Suzanne Ciani: Space, Time and Buchla

William Stokes Welcome to the Sound On Sound Electronic Music podcast. My name is William Stokes and this episode, I'm delighted to welcome a guest who needs almost no introduction, Suzanne Ciani. Suzanne is without a doubt, one of the most celebrated synthesists of her or any generation. Over her five decade career, she's consistently broken new ground in the world of electronic music and the wider world of sound design with a litany of achievements to her name. She was the first woman to score a Hollywood film, the Joel Schumacher directed The Incredible Shrinking Woman. Hers is also the first female human voice to appear in a game, namely the pinball game Xenon, the sounds of which recently got their own vinyl release and which also landed her a well-deserved place in the Pinball Expo Hall of Fame. You'll likely have heard her work in some of the most recognisable commercial sounds of the 20th century, for instance, the Coca Cola pop and pour sound and the Columbia Pictures theme, and did I mention she's also a five time Grammy nominee? Hi, Suzanne. Suzanne Ciani Good morning, or evening, as the case may be. WS That was the, so the film, you were hired to score The Incredible Shrinking Woman in 1980 right, which came out the following year, but am I right in thinking it wouldn't be for another, what, decade and a half before another woman would be hired? SC That's what I discovered, kind of randomly, because I read the obituary of a woman whose name I always forget, who they said was the first woman and that was in, like, 1994. WS I actually have that in my notes, it’s Shirley Walker. SC Oh thank-you, Shirley Walker. Oh, I wish I had met her. But anyway, yeah and so then I have to say that I did discover a film in the 40s by a woman named Elizabeth Firestone. She was related to the Firestone Tire people and I don't think anything has been known about her and I, you know, I tracked down a copy of the film, kind of a bootleg copy and yes, she had scored a film in the 40s. So, you know, it's so rare that it's almost, you know, non-existent up until, you know, this current period, historic period, where women have gained a foothold, somewhat. That's a story that's been kind of the arc of my lifetime, this whole evolutionary professionalism of women and it's nice to see it. I'm glad that I've lived long enough to see the blossoming of some of the, you know, wishes that we had so long ago and seeing some of the doors open that were closed. And it’s, you know, it's just one little part of the whole thing, it’s not the main part. It's like saying that, you know, nominating Kamala Harris is because she's a woman. No, it's not. Everybody's very relaxed. Nobody thinks about her gender. At least I don't. And that's what we want. We don't want to have to think about, you know, whether somebody is female, but it's meaningless. WS Well it's funny isn't it because it is meaningless in one sense but you know, it's in terms of that opportunity for people, you know, there's that amazing, I think it was, I'm going to, this is going to be terrible if anyone listening is in the know, you know, I'm less interested in the size and convulsions of Einstein's brain than I am in the fact that people of equal or greater ability have lived and died in sweatshops and cotton fields, you know and in a similar kind of way, it's like, you know, the amount of sort of amazing compositional minds that would have been denied the opportunities to contribute to, you know, famous pieces of work. SC Yes. The voices, the voices that we don't hear, yes. WS So you've got something like is it sort of 17, 18 studio albums now to your name? SC Yes, I can't count them myself. I used to think of them as my children. So I knew, you know, because my mom had six children and my albums were like my children. But I don't think my mother would have considered having over 20 children. So it's like become, you know, it's gone out of that realm a little bit and I don't even know their names, you know. WS Well, I'm assuming you don't have a favourite. I mean, the most recent one, Golden Apples of the Sun, that was a collaboration with Jonathan Fertuzzi, the French musician. SC Lovely, yes. WS I'm assuming that's a reference to Morton Subotnick's Silver Apples of the Moon. SC Well, you know, that happened on multi-levels because we decided to include a reading of a poem and the only poem that I happen to know by heart is the Song of Wandering Angus and so I just absent-mindedly recited that poem one day and then afterwards we said, oh my, look at this, I mean, this, maybe we should call the album the Golden Apples of the Sun because you know, the recording is right there, it’s the first track. And so it fit in on multiple levels and I think it had meaning on multiple levels. Because Subotnick really had a breakthrough when that album came out, it was totally unheard of for that type of music to be published. And what was it, Nonsuch, you know, made an opening for him and it was different. I mean in a way, oh we don't know, you know, it was a recorded album, this is a recorded album, but the foundation of my Buchla music is live performance. So I'm not treating this, I've done many studio albums, I've used MIDI and all kinds of tools in the studio, overdubbing and layering and all of that, manipulating, whatever you can do I've done. But right now I'm focusing on in the moment live performance because I think that was the concept that Don Buchla had when I met him in 1969. So he started in 63 and he invented, you know, this modular electronic music system and in the beginning, people were thinking of these machines as the sources of sounds, like, oh my god, it can make sounds that you've never heard before, blah, blah, blah. But in the next five years, Don I think aspired to the idea of making an actual performance instrument in the tradition of musical instruments. So not just a studio tool, but something that you could interface with and perform and that's when I met him, when he was starting that concept in his design. And so you know, that's the important, I don't know if it's important, but that's definitely the angle that I bring to this electronic music and I think more kids are performing live. You're going to be performing live soon, right? WS That's true, yeah. For those, for any listeners unaware, this is at a time of recording, we’ve just ascertained that Suzanne and I are going to be performing at the same festival, Hidden Notes Festival. Yeah you, I mean, you took a break, didn't you, from, well, took a break. You didn't perform with the Buchla system for some time. And am I right in thinking, I feel like this is mythologized now, but am I right in thinking it's because as simple as a reason is that your 200 system broke? SC Yes. Also there was, you know, when I came to New York in 1974, I came to New York to do a performance. I played a concert, a quadraphonic concert, at the Bonino Gallery and that particular concert, by the way, we discovered a cassette tape and it's been released now on Finder's Keepers. So it's not in quad, obviously, but it is a document. And so my ambition in New York, I mean, I stayed, I decided to stay in New York. My ambition was to perform live and to get a career going of being a performer on the Buchla and I actually found an agent and I had a concert planned in Lincoln Center at Avery Fisher Hall. And I went in to speak with the, for pre-production and I told them where to put the additional two speakers for quad and they said no. And for me that was non-negotiable. I played in quad and that was a real stumbling block. So I couldn't get the venue. The situation beyond a certain, you know, loft, you know, I played at Bill Niblock's loft, I played at the radio station, but that was of course broadcast in stereo, so I hit a roadblock in terms of the theatres. I worked for a couple of years trying to get, I started a corporation, a 501c3, so that people would foster, you know, new concepts in theatres and because they were redesigning Avery Fisher Hall, I wanted it as a quadraphonic place. Anyway, I'm going on and on, but that was a part of it, I couldn't find the venues. Number two, the system broke down. Don Buchla came to New York. He met with my friend John Wharram, who was the president of the Audio Engineering Society. And the fact is, if John couldn't fix it and he didn't know anybody who could fix it, it couldn't be fixed and to send it back to the West coast to be fixed and then to have it come back and be damaged in that trip was kind of, you know, useless. And then the other thing was that half of it was stolen. So the person who stole it, I don't know if he's out there listening, but I want him to know. WS I hope you're listening. SC I hope you're listening because, you know, I don't know if people know the impact of some of their seemingly, you know, unconscious interventions in real life on other people, but there can be grave consequences. So anyway, all those things, those three issues really, worked against my doing live Buchla and then of course the whole electronic music scene was growing and burgeoning and changing and the Japanese were coming in and I just became a studio mouse, you know I, Sinclaviers and Fairlites and Sequential Circuits and Rolands and CS80s and you know, all the DX7 and the drum machines and I was a happy camper playing with all those toys. WS I mean, it's interesting in the gear that you've just listed there, that sounds like it was a move away from modular altogether. SC It was but I always, my approach was never, even though I was a pianist, my approach was never piano. I'd had too much, you know, I studied computer music with John Chowning and Max Matthews and you know, Chowning is now 90 years old and he was the father of FM synthesis. And having studied with him, you know, I was a fearless programmer. I mean DX7 came and I made a whole package of sounds for it for them. So programming was my, you know, my nature. I loved to get in, I didn't build the machines, I certainly didn't design them, but I could interact with them and use them, you know, and that's what I liked, yeah. I thought that sounds, you know when sampling came in, I had a Synclavier, which was a $200,000, you know, digital, New England digital instruments and it could sample, but I only used that for my commercial work. So there were a lot of things that were appropriate and cool and wonderful tools for making money, sound design. But my personal music didn't use those, you know, my personal music was still a lot of hands-off programming, you know, using the MC8, the Roland MC8, the MC4, the first sequencer that Dave Smith made, the 800. And, you know, it was just joyous to use these things. They're more joyous even than it is now, I don't know. My sequencer now is in a little, you know, module, yeah. WS I mean, I'm really interested to ask and this is a very rudimentary question or prosaic question at least. What is it about Buchla that you love so much? SC Well, I was just, you know, it's by happenstance that I landed right in, you know, Berkeley, where he was living right next door in Oakland and that I worked for him. So I was kind of, you know, proselytised by him in the beginning and that's what I knew. WS So it was just sort of your formative experience really was in that fold. SC Yes, but I also had exposure from the beginning to the Moog, the Moog 15, because the Mills College Tape Music Center, which was the San Francisco Tape Music Center, housed at Mills College, had a Moog and they gave it to me for one Summer and you know, the Moog had wonderful sound, but it wasn't relatable in the same way that a Buchla was. From the beginning, the Buchla, because he wanted to make a performance instrument, was a machine that talked back to you, that you could relate to. So it had a lot of blinking lights that told you what was going on. It had a different convention of patching, so there were, you know, distinctions between control voltages and audio voltages. The Moog was just quarter inch plugs. The Buchla was compact and small. The Buchla was spatial. It was quadraphonic. It was just, it was like the Maserati of instruments, you know, and I did, you know, toy with the Moog but the Moog really became a keyboard instrument. It was adopted by rock bands, you know, who wanted to cut through and compete with guitars and I never thought of it as, the whole idea that it's all about the sound, it's not about the sound. I mean, yes, the sound is different and the sound can be, you know, manipulated and changed and designed. But for me, it was always about the way the sound, the way I could interact with it live and the movement of the sound, the way the sound moved. I understand you do a little quad as well, so you know the sound, the sound should move right? I mean it, what is it doing? It's a monophonic sound that has no space of its own, but once it's coming out through speakers, it can come out of four as easily as one and then you can use the voltages, or LFOs as you say, you know, to modulate the space. WS Hmmm, it’s funny because I think for me, one of the fundamental differences between the sort of the approaches that you've been talking about is it feels like there was, well, and I'm interested to know, to hear your response to this, the, I get the sense that while Moog was appealing to people who were already kind of considered that very musical, it was as if the Buchla approach was about almost creating a new type of musician entirely, a new kind of, a new way of thinking about music where people who maybe previously didn't even consider themselves instrumentalists suddenly became instrumentalists, suddenly became experts in a new discipline of, you know, a new way of performing music. Whereas, you know, it feels like this, there was a, the East coast approach, it feels like, interestingly, you know, in recent years, there's been a lot, much more talk of the sort of East and West coast, lots of designs coming out that are combining elements of both of those things. But it feels like the East coast approach is always sort of fit into a vocabulary that was already, that already existed while, whereas sort of the West coast, you know, Don Buchla’s designs seem to have, yeah, been sort of interested in just precipitating a new approach entirely. SC Well yeah, I mean basically what you're talking about is the keyboard. I mean Don always said that the mechanical keyboard was an inappropriate interface and truly if you think about it the fact that that you know that key presses down and is that it's just a switch closure. It's not hitting a hammer and the hammer is not hitting a string. So unless you wanted to carry forward the languaging and the vocabulary of a different instrument, namely the piano, then you had to consider and Buchla did consider, you know, he was a thinker and he would go back to the very essence, you know, he just would go deeper and deeper you know, what is a hand? How big is a hand? How does the hand, you know, how does the hand, how can you use it? So there were all these basic questions that he asked, and he developed interfaces that were just not seen before. The Thunder and Lightning, the Marimba Lumina, you know, this flat keyboard that I, it's not even, you know, touch plate. So that was different, but for me the big thing, because you know, what music are you playing? If you're playing a melody on a keyboard, then you want a keyboard and you want to play a melody. If you're looking at composition and the organisation of your notes or your sounds as voltage controlled, then you're looking at a different palette. You're not looking at a single trigger for a single event, you're looking at the shape and type of control voltage that's going to express some compositional piece of architecture, you know and it's powerful. You're not limited by your manual dexterity by any means. I mean, you've got the, you've got electricity at your… WS As you're talking, I think of the shape of, you know, for example, the, you know, the two, two, three multidimensional kinesthetic input, which, you know, this isn't a my life in modules episode, but we did talk before this interview about, you know, some of your sort of your take homes and that was one of them, that amazing kind of falcon shape capacitive controller. It's, I'm, you know, I can't but have that in my head the entire time you're talking about all of this, a completely different geography and I'm sure you can't either. SC Yes, but you know, the other things that Buchla, I mean, there were so many random, the use of random voltages. He has modules that can refine, you know, people think of random as chaos, oh my god, what's going to happen, I don't know. But for Buchla, it was very well designed, you know, within parameters. So how random, what are they, you know, when is it random, you can integrate it with the rhythm of the music, blah, blah, blah. And so it's a very refined use of a non-literal approach to sound. And I use random, I couldn't live without it, you know? So that's a Buchla thing. You know I mean, I know we're not talking about modules, but I'm still trying to get people to look at the MARF, the Multiple Arbitrary Function Generator. WS Let's talk about that a little bit cause it's again, one of the larger format Buchla modules. It's kind of a real, it's a mainstay, isn't it? It's a real classic. SC Yes, I can't perform without it, although I did. When I first came back, I was using the a 200E system, complete 200E and there was a module called the 250, as opposed to this one, which is the 248. The 248, the one that I grew up on, didn't exist and the 250 I consider to be, to some degree, non performable. Now, why? Because when you're changing the switches, say the octave switches if you have them tuned to be octaves, you couldn’t, you couldn’t address any particular octave independently. You had to cycle through all the octaves. That is not useful. So it's, and it couldn't be tuned, you know, it just couldn't be tuned. So I got, you know, that was something that had to be cloned and you know, it's a wild jungle out there, you know. I have three of them and they're all different and what can you do? So whatever, so yeah, WS I mean, the design of them feels like they accommodate that level of, let's call it, you know, inconsistency. The character you were just saying earlier about how it feels like the machine is speaking back to you, you know, the character of having sort of things that vary a little bit clone to clone or, you know, unit to unit even feels very alive. SC No, it's horrible. WS That's what I meant. Did I, what did I say? Alive? No, no, I meant terrible. SC You know, I mean, I do, you know, learn to, you know, part of the job is to just see what the machine wants to do or can do. You can't impose your will beyond what it wants to do. So you have to come to an agreement, it’s a compromise to play one of these, you know, but you can only compromise so much. So when the 250 could not be tuned and I lost a year of my life trying to tune it, I called it crazy making, I think I needed to be like hospitalised. I just like, you move the top and the bottom moves, you move the bottom and the top moves and you’re just like a little, you know, hamster. WS Tiny screwdriver or something as well, trying to, on the trimmer, we’ve all been there. SC Oh yeah, I wish, I wish. Now I had an engineer here, Moog, you know, I love Moog now. They're responsible for my comeback to the Buchla. I mean, Buchla is responsible also, but you know, my first concert was for Moog, for Moogfest. WS Where you received the innovation award. SC Eventually yeah, not right away, but I did receive the innovation award yeah. We became, you know, they, the old days of East West and that, you know, dichotomy was gone. I mean, we're all older and appreciate what's going on, period and what we have in common, that's a good sign. But anyway, Moog loaned me an engineer for a year to help me. Yeah, because I couldn't get the MARF, I couldn't get the 250, you know, to tune and neither could he. WS I'm interested to know what he said to that. Well, I told you so. SC Well what Buchla said, you know, I said Don, you know, this module will not tune and I think he thought at first that I just didn't know how to tune it. Come on over. Let's look at it together. Okay. And you know, cause I moved back to California, so I'm here and I bring it over there and he looks at me after like a half an hour and says, yeah you're right, it doesn't tune. I said well what can we do? He said, well do something else. Do something else. Forget about your musical concepts, pitch, you know. WS How did you react to that? I mean, what a thing to say. SC Yeah, I mean part of it, the philosophy of dealing with this is to be open and flexible and accommodating, you know. You're collaborating with a machine, so you need a little bit of that kind of willingness to play on its terms as well. But certain things are, you know, non-negotiable. And so, you know, I had to go find a solution. And that was when the clone, you know, I found Roman Filippov. Boy, was it, do you know him? WS No, I don't actually. SC Oh my God, what a dark, I mean, it was like going to Darth Vader territory, you know. Somebody, you know, there were all these subcultures in this area, you know, all these little groups of people with their fanatic, you know, loyalties to certain things and one of them was the MARF. So there was a group of MARF people and I went on the website and that was my introduction to Roman. He was portrayed as this black headmask, you know, just no features at all, just this like Darth Vader and you could ask questions but you didn't know if he'd ever answer. I mean, it was just so dark and mysterious. Eventually I met Roman and he wasn't at all threatening, lovely Russian fellow, but still difficult, you know, engineers can be difficult. Anyway… WS I don't know what you're talking about. I think that, you know, that's one of the really special things about this corner of history of music is the way that it's empowered people to almost come to the aid of the wider community, you know, without sort of generalising too much. It feels like there is this sense almost of altruism that comes out in people like, you know, I really want to see this work for you, I really want to see this side of music progress for everyone, for everyone's sake. And that's kind of, it's funny that we, you know, we were talking about spatial, that seems to me a frontier that now is enjoying a similar kind of attitude. It feels like people are, there are different factions, aren't there? We've got, you know, D&B Soundscape and Dolby Atmos and LAcoustic and everything, but sure, you know, these are competitors, just like Moog and Buchla were competitors, but at the same time, people are willing each other on to succeed it seems to me, because ultimately it's about the experience of music in the most immersive and enjoyable and meaningful way possible, you know without speaking in too many platitudes, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts on that. Do you feel that? SC Here are my thoughts. I know we're having a resurgence of interest in spatial sound. I mean, we did have quad LPs and an interest in the seventies, but the problem was back then there was no content and I think we're having the same issue right now. So we have a lot of platforms and those platforms are conduits really, for delivering spatial music and that's wonderful that we have those. But actually creating spatial music is another animal. Think of two different categories. One is placement of sound and the other is movement of sound. So anybody can place a sound and say, okay, I want this there, I want that there. But in electronic music, we have the power to move sound and it can be done in very sophisticated ways, it’s just a natural part of the sound. It's the same control voltage that's operating on all the other parameters of the sound and then you apply it to space. I don't think we have enough tools right now still for the control voltage manipulation of space. The other thing that we had in the day was voltage-controlled reverb. So part of space is not just the placement in a 360 degree field, but whether it's near or far. So if a sound is dry, it seems to be close to you, if it's reverbed, it's far away. So that was another parameter that we could control with voltage back then, we had a voltage controlled spring reverb. I still can't do that today. I can, I've made up a kind of workaround with, Northern Lights did a modification of the H9, the Eventide H9 and I can put a control voltage on the mix, but it's not very responsive. It's, I don't know why. I mean somebody could tell me I'm sure, but so you know, and then getting these things into those formats, can you get it into Atmos, can you get it into, I've played with L Acoustics. They're wonderful, you know, sound systems. I give them quad and they dial it up, you know and that aspect of being able to dial up is fundamental, it’s wonderful. WS Do you see the use of spatial or at least quads as kind of essential to your practice as an electronic musician? SC Well, I don't play without it, yeah. WS Why is that? SC Because the movement of the sound is just a, it's fundamental. It's, I don't know how to play a sound that doesn't move. It's all connected. I wish, honestly, you know, when I'm performing and I am moving the sound, there are certain limitations. Live performance has limitations anyway, you know, you're not dialling in something specific and then recording it and, you know, it’s live. So what do I have? I have, for movement of sound, I have a little custom sequencer that I had made, which has a slope function so the sound can move smoothly or it can move very kind of rhythmically. So you can take a sustained sound and move it rhythmically and it has a rhythm, right? So spatial movement is rhythm. You can't move a sound without creating some kind of rhythm. So I use that and then I use a couple of different voltages. I use envelopes, you know, smooth cycling envelopes to move the sound and I use random voltages to move the sound because it's psychologically, it's a different feeling, you know. If something's lulling you into calmness with this circular motion and then all of a sudden the energy picks up and it starts to get, you know, jumpy and unpredictable, that's part of the emotion. WS And the magic, of course, it's, there's something very direct about you know, it's a very direct experience of sound, which is in many ways I mean, that's one thing that we love isn't it about electronic music or synthesising music in general is in many ways, it's devoid of association, you know. We listen to a violin and we say, well, that's abstract, but it sounds like a violin. But actually it's very difficult to say what a synthesiser sounds like. In fact, the synthesiser doesn't sound like anything. SC Yeah well, yeah I don't think you'd mistake it for a violin anyway. WS That's true, but it's a very primitive kind of, it's for me, it's one thing that I’m finding very special about it is the way that it seems esoteric to a lot of people. However, the type of interaction with the music that it precipitates is actually incredibly instinctive and very natural and abstract and requires almost no context at all. SC I just did a talk with, I played a concert at KQED, our local, you know, radio station and John Chowning was with me that evening, the man from Stanford who has, who invented FM that's used in the DX7 and on and on and on. And his, he played a 10 minute piece that was, for him, he did it I think in 1972. And of course the sound was moving, how can you make an electronic sound and just sit there and listen to it? I mean, it has to have that expression of movement. And I thought, wow this is really sophisticated. The movement that he designed, because it was so, you know designed, right, was very elaborate and specific and amazing. The space that I create is not that specific because I don't have the tools to, you know, map a move, a particular movement to everything. Mine is more about, you know, the rhythmic movement of the sound as integrated into the performance. I don't know, is this making any sense at all? Anyway, there’s… WS Absolutely, no it is, it is. It's really interesting hearing about the way that you equate, what I'm hearing is the way that you are, you're talking about the intersection between space and time, it seems to me because a lot of sequencing and you know, when we talk about, for example, function generation, we're talking in the time domain, but it's interesting to hear the way that you are actually thinking of it in the spatial domain at the same time. You know, you said before, you know, when you are making a sound move, you're creating rhythm which is actually not what, it's not a way that a lot of people instinctively think about movement of sound. If you think about, for example, a left to right speaker setup, stereo speaker setup and you have a sound that pans from left to right and left to right, well, you're actually creating a kind of walking rhythm, right? But we don't seem to kind of think of it in those terms naturally. So it's really interesting to hear the way that you, you know, it makes a lot of sense why you've instinctively gone towards quads as a kind of, it's a space domain that's paired with a time domain, almost, you know, intrinsically, is that fair to say? SC I love the sound of that. It sounds like Einstein, you know. WS It's interesting actually talking to, I was interviewing Will Gregory a while ago and he was talking about how he loved the idea of getting, when you're playing with electronic music, you're playing with atoms, you're playing with electrons, you're already plugging in, I think he called it plugging into the universe, which I love as an idea. And I know I've got it in my notes here as well, I, you know, there's an interview where you called Don Buchla the Leonardo da Vinci of instrument design, which okay, some people might go, well you mean genius. What I hear when I hear that line is that there's someone who is, you know, Leonardo da Vinci was a mathematician, but he also painted and there's this kind of like art and science and machinery and creativity all coming together. SC Yes. Well said. Well said. Yeah. WS And that's kind of the Einstein thing as well, right? SC Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yes well I think, you know, we're starting to assimilate time as a dimension. I guess we were just stuck in three for a while, now I think we're very comfortable in four dimensions, but I know because my brother in law is a string theorist and, you know, they're dealing in like 30 dimensions, I mean, I just look… WS Yeah, their modular systems are huge SC Yeah right, I’m not ready for that. But yeah, time, you know, I just saw it this morning and my little kitty is getting white hair, you know and it's like time is, it's just, it's there, it’s a definite parameter in everything. WS Speaking of time and the future, can we expect another album any point soon? SC Well you know, I've been touring now for, what, 10 years or so and I have been recording my stuff. I haven't been releasing it because, you know, I only release in quad. I let other people release, there are a couple of, you know, in stereo, but on my label, I have to do quad. It's a commitment. So it's kind of a hassle. That's why I haven't done more. I could release just digitally and we are going to do that. So I did a concert in Amsterdam with the Orkest, the Metropole Orkest, do you know that? Okay, so it's Amsterdam dance event and I played live with their orchestra and it was a phenomenal experience for me. WS Wow. SC Yeah, it was something and we've been trying to get this thing mastered. It turned out to be a double LP, it was ridiculously expensive in quad, right? So I think what we're going to do is a digital release soon, so that one will come out just digitally, which is, you know, I know people like vinyl. And then I want to release a China concert, I did in China. WS Oh, brilliant. SC Yeah, on vinyl. So we're still doing vinyl, yeah.. WS Exciting, that’s so exciting. Suzanne Ciani, thank you so much for joining me, that was absolutely fascinating. SC Thanks Will. WS Thank-you for listening. Be sure to check out the show notes page for this episode where you'll find further information along with web links and details of all the other episodes. And just before you go, let me point you to the soundonsound.com/podcasts website page where you can explore what's playing on our other channels. My name is William Stokes and this has been a production for Sound On Sound magazine.