The Replica Game
I propose to define music as the encounter between thought and sound. The circumstances, frequency and results of this encounter vary infinitely according to time and place; for a long time, in the West, the work conceived by a composer, performed by other musicians and received by the public was more or less the only way in which this encounter took place. This was not the case in other civilisations.
civilisations, and it will not be the same in the future. Mobile, indeterminate works, totally or partially random, have only broken down internal limits. They have demanded more creative talent from the performers, without giving the audience anything more They have demanded more creative talent from the performers, without giving the audience anything more than a role of referee, often rendering it sceptical if not indifferent, precisely because of their indeterminate nature. The deep, vital need for audience vital need for public participation that they demonstrate always remains a disappointment disappointed because it has not crossed the outer boundary, the last prohibition that remains to be transgressed, perhaps, to rediscover this ancient participation: the one that separates the roles of the audience and the performers.
With "Répliques", commissioned by the 1969 Royan Festival, which revives two dreams from ten years ago: the domestication of animal voices and the surge of music into life, I am not yet proposing to abolish the musical work: if this notion is obsolete, it will gradually become apparent.  I am proposing a new meeting place for thought and sound I'm proposing a new meeting place between thought and sound through the planned involvement of the audience in what we hear. If, as is likely, musical creation will soon come up against the same aporia as the visual arts, with the aporia of useless freedom, if it allows itself to be submerged by the ocean of sounds  that it has so long wished for, the only way out may well be the the proposed change of plan: not to create better or more, but elsewhere.
Of course, not everyone can play an instrument. The point is not to encourage amateurism or to put professional performers out of work, who will always have at least a role as entertainers. But it just so happens that the writing I do in my works makes extensive use of two processes one of which is the imitation (a notion that needs to be rehabilitated) of chosen selected sound models (noise, language), the other being the use of multiple phenomena or densities of sound. 
These two aspects of my writing find a natural  extension with a call to audience: if I engage in a dialogue with raw sounds (animal or marine sounds, for example, in 'Rituel d'oubli'), why shouldn't the audience dialogue with the sound proposals I put before them, by either approving them with disciplined responses or refuting them with anarchic improvisations? On the other hand, where would I find the space to create these immense areas or volumes of sound that I like better than the scintillation of the hundreds of voices  that I lend to the public, thus reclaiming in advance whatever they want to send back to me?

Apart from these personal justifications, I thought that an audience as sensitive to the music of music of our time, such as Royan's, would be quite happy to play along with the proposed game. A talented audience, in other words one that knows how to hear what is produced by the blend of the music played by the orchestra and that with which it responds, is desirable.
But I don't relinquish my responsibilities as a composer by letting them do just because I've written precise proposals, and the choice of instruments I supply him with that I provide him, the bird calls, is deliberate, while their possibilities are limited; secondly, depending on the audience's attitude, the conductor has four different tactics at his disposal  designed to control to a certain extent the musical result of the whole, corresponding respectively to silent, cooperative, rebellious or hostile audiences. The listener-participant's margin of responsibility is defined on the one hand by the characteristics of the instrument entrusted to him, and on the other hand by the reactions of his thoughts to the sounds he is experiencing. Lautréamont said that poetry should be created by all, not by one: music too, later, when musicians, concerts, minds and society have finally changed. In the meantime, it is certainly possible that the result will be less interesting musically than socially. That's a risk we have to take. After all, making music has nothing to do with making collector's items. Alongside the works, which can only be justified as precise reference points for reflection, there is now room for musical games. As composition is always about questioning the rules, I am now inviting a thousand poachers to take part in a game, a hunt, that until now seemed 'mysteriously forbidden'.