 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
| ARCHIVE INTERVIEW. 2003 |
| 1? | Some of your biggest hits have been what best amount to, by your standard today, 4 track demo's. Pure was your Magnus Opus. A 48 track masterpiece. Why do you spend so long trying to create what you believe to be the right sound, when the barriers to success are clearly the exposure that track receives? |
 |
Pure was the only album that I've worked on using
48 tracks but that doesn't necessarily mean what you think. Replicas and the Tubeway Army album were recorded on 16 track,
everything else up to Pure on 24, so I've never really made an album that was in the home demo category. Whatever, we
now have hard disc and computer based systems which are highly sophisticated bits of kit. My new Pro Tools system gives
me 128 tracks for example although the amount of tracks at your disposal has very
little to do with the amount of work it takes to write and record a song. It's mainly down to what the artist wants his music
to sound like. On a system with less tracks you simply record lots of stuff and then bounce all that sound down to one
or two tracks and then start again. You can still end up with as many parts played on a four track system as you can on
one with 128. It's the level of control over them which is different. In many ways, it can take longer to record a song
on a system with limited tracks because it's technically more difficult, and time consuming, to do so. It is true to say
though that modern technology does give us more choices than ever before and it's exploring those choices that can take
a lot of time.
To say that the barrier to success is exposure, thus implying exposure is more important than quality, massively oversimplifies the problem and does not take into account the aims and desires of the artist with his/hers work. You seem to be thinking predominantly in terms of success and sales but there are many more reasons for doing this for a living, and some of them are a little more noble, than simply making money, although there is nothing wrong with that. Making music as good as you can make it can take a long time. If we just had to trot out a quick three chord ditty and then spend the next year trying to sell it then my life would be a lot easier but do you think the record industry would be a good place to be? Do you think the music would be better? I don't. I spend so much time trying to get the right sound because that is what I'm supposed to do, it's what fans have every right to expect from the people they enjoy and support. I try to make the best album I possibly can, not the quickest. |
| 2? | Why is it so important for people to buy your singles in the week they come out? Surely the most important thing is to sell as many as possible, however long it takes? |
|
That's not the way it works I'm afraid. The singles market is,
apart from the really huge selling singles, there as a platform for building profile. The singles chart is used as a springboard
to gain recognition for the artist and the public's interest in the albums that singles come from. Singles do not, as a
rule, make money for the artist or the label. They are promotional tools, much like the simple ad in a magazine. You only have
to look at Crazier to see there is no money in it whatsoever. £1.99 is not much to pay for several tracks and a video on each
CD I think you would agree. The gamble is that a decent chart position will payback later, sometimes years later, in other
ways. But it is a big gamble.
Todays charts show clearly that the bulk of sales for a single take place in the first week of release. That's why most singles these days go into the chart at whatever position on week one of release and then, most of the time, start to fall quickly out of the chart from week two onwards. This trend towards overwhelming week one buying by the public has created a new kind of tactic for promoting singles. They are now pre released to the media, radio and TV inparticular, many weeks before release in an attempt to build up as much interest as possible prior to that week one period of sales.
The fact is this. A single is almost certain to achieve it's highest position on week one and it is it's highest position
that carries all the weight and recognition. It's that highest position that people remember and that has the most bearing
on how the artist is rated, how many people will want to interview him/her, how likely future radio play becomes, how much
desire a promoter may have in having the band play at a festival or on a TV show. That chart position is vitally important
to any bands career. Therefore, to be blunt, any sales made in week two are virtually useless because, by week two, the
opinions have already been made. The battle has already been fought and I would already have won or lost.
This is why we now urge fans to buy in the first week rather than any other if they possibly can. It sometimes feel as if
we are forever pushing people along. First we ask you to vote repeatedly on interactive TV, then buy as soon as the record
hits the shops. I hope and believe that the majority of fans recognise why we make such requests whenever a single is
released. These are the times when each and every fan can genuinely make a difference. It would be stupid of us not to
make it clear to everyone what will help us the most to achieve the highest level of success that we can with each release.
From that point on, all we can do is hope that enough people are willing and able to do what they can. With Rip last year
and Crazier now I have nothing but praise and gratitude for the way you've all got behind me. I think a lot of other acts,
and record companies for that matter, must be looking at what you are doing and wondering why they are unable to rely on such
enthusiasm from their own fans.
Whatever chart position Crazier gets to, I already know that your support for this single has been higher than anything
else I've done for many years, even moreso than Rip last year. I can't thank you enough. |
| 3? | 25 years is a long time in the music industry. How would you describe those years and what have the respective highs and lows been? Have there been times when you really thought about giving up? |
|
The obvious highs are the early years. Being Number 1 in the singles
and album charts here in the UK, headlining big arenas, all the usual things associated with success. The lows, of which
there are many, include becoming virtually bankrupt and seeing that success slide away to almost nothing. The less obvious
highs include a career resurgence over the last five or six years. I was, as far as most of the media here were concerned,
dead and buried by the early 90's and I had little argument with that. My career did seem to be over apart from that last
dying gasp of air. And yet, recover I did. I am now one of the most sampled and covered artists around, my sales are healthy
again, most reviews and music journalists recognize my songwriting is now as strong, if not stronger, than ever before. My
last single charted in the UK Top 30 and that hasn't happened for quite some time and Crazier is now looking very promising.
So, although not as high profile as my
early years success, this recent period is, for me, the highest of the highs because I've come back from the dead. To me,
nothing else in my career compares to that as an achievement.
I've never really considered giving up. After all, what else would I do? I love doing this, even without any success I would still rather be in a band, working in studios and playing gigs, than do anything else. The problem is that giving up is something that's forced upon you by a lack of success, money and support. I think that I came very close to being forced out. I was badly in debt, over half a million pounds, my sales were almost nothing, I had no record deal for most of the time and those I did get didn't last very long. I really was in trouble. I couldn't afford to hire a studio to make albums so I put a small set up of old second hand gear in my house and made an album or two on that. The media didn't like me at all, the fans were almost all gone. Giving up became something I had no control over. I was lucky, and I worked very hard for many years to slowly turn things around. |
| 4? | How do you see todays music scene? Do you think that so much fusion and so many cover versions are clear signs of a lack of creativity? |
|
I don't think fusion is necessarily a sign of a lack of creativity. And, I think the large amount of cover versions around in recent years is more due to a lack of courage and commitment from record companies than any lack of talent amongst musicians or song writers. Record companies in general, with one or two notable exceptions, are incredibly lacking in loyalty and long term commitment to the artists they sign. The desire for an immediate financial return on the people they sign forces out creativity and encourages a sanitized, safe way of proceeding by using tried and tested hits from the past. Trying to launch a new act that has a very creative and unusual style of music and presentation is inherently risky and so labels tend not to want to get involved with that. An onslaught of cover versions is the result. I don't mean to imply that all cover versions are worthless, far from it, but it is a sign that creativity is being forced to take a back seat. |
| 5? | Do you think that the music scene is more conservative now than in the 70's and 80's? |
|
It depends on what part of the music scene you look at. Certainly
pop music has become bland to the point of boring me rigid but outside of pop the music scene has plenty of life and
outrageous personalities. They are just a little bit harder to find in these days of politically correct sound bites
making or breaking careers. To appeal to the masses these days it seems that you must tread that thin line between
shock and bland. You must conquer the middle ground, but the middle ground isn't one thing or the other, it's average,
and average isn't very interesting. Get away from people like that and you fall back into the more entertaining and
exciting world of the bizarre and the debauched.
|
| 6? | Do you take care of your body, as in exercise, food, gym? |
|
Not in the slightest. As far as I'm concerned getting up in the morning is exercise enough. I'm very lucky in that I'm about the same weight now as I was when I was 18 and I'm extraordinarily healthy. I'm living proof that a poor diet of junk food and no exercise is good for you. |
|
| 7? | Which of your works are most fascinating for you? |
|
I don't think of them as 'works', they're just songs. And I don't find any of them fascinating. Most of them are attempts at trying to improve on the mistakes I made with the previous album. It's an ongoing battle. I'm never satisfied, always surrounded by other bands and writers that seem to write better songs than mine. But it's that constant feeling of never quite getting it right that drives me on. It's not so much that I believe I have something to offer the world musically speaking, or something important to say, I'm just trying to make fewer mistakes than I made on the last album. |
| 8? | What particularly has kept you in music throughout the years? |
|
Desperation I think. That and the genuine feeling that I don't want
to do anything else day in day out. I love it, I love writing, I love touring, I love the freedom that comes with being,
effectively, self employed. If I wake up and it's a beautiful sunny day I don't have to work. That's cool. Being able
to write songs, and actually earn a living from that, is amazing. It's like being paid to play with your favourite toy
all day long. I've never taken it for granted, never. Understanding exactly how fortunate I was, and am today, is the
one big thing that helped me to stay with it for the many years that things were not going so well. It's not about
great reviews, although they're nice, it's not even about making money, although that's nice as well when it happens,
it's about that freedom to be able to choose when and where you work, to be able to get out of bed when you want to,
to not have to sit in commuter traffic for a lifetime and then die. I can't think of anything that would get me out
of music willingly.
|
| 9? | With all you know now, is there anything you'd have done differently? |
|
If I had to do it all again but with what I know now I would do almost everything differently. Some things in a very minor, subtle way, some things in a very major, radical way. But that makes it sound as though I regret the path I've taken and I don't. I don't even think that way to be honest. I think about yesterdays mistake just long enough to learn from it and then I never think about it again. I have an almost bizarre lack of interest in yesterday, and an almost obsessive and fanatical desire to try and figure out what's coming tomorrow. I'm eternally optimistic, driven towards whatever's coming with the sure belief that I'm going to like it and make the most of it. |
| 10? | What one message do you want to communicate with your music? |
|
This may sound a little odd but I don't write music to communicate, I
write it as therapy. I write for me. If people are able to identify with it in some way then I'm happy but that is not
the reason I do it. If I have any message it's purely by accident and most likely one of introspection and a selfish
obsession with my own problems, values and beliefs, or lack of them. Any communication is unintentional. I'm screaming
in my own small room to no-one but me. It's just that sometimes people walking by can hear me.
|
| 11? | The first song of yours that really grabbed me was an old one called 'Basic J', a very punky guitar number indeed. I find it funny how people in the last few years have found it suprising that you are now appealing to a more metal crowd seeing you are such a 'synth guy', but I see the whole guitar-edge really just in keeping with an element of your traditional back catalogue. What's your response to my idle speculation here? |
|
I started out in a three piece punk band. I'd been playing
guitar for years, even had a couple of singles out, before I'd seen a synthesizer in the flesh so to speak. My first big
single, Are 'Friends' Electric?, the song that many people now look to as the one that brought synths into the mainstream
(not that I agree with that actually), had guitars all over it. I've only ever released one album, out of about 20 or so,
that didn't have guitar on it. It's always been there (but for that one album) it's just that the emphasis on it has
changed from time to time. These days the guitar is more prominent but the albums still have a massively strong electronic element
running through them. I've been making my so-called 'heavy' albums since 1992 when
I started on an album called Sacrifice. That gives me three albums, now working on a fourth, and an eleven year span (nearly
half my career) doing this kind of music which is longer than many of the new rock/metal bands have been together and yet
some people still think of me as dabbling with it, of 'pretending' because I'm really, as you said, considered to be a 'synth'
man. I find that point of view a little annoying but, on the other hand, I do have some sympathy with it because it is quite
possible that I'll switch that emphasis again in the future and move on to something else. It all depends on where music and
my interest in it takes me.
One magazine, in 2000 I think, said I was jumping on the Nu-Metal bandwagon which I thought was a bit unfair as Sacrifice came out in 1994. I think it's ridiculous that someone should be expected to stay in one style of music throughout their entire career for them to be considered 'genuine'. Sadly, I know I've lost fans who like electronic music and nothing else and who think I've betrayed them, I also lost fans who preferred punk when I first moved onto synths all those years ago. I have some rock magazines refusing to talk to me because I'm 'not real' apparently, even though many of the people featured on their covers have done Numan songs (Fear Factory, Nine Inch Nails, Marilyn Manson, Foo Fighters etc) or refer to me as an influence. I was quite concerned about this whole musical identity thing but I'm beginning to see their reluctance to recognise me as an advantage now. I don't want to be recognised as electronic, rock or anything else I suppose. Ultimately being recognised as making Gary Numan music has to be better, and longer lasting, than being put into a musical genre, and then labelled, as such things tend to come and, more dangerously, go out of fashion. Still, having said that it seems I am labelled in some ways nonetheless. Some people will forever see me as an electronic act. The truth is of course electronic music has always been a part of what I do, but only a part. I think people will be hard pressed to tell what's guitar and what's synth or sampler on the new album. The lines between them are getting increasingly blurred. |
| 12? | I've heard you say time and time again that your career started with 5 good years, 15 dreadful ones and since then it's been pretty excellent. I'm curious to know how much of a role those awful years played in where you are now creatively - do you think you would be producing music of such a high standard now if you didn't go through those metaphorical 40 days and 40 nights wandering through the aural desert? |
|
I tend to think those middle years were just wasted unfortunately. I'd like to say that without them I wouldn't be writing what I'm writing now but I don't really believe that. The only thing those years gave me was something to recoil from. I suppose I am very aware of not getting back into that attitude of writing songs to try and get on the radio or to pander to record company wishes. I write now exactly what I want and my record company let me get on with it. I do not think in terms of commercial airplay and sales. I do well enough to have a nice life and I thoroughly enjoy working. Those bad years, spent trying to revive a dying career, were horrible. That constant search for fame and fortune was soul destroying and, I have to say, largely unsuccessful. I know that my music these days is unlikely to get mainstream radio play and therefore is unlikely to achieve massive sales. But I like what I'm doing musically and accepting it's limited possibilities in the commercial sense is a decision I made with a clear head. I'm glad I'm with a company that is as interested in the music it releases as it is in balancing the books. Obviously, I would love to have as much success as the world can offer, but not at any cost. It's the difference between writing from the heart or from the wallet. I tried the wallet route, failed dismally and hated it. I write from the heart now and have done since '92, after my Machine And Soul album which remains my career low point creatively. If I can achieve great success with what I'm doing now then I'll be a happy man but it seems unlikely given the unrelenting move of the media towards bland pop. |
| Other Interviews are listed here: |
| If you would like to send us any questions for this Interview section please write to us at the address below, or send a fax, or you can use our e-mail service by clicking on this E-MAIL button: |
NuWORLD Postal Address
NuWORLD, PO Box 14, Staines, Middlesex. TW19 5AU. England.
Our Fax number is (44)-1784-483211 (Int'l) or 01784-483211 (UK).
| Welcome | Guide | News | Interview | Nu-Music |
| Feedback | NuStreet | Special | Tour Dates |
|
Compiled and maintained by: The Numan Group |