ‘Wanted’ are two films that sound very close to my intentions.

What are your favorite type of sounds or scenes to work with and why?

I like creature sounds; I love the subjective type of sounds that are somewhere between sound effects and music. I enjoy doing things that affect the audience emotionally.

DS: Would you like to give an advice to other sound designers out there? What would it be?

My advice to up and comers would be to seek out other people to learn from. One of the things that made EFX such a special place was the continual sharing of information and techniques; its hard to figure everything out yourself. Build your own custom library full of your own recordings and creations. When you are making new sounds, make more than you need, and save some for later. When you wander into an interesting area (design-wise), explore it and record some stuff, even if its not what you currently need. And when playing with processing or plug-ins, I always think ‘how do I know if I’ve gone far enough until I have clearly gone too far ?” Listen to stuff you like and try to figure out how to do some of that. Heck , email the designer , and ask him !

What are your favorite films for sound? Any special recommendations?

Well , I am old enough that Apocalypse Now , the Star Wars films and the first Indiana Jones totally re-defined film sound for me. But advances in recording technology have engendered a whole new era of ‘high definition’ sound that is equally as exciting.

DS: What are you currently working on? What’s next for Harry Cohen?

I am currently working on “Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter’ for director Timur Bekmambetov. Down the road for us is Oliver Stone’s ‘Savages’ and Quentin Tarrentino’s ‘Django’.

Dialogue Editing by John Purcell (via sonicskepsi)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Other parts here.

Pro Tools Editing Bootcamp (4-part series) by Brent Heber

Click here to view the embedded video.

Part 2 | 3 | 4

Tim: First, backgrounds are the bed upon which all the other sounds must be built. It’s foundation work, and I love foundation work. And as the first thing I cut on a project, it’s really the first layers of paint so to speak. So I love that, the very initial layer. Second, the backgrounds have the most power to sell time and space. If done right, you plant the audience clearly in the scene, in the location, and in the world of the film. Third backgrounds have an amazing ability to evoke emotion. Tension, sadness, agitation, fear, love, all of these can be evoked in the backgrounds and in subtle ways. The same scene, cut different, could evoke safety and comfort, or tension and danger. Even the simplest choice of room tones can have an effect on the emotion of a scene. Fourth I just love the types of sounds, winds and rain especially. I love listening to them, I love to record them, and I love to cut and layer them.

DS: What is your preferred background element to play with and why?

Tim: Wind and water. These are both categories of sound that have almost limitless possibilities. Wind can be cold or hot, gentle or piercing, howling, singing, whistling. It can move things around, move through and over things. And water as well, of course. It flows, drips, pours. Just rain by itself could fill an entire library. Soft rain, rain on an infinite variety of surfaces, thick rain, thin rain.

Of these, wind is the base of all backgrounds, when you include room tone, or simple ‘airs’. And it’s wind that I find distracts me the most if done wrong. There are also a handful of library winds that get used over and over, and I can’t say I’m immune from using them as well. But such is the nature, that when a director calls for a ‘whistling wind’, most of us will find the same commercial sound that you know will always work and sell ‘whistling’. I keep hoping to find my own perfect whistling wind. It’s eluded me so far. I’ve made some things with some deer netting that are ‘close’ but not quite perfect yet.

On something like Prince of Persia, wind becomes a major element of the soundtrack, and we spent a lot of time trying to build a library of wind for  the film, especially wind and sand together. Scott Guitteau went to Death Valley for us and recorded as much sand as he could. The recordings yielded a lot of new sounds and textures. We recorded a lot on the Foley stage as well. While this is of course useful for the main cutting of the film, it’s crucial to have that library built for the final mix so you can quickly find the sounds you made for the film. On Persia I built a library of just wind and sand gusts, which proved really useful, as we’d see some more detail in the final picture, and say ‘oh we can throw in a small gust there, see the sand blowing on frame left?’

DS: You mentioned There Will Be Blood as one of your favorite films to work on – and you did the backgrounds. To me, this film had wonderfully gritty and textured images (and characters) – how did this influence the work with the backgrounds?

Tim: When I was asked to work on the film, I was living up in Vancouver supervising Journey to the Center of the Earth. I happened to be on a short hiatus when my friend Chris Scarabosio called. There had been another crew on There Will be Blood, and they had gone through one temp mix I believe. But, and I don’t know any specifics, the clients weren’t happy with the sound that they were getting. Chris asked if I had some time to work with the backgrounds.

I was given the tracks that the other crew had been working with, which is rare, but since I had a short amount of time to work on them, the plan was that I’d take over their tracks, adding or changing what I needed. But I quickly decided that even on the short schedule, I wanted to recut the tracks from scratch.

It wasn’t that the other work done was bad. But I suppose it just wasn’t ‘mine’ and seeing the film, I really wanted the backgrounds to be mine (at least until I turned them back over to Chris of course, after which point, it would all be out of my hands).

I had felt mainly that the original work was too clean. This was, as you mention, a gritty film. When I first watched it, I realized, that unlike probably any other film I had worked on, the backgrounds in this film could be dirty, gritty. The film has an almost documentary style to the shooting. The backgrounds were also crucial, and in many ways make up the bulk of the sound in the movie. There was to be little music in the film, and in fact the film opens I believe with about 10 or 15 minutes with no music, and no dialog. Some backgrounds and a bit of Foley is all we have for the entire opening of the movie.

We also have so many perspective changes, so many scenes in different locations, but all within the same geographic area, that the backgrounds were a real challenge. It certainly pushed my library to the max as I amassed any and all wind in grass that I could find! You need the continuity of geography, but the detail of shifting perspectives.

There were so many great scenes in There Will be Blood for backgrounds, and I’m very proud of the work we all did on that film.

One of the other joys in this track was in cutting mistakes. As I worked with the tracks, and I saw so many places where the camera work and editing was so raw, so gritty. Oil drops hitting the camera glass for instance. And I realized that I had the opportunity to match it with sound. So I actually spent quite a bit of time cutting in mic bumps, mild distortion, things of that nature, to match the nature of the picture. I loved that I could be putting in all the sounds that I would normally spend so much time cutting out. We think that things like mic bumps or distortion have no place, but in There Will be Blood, they fit perfectly.

DS: When working on something like There Will Be Blood which is linked to a special location and a special historical era, how much time do you spend on getting these ‘factual’ things right?

Tim: I know that many people go to great lengths to be factual about the sounds used in the backgrounds. I’ll be honest, that partly for practical reasons, and partly for purely creative ones, I don’t care much about getting the ‘facts’ right. The only fact I care about is this. Does it sound right? Does it do what’s needed there. Does it help the story, sell time and space, and sell the emotion of the scene. Now if a client cares and really wants us to be factual, of course we’ll invest the time. Things like the Cornell Library make finding birds specific to a location easy if the clients want us to spend the money to do so. And always an effort is made to find sounds that are natural to the location.

But I’ll give a real world example. I did a lot of recording and editing on Charlotte’s Web. Now we did source some birds from Maine, I found some nature recordists there that were kind enough to share some recordings. We had an assistant take a recorder back there to his family farm and record some sounds for us too. But I grew up in Minnesota, and had great connections there, so I spent a few weeks recording on some farms there. And the truth is, wind through Minnesota grass sounds like wind through Maine grass! Barns are barns, and crows are crows, and pigs are pigs. So most of the recording for Charlotte’s Web was done in Minnesota.

In Fellowship of the Ring, one of the things I was tasked with were cutting the backgrounds for the entire film. And being a fan of Tolkien, I knew that although Tolkien had built Middle Earth as a fantasy realm, he let it be inspired by real world locations. He had wanted it to feel familiar. With this in mind, I certainly set about to create and gather new sounds, especially the birds. But in addition to creating some background birds completely from scratch, or other animals, I didn’t shy away from using real world birds at all, although they were almost always affected in some way, usually pitched down, drawing them out, making them in my opinion a bit more lyrical. But I wanted that familiarity as well, of the birds sounding exotic but real. Chris Ward, who was then I think First Assistant and ADR Recordist went out several times recording birds, and while we were out, I picked up this blade of grass and started to make bird calls. He moved quite some distance, and we recorded a lot of ‘fake’ bird calls that would be used in the film. But there are also birds from the US, from England, Australia in the film. I don’t think this is a bad thing. I certainly didn’t put a Red-Wing Black bird in the film, but very possibly there are part of one.

I spent a lot of time taking a whole series of bird phrases, and re-editing them together, half of one phrase, half of another, to build a library that felt real, but that hopefully no-one singled out a particular bird.

But the short answer to your question is, I don’t much care. I know that will seem like a lazy answer to some, but the truth is, it’s the right sound if we all feel it is, if the director and clients are happy, then I’m happy.

The same applies to sound effects. I know of Supervising Sound Editors going to great lengths to record the ‘real’ sound of something, only to find that faking it with something much smaller and cheaper yielded a much better result than trying to get the real thing.

DS: When you’re the supervising sound editor of a film, how do you ’direct’ the effects editors when they are working on the backgrounds?

Tim: To be honest, I almost always cut a lot of the backgrounds myself, at least in Journey to the Center of the Earth, where I cut a lot of the FX for the entire film, and also Prince of Persia, I end up cutting, at least to establish, a lot of the backgrounds myself.

But the editors I have the pleasure of working with all have their own taste and style, and I have never found myself giving a lot of direction up front. After hearing what they’re working on, usually it entails me saying either ‘maybe we could do _______’, or else ‘I have a sound I’d love to use here.’ But I will have spotted some sounds, or ideally build a library of the sounds I’d like to use, and then let the editors make their own pass. I want.

And sometimes, I’ll have cut a reel or two of backgrounds, and any other editors can take that work and source from it. We do that a lot, whoever ends up establishing a location for instance will share those sounds and notes with the other editors.

DS: How much direction and which kind of direction do you prefer to get yourself, when you’re the sound effects editor?

Tim: I selfishly prefer to get almost no direction, and most of the supervising sound editors I’ve worked with have allowed me this freedom. Of all the Supervising Sound Editors I’ve worked with, almost none of them spot sound effects for me before starting, and I’m usually left on my own for the first pass at least. In some cases, it will be in the premix the first time the Supervising Sound Editor will hear everything. That level of trust is a real treasure.

Working with Ben Burtt and Gary Rydstrom, I’ll have a database of sounds spotted. In Ben’s case, he’s very particular about having chosen the sounds he wants to use, and his notes are very detailed. This doesn’t mean that we don’t go outside of those spotted sounds where necessary, but rarely is it necessary. In the case of Gary, on War Horse, a large database of new sounds was built, recorded, designed before I started. Detailed notes were available, mostly ideas like ‘Try this sound for incoming artillery’, or ‘I like this one the best’. Gary and I would spot the reel, and he’d give me his thoughts about overall direction the scene shoudl take. But then Gary gave me incredible leeway as well in cutting, letting me make my first pass on my own.

For the backgrounds in particular, Gary had spotted certain sounds that he thought would work well in the trenches, and really wanted to make sure we differentiated between the German and the English trenches. I had some sounds in my library as well that I thought worked, and so if I had something in my library that I thought would help, I would add it in.

DS: In your story on MS-recording you talked about delivering LCR ambiences to the mix stage. How do you build up your tracks for backgrounds – do you like to have a bed of sound that goes throughout the scenes or do you build up your backgrounds of a lot of small specific elements?

Tim: Both. These days I usually end up with six background predubs, usually calling them A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2. So think of them really as three different predubs, each with two sub-predubs, done either for checker-boarding, or additional splitting out of elements.

Predubs A1 and A2 usually contain the really basic sounds, room-tone, light or basic wind, really generic city backgrounds, etc. In a scene of rain they might contain the constant rain that will run through the scene. As such, A1 and A2 are often the largest ‘blocks’ of sound.

B1 and B2 are usually the perspective cutting elements, be it wind, rain, traffic, etc. They usually have a lot of edits that follow the geography of the scene.

C1 and C2 usually contain the specific ambience sweeteners needed, be it individual rain gusts, wind gusts, etc. They could also be traffic sweeteners, or additional layers, for instance if someone in the scene were to open a window, the additional sound to enter the scene might be placed here.

DS: Do you ever use ‘musical’ elements as part of backgrounds – by which I mean abstract sounds or treated elements?

Tim: Absolutely! That’s a large part of the fun for me. An example I already mentioned is when the Ring Wraiths are entering Bree. That sound there is a very abstract sound that most people would think is a musical element, or part of the score, but it’s the metal bowl and razor sound I mentioned in the first interview.

There is always a place for musical elements, be it in the glass water sounds of Rivendell, in the winds in Lorien, which are layered with quite a few musical elements. Even in something like There Will be Blood there is room for these types of sounds, although they’re much more subtle.

The danger of course is that you have to be careful of what your sounds might do when played alongside music later.

In the case of Bree, that scene was originally scored. Early on, once we (David Farmer, Brent Burge and I) had cut that scene and thought it sounded great, we lobbied for Peter to hear it as it was, hoping that perhaps it wouldn’t be scored. We felt we had created tension and made something that really worked for the scene. I don’t believe that ever happened, Peter hearing it, since in fact the scene was scored. But in the final mix, hearing some of the sounds behind the music, Peter heard what we had all put together, and the decision was made to remove some of the music at that point to allow our sounds to play. I wish he had heard it early on, I do think he might not have scored the scene and we would have had even longer to establish our sounds and make the scene even creepier.

But yes, I love musical elements. It’s all sound, music included, and I certainly don’t shy away from exploring musical, tonal, magical sounds anywhere they might be applicable.

But certainly I’m careful that they’re not married to other sounds, knowing that until we all arrive at the final mix, I can’t be certain they’re going to survive.

DS: A couple of years ago Randy Thom commented at the yahoo sound design list that some of the directors he was working with had an inclination to minimize ambient sound. Do you feel the same trend (still) happening?

Tim: Interesting. I remember working on a film very early in my career set in the height of summer. We of course had birds cut for all the suburban scenes, and the picture editor had us remove almost every one, saying ‘the director doesn’t want to hear birds’. So I don’t think this is really a new trend, it’s a personal one from director to director

But certainly as films begin to use more and more music, the backgrounds are often first to go. I’ve noticed in some of the animated films I’ve seen lately rarely have much in the backgrounds. So he might be right. I’m not sure what the reason is. I suppose somehow the directors feel the backgrounds are getting in the way.

But other directors really still love sound, and love backgrounds. I think even though the Pirates films have a lot of music, there are a lot of backgrounds in there as well. Same for Rings, and people like Guillermo del Toro and James Cameron, their films, as big as they are, still have a lot of detailed work done in the backgrounds.

I think David Fincher’s films as well, with Ren Klyce at the helm, have amazing background work, even in something like The Social Network, a film that you might not normally think of backgrounds.

I hope it’s not a trend that is continuing. But he might be right.

DS: Which are your favorite films for backgrounds – which have inspired you throughout the years?

Tim: I remember some films that as I watched them I thought had great creative use of backgrounds, films like Full Metal Jacket and Doctor Zhivago. These aren’t necessarily films that have high-fidelity backgrounds, but I remember seeing the Vietnam sequences of Full Metal Jacket and feeling like I was really there. In the case of something Doctor Zhivago, and most of David Lean’s films, there is beautiful use of sound as transition.

I thought The Thin Red Line had beautiful backgrounds, very lyrical in line with the filmmaking. I think Fight Club has some amazing work in the ambiences, especially the ones relating to the decaying house. There is a realness in those sounds, they are perfect.

Castaway is a brilliant use of backgrounds as storytelling. Here you are on this island, and really you have two main elements, waves and wind through palm fronds. But it’s a fantastic use of backgrounds to mentally isolate you on this desert island. There could have been bugs, birds, it could have been lush sounding, but of course that would have been the wrong direction for the emotion of the movie.

DS: Anything Else?

Tim: I find backgrounds difficult to talk about. Of all the things I tend to do, I find working with the backgrounds the most instinctual. With the backgrounds, I simply know when the sound is right for me. Yes there is a lot of thinking that goes into it as well, but ultimately backgrounds are felt.

I wanted to write an entire article on backgrounds here for the site, but I’m still struggling with an angle, or a structure for it. Maybe this interview is enough. I know there’s more to say, and if I can find words to talk about it more, I’d like to continue this discussion.

I want to write a series of relatively small ‘thought for the day’ type articles on a variety of topics. In the first, I want to expand on something that came up in the introductory interview, when I said that my main advice to people entering into their careers should learn when to stop.

One of the things that I love and admire, not only in sound, but in filmmaking and art in general, is economy. And I do not economics. but by economy, I mean simply:

“To achieve the maximum effect for the minimum effort.”

My favorite example of that statement is found in the movie Harold and Maude. I’m going to spoil something, so if you haven’t seen the film, you might want to skip the rest of this paragraph. There is a shot in that movie, I haven’t counted the frames, but I’d be shocked if it was longer than 20 or 30 frames total, that is the best example I’ve ever found. Harold and Maude are sitting near a garbage dump, and she’s describing how glorious seagulls are. There is an insert shot, so short that most people miss it, to Maude’s arm, where you can make out what appears to be a tattoo. A number. And when you realize what the shot is, a concentration camp tattoo, and you understand that Maude survived the concentration camps, the entire movie changes. What was a wacky story of an eccentric old weirdo becomes something a whole lot more powerful. Suddenly Maude makes sense. In one shot, she goes from crazy old lady to concentration camp survivor, and her actions, her very being, suddenly explained.

But for something so powerful, something so important, Hal Ashby made the decision to keep the shot on frame for such a short duration that many people miss it. I can’t think of a director today who would have taken one of the most important pieces of information for truly understanding the film, and letting most viewers miss it. Hal Ashby was an editor before he became a director. And he must have somehow known the exact length of the insert that a percentage of the people would get it, and a percentage wouldn’t. Regardless, the insert itself is such a great reminder in general of how much can be done with so little. One little shot, a second or so in length, can change your entire experience watching this film. I’ve seen the film at least a dozen times. It’s certainly in my top ten of favorite films, and Hal Ashby one of my favorite directors.

One of my favorite books of all time is The Little Prince, by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. Seemingly a children’s book written by an adult, it’s really a book written by a child for adults who have lost their way. I had never read it as a child, a good friend gave me a copy while at USC film school, along with the Graham Greene novel The Power and the Glory, and Graham Greene was also a master of economy, and quickly became one of my favorite authors. But Saint-Exupéry also wrote one of the most beautiful books every written, Wind Sand and Stars, about his time spent in the desert after his plane crashed. And in addition to those two brilliant books, he’s also the author of one of my favorite quotes, and really the idea behind this post:

“Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”

I wish I had found that quote, and understood it, long ago in my career. So to all of you starting out, memorize those words.

In sound, what I’ve found after years of editing, is that after I’ve completely cut a scene, after I believe I’ve added everything that’s needed, I’m able now to go back and delete about half of what I’ve cut. In every case, the result is a much more defined track.

I remember cutting the backgrounds for The Fellowship of the Ring. I didn’t actually have a lot of editing credits before being invited to go down to New Zealand, so I certainly felt a lot of pressure on myself to try and do exceptional work. I mentioned that I love cutting rain. So I was delighted when I saw the scene of the Hobbits entering Bree, and I saw so much rain. Real rain, down-pouring rain, rain on fences, lanterns, thick cotton cloaks. Rain into mud puddles and rain blowing sideways.

So I cut. And then I cut some more. And then a bit more, convinced that every piece I was adding, was adding ‘something’ to the layering of rain. That each new piece was filling in some piece of the puzzle that had been missing until I added it. And soon I had well over 100 tracks of rain, divided into three predubs. The first was for background steady rain, the far-field rain, the stuff that was to provide the bed. The second predub held all the midfield type rain, sweeteners designed to help sell the perspective cuts between all the shots. The third predub the individual rain sweeteners, the rain on the lantern, the rain on cloth, the rain drips from the gate. The problem was that each of these premixes themselves were also over-cut. The background rains had way too many layers, and although I couldn’t hear it at the time, were already muddy and thick, definition gone. The midfield rains were each 10 or 12 tracks layered together too, and I can still picture Chris Boyes, who mixed the FX, staring blankly as I tried to talk him through it all on the mix stage.

Right then and there on the mix stage we started to delete things, there was no other choice. All the material we needed was there luckily, but it became a game to find the pieces that actually were needed, and weed out all the stuff that was making it sound bad. Of course, as I had been editing that scene, I had convinced myself that ever piece I was adding was adding something. Why?

Here we find one of the problem with our brains. Our brains lie to us! All that work, my brain wouldn’t let me know the truth. That most of it should have been deleted before I took it to the mix stage. There were of course other reasons. I had wanted so hard to do a good job. We had a long schedule, and I had a lot of time to cut. I was more worried about having something missing, that I couldn’t see that I could be bringing too much material. But first and foremost, my brain lied to me, and told me that everything I had put there was necessary.

In the end I’m sure about 20% of the rain I cut was all we needed for that scene. As my library has grown, and my rain collection has grown, with better and more articulate pieces I could now probably cut that scene again with half as many tracks again as we ended up using back then.

So here’s an exercise that every editor should do with his or her tracks when they’re done cutting. Go through, track by track, effect by effect, and mute, one at a time, each one. Then play over that section that contained it. If, in the mix of your work, in the overall layering of all your material, you can’t tell when something is muted or not, delete it. Learn early on not to be precious about anything that you have cut, so that you have no emotional attachment to it. So that with an objective ear, you can simply start taking away.

In the case of something like an explosion, my first pass will usually layer about 10 or 12 elements, to build the overall sonic event. When I then go through, muting and playing, I usually find that at least 3 or 4 of those elements, in the overall layering, simply are no longer ‘doing’ anything. So they go. Same for backgrounds, same for everything. If I can no longer hear it ‘missing’ when I mute it, it doesn’t belong.

I find this test especially useful in creature design. Creatures are the thing that I find get muddy the fastest. On John Carter, I recently had to make some sounds for a creature. We had used some of my sounds from another movie in our first temp, but as we started to see animation come in, it was clear these were totally the wrong pace anyway. So I decided to start over from scratch. Our amazing assistant and recordist, Nia Hansen, had recorded for me a lot of new animals, and with those and some of my own, I went about making a new set. But in the end, they didn’t quite work either. What had happened was that once again, I had overdone it, layering too many things, each time convincing myself that I was adding something, when in fact, all I was doing was killing any character, and any dynamics, by layering and layering over and over different animals sounds, I ended up with ‘Generic Screamy Monster Sound’. The difficulty is that when you’re working on it, that lousy brain of yours lies again and again. It took a playback for the director to realize myself that it wasn’t right, and it clearly wasn’t working for him yet as well.

And so one last time, I threw out most of what I had done, going back to the new recordings, but this time, really working with them on a much smaller scale, a much simpler one, finding the right ‘pieces’ instead of the right ‘layerings’, and created an entirely new pallet of vocal pieces. And then I went into editing mode, and trying to limit myself to this new pallet, recut the vocals for this scene once again. And this time it worked. I was happy with the result, but more importantly, the director and the clients were happy. The scene played clean and powerful, it was articulated, and in my opinion, the vocals have a lot of character and sound unique.

The same logic now applies for me to plugins and processing. I know many people, and I certainly do this too, tend to chain plugin after plugin to create elaborate processing chains. When I find myself doing the same, I start bypassing the plugins, and usually I find fairly quickly that the sound becomes better, not worse. Too many plugins tend to result in the same ‘processed’ sound that tends to rob sounds of their uniqueness. We tend to think that each plugin should be changing the sound, making it more unique. But I often find quite the opposite. Each plugin in the chain often reduces dynamic range, often frequency range, and in the end, you’re left with something now called ‘The generically processed version of something that used to resemble a sound effect’.

So that’s my advice. Learn where the delete/mute/bypass keys are, and make friends with them.

And always remember what Michelangelo said:

“Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it.”

Or this one, which he also said:

“I saw the Angel in the marble and I carved until I set him free.”

When you are done building all your tracks, treat them as a block of stone, and carve away!

That may seem a strange way to think about your own material, but that’s how I’ve come to think of the sounds that I record, that I cut, that I design, and that I mix. They all have to be treated with the same irreverence and detachment. They’re all just blocks of stone, of sound. On Prince of Persia, Ken Fisher and I decided that after he cut and we premixed the big finale reel, that we would take some time, going through the premixes and mute things. We muted a lot. We didn’t want to mute everything before we premixed because possibility some of it would be needed in the final. But we were pretty sure what we would need and not need, so we took the liberty of muting I would say about 20% of our predub material, being pretty confident that once music was in, once everything was playing, that you wouldn’t miss it. It was never heard again. Not once did anyone on the stage call for it, and it was never missed.

Now to go back and delete about 20% of this article before it get posted…

Mix Online has published an article with sound editor Kelly Pieklo, who shares his thoughts about using Nuendo as his main workstation for sound post-production:

Minneapolis-based post-production company Splice Here® (www.splice.tv) and Sound Editor Kelly Pieklo are enjoying some recent successes, thanks in large part to Steinberg’s Nuendo platform. Director Eric Howell’s “Ana’s Playground,” on which Pieklo filled Sound Editor and Sound Designer roles, recently made the Academy’s Short List for the 2011 Live-Action Short Film Oscar. Additionally, Director Brady Kiernan brought his feature, “Stuck Between Stations,” to Splice and Pieklo for all sound post-production services. The film premiered with four sold-out screenings at New York’s Tribeca Film Festival in April 2011.

“Both of these projects were an absolute joy to be a part of, and each brought different creative sound editing challenges to the table,” says Pieklo. “The choice to work in Nuendo gave me the ability to speed up my editing and clean-up process, which in turn allowed me to spend more time creating and fine-tuning the soundtrack per the directors’ requests.”

Continue reading…

Warner Bros. Pictures’ summer action adventure Green Lantern brings the popular comic book hero to the big screen for the first time. Directed by Martin Campbell and starring Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, Peter Sarsgaard and Mark Strong, the film serves up the tale of a cocky test pilot who comes into possession of a ring that gives him super powers and sweeps him into an intergalactic conflict threatening the Earth.

For the sound team at Soundelux (www.soundelux.com), Green Lantern posed a number of significant challenges. Academy Award-winning supervising sound editors Per Hallberg and Karen Baker Landers led the team and were challenged with augmenting the film’s many spectacular visual effects sequences, including several titanic battles between the film’s lead, who has the ability to create anything he sees in his mind, his nemesis, Hector Hammond, and a mysterious, malevolent force known as Parallax.

New video of SoundWorks Collection featuring Marie Ebbing and Jonathon Stevens who talk about their work on removing noise from recordings.

Marie Ebbing & Jonathon Stevens offer advanced noise removal services for music and film post production using a suite of tools by the software developer Algorithmix. These noise removal tools are divided into 2 categories, broadband — including surface noise, hiss & hum; and transient — including camera hydraulics, coughs, page turns and other instantaneous noises.

Their use of these tools extends into the non-standard as well. They can remove unwanted dialog and music from stereo or multi-channel master recordings. Rebalancing or complete removal of instruments in a master recording is also possible and on occasion pitch correction to a specific instrument in a mix. All of this is done with the utmost respect to the sound quality of your original master.

Projects that have benefited from their noise removal services include:
Tron: Legacy, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Capitalism, Public Enemies, San Francisco Symphony’s Keeping Score Series, The Lord of the Rings: Complete Music Boxed sets

If we want to talk about the art of fine film soundtrack and its aesthetics, there’s one man everyone needs to know: Pelayo Gutiérrez, a master of film sound in Spain with more than 120 titles on his backs, for which he has got three Goya awards (and three nominations). He has worked on films by directors like Pedro Almodovar, Bollain, among many others, and currently runs La Bocina post audio facility with two other partners.

I personally admire his work so much (Recommended: “Chico & Rita“,”Te Doy Mis Ojos“,”Lo que sé de Lola“, “After“). He’s a true director of sound who likes to get deeply into the smallest detail of the scene in order to enhance the story and create a rich soundscape. He combines the qualities of a prolific professional with a special vision and unique way to live his profession.

Designing Sound: Could you talk us about your philosophy as sound editor/designer?

Pelayo Gutiérrez: It is very interesting. One essential thing that I think is the backbone for any film that I do: the production sound. If I don’t have a clean production sound is difficult to create the atmosphere because they do not hear great in harmony. Then this is the first battle that I have, especially in this country, where sometimes a hard time doing ADR for certain sequences because we work with many directors that put all the production sound dialog in the film, they don’t believe that you can get much more from the actor in the dub, etc.

Luckily I’ve managed to convince many directors to make the actors do ADR, and especially to have this concept of going to the set and already record the dialog in a later stage. Of course that also depends on the actor. I have many excuses to convince a director and tell him how interesting is to do ADR that can coexist with the dialog and live for the film. not direct sound off and live for the film. Because what I do is put myself first for the film and then find is best for it.

Some time ago, there’s one interesting thing happening to me. I see the film as a whole, and the more I work on it, remains a global issue. In other words, there is a separate sequence, it’s all about harmony, about dynamics, which of course depends on the film we are doing. I built little by little, but the final point is when I have everything harmonized, armed in a central scheme.

You always start from a base, read the script and you get the idea. And then there are meetings with the director, who sets one thing or another. But with that basic structure, you can enter every day in the film. That’s why if you come and tell me if I do the sound of a film in 5 weeks, I say can’t, simply because it’s not enough time to get into the film, to dream about the film. I dream about movies. Some nights it takes me to sleep because I start thinking about how I can create an atmosphere and how to keep the film growing.

DS: How has this philosophy changed over the time?

PG: It’ has evolved gradually. And there is something that fascinates me is when I open an session of ten years ago now and I analyze it, or when I see one of my films on TV and wonder, “Why didn’t I do this?”. The thing is that the movies never end. I think it’s a process that we’re constantly learning and experimenting. To me what amuses me most is to experience, and to have narrative points and use them forever. And always look for a narrative point that the director doesn’t see, because it’s not even written in the script.

Something else that really helps is that now I have also a lot more security in my work, myself.

FS: What kind of differences/advantages do you find on the Spanish industry compared to other models such as the American?

PG: We assume that the industry in Spain is weak and America is very powerful. I also think that one of the major differences, without talking about the American independent films. which is very valuable and amazing, is that I think is heavily a industrialized mass production system. I think it’s a very industrial, very hierarchical, etc.

I always try that all the movies I do sound for, have certain level of quality. Obviously is not the same to have a film of 40millions to one of 10millions, but the goal is to leverage and optimize resources, and make sure that people walk out that door unwilling to return to work with me.

In general I think there is one problem, that there are producers who don’t know. There is a difference between those who are filmmakers and those who only think about the money. There’s a lot more than just money. What no one can say is “I struggled so much money that movie” when what should be valued above all it’s the final result.

DS: I wonder how those roles change depending on the industry in a particular country, in this case Spain. Do you find any differences on the different roles you play? specially between sound editing and design?

PG: It’s not my problem. It’s a problem of how this industry is structured in Spain, which may be closest to the approach of French industry where the possibilities are three: the production sound person, the editor and the mixer.

There is a first part, which is the production sound work. From choosing the microphones, to put them on stage, and work, raise syllables, etc, which in Pro Tools is very fine. Also this match flat and even dare to use plugins for cleaning and such. The editor is composing the atmosphere, but there must be a criterion in advance. So I always ask before the script I read it and then I meet with those responsible of the production sound. Even we can’t met for a film it doesn’t matter, since it’s a matter of taste and discretion, because we know where it goes. There are people who know me well enough to know what kind of material I like to receive, and so able to start from their ideas.

I consider myself a sound editor. For one thing, I feel smug  about what sound design is and besides I think it is a misconception, because within what is sound effects design, it’s to design certain sounds for the film. I think in any case would be more fair for me to be named supervising sound editor, a bit similar the Sound Supervisor role in the American model. For this you need to have a crew that can not be here, ie you must have a dialog mixer , dialog editor, sound editor, foley editor, with their assistants, and that would be four times the budget of any Spanish film. Then there is also a point of accountability and involvement as such. Obviously for me the production sound person, the mixer and I are the ones who have responsibility of the sound of the film. Why? because the bases are well marked and cost us a lot to get to this. And if you look at the Goya Awards, and the bases of the awards, the three are responsible for any of these three people.

DS: What do you consider as your basic principles for sound editing and design?

PG: For me there is a basic principle: If your work can be better, then further research is required. You can not always be satisfied with the first thing you find, and what that means is to put no higher bar as such, but put you in a sight of not being satisfied with the first thing you achieve, because that thing you find has an additional value. And that obviously is given by the time when you have the film and check it for one, two, three and four times, you realize what works and what does not, but what you can not ever do is stay with the desire of haven’t tried something.

The first part is a very technical, which you do is solve technical problems on the set as such. That would in itself quite important. In this country the production sound is, as I said, our spine. If you are not well recorded, all that I set will not work. Okay, I can clean it, I can process it, but in that way it lose bright, lose color, lose life.

We must find something that is real and good, something that convinces you, that works. And if it does not work, try to do it better. If you think it might be better, why not make it better? I think that is a part of the research. If there is something I often say to my assistants is please, don’t use the same dog sound all the time! We need to start researching, we need to go out and record your own sounds, and you have to be very critical especially with yourself, because then we would do something mercenary sense, simply standard.

Something interesting is that for example you can have a huge sound library, you can save a lot of noises, but if you don’t know how to articulate them, then you don’t have too much. In the end everything needs to have a reason and I think basically everything has to be lead to a particular site, that this preconception. And of course, new things are appearing but the base is always from the outset how do you want to carry the film, of course, always in the hands of director. Many times it is already written in the script, but sometimes things arise. Above all there is to know is the why of things, everything has to have an argument. I do not put things without knowing why, everything needs to have an argument, a concept, because if not, it’s worth noting.

For example, in the film “Los Abrazos Rotos” there’s a scene where you see one of the characters on a computer, with a special sound treatment. The don’t remember right know what is the noise that I included there, but I know I put it there for dramatic purposes. It’s all about performance and drama. Say, in a scene where you see a guy running, those steps you hear need to be purely narrative. You have to give an intensity, based on a personal interpretation, like an actor. When the actor plays in a certain way, the steps made in Foley also must be interpreted in a way, dramatically. That’s why many times sounds must be installed in a dramatic way, just and necessary.

DS: How do you analyze the material that you are working on and how’s your artistic approach for such task?

PG: I don’t use anything special. What I like is to know all the material. For example, when the editorial stage begins and my assistants start to mount the dialogue, I ask them all the takes because maybe I’d like to change some of those, or just change something in the sequence.

The artistic approach is everything. It’s the end. The profession has led me more to it than to any another thing. Now I’m in all the processes but monitoring people I trust. Then do reach the director meetings where decisions are taken. So I’m in the dubbing, I’m in the final mixes, pre-mixes, but I’m from 7 to 10 weeks depending on the film recent weeks and devote myself to sit with the director and my assistant.

Before you reach the director, I always review the film and I and my four dots and then tune back to him. That’s why I call myself. For those making artistic decisions. An example that I give to one of my partners, which is the part that has more economic, therefore comes from another world and finds it hard to understand this profession. He tells me: “Why is not the sound of “La Bocina”?”. And I say: not, it’s the sound of Pelayo and Nacho. Why? because this industry is very personal. The clients doesn’t call to “La Bocina”, they call the person. It’s very personal.

DS: How you collect your thoughts and ideas? Do you have something that influences you the most?

PG: Honestly no. I always ask for the script in advance, and even if I have much more affinity with the director, I read the script earlier to go bringing my ideas and such. For example, a film by Almodovar had a very special sequence that has been took six months mulling over in my head since I read the script.

It’s something that is a challenge for me, especially something interesting that makes me wonder. Each film is a different story. How do I put it? Obviously reading the script and and creating a history. I usually like to start working when there is a tighter fitting, with thought older versions of things, but I still like to go looking and getting familiar with the film, and thus be thinking, creating, imagining …

What influences me? Well, sometimes my mood, like everyone. Some days you can, others can not. There are days when you sleep better or worse. But, basically there’s one thing that influences me: enthusiasm. For me the work of a director is to know and value the whole team and give the same value to an actor than a technician. I think that gives you plenty of encouragement, good drive and a lot of force to get the most. I think that’s fundamental.

DS: How do you handle your creativity? Is there some habit or something that leads your creative mind and keeps it fresh and “running”?

PG: Dreaming.

If there is something I love about this profession is that my mind never stops thinking, even when I’m in bed, or I sleep badly. It’s something like this: I’m starting a movie, but I’m also finishing another, and also keep another sequence always in the head, so I think how could I approach it and then experiment with one or the other, etc. Then came the next day and continue to experiment, test how it works in one way or the other, or dreaming, always thinking about them. That is fundamental.

It’s about dreaming and storytelling, since the film is a lie after all, and the sound too. It’s very easy to detect a bad sound, but it is difficult to value a good sound. For example, I think it’s much harder to make the sound of a silent film, with lots of dialog and dead times, than making the sound of a warfare movie for example, which is more spectacular to the eye and ear… but I think is much more difficult to achieve an atmosphere that goes unnoticed but ultimately you are leading the audience somewhere. And that is perceived by the brain, and is obtained by dreaming… Dreaming!

DS: Let’s talk about collaboration, specifically exchanging ideas between the sound team you already talked about your relationship with the production sound person, but what about the re-recording mixer?

PG: We begin from the idea of respect. Then once inside the house, I’m probably the most annoying person, since I am one who says “this doesn’t work”, “you need to repeat this”, etc..

With the re-recording mixer, all is based on trust. Depends on how I know a re-recording mixer or another, and how that person can read what I create. The concept is well conceived, but for example, Marc Orts says that I often give him very little room and I give the assembly already very conceived. But of course, I reach a point where I put many intentions on how I edit sound, simply because I can not conceive otherwise, so I set levels of things as they are. Obviously I lower the volume of a dialog if it’s happening behind a wall, but the re-recording mixer don’t do that. He raises the level, uses a reverb and applies EQ. I don’t do that, knowing that Marc is going to do it very well.

For example, I remember I was working a short with a re-recording mixer in a scene where a woman was traveling on a bus and a man had followed he. The re-recording mixer was determined to put the sound of the bus above the footsteps and I said no, it needs to be conceptual. In mean, the narrative element in this case are the footsteps. And of course I also get confused, and I get to the mix and tray and change things I initially build in different way..

Photos: Hector Herrería.

This interview was edited from an article I published at Fotograma Sonoro, also run by me. Special thanks to Pelayo and Oscar de Avila of Geosound, who collaborated a lot on this interview.

Vanity Fair has published an article featuring Mark Stoeckinger, who gives an overview of the sound editing process, step-by-step, by showcasing several clips (Full mix, dialogue only, and sfx only).

If you’ve ever lost money in an Oscar pool, at some point you’ve had to ask, “What exactly is the difference between sound editing and sound mixing?” Although that probably means you’re not winning the pool, a film’s sound design is just as crucial as good lighting or smart editing in creating the movie magic that your recreational Flipcam videos lack. Ever in the service of making you a better Oscar gambler, Little Gold Men asked Unstoppable’s supervising sound editor, Mark Stoeckinger—nominated this year for an Oscar—to break down editing for us. “The sound editor is like the art director, and the sound mixer is like the cinematographer: the art director comes up with everything that’s filmed, and the cinematographer decides how to photograph it,” Stoeckinger says. Specifically, a sound editor assembles all the sound you hear in the final picture, which is gathered from both production sound captured the day of shooting (usually, though not exclusively, dialogue) and Foley/effects captured later (usually including dialogue recorded later to match the picture). A sound editor then selects the right pieces of sound to accompany the picture and manipulates them as needed, a process Stoeckinger compares to sculpting clay: “You start off with one thing, but you can always mold it to something else. You listen to a lion growl and think, If I slow it down, add a lot of reverb and reverse, I can make it this alien thing.” In fact, as sound tools have become more sophisticated, the the desire to enrich a film through its sound has grown exponentially; these days, even a typical romantic comedy has more sound work than an action movie from 30 years ago did.

Continue Reading…

Via @soundesignblog