As a Sound Designer, how would you define your creative process?

    That of telling stories with sound. The screenwriter tells stories with words. The Composer tells stories with music. I tell stories with Sound.

What is blurring between sound design and the score to you?

Sound Design is Score and Score is Sound Design. It’s is simply a semantic difference. When I design, my sound work is orchestrated and composed. It can be layered or sparse, rhythmic or chaotic, tonal or dissonant, just like a piece of music. I just use mostly enharmonic sounds and arrhythmic meters most of the time. I think composers are coming to the same conclusion. Scores are increasingly becoming either more "ambient" (less melodic and more like a sound) or containing more ambiguous sound that might have otherwise come from the Sound Designer. We all get that we are composing and using sound to tell stories.

Why do you think there is blurring?

Because movie-goers have a much more sophisticated palate for all kinds of sound. A movie may actually sound “old fashioned” if we know exactly what is score and what is sound design. The most important goal is to use sound (of which music is a component) to tell the best story.  Design can often be every bit as musical or emotional as a traditional piece of score and vice versa. Why create arbitrary distinctions?

Pioneers like Ben Burtt revolutionized the Sound Design world with techniques like ‘Worldizing’. In modern film, Composers have adapted this technique of adding ‘organic/original’ material and sound to compositional cues and motifs. What is your opinion of these ‘adapting’ techniques?

They are a natural adaptation that understands good ideas are good ideas, regardless of what ones job title is or where they come from.  If these techniques serve the story, why should the technique be relegated to the person who “historically” uses that technique?

How has this affected you as a Sound Designer?

It’s encouraged me to be more collaborative with composers, to see that we don’t duplicate sound or approach by landing on the same ideas or techniques. Since each discipline usually works in a bubble, not communicating and sharing ideas and sounds leads to messy and unfocused mixes. It's led me to be more "compositional" in my approach to Sound Design, as well. Working with more tonal textures, motifs and rhythmic sound.

In some of your keynote speeches you state that psycho-acoustically our brains relate and understand “organic sound more then synthesized sound”.  As I stated earlier, this is an outlook shared by many other pioneers of sound design. This ideology is solidified by the visual images we see on the screen.

Yes, that’s true.

Apart from diegetic music, do you feel like this is something that the music score lacks? (Visual reaffirmation)

No, because music connects at another level that is onscreen: the emotions of the actors and the story being told. It finds a different foothold. However, if a film is not engaging and the storytelling is weak, a score, because it’s not actually happening in real life (diegetic) can become a distraction and hurt the filmmaking.

My son Rio, who is a fine young actor, has just embarked on a new career path to compose music for films. The training he has gotten as an actor, that of understanding back story, character development and emotional arc have been huge assets in his skillset as a composer. As such, while we might not see "emotion" on-screen, it's there to be felt and should be every bit as "diegetic" as objects on screen that make sounds we hear. Depends on ones level of empathy, I suppose.

And if so, could this be a reason why the composer branches off into the world of sound design within their score: to solidify their work visually?

I can’t speak for composers but my guess is that the use of sound design in scores serves to a) make a score sound more complete and modern and b) give the composer additional colors and timbres to better express their ideas. That being said, many composers put realistic sound (fx) in their scores so that they are in harmony with it rather than risk dissonance from the Sound Designer who may not have a sensitivity to this.

When you joined Mad Max: Fury Road it was very late in post-production. But your philosophy of ‘Why not How’ convinced George Miller to do an overhaul of the sound design.  Can you talk about how this conversation went?

It really didn’t demand much on my part or his. I didn’t see value in explaining to him “how” I wanted to do it. It was more important to explain why. And those answers were abundantly clear: The film did not sound like a major studio tent-pole release.  So I explained that the reasons “why” we should redo it were: because we wanted to thrill the audience and have them talking about the sound when they left the theatre,  because we wanted to use sound to better tell the story, because we wanted to make all the unique vehicles “characters” in the drama because they shared as much time on screen as the actors, because the War Rig should be more formidable, because we wanted sound to be used narratively and not just functionally etc. When presented this way, I was speaking Georges’ language and he understood how much farther we could take it. He hadn’t heard those ideas for the film, and many others, until I outlined them in a presentation to him. This was a multi-page document describing what and why I wanted to change the sound.

With a project this size and the technical difficulties of not being able to use much of the Production Sound, to have the sonic world without a ‘Why’ philosophy seems absurd. Is this something you notice often in other film projects that you have both worked on or have seen?

Yes. I feel often sound design leans too heavily on “cool” sounds; sounds that stand out and impress on first listening but don’t have much substance. They are only as good as the moment they play for. This is “ear candy” and like your mother told you as a child “candy will make you sick if you eat too much of it”. You need a sonic diet of things of substance and need, not immediate gratification.  The best sound design is one that understands the dynamics of drama and knows when to stand out and when to stand back. Absence of sound is a choice, after all. And like a great thematic score, sound can connect scenes throughout a film by repeating and varying themes.

George Miller is a music centric director, so he understands the importance of the soundscape of a film. Do you think that directors are becoming more aware of sound as a storytelling tool? Why? (Is it film schools, the influence that other directors are having, etc?)

Yes, they are becoming more aware. It’s really a simple matter of observation. The films that directors and, I think, most filmmakers like and remember and cherish are ones that engaged all their senses. The great films use sound as a storytelling tool better than those that don’t. The films that have grossed the most money at the box-office are also the ones that have won the most awards for Sound Editing and Sound Mixing. Coincidence? Most smart directors don’t think so.

From Mad Max and continuing on to Black Mass, you have stated that you had a close relationship with Junkie XL. Can you talk about this relationship? Why is it so good, and what is it that works for you?

My relationship with Junkie was a big part of the success of MAD MAX. We met every morning for coffee and talked about life and love  AND the movie. We collaborated very closely by talking every day about our goals and ideas for the film sonically. Sometimes we agreed, sometimes we fought but always came out of it with a respect for the film and making it the most important thing, not our individual works. Sadly, it is very difficult, even for me, to take my ego out of something I have worked very hard on. This is the cause of classic, decades long struggles between composer and sound designer at the mix; to “get their work heard”, often at the expense of the other. This is quite unproductive and makes for a very unhappy final mix. This can be avoided by collaborating intelligently, often arbitrated by the director. It worked on MAD MAX because Junkie is not only a gifted composer, he has a genuine high regard for what I do and, most importantly, an even higher regard for doing what’s right for the film.

You have described this partnership as “ Collaborative Sound Design”. In your personal experience, is this a rarity or do you feel like it is becoming a new working structure?

It is a rarity and will not likely change much. It takes time and energy and money, all of which is coming in shorter supply.

Do you think this change to an emotive style or approach blurs the line between the composer and the sound designer for the director or just eases the lines of communication?

Yes, it does blur the line. And this is difficult for some composers AND directors. Not everyone is on board with this open style of work because it requires management and a very specific type of person who has the ability to put their ego aside and sacrifice their first born (their creations) for the greater good.  It’s not easy to do…for now.

Do you feel it blurs the lines between composer and sound designer?

It does. But it fits my over-arching philosophy about filmmaking; that a smaller team of multi-disciplined artists can complete a film with greater success. It shortens the communication gaps and centralizes knowledge-base to a much smaller group of single-minded individuals.

From your experience, do you think it is the Film Composer encroaching into the realm of Sound Design or the other way around? This is in relation to both films you have worked on and seen.

I think any strictly dispassionate examination of the situation would show that composers are far more likely to create “sound design” in their scores than sound designers are likely to include music in their sound design. But that is only because of historical prejudices that are disappearing. Most of the really great sound designers I know are gifted composers and vice-versa. So who is to say who is most qualified to create the sonic architecture of a film? Most of us have apprenticed with either a composer or a sound designer in traditional paradigms where we just instinctually do it the traditional way, by separating these two disciplines….because it’s always been done that way. But it doesn’t have to be that way, it’ll just take a handful of progressive filmmakers like George Miller or Denis Villeneuve to break the mold.

Working with both large and small sound crews has their pros and cons, can you describe some of these that you have come against?

With large crews you get the benefit of a much larger knowledge-base both creatively and technically. It’s very stimulating to be in a meeting with a big sound crew and talk through the movie and see the ideas bubble up. With small sound crews you get the benefit of a unified vision being created across the entire film more uniformly and the communication lines are just easier.

Personally, which (large or small) do you prefer working on?

I don’t have a preference.

Working with the same core group on different project also creates continuity between the sonic elements.  Do you feel this comes through in the work?

Yes. Over time, the core group begins to understand my aesthetic and can implement it more efficiently, without having to ask me for explanations. I can be left free to try new ideas this way.

What is your opinion on a different philosophy, one that uses a ‘smaller core group, but for a longer time’. With the constraints of budgets, do you feel like this could create a more cohesive project between all of the sonic elements, and a more immersive one for its audience?

Yes, often it does create a more cohesive project. The downside is that schedules don’t allow for it to function efficiently. When a smaller crew is on for longer, the early work may often be for naught as the edit develops and the director changes the cut, the approach, the narrative. Time and effort can easily be wasted if not careful. However, when done intelligently, the best results are achieved, It allows the sound designer and the small team to live and grow with the director and understand his vision more fully. That vision and understanding informs every choice and edit that is made because the team understands the WHY of a scene; what the director is trying to say. That is a lot harder to understand when one is on a film for a shorter time.

Being Sound Designer, what other similarities have you noticed between sound design and film music?

They are the same. We are dealing with the same concepts and ideas and have the same goals in mind. Obviously, film music (score) is far less diegetic than sound design. Sound Design must address that which is seen, if nothing else but that’s not where it finds its firmest footing.

How would you define these similarities? Are the process based, technique or ideological?

Completely ideological.

Have these similarities always been there, or have the changed or multiplied throughout the decades

They have changed through the decades. Sound Design, or it’s historical antecedent, sound editing, was only understood in the dawn of cinema as that process by which sound that wasn’t captured on the set was added to complete the “realism” and suspension of disbelief of a film. Music was compartmentalized as the process by which emotion was added that wasn’t inherent in the words and action. Over time, idealists, artists, and forward thinkers began to see the opportunities in crossing the lines; to blur the distinctions for story telling as well as creative purposes.

You have been lucky enough to work with numerous music centric Directors such as Luc Besson and George Miller. Can you talk about you talk about the benefits of this and what it does to your work on the project?

Their depth of understanding in how music informs and elevates their filmmaking also informs their understanding of how sound design will do the same. It’s simply having an ear for the value of sound in all its forms as a storytelling tool. The smart director doesn’t just rely on a good script, a good performance and a beautiful image. They know how important all the disciplines are in helping tell the story. Luc and George have simply applied themselves thoroughly to the art of film-making and that has lead them to a unique and extensive appreciation for the advantages of creative sound work.

Do you feel that this allows you to create a more immersive world for the audience to enter?

Yes. Immersive in the sense that, when the sound is truly engaging on every level, it immerses and audience and they lose sight of boundaries and suspend disbelief more readily. I don’t mean immersed mechanically, by speakers in a theatre, I mean immersed in the way one is immersed in a book, totally engaged and hanging on every turn.

Staying completely neutral in terms of opinion on the blurring between sound design and original score, do you think the more aware of the sonic elements the director is, the more likelihood of blurring?

Yes. This is the logical outcome.

With the probability of more and more composers’ crossing over and including sound design element to their scores, where do you see the art of sound design heading?

The same direction. Just as we see a blurring of the lines between Sound Editor and Sound Mixer…being one person instead of the traditional two, so too do I see a future where maybe only one person needs to be hired to create the sound for a film. Though compact schedules may forever dictate a separation of these responsibilities. There is also a practical matter of efficient use of ones skills. If a gifted composer has decided to take on the Sound Design work it, by necessity, will take time away from his compositional work.  In a short schedule, the composer’s skills might be better served by using them on the musical component and allowing the sound designer to do that component. I find it’s hard to keep wearing those different hats day in and day out. Sometimes I just want to compose and when I’m asked to do something simple like edit some gunshots, it takes me out of the mind-set of composition.

And finally, is there anything else you would like to add that we haven’t discussed on the topic of blurring between Sound Design and Film Scoring from your experience within the industry?

Only that Sound Design is a very modern approach to composition. Unlike composing, most people don’t know what Sound Design is. I’m a musician and a sound designer. I don’t think of them any differently and I don’t use different skills to achieve success in either. I just wish the Sound Design side of my work had a wider appreciation and understanding for the compositional work it really is.