(edited from the Tokafi.com original)

Reprint of an interview conducted via email with Tobias Fischer for Tokai.com

Generally speaking (which is always wrong, but makes things a lot easier), there are two types of drones: The celestial, "open" and high-pitched type on the one hand and the deep, thickly meandering and resting bass bubbles on the other. Paul Bradley mostly prefers to explore the latter category, but his aural excursions take you to heaven nonetheless. Two factors play an important role in his discography, which by now has reached about twenty impressive releases of almost impeccable beauty: Infinity and frequency. For it is mainly through the ebb and tide of frequencies as well as their subtle but constant modulation that his only seemingly static pieces dance both in circular and linear slow-motion. And it is the total irrelevance (or even disappearance) of time, which makes them seem like oceans without borders and like stories without a beginning or an end. Paul's aproach is the absolute antithesis to "intellectual" concepts and his music can be "understood" by everyone when listened to with the heart and - yes! - the body - these low-register tones sure have a strong physical effect as well! Which may be the reason that he has a strong liking for collaborations, among them with some of the biggest names of the genre: Colin Potter, Andrew Liles and Darren Tate.

What or who was your biggest influence as an artist? Do you see yourself as part of a certain tradition or as part of a movement?
Artistically the time I spent at university was the single biggest influence on me, especially a lecturer called Colin Murrell. It is there that I was first introduced to music by the likes of Nurse With Wound and there was really no going back after that.

No I do not see myself as part of a movement.

What’s your view on the music scene at present? Is there a crisis? (in relation to mp3 files and downloads)
I think music is currently in a period of change. As with cassette tapes and VHS video recorders in the 80’s, the Internet is seen as the death kneel for music. The music industry (meaning the bigger corporations of the music world) complain that music downloads are the ruin of the industry, but I have little sympathy with them. They fail to acknowledge that a drop in sales could be linked to the poor quality dross that is currently saturating the mass market. I do however have sympathy with marginal artists who due to Internet downloads are finding it increasingly difficult to make a living from their craft (although of course, some circles would see it that such a crass and deplorable thing would never happen). I have no problem with downloads as such; they do have a positive side. For instance, they can open a world of music to someone who otherwise would never be exposed to it not to mention the portability and ease of use of the MP3 players. However what I do have a problem with is the lack of control over what happens to our own creations. It is not for someone else to decide how best they think somebody’s music should be distributed and presented by, for example, sharing files without the artist’s permission. It is also worth remembering here that MP3 files etc are a step backwards with regards to sound quality. What passes itself off as ‘CD quality’ is a long way short of that and it concerns me that there will be a generation of listeners unable to tell the difference between their crap quality sounds files and a CD. Poor quality computer files played through poor quality ‘in-ear’ headphones whilst on the train to work is killing the ability of people to actually listen.

What does the term „new“ mean to you in connection with music?
Recent.

How do you see the relationship between sound and composition?
I see composition as the act of arranging sound.

A lot of people feel that some of the radical experiments of modern compositions can no longer be qualified as “music”. Would you draw a border – and if so, where?
No I do not draw a border. Music to my mind is just organised sound. Anything that has human intervention and is organised, appropriately framed and placed within the context of music, is music. The human intervention can be as simple as raising and lowering the volume fader on a field recording. This simple act of fading in and out means a decision has been made to organise the recording and has therefore framed the work. Listening to this then places it within the context of music. However the ‘what is music’ discussion is so subjective that there is no answer.

Are “serious” and “popular” really two different types of music or just empty words without a meaning?
I’m taking the term ‘popular’ to mean anything that appears in the ‘rock and pop’ music racks in a general music store. I’m not sure what ‘serious music’ is to be honest. Music that is thought about? thought provoking? acclaimed? accomplished? pretentious? There is plenty of ‘popular’ music that are all these things.

Do you feel an artist has a certain duty towards anyone but himself? Or to put it differently: Should art have a political/social or any other aspect apart from a personal sensation?
‘Should’ art have a political / social aspect? No. Art is made for numerous reasons, and political or social comment is only one. An artist has no duty to anyone unless they choose to take it on.

True or false: People need to be educated about  music, before they can really appreciate it.

False. I can appreciate a fine-looking woman without knowing how the nervous system works or a glass of beer without knowing how it was brewed. This knowledge would do little to improve my appreciation of them.