Dack, J.

English

Middlesex University Research Repository

Francis Dhomont: Electroacoustic Music and History  We have entered a new millennium; a fact celebrated by practically everyone apart from a few mathematically  inclined pedants who are postponing their millennial celebrations until January  2001.  Given  that  a  significant  proportion  of  the  world’s  population  feels  little compulsion to even abide by our calendar, the symbolic value of such portentous temporal signposts  is  necessarily  contrived.  Nevertheless,  the  dawn  of  a  new  millennium  will, inevitably perhaps, prompt a reflective consideration of the past. In a conversation with the French composer Francis Dhomont  the electroacoustic medium’s  relationship with  its past became a recurring theme. Dhomont’s music displays many of the qualities  found  in great music:  it  is  undeniably modern  but  the  composer’s  past    and  his  heritage  is  ever  present infusing  the  musical  discourse.  Some  might  argue,  of  course,  that  the  electroacoustic medium is fortunate in being independent of the historical burdens of other musical genres. But the term “music” implies common cultural, aesthetic and even philosophical issues. For example,  our  medium’s  reliance  on  technology  is  incontestable.  But  when  has  music  in general ever denied its relationship with technology? Developing new instruments provides composers  with  new  means  of  expression  as  much  as  an  expanded  sound  repertory.  In addition, technology allows music to be distributed beyond the concert hall. If technology is a  principal  element of  electroacoustic music  it  cannot  ‐  and  I  believe  should not  ‐  remain apart from wider historical and social changes. Thus, our history is as diverse, rich and even contradictory as any musical genre.  One strategy of establishing a healthy dialogue with the past is by hearing what established composers have to say. Some have made significant contributions to the genre due to their particular  abilities  and musical  development.  Thus,  when  an  opportunity  arises  to  talk  to them  it  should  not  be  missed.  During  February,  Francis  Dhomont  was  invited  to  spend several  days  in  Great  Britain.  He  was  the  featured  composer  at  the  Sonic  Arts  Network Conference  in Newcastle  between  the  11th  and 13th of  the month. During  the preceding week  he  was  a  guest  of  Birmingham  University.  In  between  these  visits  he  diffused  his composition Phonurgie  (the  fourth  part  of  his Cycle  du  son)  at  the  second  “Fin  de  siècle” concert at City University. Though he confessed: “To be honest,  I prefer the mixing desk in the middle of the audience!” the generosity of City University could not permit a complete rearrangement  of  their  performing  space  to  accommodate  his  preference!).  He  returned there  the  next  day  to  give  a  presentation  on Phonurgie  after  an  interview  at  the  BBC  for Radio 3. With such a punishing schedule it was fortunate that Dhomont found time to talk to me on behalf of the Sonic Arts network. He even abandoned the opportunity to be a tourist: “I have only visited London once before, which is ridiculous now we have Eurostar and it is so  easy  to  get  here.  Tomorrow  I’ll  be  a  real  tourist!”.  I  have  to  admit  feeling  guilty  at interrupting this plan when, predictably, the next day it poured with rain.  Dhomont  acknowledges  his  relationship with  history  in  his  compositions.  This  is  surely  an example  of  a  secure  composer  who  feels  no  need  to  claim  priority  in  the  medium’s Revolution. Self‐referentiality can be affected but  in Dhomont’s case  it  is  the admission of the  power  and  poetry  of  deeply  seated  memories  both  personal  and  cultural.  His compositions have references to works by himself and other composers. Inevitably perhaps, Pierre  Schaeffer  occupies  an  important  position.  So  convinced  is  Dhomont  of  Schaeffer’s status  that  he  asserted:  “In  my  opinion,  Schaeffer  is  a  modern  Phillippe  de  Vitry.”  This comment  might  appear  obscure,  eccentric  even,  until  the  parallels  between  the  two musicians  ‐  separated  though  they might  be  by  some  seven  centuries  ‐  are  investigated. Philippe  de  Vitry  was  regarded  as  one  of  the  foremost  intellectuals  of  his  age  whose activities embraced not only music but also poetry. Schaeffer’s polymathic activities are well documented.  In  addition,  both  men  were  not  only  composers  but  theorists.  There  is  no obligation for a composer to theorise about his/her work: the music should do that for them. Nevertheless,  theory  allows,  at  times  even  encourages,  a  systematic  investigation  of materials  and  techniques.  I  believe,  all  compositions  have  this  potential    even  if  it  is  not made  explicit  by  the  composer.  Thus,  while  Schaeffer  produced  his  Traité  des  Objets Musicaux  (a work whose  significance  still  has  not  been  appreciated  by most  instrumental composers) de Vitry wrote a  treatise entitled Ars Nova  (a  term also used  to  refer  to 14th century  polyphony  in  general  contrasting  it  with  Ars  Antiqua  or  the  polyphony  of  the preceding century). Comparisons between the two acquire greater resonance when we see the methodology of both men. De Vitry was concerned with  the classification of mensural rhythm and notation. His work was one of the most significant points in the development of notation.  Previous  theory  was  systematic  but  prescriptive  and  de  Vitry’s  codification  of rhythmic  notation  allowed  an  expansion  in  expression.  It  was  one  of  those  events  which changed everything. While notation was not a priority for Schaeffer, one of his tasks  in his treatise was the classification of types of sound objects. This expansion of materials and the means to relate them adds credence to Dhomont when he suggested: “Musique concrète is the Ars Nova of the twentieth century.” Moreover, the ability to develop and explain theory is necessary for teachers and teaching is something at which Dhomont clearly excels. “I love teaching  and many  former  students  have  become  good  friends.  I  see  them  as  colleagues rather than students.”  Dhomont’s  admiration  for  Schaeffer  is  genuine and heartfelt.  It  is,  therefore,  all  the more interesting  to  learn  that  his  initial  experiments  with  sound  and  technology  were  initially conducted  in  complete  isolation  in  the  south  of  France.  As  a  young  composer with  some local success he began experimenting with tape recorders. Like many of his generation who became  fascinated  by  the  possibilities  that  analogue  equipment  revealed,  basic transformations  such  as  tape  reversal  and  acceleration  or  deceleration  of  playback  speed have  potential  for musicians who  are  sensitive  to  such  sounds.  “The  tape  recorder was  a Webster.  It  was  an  old  machine  and  not  very  good.”  In  addition,  true  to  the  notion  of analogue  techniques as craft as much as  if not more  than art  the actual mechanics of  the equipment had to be considered. “For example, I’m not really interested in computers. But I had  to  learn  how  to  repair  these machines  (ie  the Webster  tape  recorder)  as  there were hardly  any  spare  parts  available”.  Only  later  whilst  living  in  Paris  did  Dhomont  hear  that others  had  also  experimenting with  such  equipment.  “I  heard  the works  of  Schaeffer  and Henry, but  this was after  I had experimented with  tape  recorders myself.”  Later Dhomont studied with Schaeffer and at the GRM. This continued his studies with teachers who were highly trained individuals. Teachers such as Koechlin enabled Dhomont to continue to study the traditional repertoire. “Debussy was a particularly important composer for me.”  Dhomont’s background  led him to be acutely aware of  the power of  literature “My  father was a poet but not a career”. The power of memory and its role in recalling and recreating the past is particularly evident in authors admired by Dhomont. When I asked if the writers of the OuLiPo group with their elaborate language games and reliance on highly organised, artificial methods of production he shook his head and replied: “Writers like Gide and Proust were  more  important  for  me.”  The  latter,  on  reflection,  is  an  obvious  choice.  The  self analytical style favoured by Proust is adapted by Dhomont in works such as Forêt profonde. The  notion  of  the  forest  as  a metaphor  for  the mind  is  compelling  “I  see  the  forest  as  a symbol.  But  it’s  not  just  the  trees  there  is  also  the undergrowth.  Things  are hidden,  thins we’re not really aware of”. The use of fairy tales in various languages is a wonderful device. It encourages an ambivalence: the listener recalls personal memories but simultaneously in traditional  fairy  tales  there  is  also  reference  to  deeper,  often  darker  tales.  They  become myths  tapping  into  a  collective  unconscious.  These  depths,  ripe  for  psychoanalytical treatment  are  often  lost  today.  Many  children  are  first  acquainted  with  Snow  White, Pinocchio and Alice in Wonderland in the mind‐numbingly anodyne versions by Walt Disney which strips them of all emotional and even sexual resonance. But Dhomont restores these tales to their original power in a work that shares radiophonic as well as musical approaches.  Dhomont  continues  to  compose with undiminished enthusiasm and  inventiveness. He  is  a direct link to the early days of discovery.  

Francis Dhomont in London.

https://repository.mdx.ac.uk/download/5e2d5d3cf93ab6a7c596b59dcf69a5774c17b654306748e1f577a0b967230d37/51389/Dack-Dhomont.pdf

Francis Dhomont in London.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Middlesex University Research Repository