concept
Cette interview s'est déroulée et est présentée dans un contexte qui sort un peu de l'ordinaire. J'ai passé une soirée de 8h avec Christophe Monier / The Micronauts dans son nouvel appartement-studio et j'ai enregistré quelques réponses à mes questions. Voici ces réponses sous forme de fichier audio :
format album ou single

SL: so, why did you choose the album format rather than singles ? Usually in electronic music artists never do albums. They live with only singles and you can put many different things in a single that you might not put in an album.

CM: Honestly I haven't finished the album.

SL: Yes, but that's your orientation

CM: Well, I don't know. I don't know...

SL: So you're not sure if you want to do that ?...

CM: It's not done yet...

SL: But that's what you're working on, right ? Or you just create the tracks, period. Once it's done you...

CM: In an album you have the possibility to put tracks that wouldn't be worth on a single.

SL: It depends if you think that singles are made for clubs or not. Like the usual single format with the main track and the B sides.

CM: Yes, but... First that's not tracks that you can put on vynil. The noisy track we listened to wouldn't be good on a vynil.

SL: Well, an album can be on vynil too...

CM: Yes, you can also say that singles can be on CDs too. Nevertheless it seems to me that this kind of track... A single with this kind of track is not really a single, it's a mini LP.

SL: For example the noisy track, it wouldn't make sense in an album. Maybe at the end, but not in the middle.

CM: Yes it does !

SL: But to place it, you have to take care of what's before and what's after.

CM: Yes, the good point of albums is that you can build something like a DJ set.

SL: But if you put it on a single, you wouldn't even have to think about that.

CM: Yes, but that's what annoys me. It's less interresting. It's more interresting to put it in a global thing. Something constructed. Like if it was a long track. That's the good point... So that you can be more free and not have to make something for the dancefloor.

SL: So you think singles are primarly for dancefloors.

CM: Yeah, yeah.

SL: Well, in electronic music that's usually the case.

CM: And as a buyer I don't like singles.

SL: But for example if you take "Noodles Discotheque" by Si Begg...

CM: I know this serie, yes.

SL: It's a 12" single, and for example there is a track with a typewriter sound all the track long with a few more sounds. Theoretically it's not made for dancefloors. But it's on a single. Well an EP.

CM: But is this track worth anything ?

SL: Yeah, I like it.

CM: OK, so the track is worth. But that's an exception, that's rare. Usually on singles the non-dancefloor tracks are tracks that the guys put on the record. But they think that it's not worth to put it somewhere else. OK they did it, that's funny. But there's nothing more interresting in this.

SL: But for example on the EP there are dancefloor tracks. But there is another track with only rythm but no bass. It's impossible to play that in a club.

CM: Yeah, there are many people who do that. But personally I think it's not tracks that you should put on singles. I don't like singles with this kind of thing. I don't like singles. I don't like to listen to vynils. It annoys me. I like to listen to a track, OK I put it on. But... IMO it doesn't have the same function.

SL: Maybe because you're not used to... For me singles are on CD as much as on vynil. Unfortunately, maybe not in electronic music.

CM: Yeah... I really want to include experimental or extreme tracks in a bigger thing. And then discover in the end that they are not so extreme or experimental, but in a context. And if you can have someone to listen to that, that's really like being a DJ. You play something and bring them somewhere.

SL: Like everytime in parties, you say that people like when you play harder. But if you were playing hard from the start, all the people would leave.

CM: But on an album you don't have to follow the BPM progression. There might be things more subtle than that to do.

SL: But when you do your track, you don't think of what's before and what's after. Then you try to find the right place...

CM: Yeah, but you can make transition tracks. And you can mix and modify according to what's before and after. You can do so many things... For example you can edit and reduce. Because when you did it you thought it was OK. But in the length of an album it feels long. So you cut.

SL: Yeah, the album version, and there could be the club version that is not cut.

CM: Yeah. But the club version can also be cut...

SL: Maybe not for the DJs.

CM: Anyway they play one minute of a track, so...

scène anglaise

SL: So, the next question is : Did you lose all the links you had with the english scene ? Or first, did you have links with the english scene ?

CM: What do you call links ?

SL: I don't know, all The Micronauts were released in the UK. Impulsion as well. You've been resident at the Turnmills.

CM: It doesn't exist anymore. The Carl Clarke parties... And the labels either they disappeared or they became majors. And I'm not very interresting in signing with a major. Or maybe in a different way. That's to say not a direct contract but a licensing contract of something that has already grown in the underground. Like a reissue... So all these people.. I know them I still have their e-mail and their phone number... I have sometimes news from some persons. Yes, I still have links, yes. There are still people with who I still talk.

SL: Less than before ?

CM: No, the same. I didn't talke much, you know. That was a very uncomfortable situation anyway.

SL: So they were the one demanding ?

CM: Well yes. Not at the beggining, not the first contract with Loaded. I simply sent some tapes. And then they were demanding yes.

SL: So they are still demanding.

CM: No, because The Micronauts didn't sell. It wasn't commercially proven.

SL: But all the people of this scene, for example the one playing at the Turnmills, they know The Micronauts. And for them it's a good thing. So there is a credibility among people of the scene.

CM: The people of the scene and the record buyers, there is no problem.

SL: When you see that The Chemical Brothers still play The Micronauts or Impulsion...

CM: Yeah there's no problem. You know I potentially have the album released in the whole world. But I also think that the album is not done. But I have found labels, I have some demos. There is no problem.

Virgin

CM: But for example Virgin UK. Which is a major...

SL: They don't want you anymore.

CM: No but from "Bleep To Bleep" they were horrified. It got worse from "Bleep To Bleep".

SL: When they listened to it or when they sold it ?

CM: When they listened to it, yes... First when they sold "The Jag" it was a flop, so... We were not welcome... There are different kind of people...

SL: It's incredible because all the people I give a listen to "The Jag" they like it.

CM: They sold 2000 in the world !

SL: All Virgin ? Even on Astralwerks ?

CM: YES ! I don't know how they did that. I don't understand. Loaded or Phono, they sold 12000 of their singles "Get funky, get down" and "The Jazz" !!! "The Jag" : 2000 ! So not only they don't want us. But I don't want them. Since I sell more with independents. It's really doing music for nothing !

SL: Making business...

CM: OK, I got money. I got the opportunity to move to another place. Otherwise it's really making music for nothing.

SL: So the Micronauts name is still something and still worth something ?

CM: Yes, yes. But what is England worth now ?

business

CM: In the end, the album will be 50% dancefloor, I think.

SL: OK, a proper album. Underground, but not on the club side.

CM: Yes, but 50%... Which is a lot. You can have 3 or 4 singles.

SL: An album that can make you dance. Well, make you dance in your own DJ sets. I'm not sure there are many DJs that play your tracks.

CM: That's always been a problem.

SL: Because, if you take the Chemical Brothers, when they play The Micronauts they play "The Jazz". I remember Carl Clarke at the Batofar who played "Bleep To Bleep". And next to that, who can play The Micronauts ?

CM: Ark.

SL: Ark does ?

CM: Scratch Massive, Bosco.

SL: Bosco does DJ sets ? But we see that from see that from a french point of view. Maybe in Germany there are many DJs who... In Belgium too.

CM: You don't know. No, I think we have to be realistic. There aren't many people who play The Micronauts. Because it frightens them. For the hard DJs it's too slow, and for the slow DJs it's too hard.

SL: That's a style that doesn't exist, and so the DJs in general play their style...

CM: And also The Micronauts style you're talking about, for me it's already the past. It's already old.

SL: From what you made me listen to, there is always the Micronauts sound here and there. So maybe you do faster or slower tracks, but in the end, there is a Micronauts touch.

CM: Yeah, but what we listened too are the ones not in the new directions I'm exploring. "The Jazz" is from 1994...

SL: That was 8 years ago.

CM: Yeah, so... It's already old.

SL: Yeah clearly. And even that is still not common... Maybe later The Micronauts will be in 10 years a band who inspired the guys who invented this or that thing... Because now, it's not really a success.

CM: That's a success for the critics. And in the music business many people...

SL: You mean the press of the creators ?

CM: The press and the creators.

SL: But, well for me the press... It depends on the journalists. If that's the journalists that you think have a good taste, OK.

CM: You know... I think I have to keep on thinking in an original way. And make the music I feel original, good and new.

SL: New is not easy to do. Because that means you have to know all that was before. And that's not easy. For example that track that is above 1000 BPM. You didn't know the Moby track.

CM: Yeah, I knew it existed. But it's not because it's 1000 BPM that it's new. It's not because it's a 2000 BPM track that it's new. That's not important. It doesn't matter the BPM. What matters is the result.

SL: Yes but a 1000 BPM inevitably doesn't sound like the usual stuff. It can be seen as new.

CM: No because the BPM is a convention. 1000, 500, 250 or 125, that's the same. It depends on what you count as a BPM.

SL: So a 1000 BPM track doesn't exist.

nouvel atelier

SL: About the new appartment. You used to put "Atelier de Musique Electronique" on your records. So now what are you going to put ? "Atelier de Musique Electronique 2" ?

CM: Well, no. But rather than begin Paris 11, it will be Paris 1-9.

SL: 1-9 ? Why 1-9 ?

CM: We are in the 1-9 here.

SL: We are in the 19.

CM: Yes we are in the 1-9.

SL: Mmm X-I-9. X-I...

CM: No 1-9. Paris 1-9.

SL: Ah yeah !

CM: We are not in the 9-3 (93), not in the 7-8 (78), we are in the 1-9 (19).

SL: But you used to write Paris XI.

CM: Now it will be Paris 19. It used to be in roman numbers. But now we're in a new era. We write 19. Anyway in the XI, people say 1-1. Here young people say 1-9. The others are not..

SL: I don't know many people in the 1-9.

CM: The others are not real "arrondissements". It's for the bourgeois.

SL: So I'm in the 1-8.

CM: Yes, maybe people can say that. But the rest is for bourgeois, for the "gaulois".

SL: 16

CM: 16 doesn't even exist. You have to drop a nuclear bomb there.

SL: The 5th ?

CM: Never mind. There are the "arrondissements" of the crooks. It doesn't count.

piratage musical

SL: Yeah, there is our discussion about pirated music.

CM: Yeah, I was talking about that this afternoon with Mirwais. Statistically the music that is most pirated is electronic music.

SL: How ? Where does this statistic comes from ?

CM: I don't know. It seems so obvious. The people who listen to electronic music are people who...

SL: No, the programmers listen to alternative rock...

CM: Because few people listen to electronic music. But most people who listen to electronic music are usually more attracted by technology.

SL: OK, so it's not the electronic music that is the most pirated, but the global percentage of the audience is bigger in electronic music.

CM: Sure, people that listen to electronic music are naturally more attracted by technology. So they are more bound to have the possibility to pirate. And the other thing is that you can hardly find electronic music. So sometimes you only have access to a pirated version.

SL: Yeah, it happened to me many times...

CM: But the problem is that it's the people that generally get fewer money with their music. So piratage strikes first the poorest.

SL: Maybe the poorest are not the people in electronic music. But they are not the one who can live best from it.

CM: Absolutely. Anyway it's the richest that suffer the less from piratage.

SL: Yeah... For the moment... That's why the majors are fighting. It's to keep things like this. There will always be this problem.

CM: The problem is that my bank still want, even if I'm pirated, that I return the money from my loans. I can't pirate Monoprix when I buy pasta.

SL: Well, a bank can be hacked... Monoprix it's harder...

CM: Well, it's getting interresting.

SL: A bank is primarly working with computers...

CM: You think I could manage to do that ?

SL: You ? No... Even me I couldn't do that.

CM: OK, that's it.

SL: But in theory, it's easier to do.

CM: But hackers should do that instead of only hacking musicians. Also hacking sites with more defense.

SL: Yeah of course, but you know that CDs I told you I downloaded on the net. The guys who put that on the net didn't even think about compressing that. So everyone is having a hard time donwloading 700 MB CDs while if it was compressed it would be half the time. So you see, hackers are lazy.

CM: So hackers have no ethic. And most of them are thieves. Some of them have ethics... Because basically I think it's cool...

prix unique du disque

SL: So there is the question about the unique price. If it's like for books...

CM: It's based on the bigger price !

SL: No, no. But for books when you sell a book you set the price, and everyone has to sell it for the same price. But that's only to save the small book sellers or the small record shops for music. But it has nothing to do with the artists. So it doesn't count

CM: It seems that the new government is going to lower the VAT in one year.

SL: In one year ?

CM: Yeah. On records...

SL: And it's going to be ?

CM: 5.5%, like a cultural product, like for books.

SL: Well 5.5% is not for cultural products, but for first necessity goods...

CM: And cultural products. Books are at 5.5.

SL: There is only books. Cinema is not at 5.5.

CM: Yeah, I don't know.

SL: DVDs are at 5.5... So it's the book that are not right. Not the opposite.

CM: Yeah but VAT is really an unfair tax, because it strikes as hard poor people than rich people.

SL: Yes, but that's not the question. The question is : is it normal that a book has the same VAT as a beef steak ?

CM: Hummm... Yes, yes of course. It's as vital. You know that press is at 2.10.

SL: Really ? I didn't know that... So that's for incitation. But does records deserve the same incitation ?

CM: Ah yeah, for sure !

SL: It is for you, but is it normal to help Celine Dion ?

CM: No, I think it's normal that records have the same VAT as books. Also I think it's normal to lower the VAT. Because that's unfair. But the problem is : does the price of records for you and me is going to lower of 14% ?

SL: Yeah, but I remember that Sylvain told me, maybe 6 months ago, that FNAC has raised the price of all the records. I don't know if you noticed, but now records are a bit more expensive than they used to. And maybe they anticipated the drop, so that when the VAT is dropped, they still have the same benefits even after lowering the price.

CM: No, but you say that Sylvain says that all the records have raised recently, right ?

SL: At FNAC.

CM: But it's because 6 months ago, most big distributors agreed not to raise the price for the Euro change. So they fixed the price until a certain date.

SL: So before they fixed it, they raised it...

CM: Before they fixed it, they raised it. Until the date the prices didn't change. And I think the date has come now. So they're going to change the price again. It may be because of the Euro change.

SL: So they're going to lower it.

CM: Ah no, you're crazy !

SL: Well, they already raised it.

CM: And so ?

SL: OK, I agree...

CM: For an amount of time they were not allowed to raise the price. So they raised it before, and after. And in between they don't raise it, OK. Now they have the right to raise the price without betraying what they said. So it may be due to the Euro change. Because... When did it happen this thing ?

SL: Maybe 6 months ago.

CM: Yeah, 6 months ago they didn't know about the VAT change. They didn't knew about the new government.

SL: Yes, it's been talked about for a long time.

CM: Well they talked about it for a long time. It's the FNAC fighting for that. They make advertisement about it. It's been a long time that some people ask for that. But only recently the new government... I'm even suprised !

SL: Yeah, you say in one year, but I heard it would be quickly.

CM: I say in one year, because that's what I've been told this afternoon.

la musique dit qqchose

SL: Another deep question is that I think when you make music, you have to have something to say.

CM: Yeah ?

SL: Yeah, I've noticed that all the tracks that I like, it seems to me that the music "talks". It's not just sound. There is something more. And that other thing is what the artist says. I don't know if for you, there are some days when you don't have anything to say. And if you make music on these days, don't you feel that it's tasteless ?

CM: When my brain is sick, I actually make absolutely bad music.

SL: But what do you call sick ?

CM: Well, psychic sickness : nevrosis, psychosis. When I'm depressed.

SL: I feel it like a message, something to tell.

CM: The message is the music. It is a message in itself.

SL: Yeah, maybe that's your vision. IMO It's like there is something behind than the music.

CM: Maybe that's the effect you get.

SL: Yeah but the creator is looking for these effects. For example if you create hard tracks, you make them on purpose. So maybe it's a message, maybe it's just because you like that. I don't know. But... It's not really in that way that I see it. It's in the globality of a track. You think "OK, in this track I'm going to say this", but in an abstract way. Because music is abstract compared to... consciousness. Because I'm currently reading the Freud book you told me (Abrégé de psychanalyse).

CM: Ah Yeah, you read it. It's not a bad one. It's quite simple.

SL: Yeah, it's a bit heavy. Not in the way it's written, but in the way he presents things.

CM: Yeah ? Because he's not explaining how he got to that point, only the conclusions.

SL: Like this thing : eros and the destruction pulsion. It's like there were nothing in between. Or the interactions. But for example IMO, the creation pulsion. It's not the destruction pulsion. It's not really linked to eros. Eros is more... The definition is, unlike the destruction pulsion, the union pulsion. And the pulsion creation has nothing to do with that.

CM: For him it's union pulsion. And that's true that when I live it, I understand. I have the feeling it's the same. There is this state of plenitude... that you reach. That some people, easily impressionable call a divine feeling. That you reach when you're in love or when you create something, or in trance with drugs and you feel the music. I speak about music because I'm a musician, but other people are sensitive to other things. When you shag.

SL: Yeah, OK. All these things when you interact with someone OK. But creation, when you create music... Now you're alone, you used to be 2 but now you're alone. You make something and this pleasure you have it alone.

CM: Yes, but how do you reach the same zone of conscious, of the brain ? It's the same. You're alone at the moment, but I think you're not really. We're touching unexplored things. Things that science hasn't really cared to explore. Unlike Freud. But Freud was a bit special. He was from a period when religion was so directive, and retarded evolution. He was very anti-religion. Not only anti-religion but also all the ideas that where behind religion. But... I don't know why I wanted to say that... I've read something from a guy. The way he explained it I thought it was luminous. He was talking about the new direction of science.

SL: A magazine ? A newspaper ?

CM: No, paper. It can't be Technikart it's not serious enough...

SL: A psyhological magazine ?

CM: No. It was a scientific. Anyway in Technikart there are some interresting things sometimes... I think. Even often. Not done in the most serious or precise way... Ah ! Here it is : Jean Stone is general secretary of the interdisciplinary university of Paris.

la musique et Freud

CM: "Provided the fatal weight a certain clericalism that took place until the XIII century, we can understand what led so many people to reject a conception of the man and the world offered by most of the previous civilisations". It's funny because what he's saying, it's the same as what Dantec says. But Dantec has the opposite conclusion... Well, it's like this article "The universe is an hologram". It doesn't matter if it's not true.

SL: It's interresting to discuss about that... But you see, the feeling you can have by reading this, you think there might be a kind of truth in it...

CM: Well, I think there are many things to discover. We're far from having discovered evetyhing...

SL: Yes but... What I mean is about Freud. Where does this classify in Freud ? When you read that and you feel... pleasure by getting this knowledge or by the reflexion you have. For example the pleasure of reflexion ? Freud doesn't explain it. Like another thing he doesn't explain, the fact : human beings like to have pleasure. In every form (intellectual, physical). But he stops there.

CM: But this is union !

SL: No because you can have pleasure when you destroy.

CM: Yeah, OK. But when you read an article.

SL: No, what is says is "There is this fact : human beings like to have pleasure, being in eros or tanatos". But he doesn't say... He didn't try to find out why. And I think that in this part there is more things than what he discovered.

CM: But he was at the beggining. And also, what this guy was saying wasn't incompatible with the tracks that Freud explored. You could really add this to...

SL: Yeah, but what I say is : Freud is a good start, but that's really just a start.

CM: Of course ! Before him, psychanalysis didn't exist. Before him, people would not be conscious that there could be some things they were doing that were unconscious. That's really crazy.

SL: Well, conscious existed before he discovered it. The difference is when you can put a word on something...

CM: That can make a big difference. But what he says is... Before him, people could not think they could do things unconsciously.

SL: Sure. It all makes sense... Well, I'm at the part of the book where he tries to explain dream.

CM: Yeah, I think that for dreams, Jung really got further.

SL: That's interresting. Before I used to think that it would make much sense. That the theory was a bit vague.

CM: Really ? Because I really had the feeling that what he was writing was my problems.

SL: But for example you do have a young daughter. And that's the moment where everything happens. Of course there is life and experience too. But the experiment he describes that children discover sex, and at one point you forget everything. That IS interresting.

CM: Yeah, she's at that point of sexual discovery.

SL: Well, I never saw a child growing. But that's interresting.

CM: Having read Freud, I think I'll make less mistakes. I think I won't inhibit her. I won't make her feel guilty. I'm being very carefull with that.

SL: According to what he says, the society makes you feel guilty. But no, that's also the child that feels guilty himself.

CM: Yeah, but it's better if he does it alone, rather that it's the parents. It's not for the same things. Because him alone, it's more natural. His conclusions are interresting because it sets the basis that allows you to think differently. But now, it may be full of inexact points... For example the fact that he gives so much importance to dreams, it's crazy ! It's very important ! But probably the way he interprets dreams he was wrong. Jung got further and more correct. But Jung doesn't contradict Freud. He just make it more precise, more complete. He's not in opposition with Freud.

SL: Well, I haven't read everything. But when he states that pleasure is something that everyone is looking for.

CM: It really makes sense.

SL: Yes, I agree.

CM: But you can also have pleasure to destroy.

SL: Yeah, and I'm amazed that he didn't try to go further in that direction.... Like we used to know conscious. Or maybe it was in the air, we should know at that time how it was. He just put names on this...

CM: Yeah, there was psychanalyst before him. During the XIX century it was a growing science.

SL: Well, that's funny. I think this is a key of the problem.

CM: There is the work of, I think, Charko in France. That's interresting. He proved scientifically that hypnosis exists. And in hypnosis state, people didn't know what they're doing. That was just before Freud.

SL: So there is this thing that amazes me. And I'm surprised that noone cared about it later.

CM: Yes, maybe there is. I don't know. I only read 3 books of Freud and he has written maybe 25 of them. And other people who wrote about this, there are many of them.... Maybe it was a survival matter.

SL: Maybe it goes back to what you were saying. That he was against this divine feeling.

CM: Ah yes. There is also this thing. He absolutely wanted to get rid of this. Not only this, but also the fact that... I read correspondances he had with Malarmé. And Malarmé talks about the oceanic feeling. And that oceanic feeling is really that : that exaltation feeling you have when you're close to plenitude. And Freud said that he was OK to admit that it exists. But that he had never felt it.

SL: Such a scientific like him that discovered so many things !

CM: Exactly ! But maybe he wasn't feeling it. Well, he was never psychanalysed. While when you're a psychanalist you're supposed to be psychanalysed. Some parts are not clear about that... It's not that it's not clear. It's just that he also had some restraints like everybody. So he didn't feel it, or he had a restraint, or he was afraid of what he might discover. But I think you should not be afraid of what you might discover. I think it can be explained scientifically. But you have to be prepared to accept crazy things.

SL: It's true that my last reflexion was to try to find out where this need for creation comes from. And I don't think it can be explained by Freud. It's think it's closer to that oceanic feeling.

CM: Ah yes, it can ! I think it has to do with eros. So why ? How ? I don't know how to tell.

SL: I agree that there is a part of it. But that doesn't explain anything.

CM: We can't know. We have to discover other things. Maybe it is... We can't know. We don't know why. It's like "why are we here ?".

SL: We don't have the words to explain it.

CM: Yes and we can only make suppositions that might sound naive or pure science-fiction. We can imagine so many things, so many reasons. But anyway, the destruction pulsion is necessary to life too.

SL: Yeah. Maybe it's the same that in the animal world. But human have feelings or stuff like that, compared to animals would do it naturally without thinking about it.

CM: Yes but if we're asking these questions, there might be a reason. Maybe we're going to something... We don't know where we're coming from. We're going back where we're coming from.

SL: That's why I see it this way... Because I personally always need to create something new or usefull. And I always had this curiosity of understanding things.

CM: This is eros.

SL: But why ?

CM: Because it's... According to Freud culture emerges from pulsional renoncement. And when you do that, it's your eros pulsion that you're directing through something else. Because you create, you don't destroy. Creating is the reverse of destroying.

SL: Yeah... That's true.

CM: And creating is uniting to the others...

SL: Well eros is not the opposite of tanatos. There are not linked. So creation would be the rejection of tanatos rather that agreeing with eros. Because tanatos is the pulsion of destruction. So it's rejecting destruction by doing the opposite. By fighting so that even if things are destroyed, you create more than what is destroyed. I think creation is not explained easily by all this.

CM: I don't think so... That my be vague suppositions, but imagine that the ultimate state of tanatos was the universe at instant 0. No... That's not logical... Did you make some physics ?

SL: Quite a bit yes.

CM: The particules. Some of them are attracted, some of the reject each other.

SL: No... Well it depends on what level you're looking at. In chemistry there are some things that attract each other. But that's molecules. Bigger than atoms.

CM: But in atoms, you have 2 particules charged...

SL: No in atoms you have the kernel and electrons. And then they searched what...

CM: But you have splitting and fusion. With fusion you unite some parts of atom and with splitting you break atoms.

SL: No.. Because... Let me think... How does it work... For each fusion and fission you transform an atom into another one. But I don't remember if it's at the electron level or the kernel level. I think it's at the electron level. For example hydrogen is an atom with 1 electon. The second, I don't remember which one, is an atom with 2 electrons. So when you transform uranium into something else, you add or remove electrons and the result become quite stable. This is the nuclear reaction. The energy you get for that thing to happen normally. At the atomic level there is nothing that rejects or attracts. Molecules, yes. Well, we don't know exactly what the electron is. The electron is like planets around the sun. It's attracted by the sun but doesn't "fall" on it because of the centrifuge force.

CM: So that's strange that the infinite small and the inifinite large it's the same.

SL: Well, no. Because below the atomic level there is neutrons, etc. The quantum mechanics. And it doesn't work the same at all. And so it contradicts this. No the newtonian physics, attraction/repulsion but that means that below the atom it doesn't work like this.

CM: OK... But you're not recording... Because it's going to be a lot of crap.

musique virile

SL: Next I noted, manly music. Do you think you're doing manly music ?

CM: Ah no. Anyway, when I DJ, girls like it.

SL: Girls can like manly things too.

CM: Well, I don't know exactly what manly means. That's not a word that I use.

SL: Well, masculin then.

CM: No, I hope not... Maybe some aspects... The more rocking aspects.

SL: Why ?

CM: Yes, why ?

SL: That's not an easy question, for sure...

CM: It's not easy, because there is a big risk to fall into the clichés. But you have to think about girls when you do music. The music will only be better. But sometimes you have to think about guys too.

SL: That would mean there are 2 way of listening, depending on the sex. Maybe my question is dumb. But maybe it makes sense... For example electronic music. There are more guys that are interrested in it.

CM: I don't think so. It's not electronic. There is a fact that there are more guys interrested in music. Maybe girls are interrested in other things probably. But there are not fewer girls in electronic music than in other music. Provided I mean electronic music in a large way. Compared to rock, there aren't fewer. But maybe girls are more attracted by a more vocal music, less dark.

SL: Less abstract.

CM: Yeah. It depends on what you call abstract. But anyway less dark, more vocal.

SL: Less dark I don't know. One of my references is Andrea Parker and that's quite dark.

CM: There are some exceptions... Maybe girls are less interrested... in general, there are some exceptions. They are less interrested in the pose rather than the result. But also keeping apart a lot of...

SL: You mean as an artist or as a public ?

CM: No, as a public.

SL: Yeah, maybe they just keep the essential.

CM: Yeah... Oh, that's stupid to differentiate between sex. The fact is that there is no equality between sex in our society.

SL: But the way you listen to music... When you turn on the radio... Culturally there is nothing. There is very few cultural influence in the fact that you're going to listen to the radio or not. And finally that's what happens.

CM: And so, with girls ?

SL: Maybe girls are less interrested in music that guys. It think more this way... Maybe less to research.

CM: Maybe because they care less about the research itself, and more to the result. More to the one that finds rather than the one that search. Whatever the research.

SL: Whatever the research, but not the result. Someone that searched and found something maybe they won't be interrested...

CM: No !

SL: Yes !

CM: I don't know. That's complicated... Why is there so few girls in politic ? Why is there so few girls in research ?

SL: That's more cultural.

CM: It's the same in music.

SL: As a creator, yes.

CM: As a public too. For sure.

SL: It's true that if you have the feeling that it's always guys making music and you're a girl, you don't feel represented. The same way as they had to do parity in politic otherwise they wouldn't feel represented.

CM: Also of there are so few girls making music it's because there are fewer that listen to music. It works in that way. Before you do music, you have to listen to music. It's not you do music and then you listen...

SL: It's like the chicken and the egg...

CM: Ah no ! This is sure. You first listen to music and then make it.

SL: Yeah... Yeah. But you can also not listen to music because you don't feel "represented".

CM: IMO they listen to music as much as guys. But they don't have the same behaviour. They listen to the radio.

SL: Yeah that's strange this difference. I never knew a girl who spent her nights on her computer working on music...

CM: But there are.

SL: I didn't say that. But that's a really small percentage.

CM: Yes, but there are.

this page in english cette page en français

english - français