Name: Mike Shannon
Nationality: Canadian
Occupation: Producer, DJ, label founder at Cynosure
Current release: Mike Shannon's Shadow Moves EP is out via Rekids Special Projects.
Gear Recommendations: I’m a big fan of the latest Euro Rack Module from Endorphines and Andrew Huang called Ghost. I highly recommend anyone to buy this and add it to their rack. A hell of a game changer processor that does it all. This really has improved the sound of my live rack and really does incredible drum processing. Love it!

For the software people using Ableton I’m gonna have to recommend my friends from Manifest Audio again for the win. The combination of Midi tools, Sequencing and processing in the bundle is next level. If you want to take your sequencing to the next level then these are the tools for you. I’m going to release another video of what you can do with the combination of the Octopulse sequencer and a poly synth like UDO’s Super Six on my socials so you can see what I mean. Really enjoying the Harmonizer and delay processor in the bundle too.

Hat’s off to the Manifest guys for the excellent work. Another reason why you should be using Ableton and Max for creative music work.

If this Mike Shannon interview piqued your interest, visit him on Facebook, and Soundcloud.



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

My views towards technology in general? I’ve always been pro technology … I make music with electronics so I’ve always been embracing new and exciting ways to make sounds.

I think technology can be a problem once the user is obsolete. When you let technology make all the creative decisions you no longer can call what your doing creative.

What were your very first steps in music like and how would you rate the gains made through experience - can one train/learn being an artist/producer?

My first steps in Music was when I bought my first synth (Juno 106) and enrolled in my highschools entry level piano course.

[Read our feature on the Juno 106]

The keyboard lab was a room full of Korg Mono/polys and I was really enjoying making weird sounds and not exactly following the teacher’s lessons. He would often observe what I was up to and ask me things like “feel like coming back to planet earth and continuing with the lesson Mr.Shannon” haha. We were meant to be playing jingle bells.

Later that year I would meet a friend by the name of J.Hunsberger who was also interested in synths and drum machines and we put what little gear we had together to make a studio. More and more friends kept adding to the room and after a while we had what it took to start making some tracks.

And in 1997 the Onom room was born.

Making music, in the beginning, is often playful and then becomes increasingly professionalised. How important is playfulness for you today and if it is important, how do, concretely, you retain it?

Having fun is always the trick. You need to enjoy and have fun with anything your doing in life. With Music, the business aspect can ruin a lot of people’s creative direction. Once you have to rely on your art to pay your bills things can often change.

The pressure of the working artist is a heavy one ... you often see people following trends because they want to succeed, they want to make that cash, so their studio choices surfer when you’ve got that lingering in the background. Constantly jumping on bandwagons to keep up with the “trends”.

I often like to play and jam on a regular basis ... getting together with musicians and improvising is the key to retaining that playfulness. Never taking yourself too seriously in the process.

Which other producers were important for your development and what did you learn from them?

I learned a lot from my friends and peers like: Matt & Mark Thibideau, Mathew Jonson, Deadbeat, Dewalta, Jeff Milligan and J.Hunsberger.

[Read our Mathew Jonson interview]
[Read our Mathew Jonson interview about the Rhodes Chroma with Enabler]
[Read our Deadbeat interview]

J and I always were fumbling and stumbling through trials and errors but we could always call up a friend to ask some useful questions. There were no you tube videos with instructions for everything and the old manuals (if you had one) were often cryptic and horribly translated. So you really had to just plug in and experiment.

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?

So in the beginning the set up was based around purely hardware. Some of the Roland series gear (808, 909, 727) doing drums and all the sequencing as well. And primarily sounds from the Jupiter 4 and Juno 106. Then we introduced a computer (Atari 1040st) using Cubase and an E-Mu ESI-32. Game changer!

Then around 1999 the computer kept getting more and more in the picture and eventually I would buy a protools set up and eventually leave the sampler behind. My set up now is based around Ableton live as my creative DAW.

I’m deep into the modular synth thing since I bought my Cwejman s1 back in 2009. Been buying what I would consider the creme de la creme of modules since then. Not going too crazy and buying everything that comes on the market. I take my time when I’m adding a new piece to the rack. At the moment I’m a big fan of my UDO Super 6 poly synth. It’s a beast.

I’ve been experimenting with a new software poly sequencer from Manifest Audio and the Super 6. Manifest is doing some great Max based apps and effects. Incredible stuff.

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

I think the workflow that you have with Ableton really changed how I was working on music.

Recently I’ve had to go back to Protools for some Audio post projects and I realize just how’s much faster I can move and create while using Ableton. Going back to protools on a creative session just slows me down.

What is the relation between innovative tools and "innovative music"?

Innovative tools (like Manifest Audio plugins) can lead you to some unexpected and incredible results. Just about everything has been done at this point so when something truly innovative and new comes around it’s worth trying out.

But at the end of the day it doesn’t matter to the average listener if you used something innovative.

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 think it’s important to limit yourself to a degree. It’s so easy these days to just keep adding more and more but the real trick is knowing when to stop adding. Sometimes it’s important to limit your tools in the studio. I’ve seen it happen many times when you're in a studio that has a library of synths, the choices are so many that it can be overwhelming.

So my friend that has this kind of studio, chooses to only use a handful of the machines when he’s working on particular records so that he doesn’t get distracted by all the possibilities. I have another friend of mine that only uses his old Synclavier during the winter months. Seasonal synths! I love it. (well, truthfully the only reason why is because the synths refrigerator sized processor case overheats in the hot Toronto summers.)

From the earliest sketches to the finished piece, what does your current production workflow/process look like?

I start with beats. Make some beats and then I run them into the weird Machine (what I call the modular set up) and process them into something a bit more original. Then I start writing bass and lead hooks ... followed by the accompanying synth parts and then add the sound effects icing on the cake.

Sounds familiar I guess? No?

From your experience, are there things you're doing differently than most or many other artists when it comes to gear and production?

Most people I know are really in the box when it comes to mixing. I like to do things old school with outboard VCA mixing desk and an analog chain. It’s more work and often when you have to come back to a mix it’s not exactly the same as you did the first time.

But I love this part of the process in the end. It’s like the sonic spectrum has a particular sound on that day and if you come back the next week it would be how it is meant to sound on that particular day, not the week before. Does that make sense ?

In relation to sound, one often reads words like “material”, “sculpting”, and “design”. Do you feel these terms have a relationship to your own work of and approach towards sound? Do you find using presets lazy?

Yes, using presets is lazy but when you’ve made some simple sounds that you can use again and again it makes sense to have that pre-set sound ready to go. Or if you really need some inspiration it can help. But I really like to make all my own sounds from scratch.

I like my modular world because there isn’t a preset in sight! You have to dial it in to get it right. And when you dial it in it’s yours. Not someone else’s patch idea slightly modified.

Production tools can already suggest compositional ideas on their own. Which of these have proven particularly fruitful in this regard?

I haven’t been eating that kind of fruit. I create and compose the ideas.

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?

I think the AI thing is wild. I’ve been using random generators in music sequencing for many years. My favorite one back in the day was called MAX MSP patch called “Drool String Ukele” This is when we started asking the question: “Is this cheating when a computer gives you the sequencing options?”

I think this is as far as I want a computer to go for me in regards to making choices. I want to be in control of the creative process. Complete control of the tonal and sonic aspects. Random drum sequencing can be acceptable for me but an AI that generates and entire song for you … that’s not an artistic creative process by my standards.

I really fear for a lot of the creative sector in some regards. Many of the people doing cookie cutter music for corporate video and advertising will be replaced. Illustrators and commercial artists will also be replaced. Along with dozens of other professions.

But in the creative sector the only positive thing to see coming is people getting weirder and challenging things, breaking creative boundaries. Being more unpredictable than the AI.

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?

From my point of view technology is meant to empower the user in creating an easier workflow, not meant to create everything and make decisions for the user. Seems to be a common theme in your 15 questions ...

If you could make a wish for the future directly to a product developer at a Hard- or Software company – what are developments in tools/instruments you would like to see and hear?

Just off the top of my head I’d be in the mood for something like a standalone 4 voice morphing digital synth. Each voice would have its own corner of a vector controller. So you could morph and combine between the 4 corners of the vector controller. Having a combination of classic waveforms and wavetable possibilities. Each voice having two ADSR, Multimode Analog filter and Analog VCA.

Also with the possibility to run your own signal in ... doing resynthesis x 4. Of course you’d be able to stack the voices so you would be able to create chords. This combo would be deadly in a euro rack module and wouldn’t be too complicated to make.

Something like a combination of a intellijel Shape Shifter x2, Make Noise Spectraphone x2 and a Waldorf Iridium with a built in Vector controller. This would make the deadliest drums and textures.