#2 - A Conversation with Robot Koch
Introduction
This interview is part of The Sonic Atelier – Conversations with Contemporary Composers and Producers, a long-term project dedicated to exploring the evolving role of the composer in the twenty-first century. The series investigates how today’s creators inhabit hybrid identities at the intersection of composition, production, and performance, and how their artistic practices intertwine with technology, aesthetics, and the changing dynamics of the music industry.
In this conversation we meet Robot Koch, award-winning composer, producer, and performer, internationally recognised for his ability to merge electronic sound design, orchestral writing, and immersive performance practices. Over the course of his career, Koch has developed a distinctive sonic language that combines atmospheric textures, hybrid timbres, and an emotive approach to production, often extending his work into spatial audio formats and audiovisual collaborations.
In the following pages, Koch reflects on the multiplicity of roles he inhabits as composer, producer, and performer, and on the influences that have shaped his musical vision, from jazz and minimalism to ambient and electronic music. The interview also addresses key topics such as the integration of composition and production, the use of technology as an expressive tool, the impact of artificial intelligence on the music industry, and the importance of immersive and multisensory performance. His words provide an in-depth perspective on the challenges and possibilities of composing in today’s musical ecosystem, offering insight into the multidimensional identity of the contemporary composer.
Date of interview: 27 August 2025
Question: Today we often hear about the hybrid figure of the composer-producer-performer. Do you identify with this description and how do these three dimensions co-exist in your work?
Robot Koch: Interesting. Yes, I would say I identify with it, because I am all three. I compose, I produce for other artists as well as for myself, and I perform. It is almost like wearing different hats: when I am writing music, I am in the composer’s hat; when I am performing, I focus on how the music translates on stage; and when I am producing, whether for myself or for others, I approach it from that perspective.
In the end, it is the same core activity, but seen from different angles. It is always about creating something that resonates emotionally and feels genuine and authentic. As a composer, you create something from scratch. As a producer, you bring things across the finish line, whether it is helping another artist shape a demo into a finished piece, or developing your own raw idea into a complete track. And as a performer, it becomes another form of expression: bringing the piece you have written to life on stage, whether in a solo performance or with an ensemble. That is where the three dimensions meet, each adding its own layer to the same creative journey.
Question: Which composers, musical movements, or past sonic aesthetics have most strongly influenced you, and whose languages or philosophies feel closest to your own musical vision?
Robot Koch: That is a hard question, because I draw from a lot of different genres. Some of my favorite records include A Love Supreme by John Coltrane, but also The Pavilion of Dreams by Harold Budd, which he made with Brian Eno. These are very different worlds, yet they both resonate with me.
The common thread is always authenticity: do I feel that the artist has truly expressed themselves? Coltrane absolutely does that on A Love Supreme, and I can feel the same authenticity in Harold Budd’s work. I would also mention some classical composers, like Arvo Pärt with Spiegel im Spiegel.
What I value is minimalism, music that is not overloaded with flourishes or unnecessary ornaments. For me, less is often more. If I had to boil it down, what inspires me most is the authenticity of emotional expression and the efficiency of instrumentation: how little can you use to express so much?
Question: So let’s go deeper into the relationship between writing and producing. Do you see production, choices of sound design, mixing, and so on, as a separate phase from composition, or as an inseparable part of the creative act itself?
Robot Koch: I would say the latter: it is part of the creative act, because the two go hand in hand. People often ask me where writing ends and production begins, but for me it is a fluid process. Especially in modern production, when I work with an artist and I am producing their music, I am not just mixing or polishing it, I also bring in compositional ideas. Sound design and temporal choices directly influence the composition itself, so writing and production always go hand in hand.
Question: And speaking of technology, what role does your DAW play in your process? Has it become your main creative space, almost replacing traditional notation, or is it more of a tool you use to finalise and develop ideas?
Robot Koch: For me, it is my main tool. I am not classically trained, so I do not work with notation. I write in MIDI, and if I collaborate with an orchestra, I need an orchestrator to translate what I have done into sheet music. The DAW is really the centre where the creative process happens. It is the hub where everything begins and everything ends. I work in Ableton Live, and I have been using it since version 1.0, so it has been central to my practice for a very long time.
Question: Do you think in visual or synaesthetic terms when you are not composing for images? If so, how do these inner visions influence your musical choices?
Robot Koch: Visual, for sure. I do not think I have synaesthesia in the strict sense, like tasting colours or seeing sounds. I wish I did, but I definitely think in visuals. When I sit down at the piano, I imagine a mood, for example, I might picture someone driving down a dimly lit street in the rain. That image creates an atmosphere, and it informs what I write. It is almost like scoring an imaginary movie.
Sometimes I close my eyes and see myself in a world, and then I try to put music to that world I am seeing. It is an interesting process that helps me shape the emotional tone of the piece.
Question: And when you compose music for images, such as film scoring, do you apply the same strategies and methods as in your non-film music? Are there elements of your language that remain constant, or does the visual context change your entire process?
Robot Koch: It is actually quite similar, because for me it usually starts with experimentation. Even when I am scoring a movie and watching a scene, I just begin trying out ideas, maybe sitting at the piano, or testing some sound design material I created earlier. Sometimes I place those sounds against the scene and suddenly think, “This creates a world, this feels right.”
It is very much a process of trial and error, and that is also how I write my own music. It is not systematic, there is no single blueprint. I just play around with ideas until something clicks, and once it does, I follow that thread and develop it further.
Question: And when working on film scores, do you prefer being involved from the very early stages such as script writing or even pre-production, before any footage exists, or is that not essential for you?
Robot Koch: I would prefer to be involved as early as possible. In my experience, that is usually not the case, most of the time I only come in when there is a rough cut. I did have one production where they sent me the script early on, and that was great because I could immerse myself in the story and start developing ideas from the beginning.
What I really love, although it does not happen often, is when I can provide the temp music myself. If they use my music already while experimenting with the edit, it helps a lot. Otherwise, they often use Hans Zimmer or other random tracks as placeholders, and then they get attached to that sound. At that point, you are almost competing with the temp. So in an ideal world, they would bring me in early and work with my music right from the start.
Question: How much space do you feel there is for your own voice within the boundaries of film music?
Robot Koch: I try to only accept projects where they really want my unique voice as a composer. I have a lot of friends who are composers and can adapt to anything: one day they score a horror film, the next a comedy or an action movie, and they can make it sound however it needs to. I am not like that. I can really only do what I do, and if that is what they want, then it works perfectly. But if they ask me to sound more like this or more like that, then I am not the right person for the job.
That is also why directors and producers approach me in the first place: they already know my work as an artist, and they want that specific identity. So I do not see myself as a classical film composer in the traditional sense. I simply bring my own artistic voice into the film, and I think that offers an interesting alternative approach to scoring.
Question: Within the field of film music, which composers or soundtracks have been fundamental reference points for you?
Robot Koch: Interesting. I have to think about this. For sure, Jóhann Jóhannsson is a big one. His score for Arrival was just amazing, and also the things he did for Sicario. I think he really had a unique voice. Composers like Hildur Guðnadóttir are in a similar vein, but I feel Jóhann was the one who broke that door open, even for Hollywood movies, to include sound like that. I would say he is probably my favorite film composer, if I had to name one. I also greatly admire Dustin O’Halloran, whose work and personal vision I find both inspiring and close to my own sensibilities.
Question: If you compare the great tradition of twentieth-century film music with today’s landscape, what do you see as the most significant changes in the language and function of music? And what do you think filmmakers are looking for in a composer today?
Robot Koch: I think the sound design aspect is more important nowadays. A classical composer would just write the music and it would then be performed by the orchestra. There was not much interpretation in how it was played: it always sounded like an orchestral piece. Today, with electronic production possibilities, you can shape the sound in more experimental ways and make it more engaging for picture. That, to me, is one of the biggest changes.
Production and sound design were not tools available to classical composers: they had the pure act of writing music, which was then performed. Now the composer can intervene directly in the sonic dimension. I believe filmmakers today are looking for that hybrid figure, someone who can both write music that is emotionally convincing and underscores the scene appropriately, but who can also create sonically interesting worlds, so that it does not always sound like a traditional orchestral piece.
Question: Do immersive formats represent for you a kind of listening revolution comparable to the shift from stereo?
Robot Koch: I agree. I work with immersive formats a lot, and I often mix in spatial audio.
Question: Do you treat spatialization as a compositional parameter from the very beginning, or is it mostly something you apply in post-production?
Robot Koch: It is both. I have worked on projects that were mixed in spatial audio only after being mixed in stereo, but I have also created works conceived specifically for immersive formats. For example, my planetarium shows were mixed in Dolby Atmos as well as in Ambisonics. I have also collaborated with the company L-Acoustics, using their L-ISA format, which is similar to Dolby Atmos. So yes, in certain projects I definitely think about spatialization from the very beginning.
Question: Have you ever felt the need to annotate or codify aspects of production, such as spatialisation, timbre, or processing, as part of the writing process? Even in unconventional ways, like sketches, drawings, or other non-traditional forms of notation?
Robot Koch: I have not really felt the need to do so myself, but I find the idea fascinating. I can see why it could be useful, especially as a way to capture and communicate elements that go beyond traditional notation. Personally, I have never developed such a system, yet I understand the reasoning behind it and why it might be inspiring for some composers. It opens up an interesting perspective on how to think about production choices not only as technical details, but as integral elements of the creative process.
Question: Do you have effect chains that you use regularly or consider part of your signature sound?
Robot Koch: Yes, I do. It is usually basic tools like compression and EQ. But the way I use them is, if not unique, at least very specific to my sound. For instance, I sometimes take something that was recorded very quietly and then compress it heavily, so that all the noise and artifacts in the sound are brought up. This process can make the material very intense. Then I use EQ almost like a brush, shaping the frequency curve, keeping what I want and removing what I do not need. For example, if too much low end comes up, I cut that away and focus instead on the dirt or texture in the higher mids. This is how I create certain sound design elements—sometimes just with EQ and compression.
I often rely on FabFilter plugins for this purpose, especially Pro-Q for precise equalisation and Pro-C or the multiband compressor for dynamic control. Another tool I like to use is Soothe, which helps tame peaking frequencies and makes sounds feel softer and more balanced. These tools have become part of my regular workflow and contribute significantly to shaping what has become my signature sound.
Question: In a world dominated by solitary digital listening, how important is live performance for you? Is it a central part of your artistic practice or more of a secondary aspect?
Robot Koch: I would say that if I had to choose between composing and performing, I would prefer composing. Live music is important to me, but I consider it of secondary importance compared to writing. That said, it still plays a meaningful role in my artistic practice.
Question: And how important is the visual component in an immersive performance for you? Does immersion come only from sound, or do you see it as a multi-sensory experience where the visual plays a fundamental role?
Robot Koch: I would say the latter. I think a multi-sensory approach is important, and visuals play a significant role. That said, even though I often use visuals in my performances, I also believe that an eyes-closed listening experience can be very powerful, because you are not distracted by anything visual. For me, immersion can therefore take two forms: either a deep, purely auditory experience, or an immersive audiovisual one.
Question: In an immersive work, how do you see the role of the audience? Are they a passive witness to a finished work, or do you consider them an active component of the performance ecosystem?
Robot Koch: I like to think of the audience as a more active component. I am a little over the idea that the artist is up here and the audience is down there, passively listening. In some of my recent performances, the setting has been more intimate, almost like a small group experience. It can feel a bit like therapy, where people share an intention at the beginning and then, at the end, there is a sharing circle about how they felt during the sound journey. This creates a deeper level of connection and intimacy, moving away from the anonymity of a traditional show where the audience just comes, listens, and leaves. I still perform in conventional concert settings, but I prefer those smaller, more interactive environments.
Question: What are your views on the impact of artificial intelligence on the music industry, and how do you see it influencing your own work and artistic vision?
Robot Koch: This is a topic I could talk about for a long time, but to keep it short: AI definitely has a big impact. It is disruptive across all industries, and music is no exception. Personally, I don’t use it in my creative process. I do use tools like ChatGPT a lot, but mainly for conceptual work, structuring ideas, or helping me think things through, never directly for making music.
I believe AI will disrupt the industry, particularly by replacing jobs that produce generic music, since that is what these systems are very good at. However, I don’t think it will ever replace musical expressions that are unique, personal, and emotionally charged. The audience connects to something that comes from a deeply human place, heartbreak, joy, vulnerability, experiences that AI cannot live or express authentically. It can only mimic.
In this sense, the real value of music lies not only in the finished work but also in the process and in the reasons behind every creative choice. Why a composer opts for certain strategies, timbres, or colours is inseparable from life itself. Music reflects what happens in life, and that reflection is what makes it authentic. For me, this is the dimension AI will never be able to replace.
Question: Your work is deeply rooted in music technology, though not in a purely technical way, there is always a strong emotional dimension. How has your relationship with music technology evolved over time?
Robot Koch: I use technology as a tool to get my ideas out. I don’t obsess over it. I’m not the type of person who gets fascinated by what a particular machine can do in itself. For me, the question is always: how does it serve my creative process? If a tool shortens the distance between my idea and the moment I can turn it into something tangible, then it is great. If, on the contrary, it makes the process longer because I need to spend too much time figuring it out, it turns me off. So I’m not obsessed with technology for its own sake: if it doesn’t serve me, I’m not interested.
Some people enjoy being “under the hood,” understanding every detail of how something works, but I’m more concerned with whether it drives, whether it fulfills its purpose. For me, everything can be considered music technology, even the violin was once the technology of its century. At the end of the day, all these tools are just means of expression.
Question: Your music has a strong atmospheric and distinctive identity. What do you consider to be the core elements of your sonic aesthetic, timbral, textural, or technical, that define your sound?
Robot Koch: Yeah, I think texture and also intention. The intention behind why I use something and the way I use it. It’s not so much about the surface. I think people connect with it on a deeper, more emotional level, whatever that may be. So it’s less technical and more about intention and texture, I would say.
Question: And regarding your albums, which often blend orchestral, electronic, and vocal elements: how do you manage the balance between these different worlds?
Robot Koch: For me, they are all just languages I use to express something. The electronic world has its own language, and the acoustic world has another. It is about expressing ideas in different languages and bringing them together. The process is intuitive; I do not make a big theoretical framework out of it. For example, I might start with an idea on a synthesiser and then imagine how it could also work as flutes for an orchestra. It is often about trying things out and seeing what works best. My approach is more experimental, based on trial and error.
Acknowledgements
I warmly thank Robert Koch (Robot Koch) for generously sharing his time, reflections, and creative process. His openness has been essential in shaping this conversation within The Sonic Atelier - Conversations with Contemporary Composers and Producers.
By Francesca Guccione