# Ladies and Gentlemen, John Cage Has Left the Building



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

John Cage did not want his music to be a product of his own ego, intent, and desires, like other composers. So he devised "chance" ways of generating music, like throwing the I Ching, rolling dice, and using the manufacturing anomalies and irregularities on the score paper itself.

What do you think of this kind of "random" music? Is it real music, since it was not actually composed with any kind of real intent?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

(Mifhdwu/37? Vzdnñjymvcdämbg)&; dc


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> (Mifhdwu/37? Vzdnñjymvcdämbg)&; dc


Translation:
(Man, if he didn't want unity at measure 37? Verifiy zaniness doing next to nada, joyous mellifluous vindictiveness, coming down at my big gate) and; don't capitulate.


----------



## loser (Sep 2, 2016)

Well , in many cases , including our dear Mr.Cage , music has acted mostly as a means to express a certain kind of ideology and philosophy.
The idea of music has changed throughout the eras and has become so vast that there can many definitions , and no true definition for it.
I think it has something to do with the fact that musicians started asking questions about the roots and definitions , instead of merely following the stream and creating music mostly based on their "emotions".
I don't know Why he chose that way of "composing" , but I think he wasn't thinking particularly about how his music will "sound" like , because there are things like 4'33" and his idea of "everything we do is music". I think of his music more like a Practical way of expressing his ideology , so at least in his opinion , it is music. Of course he has other works that "sound nice" too , at least in my opinion , his string quartet for example , but he is known mostly by his other experimental works such as the things you mentioned he did. I don't know if it's music or not , and I do not really care about it , because it's just a play with words , there are no definite borders.

Because in the end , why make music? What's the use? Why spend time on making an order (even the ones that don't seem like an order) for some sounds to be played , when you can walk in the last remaining woods and enjoy the nature before you die?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

loser said:


> Because in the end , why make music?


Yes this is the key question that Cage is addressing. Pre-Cage, the answer was something like "because the sounds are something which the composer/performer/audience like."

With indeterminate music the composer is taken out of the picture really, he just codifies the results of a process which is out of his control. And I think Cage himself was very keen to not give the performer any legroom either.

So we're left with the audience, who are presented with this random sequence of sounds. We listeners have to make it into a worthwhile experience.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

There is an idea of educated chance, like 25% chance and 75% preparation/environment/overlays. Max Ernst the painter worked this way. Cage probably did too. Computer music basically works usually like this, although there are people that are satisfied with more chaotic output.


----------



## loser (Sep 2, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> So we're left with the audience, who are presented with this random sequence of sounds. We listeners have to make it into a worthwhile experience.


So anything without the audience is not music?

There have to be composers who do not care about the audience , or at least don't compose for them , or don't think they need an audience for their work to be music or to give them an intention or motivation to compose.
I asked that question in a broader way , that what is the reason to do it , at all? We are now far from the time when artists merely "expressed themselves". Because whom are they expressing themselves for? People? Then art is not more than a way to deal with social needs , and the idea of being accepted and seen by some people. I don't really know if artists work like that anymore , but if they do , it sucks.

Actually , now that I'm thinking , music cannot exist without an audience. Even if someone is composing for himself , he is the audience himself.
Well , better him than people.


----------



## loser (Sep 2, 2016)

Anyway , back to the subject.
Of course , there is a "randomness" in his music. But even that randomness needs a cause , and again , it needs a cause to be put to sounds.
So if we think of it as a product which is caused by someone including information related to sound , and there is an audience , then it is music , broadly speaking.
But you can't really cut yourself off from the process. Even if it is random , it was You who had the idea , who made it possible.
But yeah , you can go as far as you can.


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> John Cage did not want his music to be a product of his own ego, intent, and desires, like other composers. So he devised "chance" ways of generating music, like throwing the I Ching, rolling dice, and using the manufacturing anomalies and irregularities on the score paper itself.
> 
> What do you think of this kind of "random" music? Is it real music, since it was not actually composed with any kind of real intent?


I'm very happy to hear 'random' music - provided it's euphonious. But it _was _composed with real intent, wasn't it? No matter what method the composer uses to take herself out of the process, the process substituted carries the composer's intent instead, doesn't it?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> (Mifhdwu/37? Vzdnñjymvcdämbg)&; dc


Can I use that or have you got the copyright


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I try to listen to Cage, but all that Zen leaks out and collects in a pool on my living room floor. There are specialty Zen clean-up services in my area, but they tend to be expensive and often undertrained, and sometimes lack the proper tools for the job. The stuff can play hob with your carpeting!


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> John Cage did not want his music to be a product of his own ego, intent, and desires, like other composers. So he devised "chance" ways of generating music, like throwing the I Ching, rolling dice, and using the manufacturing anomalies and irregularities on the score paper itself.
> 
> What do you think of this kind of "random" music? Is it real music, since it was not actually composed with any kind of real intent?


It may be real music, but since it contains nothing of his own intent, it isn't his.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I try to listen to Cage, but all that Zen leaks out and collects in a pool on my living room floor. There are specialty Zen clean-up services in my area, but they tend to be expensive and often undertrained, and sometimes lack the proper tools for the job. The stuff can play hob with your carpeting!


Und zen Buddhists take over ze vorld...


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

If John Cage leaves the building while no one is around, does he make a sound?


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> If John Cage leaves the building while no one is around, does he make a sound?


He can only leave for...oh, you know how long...and then all hell breaks loose!


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> If John Cage leaves the building while no one is around, does he make a sound?


If a tree doesn't fall in the forest, is it performing 4'33" ?


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

brianvds said:


> Und zen Buddhists take over ze vorld...


We should do a poll on this subject !


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> I'm very happy to hear 'random' music - provided it's euphonious. But it _was _composed with real intent, wasn't it? No matter what method the composer uses to take herself out of the process, the process substituted carries the composer's intent instead, doesn't it?


Well, you're splitting hairs. When I said Cage composed "without intent," I mean that he did not try to control the sound like other composers.

I suppose that in a certain way, there is intent after all; but it is not actively engaged intent; it merely sets up a situation, or a "field" where sound events can occur, really not that far removed from 4'33".

With a piece like the Etudes Australes, the pianist is following precise instructions, but the pitches have already been pre-determined by the star map of the southern hemisphere. I guess I'd have to see the score...




Mandryka said:


> With indeterminate music the composer is taken out of the picture really, he just codifies the results of a process which is out of his control. And I think Cage himself was very keen to not give the performer any legroom either.


I think the performer is VERY important in Cage's works. It can make or break a performance. I hear a difference between different pianists, for sure. Some seem to have a wider dynamic range of expression, while some sound "static" or passive.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Cage doesn't make a fixed musical product, he designs a process and gives rules for that process. In that way every 'composition' is a set of rules within which a whole lot of musical endproducts can be made that are part of the same family. In essence it's no too different from 'exact' scores of more traditional composers that are performed in numerous, very different ways despite their exactness. The musical products are still his but in a more abstract way.

This stepping back from direct control over the end product is something that has happened in every part of society over the past decades. Composers reflect what's going on in the outside world. In the same way we don't have concentration camps or slavery in a literal sense (at least in our parts) we now have more abstract ways of controlling the outcome, like e.g. Gaza or debts to the bank.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

It is not 100% random, there is some intent in it, but because there is a significant amount of _objective randomness_, the outcome is indeterminate. That's why they call it indeterminate music. But there is a critical difference between this and say improvisation in a jazz and in a classical sense. The latter are not random but are subject to classical forms (in the case of classical improvisation) that are recognizable with say, the key. Hence, I would consider jazz and classical improvisation much, much more refined than indeterminate music.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I think the performer is VERY important in Cage's works. It can make or break a performance. I hear a difference between different pianists, for sure. Some seem to have a wider dynamic range of expression, while some sound "static" or passive.[/COLOR]


In fact they use dynamic variation, all of them, including Sutan, who presumably worked with Cage on what she did. What are we to conclude? That he wanted the performer's ego to impose itself on the sounds? Like with conventional music? Because there are no dynamic indications in the score. I was surprised that Liebner does it, because she is so pure in other respects.

The wiki page on the etudes is interesting, the relation to politics, and the way the frequency of the agglomerations increases, on making the impossible possible.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Casebearer said:


> Cage doesn't make a fixed musical product, he designs a process and gives rules for that process. In that way every 'composition' is a set of rules within which a whole lot of musical endproducts can be made that are part of the same family. In essence it's no too different from 'exact' scores of more traditional composers that are performed in numerous, very different ways despite their exactness. The musical products are still his but in a more abstract way.


You may be right. If so he is a lot less interesting a composer than I had thought. There's nothing new there apart from the process of composition.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Egolessness is an ego trip.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Egolessness is an ego trip.


I can drop my ego quite easily. I'm very proud of that! :lol:


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> John Cage did not want his music to be a product of his own ego, intent, and desires,


why bother doing anything at all, let alone writing music, then?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Because it's fun.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> John Cage did not want his music to be a product of his own ego, intent, and desires


And yet it was.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Zhdanov said:


> why bother doing anything at all, let alone writing music, then?


Well, you can eat, sleep, and eliminate without expressing your ego. Cats experience deep contentment doing so. But they can create music without ego too:






And who could ask for a more satisfying reconciliation between blissful indeterminacy and sincere but unobtrusive egomania than this collaboration between Nora and Mindaugas Piecaitis?


----------



## loser (Sep 2, 2016)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Because it's fun.


No it's not. It's just work , a grand occupation we all have , just to assure us we've been using our life before our time runs out.
I really wonder why and how they could take music to such complexity , why they even bothered thinking about it?
We were fine with whatever kind of "music" we had thousands of years ago. We just think we're making things "better" and we're going "forward" , that's all what civilization has been doing. And look at the world , does it look better?

It was all simple , and now we're past the point where a person wants to clear the intention out of his compositions as much as possible. Yeah , I get the point and all the things about the philosophy , but I might ask Why? It doesn't really matter , does it? Why are we stuck on matters like this? The guy did something he wanted , and it hurt no one , that's all. In a life like this , it doesn't really matter , at all.

The city is burning , and we're playing our lyre.


----------

