Sputnikmusic: There's a lot of talk about which program(s) you actually use. Some have said Audition, others Ableton. I've even read in a youtube comment that you programmed your own synthesis of the two. What's the reality of these claims?

Girl Talk: I've never used Ableton.  I do all of my sampling, beat making, and editing on Adobe Audition. I perform live and do all of my arrangements on a program called Audiomulch.

SM: Your first two albums were much more chopped up and segmented, using quarter-note long clips in alternation, as opposed to longer, overlapping passages. What inspired the switch to the style on Night Ripper?

GT: By the time my second album, Unstoppable, came out, I was already experimenting during live shows using longer and less mangled samples. I started to play more house parties around this time and using the longer, recognizable material seemed to work better.  There were two years between my second and third album. Over that time, I played a bunch of shows, and many specific stylistic elements of Night Ripper naturally evolved.

SM: Is the new album going to be a further departure from the microscopic division of samples?

GT: When I started making it, I thought it was going to be.  At my recent live shows, I've been using even larger passages from songs, oftentimes working with multiple parts from one individual source song. I've been less focused on jumping from one song source to a new song source as quickly as possible. I want to make the songs build and transition more smoothly. So that's how the new album works as well, but I actually decided to include some short segments that are reminiscent of my older style, with the microscopic divisions. I think the album is more dynamic because of it. Some of my most detailed work I've ever done is included on this album, but it's used sparingly.

SM: What inspired the supposed title for the new album, Wild Peace IV: Feed The Animals, Raise The Dead?

GT: The original title idea was just "Feed The Animals," and I might still go with that simplified version. When I was on tour in the Fall, my friend Andrew Strasser, who has done all of my album artwork, traveled along to do live visuals at the shows.  We had large inflatables, of like spiders and champagne bottles, that we'd bring out on stage before I played every night. Andrew would do this, and every time he put them within reaching distance from the crowd, people would scoop them up and go crazy. They'd crowd surf them or toss them around or just destroy them. Andrew started calling this "feeding the animals," and we would make references to my sets as feeding of the animals as well. I was into the idea of creating this music that people need to party, they need to be fed, they need to let loose and go crazy. The "Wild Peace IV" and "Raise the Dead" parts were just added on because I liked how over-the-top it sounded.

SM: What music were you listening to "platonically" while arranging the new album?

GT: Not too much of anything specific. I got Sirius digital radio at the beginning of the year, and that's been my jam.  I've been listening to my friends' bands too, Mittens on Strings and Hearts of Darknesses.

SM: Was the fake leak that surfaced about a month ago any good?

GT: Everything is good to someone.  I would never want to release anything
that sounded like that, but I'm sure someone liked it.

SM: Which genres are easiest to sample? Which are the hardest? Are there any genres you haven't really touched yet but want to expand to? I would assume death metal doesn't find it's way onto your creative radar all too often.

GT: Anything made on a computer is easy to sample because you don't have to quantify the rhythms. Anything like 80's or Daft Punk or hip hop is easy to work with because of that. Any genre can be difficult to sample, depending on the production style and time signatures.  It's more work to integrate something like Yes into a 4/4 beat and make it sound good. I like to work with recognizable source material, stuff from the Top 40 spectrum, so people can understand how I'm manipulating and re-contextualizing it. That's why I've haven't worked with too much death metal.  Something like Metallica is work-able though; there will be some on my new album.

SM: Has there ever been a song you wouldn't touch?

GT: I'm open to working with any song. Even if I don't really see a melody or vocal line to work with, I can always use a small piece, like a hi hat or snare drum.  There are many un-recognizable samples like that on all of my albums.

SM: What's your favorite measure/passage/anything that you've ever put together?

GT: I like the way people have reacted to the Elton John "Tiny Dancer," Nirvana drums, and Biggie "Juicy" verse from Night Ripper.  It's always a highlight if I decide to drop it live.  I wasn't sure whether to include that on the past album.  I thought people would interpret it differently than the way I saw it, like they would think it's really jokey or something.  I really liked the way it those elements worked together so I'm glad people were into it on a sincere level.

SM: You've said that in your live show, any individual sample, voice, or part that enters is controlled by you and that what you're performing and manipulating is akin to a multi-track recording. How do you keep track of such a large number of tracks? Is it practice? Impressive memorization? Color-coding?

GT: I've been using the same general template since about 2002, just building and transforming it.  I have the structure loosely memorized.  There's text on the screen, explaining what each sample is, but I can't look at that in much detail with the pace of the performances.  I play shows almost every week, and each week, I'll probably try out 30 seconds to 3 minutes worth of new material or new interpretations of older material. I'll practice playing those specific parts before the shows, but for the rest of the material, I've been through it a number of times.  I don't try to memorize it, but for specific segments, it just happens.

SM: What comes first, the live show or the studio session? What is more common, to figure out a cool layering on the spot at a show and then arrange that on an album, or to figure out something on the computer and use it verbatim in a live show?

GT: I always come up with the arrangements prior to the shows.  I experiment within a general structure that I already had planned out.  I try to limit my level of improvisation.  The shows are where I feel out how I feel about certain material.  When I sit down to do an album, most of the core ideas are already set in my mind, based on what I enjoyed playing during the live performances.  There is some completely new material generated while assembling an album though, mainly smaller transitional segments.

SM: Part of your story is that by day you're a biochemical engineer. Recently you've been playing at shows at a bunch of colleges, many of which are considered elite (Yale, Williams, etc.). Is it funny or fitting that you are a nerd by day, rock star by night, but now you're playing shows for a bunch of nerds?

GT: I quit my day job, so I transitioned from nerd by day to professional wastoid.  My earliest shows were usually with other laptop and left field electronic musicians, so I'm used to playing for nerds.  I can't escape these fucking goobers.

SM: To what extent is any given show just a party for you?

GT: It always depends on the crowd.  If people are going insane and there are drinks available, it turns into a party for me.  Sometimes, the crowd is a bit more stiff, and I'll typically put on a more physical performance in those situations.

SM: What would it take to see Girl Talk become a full time act? Is this prospect at all on the horizon?

GT: It is now, but I don't know for how long.  I never intended on this becoming a career, and I don't intend on it lasting as a career.  I'm just riding it out for right now.

SM: There is a video of representative Mike Doyle from Pennsylvania questioning the values and differences between mashups and mixtapes
(http://youtube.com/watch?v=AD3ndhIcbuo&feature=related), citing you and DJ Drama in his speech. Regardless of how you see your music fitting into such genre constraints, what is your stance on the differences between the two and what do you think the future holds for each genre?

GT: I really don't know how to define any genre. I think you can make transformative, original works out of samples.  I don't care what you want to call it.

SM: How do you feel about your own compositions? How do they distinguish themselves from mixtapes and mashups?

GT: I don't think about it any more.  I make music that I like.  You can call
it whatever you like.

SM: A lot of artists have gotten critical and fan support for writing music that somehow both embraces and defies typical pop idioms. How do you feel about the general popularity and validity of what some critics have called "bastardized pop?" How do you feel your music supports that sensibility? How do you feel your music is at odds with that sensibility?

GT: I love pop music.  I consider my music to be an homage to all of the artists I enjoy listening to.  I don't want to focus on defying pop idioms.  If my work breaks down any barriers, then that's great, but I'm not fixated on being experimental for the sake of being experimental.  I'd like to make music like people have never heard before but not at the expense of it being enjoyable.