حدود یک سال و نیمه که به موسیقی آمبینت علاقه ی خاصی پیدا کردم و هشت ماهی هم هست که با این هنرمند بزرگ (برایان اینو) آشنا شدم و مدتیه که خیلی به موزیکهاش گوش می دم.

امروز به این فکر می کردم که اگه بتونم کسانی رو پیدا کنم که موزیکهای برایان اینو رو درک می کنن و با اون به وجد میان و خودشون رو لا به لای نوتهاش گم می کنن، یعنی کسانی رو پیدا کردم که به بینش عظیمی رسیدن، اون افراد کسانی هستند که موسیقی سوکوت رو می فهمن. صدای زیبایی که مدتهاست پشت دیوار آهنی شهرهامون گم شده.

همین امروز بعد از این افکار بود که این فایل رو پیدا کردم، تِرَکی که برایان اینو توش حرف می زنه، و حرفهایی که می زد واقعا هرچی خواب و درس بود از سرم پروند. حرفهاش از حرفهای خیلی از نویسنده ها و عارفهایی که شاید سالهای سال با کتابهای قطور وراجی کردن عمیقتره. 

گفتم عارف چون حرفهاش عرفانی بود و برای همین هم می دونم که بیشتر آدمها نه می تونند حرفهاش رو درک کنند نه موسیقیش رو. کافیه بجای کلمه فیگور، ایگو یا (خود) رو بذارید، و حتا جایی مستقیمتر به شخصیت (همون ایگو) و تلاشش برای از بین بردنش ( ایگو دِث اکسپرینس که باعث ایجاد حالت بی خودی یا ایگو لِسنِس می شه ) صحبت می کنه. و تشبیه فوق العاده زیبای این حالت با نقاشی و طبیعت که اونجایی که از طبیعت می گه به نظر من پاش رو از محدوده ی تشبیه بیرون می ذاره و به واقعیت اشاره می کنه.

اول قسمتهایی از حرفاش رو می ذارم که مور علاقم بود و بعد کل متن این تِرَک رو. لینک کامل مصاحبه هم پایین هست.



My Favorites:

Then I lost interest in that, I didn't want myself to be in the center of the music anymore. So I began experimenting a lot with trying to remove the personality in some ways, for example by making more than one voice so that it stops being a simple figure in the middle of the picture.

Then I tried singing using nonsense words, using words backwards, putting strange sounds on my voice...

What I was starting to get interested in was not the figure, but the landscape behind the figure; I found the figure more and more of a problem.

The same is true in a painting: if you have a picture of a landscape, you look at it and your eye moves freely over the landscape; if you put a human figure in there, even if it's a tiny little one, it becomes the center of your attention, it's very difficult to ignore, because humans relate to other humans.

Now if I took myself out of that picture, this left a kind of open field, a sound-field of some kind, which invited you in; and I felt that by removing my own personality…

When you're hearing a grand piano you're hearing the movement of billions of molecules, everything is active: the wood, the strings, the metal, the temperature in the room, all these elements change the way that thing sounds.

Whole interview (in this track) :

In 1975 you founded the Obscure label and released Discreet Music, which can be defined as the first ambient-music work. On this record you changed your way of making music and your image as a musician as well, openly rejecting the role of pop star.
Can you talk to us about this important turning point?
Well I guess in my mind I've always wanted music to do something to me. And maybe I've always wanted it to do almost the same thing, but to make the music do the same thing you have to keep making different music. When I first started making music I was interested in the personalities I could play, the different figures I could be. Then I lost interest in that, I didn't want myself to be in the center of the music anymore. So I began experimenting a lot with trying to remove the personality in some ways, for example by making more than one voice so that it stops being a simple figure in the middle of the picture.
Then I tried singing using nonsense words, using words backwards, putting strange sounds on my voice... finding different ways of reducing the importance of the figure in the picture. What I was starting to get interested in was not the figure, but the landscape behind the figure; I found the figure more and more of a problem.
The same is true in a painting: if you have a picture of a landscape, you look at it and your eye moves freely over the landscape; if you put a human figure in there, even if it's a tiny little one, it becomes the center of your attention, it's very difficult to ignore, because humans relate to other humans. With music it became a problem, because I felt that as long as I was in the center of the picture this kept you, as the listener, outside the picture. Now if I took myself out of that picture, this left a kind of open field, a sound-field of some kind, which invited you in; and I felt that by removing my own personality - as represented by my voice - I opened up the music in a new way, I made a space that people could come into. Just that single act made the music much more "environmental".
Years ago you said "I'm a non-musician, the tape is the music". In your opinion is it still possible to do research in music without using electronics, using for instance a piano or a classicaI guitar, or is the acoustic era definitely over?
No, I don't think it's over. In a strange way, electronics have re-opened that area, for two reasons. First of all, recording techniques are so much better now that acoustic instruments suddenly stort to sound interesting again. For a long time acoustic instruments were compromised by recordings; electronic instruments were developed for recording, and worked better on records for a long time; but now recording has started to catch up again, so suddenly acoustic instruments sound interesting. The other reason of course is that sampling has suddenly reinterested people in acoustic sources, they feel that there is something very moving about the "humanity", the material quality of a real instrument.
I was thinking about this a lot over the last few years, because I prevalently work with synthesizers but I also make loudspeakers and create strange constructions, to make the sound more complicated.
It occurred to me that the real problem with synthesizers is that what you are hearing in the end is the movement of a few atoms amplified, really it's just a few atoms. When you're hearing a grand piano you're hearing the movement of billions of molecules, everything is active: the wood, the strings, the metal, the temperature in the room, all these elements change the way that thing sounds. For this reason those instruments remain interesting because they are never the same twice. If you play this piano today, it isn't the same piano that you play tomorrow.
So I think that actually the "novelty" of electronics has slightly worn off, and people are starting to look to those instruments again. The same movement happened in painting, there was a period when everybody wanted their colours to be totally flat and with very hard edges. Towards the middle of the '70s people started to get messy again, you started to see brush strokes, evidences of the human hand and of the materials.
I think the same thing is happening in music, and once again it's exciting to realise that this thing has a history, it's not just something that was invented in a factory in Japan last year. There are a whole history and a tradition which become part of the performance: you can't listen to a piano without listening to the whole history of piano music as well.

Whole interview :
http://www.moredarkthanshark.org/eno_int_rai-jun90.html

DEopen

Popular tracks