Randy Yau: Do you consider your work acousmatic? (acousmatique)

Jean-Francois Laporte: Yes I consider my work as an acousmatic one. Even in my electro-acoustic musical works I have an acousmatic approach. And I can say I have almost an instrumental approach! I mean I consider many things as musical instruments. Like the microphone for me is an instrument and in that way I use it in the way of a musical instrument. To me sound is a physical thing--as wood is physical also. That means sound to me has a physical reality.

In your recorded work, performance plays a major role in the process of both creating and capturing the sound. For example, your work "Mantra" is carefully scored through your movement within a space. As you tirelessly rehearsed your movements and live acoustic manipulation of microphone movements, the final score becomes the result of one continuous performative action--much like the process of filming a long sequence in one take. In essence, this way of working becomes a very personal narration of experiencing acoustic phenomena, where you, your body and the microphone become the instrument. Can you speak about the importance of your physical relationship to sound and the experience of sound?

You are right. In all my works, the direct relation in-between the human (me in many recordings for example) and the sound have a very deep importance. That is related to the position I take in regard to the sound (which to me is also a music!!!).

One important thing to me is the idea of discovering the rules of that world, the life on earth and the meaning of human being. This is the main research and reflection for me as a human. And having that kind of goal (or challenge)--I approach music with this idea. I mean I try to understand the meaning of life in this universe and I use all the experiences I can have to experiences that question. Music is a big part of my life so I use this field (music) to experience, reflect and answer some of those important questions.

That is why I consider myself more as a researcher than a composer. So with that in mind, when I arrived in music (I started at 25 years old), I immediately tried to find a way to explore those big questions. And one thing that became clear to me (very quickly once I started to make music) is the physical reality of sound. So I base all my reflection around that and quickly I found many ways to explore that kind of reality.

One thing I realized was this: for the same action, I can live real experiences which feed me with real source coming from real material, and in another way I can experience virtuality which feeds me in another way. Let us take the example of "dans le ventre du Dragon", a piece recorded in a boat ship. I add during the presentation of this piece at University of Montreal a remark from a teacher of Electro-acoustic music which was: I think you can make the same music using Lexicon reverb machine then recording the same sound inside the hole of that boat!!!

I reflect on this and I arrive at a totally different conclusion then this teacher. Doing recording of sound inside this boat ship, in that metal space with the 15 second of reverberation, gave me a lot of information, and not only about music.

First I was able to experience (with my physical body) the reality of a 15 second of reverberation (what I can't experience for real in a studio). I was in a way able to play with that reverberation, putting my instruments in one direction instead of another. I was also able to control the evolution of the sound according to the reaction of the reverberation. But it is not only that. Going to that special ship gave me also many other sources about life (what is a port, what is a boat, what is life in a boat, what is a metal reverberation compared to a concrete one for example, what is the affect of the weather on the reverberation (humidity, temperature etc). And there is also all the human contact you can have (I remember the first day when I made recording inside the boat, when I came back to the bridge of the boat, the ship keeper came to me and he was crying. To him his boat was empty for 3 years and suddenly, because I was inside the boat--sending loud sound and playing music inside that boat--gave to him a lot of energy. He said to me "my boat is starting to live again!!!" I will never experience that if I was staying in my studio using a Lexicon machine.

All that input in a way builds my vision of this world (a vision based on what I experience in life at that moment). And I believe in the idea that we are built from all the experiences we accumulate since now. I also believe in the idea of when I will be 50 years old, my vision of this world (such in the way my understanding of this world) will be made by all those experiences and sources. And to me it is really important to build my understanding of that world with real experiences made in the real material.

In a way, using this way of making things, I feed myself with many concrete sources and that is really important to me.

Also, because for me sound is a real material (as wood's or metal, or paper) I also thought from the beginning about adding to the manipulation of that sound with my hands. By touching, smelling, feeling, etc, I enter in another understanding of the same phenomenon. I was always concerned about that thing. How can we start to talk about sound (music) if we didn't experience by ourselves??? How can we write music if we don’t play ourselves??? What is our real understanding of music if we don’t know what is a sound (I mean here the reality of a sound)???

To me if we don’t know that (by never touching the reality of a sound) we can only make an intellectual work. That is one possibility, but to me it makes no sense (I mean for myself). To me the physical reality of sound is the beginning of music. So it is really important then to explore that reality.

In presenting your works to an audience, it is also a very performative act—where you visually become the performer. How important is it for you to be a performer vs. performing a sound experience? In other words, is it more important to you that the audience focuses on the sound or on your actions?

I always think my action means nothing in regards to the music. I often put myself in a context where people are not placed in a good way to see what I do but it’s a good way to listen to the music. Of course I have some project (like Vortex, a piece for 8 Flying Can player) where the movement of the musician (and the movement of the instruments) make coherence. But on the other hand, I always take good care of the context where I present my music. Normally I adapt all of my works to the place where I perform. So in a way every aspect of a public presentation of my works is taken into consideration (the lighting, where we place the musician, where the public is, what is the title, how the space will transform the music, how can I use the space in the piece, etc).

The importance of the performer is not for the public but for me. I consider the act of performing (or playing) as very important (for all the source it can give about sound). Also being a performer gives a lot of input about what it is to be a musician and that can guide the way we compose music. Otherwise it would be just an intellectual challenge, which is really not attractive to me.

In creating instruments, do you envision a specific sound you want to create and then try to build an instrument to create that sound? Or do the resources you have at hand create the instrument that then creates the sound? Can you speak about your process of creating instruments?

Creating instruments was never something I wanted to do. I mean I never woke up one morning and said to myself how today I will invent a new musical instruments. Also I never have in mind a specific sound that I work to invent an instrument to generate.

It is more related to my approach to music. I consider myself as an active witness!!! So basically I try to be as open as I can to all concrete manifestations of this sound world. And that is where intellect takes place for me!!! Intellect helps me to read the direction of the sound (I mean the potential of transformation, the way where that specific sound can go and where it can't go, etc).

As I said, I consider myself more as a researcher. That means I’m more preoccupied by trying to understand all the things included in a sound rather than proving I’m able to create very complex music or something like that. I prefer to search and learn from each sound because in that way I can discover forever. I believe in the idea of each generation having the possibility to go deeper than the one before and I believe in the idea that principle is eternal!!! (I remember some teacher telling us things like how everything was done in the 1950s!!!--that gives you lots of energy to continue!!!).

So being so attentive to each manifestation in each sound brings me to a point where I discover things. And when I discover things, I want to go deeper so I understand more. And when I understand more, I also question more. And at some point it brings me to a place and a space where things start to be clear!!! And that is where new instruments happen.

So that is how instruments happen. I don’t like the idea of inventing instruments because in a way it is not how I see that. I discover something that everybody can discover by making the same kind of attentive listening. I can say it happens in my hands and then it is not possible to make abstraction to that new thing. For each instrument, when I hear the sound for the first time it is kind of clear, but I can't leave that there. The sound is too rich, too deep and has too much potential to not continue exploring it. And with time it become more and more complete.