Texte de la principale partie de l'interview, après comparaison des sons
Chapitre 1 : la responsabilité de la préservation
Chapitre 2 : l'authenticité
Chapitre 3 : au sujet de la reproductibilité
Légende : M.-A. D: Marc-Andre Dalbavie, S. L: Serge Lemouton, I: Interviewer (Karin Weissenbrunner)
Chapitre 1 : la responsabilité de la préservation
I: Who do you think is responsible to preserve a piece?
M.-A. D: Publisher! [Break.]
I: Okay, the next question is...
M.-A. D: No, because - for those kind of thing, it's not for him to preserve the machine. But it's him to be responsible of that and to follow the fact that the piece can be played. Because that's his job. The piece must be played. That why he build a material and etc. That's why he writes the parts and... So, he must follow that. After, of course, like in an acoustic music the 'luthier' are doing the job. The builder of instrument will do a job. Publisher is not the builder of an instrument. In the conservatoire, doing the job to teach musician. But the publisher must always follow the piece that it's possible to play it.
I: That's the most important point that the piece is possible to play? Or also, that it sounds like it sounded before?
M.-A. D: Yes, it must sound the close as possible. If there is electronic. Because, of course, when you play acoustic instrument, you don't have this problem, because, of course, someone who will play music now will play differently, plays music differently than 30 years ago. Even Johann Sebastian Bach and all that. We change always. Interpretation change. But here we don't speak about interpretation. It has nothing to do. It's sounds, which are produced by a machine, and we are closer to electro-acoustic technique. It's like a movie, when you restore the movie you try not to interpret the movie. It's not theatre, it's a movie. There is parts of this piece, which are interpreted. The part is played by the acoustic musician, played the violin, the trumpet all that. And the conductor. But there are parts of the piece which were like a movie that mean you must - If we have to restore we have to restore as it was - how it sounded before. That's really what I want, because, of course, it’s - the problem is, what is the interpretation in a music with electronic. So, it's a big question. It's a question that we [me?] have thought about a long time. That's why I didn't want to do a music with a tape. Because I wanted musician to have the rhythmic, if you see, the way you play even it changed, it changed the quality of the attack of the note or etc. I wanted to have this fluctuation. That each musician that plays can really put his little bit his way of playing but of course, the fact that it's electronic, the richness of the spectrum is not enough to bring interpretation into the sound really, like in a violin. It's so rich that - and also there is a subject tradition of playing violin that the musician can really control, if he is very good, he can control everything.
I: Okay, I understand that the music should sound now as 20 years ago if possible...
M.-A. D: The electronic sound, not the music. Because, if I would have done this piece with a tape, that's exactly what you have to say. That means, the music must sound exactly like it was when it was created. The fact that I didn't want to use the tape and that I used those machine. I wanted to have the possibility of the instrumentalist to make fluctuation. So, there is a fluctuation but not on this sound.
S. L: But with the same instrument than 20 years ago?
M.-A. D: Yes, with those keyboards, who have an after touch -, who have a velocity control, and all that. That was my major attack on music with tape and orchestra, because: When I came in IRCAM in 83 or 84, it was the tradition of orchestra and tape or you have, you had a real-time x machine with Boulez, real-time wave instrument. Me, I didn't want real-time because it was not the idea I wanted to follow, because - probably - can speak about that after. But for me what was interesting it was the work with the tape because it was going inside the sound. It was developing really the sound such in [?] etc., which is not the concept of real-time as it was developed at this period. But the problem with the tape for me, I remember a piece of York Höller, the name was Résonance, the problem of that - and Arcus of York Höller, you know that? York Höller? He is a German composer.
I: no
M.-A. D: He is old now, he must be 80 or 70 years old – And he did two pieces, I've heard at this period. One is Arcus and the other is Résonance - And it was for tape and orchestra and ensemble. And what I didn't like is that conductor had a click-track in his ears, and he was conducting like a machine. And so, the musicians were playing like a machine, I didn't want that. I wanted to have the softness [souplessness] of the rhythmic fluctuation. That's why I used that.
I: And what is about the effects, the reverb and the harmonizer, beacause ...
M.-A. D: That's on the soloist. Just on the soloist.
I: But do you think the same effects are important for your piece or...?
M.-A. D: Yes
I: Or could modern effects replace it?
M.-A. D: Oh, if, oh, yes, my point of view is that for those effects with the viola, if the modern effects are better, I prefer the modern effects. Because at this period the echo, chamber, comment dire en anglais chambre...?
S. L: The reverberation.
M.-A. D: The reverberations were not fantastic. It was a lower quality. Because there you have an acoustic instrument with transformation [transform]. And of course, more you have a machine with more memory, more calculation, more computing, and more of the rich [richess] sound of the origin that mean the viola, is preserved and developed. It's not the same than this.
I: Okay, but the harmonizer has also the characteristics of this synthesizer -
M.-A. D: Yeah, but I was, I didn't like that. I wanted - I didn't have the possibility to have.. It was the best harmonizer at this period. It was French...
S. L: It was the first one.
M.-A. D: It was the first one - and really - the problem is that it cuts the quality of the sound of the viola. And of course, if I can have the sound of the viola with the same kind of transposition, that would be the best.
I: Okay, so here, you want a more modern sound.
M.-A. D: Ja.
I: But it doesn't sound the same as in the 80ies...
M.-A. D: Exactly, because there are two thing in this piece: you have synthesizer and transformation. It's two world different. So, synthesizer: I could redo Diadèmes! I could redo Diadèmes and say, okay, I will start with the sound I have now, the sound number one and I will rework this sound to make it better in my idea. That mean I will had more harmonics, more, I don't know what. I would, I will try to make it more acoustic in a certain way, you know, because the reference of quality is acoustic for us. But I think it's like, if you take for instance a symphony of (Wolfgang Amadeus) Mozart, if you see the horn section. The horn section can just play some note, because they just had the harmonic note. So, they just have a c, c, g, c, e, g, c, d, e, f, g. that's all. After you transpose it in b flat, in e flat, but it just had that. So, you can say, okay, if Mozart would have a chromatic horn, probably he would have used more the horn and differently. But that would not be Mozart any more. That become (Sergej) Prokovjew classic symphony or (Pjotr) Tschaikowski Mozarteum, you know, the Mozarteum cycle. So, it changed the aesthetic. And of course, Mozart would never use the horn like he used it if he would have the chromatic palette. So, if we change that it's not any more Mozart. And that's why me, it was this period I had that, I did this sound [claps once in his hands], we stay there. The viola is different, because, if you have a better reverberation for the viola, for the instrument, which is already acoustic, rich and etc. If the reverberation - it doesn't change the mind of the piece, it just change the quality. It doesn't change the aesthetic of the piece. It changes the quality of the viola and that's better. It's better if the reverberation is better. I prefer.
I: Okay, than, the last question is - because the others where answered during the session -
M.-A. D: During the big speech. [laughter]
Chapitre 3 : au sujet de la reproductibilité
I: So, last question is: Do you think this possibility to have the original sounds recorded is - Would you prefer that or this algorithm?
M.-A. D: No, it's really - well, this piece - I used this machine because at this period that was - you know, you have three worlds, when I just start to use that there were three worlds at this period. You had the electro-acoustic work, an electronic, a studio, you had all the beginning of the real-time computing with Boulez and all that, and you had the commercial synthesis for rock 'n' roll and things like that. You just had those three possibility at this period. And me, like my friend Tristan (Murail) and all that, we were interested in those little material but we wanted the best one. So, when I used Yamaha. TX816 for me it was not the frequency modulation in which I was interested. It was just a machine, which could do that I wanted the best possible. If I would have another synthesis, which - I had with Seuils, my piece that was done after, I used frequ, eh- model de resonance modern and (analogue?) so, face vocoder, that was done here in IRCAM and I didn't use that. I used a better synthesis. For me, I had sound in my head that I wanted to arrive to produce it and I used this machine to approach this sound. That's totally different. So, that's why I was really happy when we did the record because for me, I said, okay, now it's on the tape and so we have a reference and we have to find this reference. We have to find this sound. Because that's the sound I wanted to.
S. L: Because, for the continuation of this project, we have the idea to try to reproduce this sound. Starting from the sounds with FM algorithms. Just to see if we can do it. Just as a work concept.
M.-A. D: But, if, we can see, when we work with a sampler, sometimes we have problem but it can be resolved. Me, I don't care if it's that.
S. L: Yes, it's just to see if we can do it the other way.
M.-A. D: The idea of the tool is secondary for me. We can use a physical model, (modem, moan?) modulation, frequency modulation, a resonance model, face vocoding... I don't care about the technique of the producing the sound. What is important for me is the sound. Because the sound has a meaning in this piece for this kind of form at this moment. There is a dramatic or not dramatic or construction of the construction etc., etc. So, what's important for me is the function it has in the piece. After I try - I'm not orthodox on the fact that I'm - I will use this kind of synthesis [synthes] because it's this kind of synthesis [synthes]. (and trust me?) I tried to find the synthesis [synthes] that could be the best for the music I want. That's all.
I: So, the aim is to have a result that is as close as possible to the original sound?
M.-A. D: Ja.
I: Okay, thank you.
(general laughter)
M.-A. D: Ja, because, of course, if we take that and. It's another piece. I do another piece. And it's, it would be nice to try, it's like you take a score [partit] of (Johann Sebastian) Bach that was played on a barock violin and you can play it on a modern violin.
I: Ah no, there are emulators, it's not a modern - it's a modern FM synthesis but it emulates the DX7.
M.-A. D: Ja, the emulators [les emulateurs]? I don't know them. I don't know if they are better or not.
S. L: [Tout ce qu'on a essayé ne donnait pas de bons resultats mais maintenant qu'on a ça on peut repartir des enregistrement pour voir si - peut-être dans un futur plus en mois lointain on arrivera à refaire. C'est, c'est.. mais..] . 01:16:03:21.70
Everything of that, we have tried, didn't deliver good results, but now, when we have that we can restart recording to see if - maybe we will arrive to regenerate it in the future more or less far.
M.-A. D: The thing, which is important for me is that - I'm not orthodox on the technique of producing the sound. I'm orthodox on the result.
I: And are you - is it important for you that we still can play it on a keyboard?
M.-A. D: Yes, this is very important. Because that was at this period the - it was a big fight, because the tradition here, for instance, when I came to IRCAM, the tradition was tape - tape and ensemble - or if people wanted to work with colour, with sound, with new sound, which was for me, what was important because I was interested in new vocabulary trying to explore new words, you know. So, the system they had was tape and ensemble. And this I didn't want because I was a musician, I was conductor at this period, I played a lot and all that, so, I didn't want a click-track in my ear each time I did something. I thought that was totally against music. I need the separation between, for me, I need the separation between the conception of the piece and the interpretation of the piece. This separation for me is a dialectic thing. It's very rich. That's why when you hear (Ludwig van) Beethoven opus 1, 11 by (Yefim) Bronfman, or by - (Maurizio) Pollini or by - (Christian) Zimmermann. It's the same piece but also it has a different breath. It has a different - that’s fantastic this dialectic. For me it's - it's progress in front of painting.
I: Yes, for some it is an advantage and for others it is, I don't know - they don't agree with this dialectic.
M.-A. D: Ja, ja, each composer has his thing. But [mais] for me it's evident that - - it's evident that the interpretation part is a phenomenology part. It's a human part. It's - the body, it's not just this, it's the body with this. And if you do - for instance Tristan [Murail], I'm sure, Tristan doesn't like it, for him, there is a continuity between the way to play and the conception of his music. He doesn't want musician to interpret. Ah? He likes - I have friend, Ives Pureille...(?).. , it is the same. For him what is written must be exactly played. And for me, no. Because, of course, what is played, - it's this part of body; it's this part of phenomenology that is bringing music, which is fantastic. It's not just a concept. It's very, it's very poor. For me it's very poor when the music is totally exactly of the manners as [thoughted]. Even in the movie when the stage director does his 'screenerie' and all that. You have actors and they bring this - they interpret and not exactly what, what the director [metteur en scene] really wants. They have their own way of looking, of moving their skin and all that is a part of, what is passionate in art. If there is just body, it's terrible. If just concept, it's terrible. When it's both, it's fantastic. No?
I: Yes, always both, I think.
M.-A. D: Always both?
I: There are also animation movies, where you can control everything.
M.-A. D: Oh, I see, animation movies is another problem. (general laughter) It's not - it's another problem. But you know, you see, the animation movie - now, what they do, is that it, they try to copy the realistic - behaviour of human being. So, we are strongly in sort of a simulation pure. And, okay, if you want, it's part of our crazy evolution of technology. That we try to copy human to forget human. Ok, it's started with Descartes, this problem. (general chuckling) It's a Cartesian problem. No? [C'est cartésien. Le fait d'avoir l'autofondation de la conscience (à partir de ce moment la). L'homme devient tellement enorme que sa machine elle meme devient plus enorme que lui. (C'est irresistible...ah?)]
It's Cartesian. The fact to have a self-building of the consciousness (up to this moment)... Man develops such enormously that his machine becomes more enormously than him. (That's irresistible, isn't it?)
I: We have also recorded these old effects to keep this imagination of the piece from the eighties. It's also important, just for preserving, but not for playing, for performing.
M.-A. D: Ja, I think, exactly. I think, no, because, even the fact, that a piece has a touch of a certain years. It brings a certain emotion. And this emotion is part of artistic emotion. When you - it's evident, I remember when I was very young, and there was all this critic on (György) Ligeti music. So, that was first part of seventies (or later?). And lot of people say, oh, Ligeti is so cold, you know, it has no - you know, the critics was 'it's cold' because it's always repetitive process etc. But after all the development of the electronic music that arrives at the same time than after, when people heard again Ligeti in the eighties, they say: 'Oh, it's so warm'. (Laughing) So, the perception has totally changed. Because environment has changed. And, - and also, there was a nostalgia [nostalgy]. There is always a nostalgia [nostalgy]. Nostalgia [nostalgy] is part of emotion.
S. L: It's impossible to preserve authenticity because we are changing. (Laughter.)
M.-A. D: That's what Boulez said about the Barock. When he answered to the first baroque were really (insulting noise) like this, you know. Even if someone is fantastic, like Gustav Leonard or people like this. But there are some really, you know, like this, they say, if you really want to be authentic, you have to go in a cemetery and to bring back the public of this period. (general laughter.) Because authenticity is not just producing it's also perceiving. And we don't perceive the same now. So, and if you see, the evolution of baroque is very interesting, because, of course, now they are less authentic but they have more success. (Laughing:) No?
S. L: It's interesting, because the people that play baroque music today, they have learned to play -
M.-A. D: - baroque
S. L: - from recordings.
M.-A. D: From recordings, oui. But they have totally, how do you say it, made it them, their music. They didn't, they don't, if you see, baroque musician, even if they are always very authentic to historical research and all that, they really play music, like they want. Not like before, that mean, not like an historian who wants them to play music. They really have pleasure and the sound changed.