WEBVTT 00:00:00.999 --> 00:00:04.719 I want to start today by completely dismantling 00:00:04.719 --> 00:00:08.240 a stereotype that I think we all have, even if 00:00:08.240 --> 00:00:09.519 you don't really want to admit it to yourself. 00:00:09.759 --> 00:00:11.539 Oh, I know exactly where you're going with this. 00:00:11.660 --> 00:00:13.679 Right. Because when I say the word conductor, 00:00:13.939 --> 00:00:16.559 you immediately have a very specific visual in 00:00:16.559 --> 00:00:19.260 your head. You're picturing a tuxedo. Yeah, a 00:00:19.260 --> 00:00:21.500 tuxedo, the tail. Exactly. You're picturing a 00:00:21.500 --> 00:00:26.480 raised podium. You're probably picturing this 00:00:26.480 --> 00:00:29.600 older white haired figure scowling at a violinist 00:00:29.600 --> 00:00:32.060 because they came in a millisecond late on some 00:00:32.060 --> 00:00:34.740 Mozart concerto. It's the classic maestro myth. 00:00:34.859 --> 00:00:37.159 You know, the absolute dictator of the concert 00:00:37.159 --> 00:00:40.299 hall. Yes, the dictator. It feels rigid. It feels 00:00:40.299 --> 00:00:42.500 dusty. It basically feels well, it feels finished 00:00:42.500 --> 00:00:46.420 like a museum piece. But today we're doing a 00:00:46.420 --> 00:00:48.359 deep dive into the career of someone who takes 00:00:48.359 --> 00:00:51.399 that entire concept, throws it in a blender and 00:00:51.399 --> 00:00:53.299 pours out something that just sounds like the 00:00:53.299 --> 00:00:55.439 future. We are talking about Hugh T. Applebrunt. 00:00:55.579 --> 00:00:57.960 Or as he's usually credited on the albums, Hugh 00:00:57.960 --> 00:01:00.679 Brunt. Right. And if you are a fan of modern 00:01:00.679 --> 00:01:02.960 culture and I mean, not just classical music, 00:01:03.039 --> 00:01:06.840 but film, electronic music or art rock, you have 00:01:06.840 --> 00:01:08.459 definitely heard his work. Even if you didn't 00:01:08.459 --> 00:01:10.780 know his name was on the sheet music. He is effectively 00:01:10.780 --> 00:01:13.560 the bridge between the 17th century and the 21st 00:01:13.560 --> 00:01:15.500 century. Exactly. We're looking at a guy who 00:01:15.500 --> 00:01:17.939 went from the most hallowed traditional British 00:01:17.939 --> 00:01:20.980 institutions like Windsor Castle and Oxford to 00:01:20.980 --> 00:01:24.780 collaborating with. Radiohead, Foles, and cutting 00:01:24.780 --> 00:01:28.299 -edge electronic producers. So the mission for 00:01:28.299 --> 00:01:30.939 this deep dive today is to figure out how that 00:01:30.939 --> 00:01:33.599 transition actually happens. How do you go from 00:01:33.599 --> 00:01:37.239 wearing a cassock in a cathedral to conducting 00:01:37.239 --> 00:01:40.340 a string section for a techno album? It's such 00:01:40.340 --> 00:01:42.640 a fascinating journey because it completely challenges 00:01:42.640 --> 00:01:45.579 the idea that classical training is a cage. For 00:01:45.579 --> 00:01:48.459 Brunt, it's clearly a toolkit. We have this great 00:01:48.459 --> 00:01:50.939 stack of sources here today. biographies, concert 00:01:50.939 --> 00:01:53.219 reviews, liner notes from some massive albums. 00:01:53.340 --> 00:01:55.159 And they all paint a picture of a musician who 00:01:55.159 --> 00:01:56.760 realized that if you know the rules perfectly, 00:01:56.980 --> 00:01:59.379 you are basically the best person qualified to 00:01:59.379 --> 00:02:01.180 break them. So let's get right into the foundation 00:02:01.180 --> 00:02:04.200 of all this, because looking at his early biography, 00:02:04.439 --> 00:02:07.719 it almost reads like a parody of British high 00:02:07.719 --> 00:02:10.099 society. Yeah. I mean, we're talking about St. 00:02:10.120 --> 00:02:12.620 George's Chapel at Windsor Castle. We are. So 00:02:12.620 --> 00:02:15.719 born in 1986, Hugh Brunt started as a chorister 00:02:15.719 --> 00:02:18.780 at St. George's. And for those listening who 00:02:18.780 --> 00:02:21.199 might just think of Windsor as a tourist spot 00:02:21.199 --> 00:02:24.340 or a nice royal residence, we really need to 00:02:24.340 --> 00:02:26.319 clarify what that means musically. Yeah, this 00:02:26.319 --> 00:02:28.740 isn't just your local Sunday school choir. Not 00:02:28.740 --> 00:02:30.780 at all. This is essentially the Navy Seals of 00:02:30.780 --> 00:02:32.740 choral singing. That's a great way to put it. 00:02:32.759 --> 00:02:34.800 It's professional grade discipline from childhood. 00:02:35.060 --> 00:02:37.939 Exactly. You are rehearsing every single day. 00:02:38.039 --> 00:02:41.099 You are performing incredibly complex polyphonic 00:02:41.099 --> 00:02:44.650 music. Think... Tudor music, Renaissance music, 00:02:44.909 --> 00:02:47.610 where every single voice has a completely independent 00:02:47.610 --> 00:02:49.770 line. Right. You're not just singing the melody 00:02:49.770 --> 00:02:52.310 together. No, you have to hold your pitch against 00:02:52.310 --> 00:02:55.169 three other parts that are actively trying to 00:02:55.169 --> 00:02:57.669 pull your ear away from your note. It trains 00:02:57.669 --> 00:02:59.669 your ear in a way that almost nothing else does. 00:02:59.969 --> 00:03:04.389 And I assume that specific skill, that ability 00:03:04.389 --> 00:03:07.110 to hear multiple independent lines weaving together 00:03:07.110 --> 00:03:10.069 in real time, is something that pays off massively 00:03:10.069 --> 00:03:13.319 later on. Hugely. Just think about it. If you 00:03:13.319 --> 00:03:16.080 spend your entire childhood inside the complex 00:03:16.080 --> 00:03:18.840 weaving structures of someone like William Byrd 00:03:18.840 --> 00:03:21.819 or Thomas Tallis, your brain gets completely 00:03:21.819 --> 00:03:26.240 wired for texture. Texture. Yes. So when he eventually 00:03:26.240 --> 00:03:28.599 meets someone like Johnny Greenwood from Radiohead, 00:03:28.759 --> 00:03:31.379 who writes these dense weaving string arrangements, 00:03:32.020 --> 00:03:34.319 Brunt isn't intimidated in the slightest. He's 00:03:34.319 --> 00:03:36.180 been doing that exact kind of mental gymnastics 00:03:36.180 --> 00:03:38.759 since he was a literal child. OK, so he moves 00:03:38.759 --> 00:03:42.120 from Windsor to Radley College and they're eventually. 00:03:42.349 --> 00:03:45.990 to New College, Oxford, as a music scholar. It's 00:03:45.990 --> 00:03:48.270 basically the triple crown of the British establishment. 00:03:48.789 --> 00:03:50.449 But you're saying this didn't turn him into a 00:03:50.449 --> 00:03:52.810 strict traditionalist. Well, it made him a traditionalist 00:03:52.810 --> 00:03:55.069 in terms of technique, definitely, but not in 00:03:55.069 --> 00:03:57.310 terms of taste. And this is the key context you 00:03:57.310 --> 00:03:59.129 have to remember. He's a millennial. He was born 00:03:59.129 --> 00:04:02.189 in 86. Right. So he's at Oxford in the mid 2000s. 00:04:02.439 --> 00:04:05.639 Exactly. Sure, he's studying intense choral conducting 00:04:05.639 --> 00:04:07.819 during the day, but what is he doing at night? 00:04:08.060 --> 00:04:10.180 He's on the Internet. He's listening to rock. 00:04:10.240 --> 00:04:12.960 He's listening to glitchy electronic music. The 00:04:12.960 --> 00:04:15.759 walls between musical genres were crumbling right 00:04:15.759 --> 00:04:18.139 at the exact moment he was mastering his classical 00:04:18.139 --> 00:04:21.420 craft. That tension between the day job of high 00:04:21.420 --> 00:04:24.519 classical music and the nightlife of modern Internet 00:04:24.519 --> 00:04:28.560 consumption brings us to 2008. He's 22 years 00:04:28.560 --> 00:04:31.470 old, and he does something that... frankly seems 00:04:31.470 --> 00:04:34.649 borderline insane for a 22 -year -old. He co 00:04:34.649 --> 00:04:37.569 -founds an entire orchestra. The London Contemporary 00:04:37.569 --> 00:04:40.230 Orchestra or the LCO. Correct. He starts it with 00:04:40.230 --> 00:04:42.709 Robert Ames, who is another incredible musician, 00:04:43.009 --> 00:04:45.990 a violist and a conductor. And I love that you 00:04:45.990 --> 00:04:48.269 called it insane because in the classical world, 00:04:48.310 --> 00:04:50.430 you usually wait your turn. Right. There's a 00:04:50.430 --> 00:04:52.370 ladder to climb. It's a very strict ladder. You 00:04:52.370 --> 00:04:55.269 apprentice, you carry sheet music, you wait for 00:04:55.269 --> 00:04:57.829 an old conductor to retire or honestly to die. 00:04:57.990 --> 00:04:59.910 You don't just decide to build your own sandbox. 00:05:00.009 --> 00:05:02.689 from scratch. But they did. And looking at the 00:05:02.689 --> 00:05:04.990 sources we have, it seems like they didn't just 00:05:04.990 --> 00:05:07.490 want another orchestra that played Beethoven's 00:05:07.490 --> 00:05:09.730 Fifth every Thursday evening. They had a very 00:05:09.730 --> 00:05:12.550 specific vibe in mind. The notes mention this 00:05:12.550 --> 00:05:15.250 great tagline they used, Pop meets Prokofiev. 00:05:15.769 --> 00:05:18.470 It's catchy, but it's highly accurate. They wanted 00:05:18.470 --> 00:05:20.790 an ensemble that actually reflected their own 00:05:20.790 --> 00:05:24.269 iPod playlists. They wanted to play 20th century 00:05:24.269 --> 00:05:26.850 classical avant -garde music, you know, people 00:05:26.850 --> 00:05:30.370 like Xenakis or Stockhausen, right next to brand 00:05:30.370 --> 00:05:33.009 new arrangements of indie bands. But here is 00:05:33.009 --> 00:05:34.550 the crucial difference, and I really want to 00:05:34.550 --> 00:05:36.110 stress this for the listener because we've all 00:05:36.110 --> 00:05:38.870 seen it done badly. This wasn't the London Symphony 00:05:38.870 --> 00:05:41.589 plays Pink Floyd. Oh, right. The ultimate cringe 00:05:41.589 --> 00:05:44.269 factor. Exactly. That cringe factor we usually 00:05:44.269 --> 00:05:46.620 associate with... classical crossovers, where 00:05:46.620 --> 00:05:49.199 it feels like a total novelty act or the orchestra 00:05:49.199 --> 00:05:52.500 is just playing boring, sustained chords behind 00:05:52.500 --> 00:05:55.560 a rock singer. The LCO's operating model was 00:05:55.560 --> 00:05:57.699 completely different from that. They played in 00:05:57.699 --> 00:06:00.879 alternative venues, warehouses, the Oval Space, 00:06:01.259 --> 00:06:03.620 the Roundhouse in London, places where you'd 00:06:03.620 --> 00:06:06.600 usually go to see a DJ set or a sweaty rock gig. 00:06:06.860 --> 00:06:09.019 And the audience wasn't just older folks in suits, 00:06:09.120 --> 00:06:11.819 right? No, it was young people, hipsters, music 00:06:11.819 --> 00:06:15.589 nerds. They made the orchestra cool not by dumbing 00:06:15.589 --> 00:06:17.730 the music down, but by ramping up the intensity 00:06:17.730 --> 00:06:19.790 of the performance. Ramping up the intensity 00:06:19.790 --> 00:06:22.490 actually feels like the perfect segue to his 00:06:22.490 --> 00:06:25.509 film work. Because if the LCO was the vehicle, 00:06:25.730 --> 00:06:28.189 the film scores were really the proving ground 00:06:28.189 --> 00:06:30.529 for him. Absolutely. This is where Brunt really 00:06:30.529 --> 00:06:33.230 refines his specific style. And again, look at 00:06:33.230 --> 00:06:35.389 the choices he makes. He isn't out there chasing 00:06:35.389 --> 00:06:38.110 the big, sweeping, melodic Disney or Marvel scores. 00:06:38.350 --> 00:06:40.930 He goes straight for the grit. Let's talk about 00:06:40.930 --> 00:06:44.149 The Master, 2012. You have Paul Thomas Anderson 00:06:44.149 --> 00:06:47.209 directing, Johnny Greenwood composing, and Hugh 00:06:47.209 --> 00:06:49.810 Brunt conducting. This is a huge pivotal moment. 00:06:50.009 --> 00:06:52.610 The Master is a deeply psychological drama. It's 00:06:52.610 --> 00:06:55.029 very unsettling. And Greenwood's score perfectly 00:06:55.029 --> 00:06:57.370 reflects that. It uses period instruments, but 00:06:57.370 --> 00:06:59.889 it sounds, well, it sounds broken. Broken in 00:06:59.889 --> 00:07:01.990 what way? It's full of weird time signatures, 00:07:02.449 --> 00:07:05.730 massive dissonance, players intentionally bending 00:07:05.730 --> 00:07:08.449 notes out of tune. So why do you even need a 00:07:08.449 --> 00:07:10.339 conductor for that? If it's supposed to sound 00:07:10.339 --> 00:07:12.779 broken, why not just put the musicians in a room 00:07:12.779 --> 00:07:15.180 and have them jam it out? Because broken still 00:07:15.180 --> 00:07:18.339 has to be incredibly precise. That's the paradox 00:07:18.339 --> 00:07:21.300 of this kind of music. To make a 50 -piece orchestra 00:07:21.300 --> 00:07:23.920 sound like it's completely falling apart, but 00:07:23.920 --> 00:07:26.480 to have it fall apart at the exact same millisecond 00:07:26.480 --> 00:07:30.019 every single take, you need... absolute ironclad 00:07:30.019 --> 00:07:33.199 control. Wow. Brunt's job was to wrangle that 00:07:33.199 --> 00:07:36.800 chaos. He had to translate Greenwood's very specific, 00:07:36.920 --> 00:07:39.620 sometimes highly abstract ideas into physical 00:07:39.620 --> 00:07:41.939 instructions that a room full of classically 00:07:41.939 --> 00:07:44.579 trained musicians could execute without it just 00:07:44.579 --> 00:07:46.500 turning into a muddy mess. It's the difference 00:07:46.500 --> 00:07:49.360 between random noise and curated noise. Precisely. 00:07:49.360 --> 00:07:51.579 Curated noise. And that leads us directly to 00:07:51.579 --> 00:07:54.100 his work on Macbeth in 2015. Right. This is the 00:07:54.100 --> 00:07:56.300 Justin Curzel film with Michael Fassbender. I 00:07:56.300 --> 00:07:58.240 remember seeing this in the theater. And it is 00:07:58.240 --> 00:08:01.240 incredibly visceral. Just mud, blood, and fog 00:08:01.240 --> 00:08:03.990 everywhere. And the score by Jed Kersel matches 00:08:03.990 --> 00:08:07.189 that visual perfectly. It's arguably more sound 00:08:07.189 --> 00:08:09.509 design than it is traditional music. It's heavy, 00:08:09.649 --> 00:08:12.970 it's droning, it's atmospheric. Brent is conducting 00:08:12.970 --> 00:08:15.529 this, and he's basically treating the orchestra 00:08:15.529 --> 00:08:18.550 like a giant analog synthesizer. He's asking 00:08:18.550 --> 00:08:21.410 for raw textures, grinding sounds, bow scratches, 00:08:21.689 --> 00:08:24.290 prolonged, uncomfortable tension. Which brings 00:08:24.290 --> 00:08:26.089 up a really interesting point about the idea 00:08:26.089 --> 00:08:28.589 of the modern conductor. In the old days, the 00:08:28.589 --> 00:08:30.430 conductor was the guardian of the melody. You 00:08:30.430 --> 00:08:32.049 know, give me more vibrato. here make it sweeter 00:08:32.049 --> 00:08:34.730 there, but Brunt seems to be the guardian of 00:08:34.730 --> 00:08:36.789 the texture. That is a brilliant way to phrase 00:08:36.789 --> 00:08:39.850 it. He is actively sculpting the physical sound 00:08:39.850 --> 00:08:42.110 wave in the room, whether it's how hard the bow 00:08:42.110 --> 00:08:44.850 is digging into the string or the specific acoustic 00:08:44.850 --> 00:08:47.629 decay of a note in the hall. And that absolute 00:08:47.629 --> 00:08:50.269 obsession with the texture is exactly why he 00:08:50.269 --> 00:08:52.950 was the perfect fit for Radiohead. Okay, we definitely 00:08:52.950 --> 00:08:55.370 have to go deep on this. A moon -shaped pool. 00:08:56.390 --> 00:08:59.889 2016. This is a massive, massive cultural touchstone 00:08:59.889 --> 00:09:02.169 for modern music fans. And Hugh Brunt is right 00:09:02.169 --> 00:09:04.090 there in the liner notes conducting the string 00:09:04.090 --> 00:09:06.710 and the choir arrangements. This was the graduation 00:09:06.710 --> 00:09:09.129 moment. All that experimental work with the LCO, 00:09:09.269 --> 00:09:11.889 all that intense film work, it all culminates 00:09:11.889 --> 00:09:15.169 right here. Radiohead, and specifically Johnny 00:09:15.169 --> 00:09:18.159 Greenwood again, are obsessed with texture. They 00:09:18.159 --> 00:09:20.320 don't just say, hey, give us some nice strings 00:09:20.320 --> 00:09:22.639 here. They want strings that sound like a swarm 00:09:22.639 --> 00:09:24.779 of insects or strings that sound like freezing 00:09:24.779 --> 00:09:28.000 rain or strings that invoke sheer panic. Burn 00:09:28.000 --> 00:09:29.799 the Witch is the track that everyone always talks 00:09:29.799 --> 00:09:31.860 about from that album. That incredibly percussive, 00:09:31.860 --> 00:09:35.320 driving, anxious sound. Right. And if you listen 00:09:35.320 --> 00:09:37.460 closely to Burn the Witch, there's almost no 00:09:37.460 --> 00:09:39.639 traditional drumming for the first part of the 00:09:39.639 --> 00:09:42.320 track. The entire rhythmic engine of the song 00:09:42.320 --> 00:09:45.039 is coming from the violins. They are using a 00:09:45.039 --> 00:09:47.500 specific classical technique called col legno. 00:09:47.960 --> 00:09:49.639 Walk us through that, Colin Neal. It literally 00:09:49.639 --> 00:09:52.139 translates to with the wood. Instead of using 00:09:52.139 --> 00:09:54.179 the horsehair of the bow to make a nice, smooth, 00:09:54.220 --> 00:09:56.919 sustained tone, the string players are instructed 00:09:56.919 --> 00:09:59.299 to flip their bows over and actually smack the 00:09:59.299 --> 00:10:01.580 strings with the wooden stick. It creates this 00:10:01.580 --> 00:10:04.580 frantic, clattering, percussive, woody sound. 00:10:04.779 --> 00:10:06.759 Which sounds incredibly cool on a record, but 00:10:06.759 --> 00:10:08.759 I imagine most classical musicians absolutely 00:10:08.759 --> 00:10:11.960 hate doing it. Oh, they dread it. It chips the 00:10:11.960 --> 00:10:15.039 expensive varnish on their antique bows. But 00:10:15.039 --> 00:10:16.799 more importantly, from a conducting standpoint, 00:10:17.220 --> 00:10:19.899 it's incredibly hard to keep it tight rhythmically. 00:10:20.139 --> 00:10:22.639 You have dozens of players literally hitting 00:10:22.639 --> 00:10:25.019 strings with sticks. If they aren't perfectly 00:10:25.019 --> 00:10:27.460 synchronized to the microsecond, it just sounds 00:10:27.460 --> 00:10:29.940 like a bag of marbles falling down a set of wooden 00:10:29.940 --> 00:10:32.860 stairs. It completely loses its driving power. 00:10:33.120 --> 00:10:36.159 So Brunt's job there is to essentially be the 00:10:36.159 --> 00:10:39.259 human metronome, locking that organic, chaotic... 00:10:39.399 --> 00:10:41.200 percussion perfectly into the grid of the song. 00:10:41.340 --> 00:10:43.980 Exactly. He is making sure that the organic element 00:10:43.980 --> 00:10:46.840 hits with the exact same ruthless precision as 00:10:46.840 --> 00:10:49.159 a digital drum machine, and that is exactly why 00:10:49.159 --> 00:10:51.799 Radiohead trusts him. He fundamentally understands 00:10:51.799 --> 00:10:53.720 that the orchestra isn't there to just sweeten 00:10:53.720 --> 00:10:55.759 the track with some pretty chords. The orchestra 00:10:55.759 --> 00:10:58.379 is the literal engine of the track. I do want 00:10:58.379 --> 00:11:00.539 to push back on something here though, just playing 00:11:00.539 --> 00:11:03.899 devil's advocate. We live in an era of infinite 00:11:03.899 --> 00:11:06.779 digital production. You can go online right now 00:11:06.779 --> 00:11:10.320 and buy incredible multi -gigabyte sample libraries 00:11:10.320 --> 00:11:13.639 of the London Symphony Orchestra. Why do bands 00:11:13.639 --> 00:11:17.059 like Radiohead or The Smile, which is another 00:11:17.059 --> 00:11:19.879 project Brunt works with, why do they even bother 00:11:19.879 --> 00:11:22.539 with the human element anymore? Why not just 00:11:22.539 --> 00:11:24.990 program it on a laptop? That is the million -dollar 00:11:24.990 --> 00:11:27.370 question in modern production. And the answer 00:11:27.370 --> 00:11:30.110 is completely in the imperfections. When you 00:11:30.110 --> 00:11:32.429 sample a violin digitally, you get a mathematically 00:11:32.429 --> 00:11:35.029 perfect tap shot of a note. But when you have 00:11:35.029 --> 00:11:38.309 40 actual humans sitting in a room and Hugh Brunt 00:11:38.309 --> 00:11:41.029 asks them to play Sol Ponticello, which means 00:11:41.029 --> 00:11:43.029 bowing right up near the bridge so the sound 00:11:43.029 --> 00:11:46.129 gets thin and glassy and weird, every single 00:11:46.129 --> 00:11:47.970 human player does it slightly differently. They 00:11:47.970 --> 00:11:50.909 can't be identical. Exactly. The air in the room 00:11:50.909 --> 00:11:53.779 physically moves in complex ways. Those microscopic 00:11:53.779 --> 00:11:56.019 human variations create a width and a breathing 00:11:56.019 --> 00:11:58.340 life that a digital computer just cannot replicate 00:11:58.340 --> 00:12:01.019 yet. Brent's real skill is managing those tiny 00:12:01.019 --> 00:12:03.320 human variables so they perfectly serve the song. 00:12:03.519 --> 00:12:05.980 So he's basically managing the humanity inside 00:12:05.980 --> 00:12:09.059 the machine. Which is highly ironic because one 00:12:09.059 --> 00:12:11.159 of his most fascinating collaborations is with 00:12:11.159 --> 00:12:14.200 a pure electronic artist named Actress. Yes, 00:12:14.259 --> 00:12:16.700 Darren Cunningham, who records as Actress. This 00:12:16.700 --> 00:12:19.679 is very deep, very experimental techno music. 00:12:19.779 --> 00:12:22.960 The outline notes we have mention that this specific 00:12:22.960 --> 00:12:25.840 project was heavily inspired by London's Brutalism. 00:12:27.480 --> 00:12:29.340 I know what brutalist architecture looks like. 00:12:29.419 --> 00:12:33.600 It's concrete, harsh lines, massive, imposing, 00:12:33.700 --> 00:12:35.740 slightly depressing structures like the Barbican 00:12:35.740 --> 00:12:38.500 Center. But what does brutalist music actually 00:12:38.500 --> 00:12:40.919 sound like? And how on earth do you conduct it? 00:12:41.519 --> 00:12:43.720 Brutalist music sounds exactly like the building 00:12:43.720 --> 00:12:45.919 looks. It's highly repetitive. It's incredibly 00:12:45.919 --> 00:12:48.799 stark. It's just massive, heavy blocks of sound 00:12:48.799 --> 00:12:51.399 with absolutely zero ornamentation. There are 00:12:51.399 --> 00:12:53.919 no pretty melodies to hide behind, just raw. 00:12:54.570 --> 00:12:56.769 acoustic material. Literally concrete blocks 00:12:56.769 --> 00:12:59.330 of sound. Yes. And when Brent collaborates on 00:12:59.330 --> 00:13:01.289 a project like this, his main job is to get the 00:13:01.289 --> 00:13:04.570 orchestra to strip away every single one of their 00:13:04.570 --> 00:13:07.190 classical instincts because classical musicians 00:13:07.190 --> 00:13:09.909 are trained from birth to phrase things, to add 00:13:09.909 --> 00:13:12.470 emotion, to swell a note, to fade it out beautifully. 00:13:12.909 --> 00:13:15.250 Brent has to stand up there and say, no, play 00:13:15.250 --> 00:13:18.409 it completely flat, play it dead cold. You need 00:13:18.409 --> 00:13:20.789 to be the concrete. That sounds incredibly difficult. 00:13:20.950 --> 00:13:23.169 You're basically asking a human artist to turn 00:13:23.169 --> 00:13:25.590 off their emotion. It is intensely difficult. 00:13:25.809 --> 00:13:28.190 It requires immense personal discipline from 00:13:28.190 --> 00:13:29.690 the players. And this actually brings us full 00:13:29.690 --> 00:13:31.710 circle right back to his childhood. Remember 00:13:31.710 --> 00:13:34.110 the choir at Windsor Castle? The intense discipline 00:13:34.110 --> 00:13:36.889 we talked about. The discipline. The learnability 00:13:36.889 --> 00:13:40.230 to completely submerge your own individual ego 00:13:40.230 --> 00:13:42.990 into the collective group sound. Whether you 00:13:42.990 --> 00:13:46.090 are sinning a delicate 16th century mass or playing 00:13:46.090 --> 00:13:49.330 a harsh, brutalist techno loop, the core skill 00:13:49.330 --> 00:13:51.269 is exactly the same. It's absolute precision, 00:13:51.529 --> 00:13:54.669 absolute control. serving the architecture of 00:13:54.669 --> 00:13:56.710 the piece rather than showing off your own personal 00:13:56.710 --> 00:13:59.909 talent. That is such a cool connection. The distance 00:13:59.909 --> 00:14:02.570 between singing in St. George's Chapel and playing 00:14:02.570 --> 00:14:05.370 a warehouse techno gig is essentially zero when 00:14:05.370 --> 00:14:07.049 you look at it that way. Technically speaking, 00:14:07.289 --> 00:14:09.809 yes. The aesthetic shell is different, but the 00:14:09.809 --> 00:14:12.690 internal rigor required is identical. We've talked 00:14:12.690 --> 00:14:15.590 heavily about Radiohead, the LCO, and the electronic 00:14:15.590 --> 00:14:18.230 stuff, but if you look at his resume, it is just 00:14:18.230 --> 00:14:22.809 a laundry list of cool, full -back, Imogen Heap, 00:14:23.049 --> 00:14:24.830 It really feels like he's become the ultimate 00:14:24.830 --> 00:14:27.590 fixer for any artist who wants to seriously elevate 00:14:27.590 --> 00:14:30.490 their sound. He is the ultimate translator. Imogen 00:14:30.490 --> 00:14:32.269 Heap is actually a great example to bring up 00:14:32.269 --> 00:14:34.970 because she is so incredibly tech forward. She 00:14:34.970 --> 00:14:37.710 uses those amazing MIMU gloves to manipulate 00:14:37.710 --> 00:14:40.269 digital sound with physical hand gestures on 00:14:40.269 --> 00:14:42.629 stage. Right. It looks like magic. It does. But 00:14:42.629 --> 00:14:44.809 for a conductor to work effectively with someone 00:14:44.809 --> 00:14:47.129 like her, they cannot be a Luddite. They have 00:14:47.129 --> 00:14:49.929 to understand complex signal flow, digital latency, 00:14:50.350 --> 00:14:53.419 live software integration. Brunt speaks that 00:14:53.419 --> 00:14:55.940 technical language natively while still holding 00:14:55.940 --> 00:14:58.340 a wooden baton. It seems like he really represents 00:14:58.340 --> 00:15:00.740 an entirely new category of musician. He's not 00:15:00.740 --> 00:15:02.940 just a classical conductor, and he's definitely 00:15:02.940 --> 00:15:05.820 not a standard session musician who just comes 00:15:05.820 --> 00:15:08.320 in to read charts. He's more like a creative 00:15:08.320 --> 00:15:10.659 director of orchestral sound. I really like that 00:15:10.659 --> 00:15:13.039 title, and it's so important to note the LCO's 00:15:13.039 --> 00:15:15.539 role in all of this. Because he literally built 00:15:15.539 --> 00:15:18.139 this orchestra from the ground up, he has a bespoke 00:15:18.139 --> 00:15:21.039 instrument that is uniquely ready for these wild 00:15:21.039 --> 00:15:23.620 experiments. If he walked in front of the Vienna 00:15:23.620 --> 00:15:25.679 Philharmonic tomorrow and asked them to play 00:15:25.679 --> 00:15:28.879 flat, cold, and dead like actress, they might 00:15:28.879 --> 00:15:31.559 actually revolt. But the LCO was specifically 00:15:31.559 --> 00:15:34.600 built for this exact purpose. So bringing this 00:15:34.600 --> 00:15:36.580 all together for everyone listening, we started 00:15:36.580 --> 00:15:38.879 today by saying Hugh Brunt breaks the mold of 00:15:38.879 --> 00:15:41.899 the Dusty busty tuxedo -wearing maestro. But 00:15:41.899 --> 00:15:44.240 after diving deep into all these sources, it 00:15:44.240 --> 00:15:46.659 feels much more accurate to say he's expanded 00:15:46.659 --> 00:15:48.980 the mold rather than broken it. I think that's 00:15:48.980 --> 00:15:51.559 exactly right. He proves definitively that the 00:15:51.559 --> 00:15:54.179 orchestra isn't a dead format at all. It's just 00:15:54.179 --> 00:15:57.580 a piece of technology. It's a 300 -year -old 00:15:57.580 --> 00:16:00.720 piece of hardware made of wood, strings, and 00:16:00.720 --> 00:16:03.799 brass that is still the most complex, nuanced 00:16:03.799 --> 00:16:07.279 synthesizer ever invented by humans. You just 00:16:07.279 --> 00:16:09.460 need someone who knows how to program it for 00:16:09.460 --> 00:16:11.980 the modern world. And his strict classical training 00:16:11.980 --> 00:16:14.720 the years at Oxford. The endless polyphony at 00:16:14.720 --> 00:16:17.379 Windsor that was basically his coding camp. Exactly. 00:16:17.440 --> 00:16:20.279 It gave him the fundamental source code. So here 00:16:20.279 --> 00:16:22.220 is the thought I want to leave you, our listeners, 00:16:22.299 --> 00:16:25.639 with today to sort of... mull over. We are seeing 00:16:25.639 --> 00:16:27.779 more and more of this deep crossover happening 00:16:27.779 --> 00:16:30.299 every year. Film scores are getting weirder and 00:16:30.299 --> 00:16:32.659 more experimental. Pop and rock albums are getting 00:16:32.659 --> 00:16:35.159 more heavily orchestral and textured. As these 00:16:35.159 --> 00:16:37.539 traditional boundaries completely dissolve, what 00:16:37.539 --> 00:16:40.039 does the orchestra of the year 2035 actually 00:16:40.039 --> 00:16:42.299 look like? That's a really great question. If 00:16:42.299 --> 00:16:45.039 Hugh Brunt is the prototype for the modern maestro, 00:16:45.240 --> 00:16:47.899 are we going to see standard rock bands touring 00:16:47.899 --> 00:16:50.220 with full -time conductors instead of rhythm 00:16:50.220 --> 00:16:53.080 guitarists? Is the next big guitar hero actually 00:16:53.080 --> 00:16:55.399 going to be a teenager holding a baton? Honestly, 00:16:55.580 --> 00:16:57.600 I wouldn't bet against it. If you look at the 00:16:57.600 --> 00:17:00.559 visceral crowd reaction to those Radiohead shows 00:17:00.559 --> 00:17:03.860 or the standalone LCO Warehouse shows, people 00:17:03.860 --> 00:17:06.819 are absolutely mesmerized by the physical act 00:17:06.819 --> 00:17:09.220 of a group creating those massive sounds together. 00:17:09.460 --> 00:17:11.799 The conductor is rapidly becoming a headline 00:17:11.799 --> 00:17:13.720 performer in their own right, not just a human 00:17:13.720 --> 00:17:16.079 timekeeper in the background. It is a genuinely 00:17:16.079 --> 00:17:19.640 exciting time to have ears. Hugh Tieppo Brunt 00:17:19.640 --> 00:17:22.019 is definitely a name to keep watching as he continues 00:17:22.019 --> 00:17:24.500 to rewrite the score on what classical music 00:17:24.500 --> 00:17:26.799 can do. Thanks for unpacking this all with me. 00:17:26.900 --> 00:17:27.539 Always a pleasure.