Name: Otomo Yoshihide
Nationality: Japanese
Occupation: Guitarist, composer, improviser, turntablist, producer
Current release: Otomo Yoshihide is currently on tour with the New Jazz Quintet.
Recommendations: Solo guitar Vol 1 (1971) Derek Bailey; any recordings of Nelson Cavaquinho

If you enjoyed this Otomo Yoshihide interview, and would like to find out more about his music, visit his official homepage. He is also on Instagram, Facebook, and twitter.  

Over the course of his career, Otomo Yoshihide has played with a wide range of artists, including Jon Rose, Oren Ambarchi, Bill Laswell, Toshimaru Nakamura, Mats Gustafsson, and Tony Buck.

[Read our Jon Rose interview]
[Read our Oren Ambarchi interview]
[Read our Bill Laswell interview]
[Read our Toshimaru Nakamura interview]
[Read our Mats Gustafsson interview]
[Read our Tony Buck interview]
 


Do you think that some of your earliest musical experiences planted a seed for your interest in improvisation?

Yes, I think so. I think my early childhood musical experiences created my basic musical language.

My roots are in the weekend parties with relatives and neighbors where everyone sang, and the hits on TV, radio, and doughnut discs.

When did you first consciously start getting interested in musical improvisation? Which artists, teachers, albums or performances involving prominent use of improvisation captured your imagination in the beginning?

I guess Dolphy, Coltrane, the Yosuke Yamashita Trio, and Electric Miles, which I encountered in my mid-teens, were my inspiration. I think the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Cream, and King Crimson, which I listened to before that, also triggered my interest.

But the biggest thing was seeing Kaoru Abe live many times in Fukushima when I was in high school. This led me to see Masayuki Takayanagi live in Tokyo.



Another big thing was my first encounter with Incus records. Derek Bailey, Han Bennink, Evan Parker and more and more. They were all my heroes.

Tell me about your instrument and/or tools, please. What made you seek it out, what makes it “your” instrument, and what are some of the nost important aspects of playing it?

Electric guitars and turntables, of course!

I think what they have in common is a microphone and speakers. An entrance and an exit. The electronics and instrumental elements that connect between them are all I am dealing with.

How would you describe your own relationship with your instrument – is it an extension of your self/body, a partner and companion, a creative catalyst, a challenge to be overcome, something else entirely?

For me, the instrumental element is concerned with history, and the electronics may be the socialization of history.

In this sense, for me, the instrument is very ideological, but on the other hand, it is also very physical, an inconvenient and lovable existence that cannot be divided by such logic.

Derek Bailey defined improvising as the search for material which is endlessly transformable. What kind of materials have turned to be particularly transformable and stimulating for you?

I think, I understand what Bailey is saying well, and I always wish I could be like him if I could. But I can't be as flexible as Bailey, and as a result, I can only go a little bit beyond what I know.

I have never thought about whether or not something's material is flexible or not. Well, life and improvisation are not always as I want them to be.

I'd like to live a transformative life, though.

Do you feel as though there are at least elements of composition and improvisation which are entirely unique to each? Based on your own work or maybe performances or recordings by other artists, do you feel that there are results which could only have happened through one of them?

I don't feel the difference between improvisation and composition as much as the previous generation, I guess.

That said, of course I do feel a difference. Composition can be redone, but improvisation can only be done once. Composition is responsible for the performance of others, but improvisation is based on being responsible only for one's own performance.

I think it is the smart thing to do nowadays to use both of them as needed. But I also like people who are not so smart.

When you're improvising, does it actually feel like you're inventing something on the spot – or are you inventively re-arranging patterns from preparations, practise or previous performances? What balance is there between forgetting and remembering in your work?

Maybe both. People are not that stupid, but they are not that clever either. Some things we can't forget and some things we do forget.

Sometimes it feels like we've invented something, but it could be an illusion. And sometimes what we do unconsciously has an unexpected effect.

In any case, you cannot escape your body or your memories. It's crippling. But we have to do it in such a situation. Of course, I only have the freedom to dream, and I want to keep that.

Are you acting out parts of your personality in your improvisations which you couldn't or wouldn't through other musical approaches? If so, which are these? What, would you say, are the key ideas behind your approach to improvisation?

I don't like to act. But maybe I am acting unconsciously?

But at least when I improvise, I don't feel like acting, and I don't like to listen to or watch performances that seem to be acting.

For me, improvisation is something that is the opposite of acting.

In terms of your personal expression and the experience of performance, how does playing solo compare to group improvisations?

In my case, solo improvisation feels much more crippling than group work. This is because my own inconvenience comes out as it is.

I guess it is much like the difference between a monologue and a dialogue. Dialogue is more discoverable and enjoyable. But sometimes I think it is necessary to do it alone.

In a live situation, decisions between creatives often work without words. From your experience and current projects, what does this process feel like and how does it work?

I know this from experience. I think it means that decisions are not made only by words. Words are only an imperfect tool to convey a small part of the information. In any case, we don't have a perfect tool. That is why improvisation is possible.

I think that is how human activity works, not just for creators.

Stewart Copeland said: “Listening is where the cool stuff comes from. And that listening thing, magically, turns all of your chops into gold.” What do you listen for?

Today, humans listen to music by "listening" to the vibrations of paper or plastic. It's a wonderful thing, shall we say? I don't really know what to make of it.

In a way, improvisations remind us of the transitory nature of life. When an improvisation ends, is it really gone, just like a cup of coffee? Or does it live on in some form?

A cup of coffee disappears, but the memory of coffee remains connected to various events. Not only improvisation, but all events are connected to your personal memory and physical memory also social memory too. They are all related.

I think that if we think of things only in isolation, we make a mistake.

It means that answers disappear but remain.