Name: John De Buck aka Apashe
Nationality: Canadian
Occupation: Producer
Current release: Apashe's "Gasoline", a collaboration with Raga, is out now.
Recommendations:
1) The new Izotope Ozone AI mastering tool is scarily good.
2) Note performer, it’s also an AI that plays your partitions as ‘natural’ as it can. It’s pretty impressive for any notation programs like Sibelius. Great for orchestral mockups.

If you enjoyed this Apashe interview and would like to stay up to date with his music, visit his official website. He is also on Instagram, Facebook, twitter, and Soundcloud.



The views of society towards technology are subject to constant change. How would you describe yours?

I tend to embrace new technologies, as I always loved playing with new tools.

Paradoxically, I try to copy traditional classical music from centuries ago but using the newest technology possible.

What are currently your creative goals and how are technologies helping you reach them?

Trying to compose for symphonic orchestras, one instrument at the time. The challenge is to make everything sound realistic and today’s sampled-based plugins like Kontakt are doing a good job.

I still record real instruments and orchestras for larger projects but I depend on plugins for mockups and everyday projects.

How and for what reasons has your music set-up evolved over the years and what are currently some of the most important pieces of gear and software for you?

Honestly, my setup hasn’t changed much as I have always worked with quite a minimal setup. For me, a powerful computer, accurate speakers and great acoustics are essential.

Over the years, I feel that my setup only evolved because my wallet did … I just couldn’t afford the craziest gear growing up.

Have there been technologies which have profoundly influenced, changed or questioned the way you make music?

Definitely the sample-based plugins like Sine, Kontakt, LABS.

They used to be so rigid, making your instruments sound square and robotic. Now, the way they process each single note, recorded in so many different ways, you can trick listeners into thinking it was actually being played by a human.

I used to rely heavily on synths because those samplers were too archaic. Now, I only use synths to give it an extra layer of thickness and I prefer using recorded acoustic instruments for pretty much everything else.

From my point of view, the three key factors which have driven music technology over the past decades are mobility, affordability, and (easy) usability. How important are these for your own work – and did I miss any?

For me, affordability for sure. Usability too as plugins are more complex but somehow easier to us. So you can go further than what producers used to.

Technology is usually associated with innovation and progress. Are these also important considerations for your music? What is the relation between innovative tools and "innovative music"?

I feel like innovative music is a very subjective concept.

Most music genres just keep looping back as trends - it’s similar to what happens in the fashion industry. The only difference is that each time it becomes trendy again, it gets a little update from the latest technological possibilities. Also, the only real innovation in my opinion is when genres blend in original ways and then two genres combined become one.

I guess since making music in general is much easier than it used to be, producers can easily focus on multiple genres and become good enough in each genre that they can start merging them together in clever ways.  

Late producer SOPHIE said: “You have the possibility with electronic music to generate any texture, and any sound. So why would any musician want to limit themselves?” What's your take on that and the relevance of limitations in your set-up and process?

I’m a huge fan of SOPHIE! I will never forget the first time I heard her records, I was thinking finally some nerd shit well mixed with pop. It’s well said, I agree that limitations are boring and possibilities are endless.

However as an ex-electroacoustic student, the whole point of those studies is to research impossible sounds. I came to the conclusion that there is (in my opinion) a dangerous path you can fall into as a musician, endlessly seeking to find the most original, most unused sound ever. You start making music that literally no one will understand, except a few other degenerates like yourself.

I think it’s fine if that’s what you’re aiming for of course, but you can’t expect people to give you the recognition you deserve for all the work you put into it. People can't give you credit for something they don’t understand. And by searching for impossible sounds, you are consciously making something that’s incomprehensible to most. People like their comfort zone, innovation is crucial but gradually.

People like SOPHIE paved the way progressively to help people understand sound design a bit more by merging it with codes like ‘pop’. But in my opinion, she wasn’t getting the credit she fully deserved until she sadly passed away.

The choice in creative tools can be overwhelming. Are there ways to deal with- and embrace this wealth and channel it to support your creative goals?

Never really felt overwhelmed by the amount of new tools available. I test a lot of new tools - I’m addicted to it.

However, I have the sense of any FOMO from not using them all.

The sound sculpting capacities of current music technology are remarkable. So is the abundance of high-quality and ready-to-use samples. Which of these do you prefer and what does your process of working with them look like?

It’s two very distinct things in my opinion for different purposes.

High-quality and ready to use samples are amazing to sketch out ideas or make demos, music for ads, etc … Then all the new sculpting capacities are key to craft a unique sound, build your signature and make music for more long term purposes.

Within a digital working environment, it is possible to compile huge archives of ideas for later use. Tell me a bit about your strategies of building such an archive and how you put these ideas and sketches to use.

My strategy is to constantly making tons of demos, leaving them on my drive and then time will tell me if they are worth finishing or not.

If after months or years, a demo still makes you feel something then there is a high chance it’s worth finishing it. Sometimes I think a demo is sick but I can’t unlock its full potential, I leave it for another few months then try again if it still speaks to me.

Some of my favourite songs I’ve released had to be reworked a couple of times over long periods of time before I finally felt satisfied with it.

Production tools can already suggest compositional ideas on their own. How much of your music is based on concepts and ideas you had before entering the studio, how much of it is triggered by equipment, software and apps?

For me, it’s really more about what I have in mind, what inspires me daily.

Often, it’s the music I discover, the mood I’m in or movies I watch but I don’t have enough time to sit in studio and mess around until something cool just happens. I get in the studio to finish what I have in mind.

To some, the advent of AI and 'intelligent' composing tools offers potential for machines to contribute to the creative process. What are your hopes, fears, expectations and possible concrete plans in this regard?

AI is feared in the music industry, many people worry that they will soon be replaced by AI-generated music. However, I personally feel that AI has been more helpful than harmful to me so far.

While the possibility of being replaced by AI is a concern for some, I believe that if it happens, we will all be in the same boat. Rather than living with constant anxiety about the potential of AI replacing us, I prefer to focus on using AI to enhance my work and skills.

If we are ultimately replaced by AI, then so be it, but until then, I choose to embrace the potential benefits that AI can offer.

Technology has continually taken on more steps of the compositional process and "creative" tasks. From your point of view, where does "technology" end and "creativity" begin?

I believe that technology will soon allow us to generate music based on prompts, similar to how we can currently generate images mid-journey. However, this process may eliminate creativity from the music, which raises some confusion for me.

As a musician who has created "soulless" music for ads, I recognize that this type of music serves a clear objective purpose and some people enjoy it. Similarly, AI-generated music may lack a "soul" or a true creative process, but it could still appeal to certain listeners. This makes it difficult for me to draw the line between what is considered truly creative music and what isn't.

If AI-generated music can give people emotions and enjoyment, does that not mean it has a "soul" and is therefore creative? Or are humans simply programmed to enjoy certain musical formulas, making it difficult to distinguish between AI and traditionally-made music, aside from the fact that the former may be more difficult to create?

If you could make a wish for the future – what are developments in tools/instruments you would like to see and hear?  

I would love to be able to program robots playing real instruments. Imagine arms playing the cello. With automations you can craft the perfect movement, focus on texture, then work on the recording environment.You could take as long as you want, and nothing would be lost. You could rehearse it until it clicks.

[Read our Gamut Inc Interview about Robotics and the Music Machine Tradition]

Although it would take away the spontaneity of things, I’m always disappointed with everything I do as I always feel restricted from elements that are out of my control. This would allow me to rework things endlessly, to be in total control.