SEMI-AUTOMATIC MUSIC An
Interview with Pierre Bastien
by Luke
Jaaniste
Pierre Bastien postgraduated
in 18th-century French literature at University
Paris-Sorbonne. In 1977, he built his
first musical machinery. For the next
ten years, he composed for dance companies
and played with Pascal Comelade. In the
meantime, he constantly developed his
mechanical orchestra, which, since 1987,
he has concentrated on through solo performances,
sound installations, recordings and collaborations
with such artists as Pierrick Sorin, Karel
Doing, Jean Weinfeld, Robert Wyatt and
Issey Miyake. Around 1986, Bastien built
his own orchestra, the "Mecanium":
an ensemble of musical automatons constructed
from Meccano parts and activated by electro-motors,
playing acoustic instruments from all
over the world.
As
Michel F. Côté notes, the
Mecanium is a "composer's dream;
a fail-safe orchestra at one's fingertips
obeying ever-so-gently his every command;
a timeless-sounding orchestra, both futuristic
and slightly Dada, conjuring ancient traditions
in its surprisingly sensuous music. This
is, in a nutshell what Pierre Bastien's
Mecanium is all about – a daydream
of sorts that he has successfully pursued
since 1976. The musicians of his orchestra
are machines. And the idea behind it is
simple, efficient and poetic: to have
traditional instruments (Chinese lute,
Morrocan bendir, Javanese saron, koto,
violin, sanza, etc.) played by mechanical
instruments made of meccano pieces and
recycled turntable motors. These hybrid,
self-playing sound sculptures perform
a series of short pieces, charming and
hypnotic."
Luke
Jaaniste speaks with Pierre Bastien about
then and now.
What are the main similarities
between sound arts and music in the 1960s
and the 1970s and today? What are the
main differences?
I will answer about the '70s mainly, as
I started playing concerts and building
sound devices around 1972/73. First of
all, I did not hear the term "sound
art" before 1986, when I first came
to show my work at the Apollohuis in Holland,
at Paul Panhuysen's invitation. As far
as I remember, in France we were talking
of "sound sculptures", like
the Bachet brothers did. Before 1986,
I was naive: I was convinced, for example,
that only a very few artists were involved
in what is now called sound art. I could
not believe that this activity would develop
and become an important stream. One reason
is that art critics and music journalists
were discouraging us as much as possible:
at their best they would consider us as
Harry Partch followers.
Paradoxically, many composers from the
'60s and '70s were trying to find a third
way between popular and serious music.
There were several attempts and propositions
to create a third stream: they all failed
and the alternative came eventually from
an unexpected type of artist, a mix of
well-trained and self-taught musicians,
university-graduated and primitive sculptors
who have in common the idea of breaking
down the borders between Music and Art.
What
do you think are the most interesting
directions in sound arts today, and why?
Do you feel that current sound arts are
a continuation of the experiments and
sensibilities of the 1960 & 1970s,
or do you feel there is a new paradigm
afloat?
I am interested in every direction, in
every new piece I see. I don't know about
this question of continuation. I just
note that by using electronics instead
of acoustics – new instead of old
technologies – you don't transform
an art work into a radically different
object. I mean that the technical advancements
did not give birth to a radically different
approach.
Art
critic Tony Godfrey has suggested that
much contemporary work is simply a reworking
of ideas conceived in the 1960/70s –
that the work today is simply more polished,
with higher production qualities (for
him this is a negative thing). What's
your opinion?
Ah! This reminds me of some beautiful
music magazines I inherited from my father.
Reviewing Charlie Parker's master pieces
– Koko, Yardbird Suite
– immediately after they had been
released, the critic says that Charlie
Parker was not in a good mood for this
recording session. He was not relaxed
enough, he says – he did not play
anything new. Then he gives him one star
(out of five). This literature is very
funny to read some fifty years later.
How
have you been able to sustain your own
practice over the decades? Can you list
some strategies and methodologies that
keep you going as an artist?
In the early days, I had more free time
than now. I took the opportunity to start
building one, two, several – many
– automatons in order to get an
orchestra: my own orchestra. This activity
helped me two times: first I kept busy
working with my hands, which is a good
and healthy occupation. Then, my robots
strongly influenced my compositions: the
semi-automatic music I am playing with
them cannot be related to any style, and
at the same time can be related to every
style. Thanks to them, I perform in very
different contexts and play the same music
exactly, and meet people who put a different
name on it.
How
similar or dissimilar is your current
practice to your early years of working
as an artist? In what ways is it different?
What are some reasons for any changes?
Was it the same in Australia? I remember
that in France we had only one museum
of modern art until the end of the '70s,
and it was the Musée d'Art Moderne
in Paris (and in Antibes the Musée
Picasso, but this one was very specialised).
There was also only one contemporary music
festival, one jazz festival, and so on.
Later on the situation changed quite rapidly:
nowadays many cities are organising a
festival, every region has a contemporary
art centre and some have several. The
possibilities of playing some new music
and showing some recent works have been
then multiplied by one hundred. In my
opinion, this is the biggest difference,
which of course influenced our practice
for the better by giving us the feeling
that we are no longer dilettante and that
we are now part of the human society.
