# John Cage's Preludes and Interludes for Prepared Piano



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Just finished listening to all of these and they are great works. Surprisingly, the music seems to me to be neither atonal nor arrhythmic. Certainly much better than 4'33'! What is your opinion on these works?






In my opinion, the most accessible piece is the first interlude at 9:33.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

mathisdermaler said:


> Just finished listening to all of these and they are great works. Surprisingly, the music seems to me to be neither atonal nor arrhythmic. Certainly much better than 4'33'! What is your opinion on these works?


I am never impressed by music that I am pretty sure I could "sound like" by just noodling around myself. Reproducing a particular stream of noodling may present its own challenges, but one bit of noodling is hardly better than another. The only "art" here, to me, seems to be the ability to convince someone else to play it, and yet someone else to listen to it (at least all the way through or more than once). In this case, I would probably much prefer to hear 4'33 . . . (It is quieter, less annoying, and doesn't last so long.)


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Excellent pieces, love the sound of the prepared piano. Whenever someone dismisses Cage as a mere con-artist, I suggest to listen to these pieces (and In a landscape).


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> Excellent pieces, love the sound of the prepared piano. Whenever someone dismisses Cage as a mere con-artist, I suggest to listen to these pieces (and In a landscape).


And does that ever work?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Yes. Especially those who only know Cage from 4'33" and already made up their minds from that.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

JAS said:


> And does that ever work?


Worked for me.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

JAS said:


> And does that ever work?


Let me add a very emphatic YES. The CD In a Landscape contains some wonderful works (including the piece _In a Landscape_ itself). Those were the first Cage pieces I liked. I listened to the Sonatas and Interludes a couple of times early on my path to appreciating modern music, and I did not like them. Later I gave them another shot and found them very enjoyable.

Not everyone will like or appreciate Cage, and not everyone will appreciate most of his music. I would agree with Art Rock that those two works would be my suggestions for someone new to Cage.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I hear that Cage piece every time I have my piano tuned...


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

JAS said:


> I am never impressed by music that I am pretty sure I could "sound like" by just noodling around myself. Reproducing a particular stream of noodling may present its own challenges, but one bit of noodling is hardly better than another. The only "art" here, to me, seems to be the ability to convince someone else to play it, and yet someone else to listen to it (at least all the way through or more than once). In this case, I would probably much prefer to hear 4'33 . . . (It is quieter, less annoying, and doesn't last so long.)


 I would suggest you look up the structure of this piece on Wikipedia if you are not aware of it. It doesn't even sound like random noodling, there are many repeated motifs.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

mathisdermaler said:


> I would suggest you look up the structure of this piece on Wikipedia if you are not aware of it. It doesn't even sound like random noodling, there are many repeated motifs.


I assure you that my noodling would also include repeated motifs. It is very difficult, when noodling, to achieve complete randomness. If I really got into it, my noodling might also project the illusion of some development, but it would still be noodling.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I'm tired of playing this old "defend Cage" game against the unbelievers. Lo, they shall be smitten. Here's one that might be even more accessible to a new convert:










Tilson-Thomas and Grierson play this with a certain rhythmic drive that I do not always hear in other renditions. It moves right along, and is a very playful, engaging, and entertaining piece of music. I highly recommend this disc not only for that, but you also get Steve Reich's Four Organs, and the 2-piano reduction of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, which has to be heard to be believed. This is fantastic playing, and it still holds up very well all these years later.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

A lot of this "threat posturing" reminds me of animal or primate behavior: _"I'm warning you, this is not good music! Grrr…" (throws banana)_


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

This forum was started by a member who just happens to be an aficionado of Cage.

As I feared the anti-Cage factions could not leave well enough alone and had to show up subject us to their snide opinions which do not violate the TOS but they should. To those of you who hate Cage why can you not just stay out of this forum and leave it alone? You have succeeded in driving away many of the proponents of modern music. It appears that you will never be happy until all of the modern riff raff are gone.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

This is actually a pseudo-serious question. Would not John Cage himself proclaim noodling as music? Would he insist that his music is better than noodling? If so, on what grounds?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

arpeggio said:


> This forum was started by a member who just happens to be an aficionado of Cage.
> 
> As I feared the anti-Cage factions could not leave well enough alone and had to show up subject us to their snide opinions which do not violate the TOS but they should. To those of you who hate Cage why can you not just stay out of this forum and leave it alone? You have succeeded in driving away many of the proponents of modern music. It appears that you will never be happy until all of the modern riff raff are gone.


Interesting that your venom is directed at the so-called 'anti-Cage' bunch, but the OP who did violate the TOS with his 'ignorant, arrogant, dishonest' comment gets a pass.

As for those who left the forum: There are still a good number of modern music supporters on this forum who defend there tastes eloquently and without taking things personally. In short, they are secure in their perspectives and points-of-view and in addition, tend to understand why a lot of modern music is a tough sell for many of us. Those who left the forum apparently aren't and don't.


----------



## Myriadi (Mar 6, 2016)

I love those pieces. So much I even made a poll about them here (http://www.talkclassical.com/46929-your-favorite-john-cage.html) even knowing it'd fail to attract much attention


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

He could make good music when he wanted to.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Interesting that your venom is directed at the so-called 'anti-Cage' bunch, but the OP who did violate the TOS with his 'ignorant, arrogant, dishonest' comment gets a pass.


As the target of that "attack," I am happy to give him/her a pass. I have a sense of humor, and perhaps as Cage himself might respond, don't really take it very seriously. But I do hope the pro-Cage forces are giving real consideration to the question I posed. It seems to me that it is directly at the heart of Cage's philosophy.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

DaveM said:


> Interesting that your venom is directed at the so-called 'anti-Cage' bunch, but the OP who did violate the TOS with his 'ignorant, arrogant, dishonest' comment gets a pass.
> 
> As for those who left the forum: There are still a good number of modern music supporters on this forum who defend there tastes eloquently and without taking things personally. In short, they are secure in their perspectives and points-of-view and in addition, tend to understand why a lot of modern music is a tough sell for many of us. Those who left the forum apparently aren't and don't.


I will mention what you just said to Prtb, Someguy, Mahlerian and all of my other friends who have left and that I am still in contact with. This has also happened in another classical music forum I used to be involved with.

I really do not know what else I can say except to repeat what we have always said countless times, we are not trying to force others to like music that we like. Although we have been accused of being this way.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Can we please return to Cage? And to those who disparage Cage or his works, please try to find a more informative and less derogatory manner to express your views.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

JAS said:


> This is actually a pseudo-serious question. Would not John Cage himself proclaim noodling as music? Would he insist that his music is better than noodling? If so, on what grounds?


I don't know what noodling is but if you feel someone could noodle and produce something even remotely like one of Cages works for prepared piano, then I think essentially everyone on TC would view it as music. Maybe they would not enjoy it, but it's hard to imagine someone thinking it's not music. If you view noodling as producing somewhat random notes, many here may not view that as music.

I think Cage would have said one can choose to _hear_ the latter type of noodling as music, and he might have said it is music. From what I know of him he would never insist that his music is better than any other music.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

mathisdermaler said:


> Just finished listening to all of these and they are great works. Surprisingly, the music seems to me to be neither atonal nor arrhythmic. Certainly much better than 4'33'! What is your opinion on these works?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh, I don't know. Sonatas V through VII are quite accessible and, IMO, fascinating. What a world of sound is explored in these little gems!

And, for the record, I have found some of the comments on these works, by people I am convinced did not listen to them with real attention or open-mindedness, mean-spirited and dispiriting.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> Oh, I don't know. Sonatas V through VII are quite accessible and, IMO, fascinating. What a world of sound is explored in these little gems!
> 
> And, for the record, I have found some of the comments on these works, by people I am convinced did not listen to them with real attention or open-mindedness, mean-spirited and dispiriting.


Ignoring the bias and hyperbole for a moment ('ignorant, arrogant and dishonest' is mean-spirited; our world situation is dispiriting), I listened to the Cage works with special attention to the part deemed accessible. The inference is that if one listens with real attention and open-mindedness, the result will be positive. Of course, you're not the first to make that (inferred) suggestion. In my case, the result wasn't positive.

That's all I'll say since other than my piano tuner comment (which really was meant in jest and was not mean-spirited in the least) I really don't want to rain on this John Cage parade.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> I don't know what noodling is but if you feel someone could noodle and produce something even remotely like one of Cages works for prepared piano, then I think essentially everyone on TC would view it as music. Maybe they would not enjoy it, but it's hard to imagine someone thinking it's not music. If you view noodling as producing somewhat random notes, many here may not view that as music.


Noodling is playing notes primarily based on whim, without any particular skill or planning. I have little doubt that it would be possible to create such "music." The hard part would be "selling" it. Knowing that I, a distinct non-believer in that kind of "music," would mean that it would be evaluated in that context and dismissed. It would be difficult to construct a sufficiently persuasive veil of plausibility that it would be granted the same "credibility" as anything produced by Cage would. (Yes, I am implying that attribution of the source is a substantial part of the "music" being accepted, admitting that it is just a hypothesis.) And I can absolutely assure you that not _everyone_ on TC would think it was music, because I wouldn't.



mmsbls said:


> I think Cage would have said one can choose to _hear_ the latter type of noodling as music, and he might have said it is music. From what I know of him he would never insist that his music is better than any other music.


If his music is not better than any other music, what is the virtue of expending time and planning in the creation of such music? Why, even, do we need composers or trained musicians to do it?


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

I have never really been able to get into Cage's work. But I'm currently going through one of my open-minded phases, so I downloaded that video and will give it a proper listen in due course. Perhaps it will grow on me.

A century from now, the whole fight might look like the Wagner and Brahms factions going at it, i.e. people may wonder what on earth the whole fight was about. ;-)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The presence of anti-Cageians on this pro-Cage thread is not only inappropriate and "trolly," but it might be a strategy to bait modernists into ad-hominem replies, which would possibly lead to infractions and even removal, thus "purifying" the forum for conservative tonalists.

This is excellent Cage:































​


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> The presence of anti-Cageians on this pro-Cage thread is not only inappropriate and "trolly," but it might be a strategy to bait modernists into ad-hominem replies, which would possibly lead to infractions and even removal, thus "purifying" the forum for conservative tonalists.


This may well be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on this forum. Do you realize that it implies that as a group, the 'modernists' can't control themselves?


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

JAS said:


> As the target of that "attack," I am happy to give him/her a pass. I have a sense of humor, and perhaps as Cage himself might respond, don't really take it very seriously. But I do hope the pro-Cage forces are giving real consideration to the question I posed. It seems to me that it is directly at the heart of Cage's philosophy.


I'm sorry for insulting you in my first response.

Cage probably would have considered noodling music, as do I, however he probably also would have conceded that noodling is virtually never as good as structured music. However, that is totally irrelevant. This music is not noodling. As I originally posted, there is a Wikipedia article on these works that explains their complex structures. Even better, there have been academic articles written about the pieces' structures (I read one yesterday, but can't seem to find it now).

JAS, with all due respect, I don't think you could make a piece like Sonata 1 just by noodling. That's because I don't think anyone could - not even Cage. Certainly the fans wouldn't think it was as good, and that is not because of delusion.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

DaveM said:


> This may well be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on this forum. Do you realize that it implies that as a group, the 'modernists' can't control themselves?


 It is indeed the bigotry of low expectations. I take all responsibility for the insult that I made towards JAS and apologized for it. However, there is some truth to millionrainbows's statement.

Imagine if I went on a Bach thread and said that I could easily replicate his style of music through noodling. Not only would that be disrespectful, it would be demonstrably false.

Despite loving the B minor mass, I hate the Art of Fugue. I find few redeeming factors in it, but that opinion adds nothing real to discussion. Thus, I would never post it on an Art of Fugue thread.

Why then is it acceptable to do exactly the same on a John Cage thread?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

mathisdermaler said:


> I'm sorry for insulting you in my first response.


No harm, no foul. (I keep forgetting that Cage advocates tend to be especially sensitive. It is more than a little ironic, given the fact that Cage himself seems to have dedicated his life to turning the musical world upside down.)



mathisdermaler said:


> Cage probably would have considered noodling music, as do I, however he probably also would have conceded that noodling is virtually never as good as structured music. However, that is totally irrelevant. This music is not noodling. As I originally posted, there is a Wikipedia article on these works that explains their complex structures. Even better, there have been academic articles written about the pieces' structures (I read one yesterday, but can't seem to find it now).


It would be interesting to see what, if anything, Cage might have said about the subject, but given things he did say, and did propose as music, I don't think he could have argued that there was any special merit to structured music without dismissing a good deal of his own work.

I don't know about the academic world in musical circles, but I have read reams of utter hogwash in academic journals dedicated to literary subjects. People make all sorts of ridiculous claims for the sake of being published. (In a few rare cases, I have even gotten them to admit it, in private.)



mathisdermaler said:


> JAS, with all due respect, I don't think you could make a piece like Sonata 1 just by noodling. That's because I don't think anyone could - not even Cage. Certainly the fans wouldn't think it was as good, and that is not because of delusion.


I suspect that fans wouldn't think it was as good primarily because they would know, from the context, that it wasn't by Cage. But the point is moot since I doubt it will be attempted. (What, really, would be the point?)


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

mathisdermaler said:


> It is indeed the bigotry of low expectations. I take all responsibility for the insult that I made towards JAS and apologized for it. However, there is some truth to millionrainbows's statement.
> 
> Imagine if I went on a Bach thread and said that I could easily replicate his style of music through noodling. Not only would that be disrespectful, it would be demonstrably false.
> 
> ...


Feel free to go into any of the Bach forums and make the statement proposed. I imagine that no one, or hardly anyone, would really be offended. Amused, perhaps, possibly slightly shocked, but not offended. And in any case, it would be an absurd claim in that context as Bach's music is clearly structured, and evidently so to even a casual listener, with no academic explanations required.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

JAS said:


> Feel free to go into any of the Bach forums and make the statement proposed. I imagine that no one, or hardly anyone, would really be offended. Amused, perhaps, but not offended. And in any case, it would be an absurd claim in that context as Bach's music is clearly structured, and evidently so to even a casual listener.


On the contrary, I do think people would be offended.

Yes, it would be just as absurd to say the same thing about Cage, as his music is also structured, which was clear to me and many others upon first hearing it.

I am fine with other people liking Art of Fugue. For god's sake, my own father says it is a masterpiece. I recognize that the only reason I don't like it is because of myself, the only reason that anyone dislikes any music.

Won't you accept that maybe the reason you don't like John Cage is because of yourself also, and not because you have to be deluded to enjoy it?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DaveM said:


> This may well be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on this forum. Do you realize that it implies that as a group, the 'modernists' can't control themselves?


That's funny! :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

mathisdermaler said:


> Cage probably would have considered noodling music, as do I, however he probably also would have conceded that noodling is virtually never as good as structured music. However, that is totally irrelevant. This music is not noodling. As I originally posted, there is a Wikipedia article on these works that explains their complex structures. Even better, there have been academic articles written about the pieces' structures (I read one yesterday, but can't seem to find it now).


Excellent observation, and Cage has already covered this base. For those who think Cage is simply "random" and undetermined, investigate the Freeman Etudes, in which every note is a completely determined event, and totally scored, using the most advanced ideas in music notation:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

JAS said:


> Or maybe it is a nefarious plot to create an example of why there needs to be an exclusive modernist forum, which a certain segment so eagerly yearns for. (I guess you will never quite be sure.)


Modern music continues up to the present moment of "now." Perhaps a better idea would be to put all listeners who can only handle pre-20th century music into a separate forum called "Historical Museum Music Only."


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Excellent observation, and Cage has already covered this base. For those who think Cage is simply "random" and undetermined, investigate the Freeman Etudes, in which every note is a completely determined event, and totally scored, using the most advanced ideas in music notation:


But the problem is that even if it is "determined" in some way, it _sounds_ random. No one should have to resort to complicated paper diagrams to show a sense of structure. (That is _my_ view, at least.) Besides, if we accept Cage's own repeated claim that everything we do is music, you cannot argue for special merit in structure.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

JAS said:


> But the problem is that even if it is "determined" in some way, it _sounds_ random. No one should have to resort to complicated paper diagrams to show a sense of structure. (That is _my_ view, at least.) Besides, if we accept Cage's own repeated claim that everything we do is music, you cannot argue for structure.


Cage would have us all ideally listen as if "everything is music," in order to open our minds to new sounds, but this goes back to his confounding our prevailing Western notions of "what is music" as described below, but he did "play the game" of being a composer, and his work is published and performed. Paradoxical, isn't it? I can see why only the very perceptive and informed can wrap their minds around these sorts of contradictions that Cage presented us with.

This also demonstrates the fact that all this controversy and resistance to Cage's music is really about people's reactions, tastes, and mindsets, not "the music itself."

Cage is a poor example to target for criticizing modernism in comparison with Bach, etc., because Cage was so radical and diametrically contrary to Western notions of "what music is," "what is a composer," "what is a composition" and other "givens" of the Western art/music paradigm. He's very exceptional in this regard, and quite unique.

Until these facts are understood, Cage will always be a thorn in the side of conservative listeners. That's fine. And that's not to say that they are somehow "ignorant" or uninformed in their dislike. It would, however, be more effective to criticize Cage in a more informed-seeming way, though. Ultimately, you like it, or you don't.

But as one listener who had no idea who Cage was, commented upon hearing some of his music: "What's not to like?"

Most of Cage's music is very quiet and soothing, even less obtrusive sonically than most symphonic blaring. I think this reflects his mindset, for us to chill out and avoid conflict…and keep your sense of humor…:lol: …and stop taking ourselves so seriously.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Excellent observation, and Cage has already covered this base. For those who think Cage is simply "random" and undetermined, investigate the Freeman Etudes, in which every note is a completely determined event, and totally scored, using the most advanced ideas in music notation:


Do you know how all those dynamic marks got into the score?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Ignoring the bias and hyperbole for a moment ('ignorant, arrogant and dishonest' is mean-spirited; our world situation is dispiriting), I listened to the Cage works with special attention to the part deemed accessible. The inference is that if one listens with real attention and open-mindedness, the result will be positive. Of course, you're not the first to make that (inferred) suggestion. In my case, the result wasn't positive.
> 
> That's all I'll say since other than my piano tuner comment (which really was meant in jest and was not mean-spirited in the least) I really don't want to rain on this John Cage parade.


You mean implication, not inference. An _Implication_ would be something that can reasonably be _inferred_ from what I wrote. In fact, all of the inferences you have made are yours and all of them are wrong. What I meant was that I think greeting another member's enthusiasm with dismissive contempt without giving the body of work on offer a hearing - and I don't for a minute believe you listened to a significant portion of the Interludes and Sonatas before making your comments - is mean spirited. What I wrote does not at all imply that if one listens with real attention one will react positively to the works. And finally: Yes, you did mean to rain on it.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

It's funny, isn't it?

Entering a thread, dismissing Cage as pointless and listeners as deluded (in that thinly veiled ToS-compliant way that we are all familiar with), showing zero interest in actually changing their opinion, then presenting a popularity argument for no apparent reason and then going on about how sensitive those who like Cage are for actually standing up and responding doesn't make me too confident in someone to think that they actually had a positive attitude and good will to listen to the music and expecting something other than to dislike it. 
And if one doesn't have to offer anything but negativity, why bother on posting repeatedly and sparking thread-destroying arguments from a potentially interesting thread?

And by the way, I say all of this as someone who isn't a huge fan of Cage. He's not one of my favorite 20th century composers at all, but I do enjoy some of his works.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Do you know how all those dynamic marks got into the score?


By rolling dice, I presume. :lol: Mandryka, you are on your game, as usual!


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

So which Sonata/Interlude is your favorite piece guys? :lol:


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

It is no need to prepare the piano if the listener is not prepared


----------



## Guest (Apr 29, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> Excellent observation, and Cage has already covered this base. For those who think Cage is simply "random" and undetermined, investigate the Freeman Etudes, in which every note is a completely determined event, and totally scored, using the most advanced ideas in music notation:


With respect, sir, I suggest to you that exactly the same kind of 'analysis' could be completed with regard to any random series of notes in music. The real 'art', IMO, resides in that visual representation.

Having read most of these comments and the endless arguments about Cage and contemporary music, I'll only say this; we live in the era of postmodernism when everything has been deemed to be of equal value to everything else. That there's no cultural hierarchy because that would only be elitist. I disavow that ideology completely, because it is essentially great thinkers, artists and philosophers who've moved civilization forward and not those who tinker at the margins and shelter and thrive under the aegis of egalitarian totalitarianism.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> With respect, sir, I suggest to you that exactly the same kind of 'analysis' could be completed with regard to any random series of notes in music. The real 'art', IMO, resides in that visual representation.
> 
> Having read most of these comments and the endless arguments about Cage and contemporary music, I'll only say this; we live in the era of postmodernism when everything has been deemed to be of equal value to everything else. That there's no cultural hierarchy because that would only be elitist. I disavow that ideology completely, *because it is essentially great thinkers, artists and philosophers who've moved civilization forward* and not those who tinker at the margins and shelter and thrive under the aegis of egalitarian totalitarianism.


 You mean like John Cage?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> By rolling dice, I presume. :lol: Mandryka, you are on your game, as usual!


Well, I did think your post was particularly well worded. By the way, I found a nice recording of the prepared piano music recently by Nora Skuta.

The thing I would like to see is some dance set to this music. I think the pieces were conceived for dance, I'm not sure.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

JAS said:


> But the problem is that even if it is "determined" in some way, it _sounds_ random. No one should have to resort to complicated paper diagrams to show a sense of structure. (That is _my_ view, at least.) Besides, if we accept Cage's own repeated claim that everything we do is music, you cannot argue for special merit in structure.


I have long wondered about this issue. Most people would agree that a heap of bricks isn't architecture. Now what if the position of every brick is carefully determined by someone? Recreating the random-looking heap would in fact be a greater feat of building than building a wall, but it would still look like a heap of bricks. What if the heap isn't actually random, but there is some very, very subtle pattern to it, which only a well trained mathematician would notice? Is it architecture?

Of course, one must be careful with analogies. E.g. buildings have a purpose, and a heap of bricks, no matter how carefully constructed, is unlikely to ever fulfill any of the purposes of any building. But what is the purpose of a piece of music? A lot of classical music has no purpose at all, other than itself.

I am nowadays happy to leave such questions to philosophers. What one can say is this: if a piece of music sounds completely random even to ears accustomed to classical idiom, then the composer (or fans of his work) can't really act all hurt and surprised when the work never achieves much popularity.

I have now listened to that recording of the sonatas and interludes. It is too early for me to give a definite verdict; I know from experience that with classical music, I need to listen to things a few times. Thus far, I did not find it unpleasant or offensive, and I liked the strange sounds of the prepared piano, which remind me a bit of African instruments. In fact, at the risk of offending the work's fans, it struck me as somewhat New Age-like in sheer blandness (and note that I very much _like_ New Age music, and minimalism, precisely because I find its blandness soothing and even hypnotic. Thus, I did not by any means intend the comparison as some sort of insult).

I often get the impression that Cage himself thought that we take music way too seriously. He strikes me as someone with a playful mind. Thus the angry debates about his music are perhaps a bit weird. He himself may well have had a good laugh at this thread.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> With respect, sir, I suggest to you that exactly the same kind of 'analysis' could be completed with regard to any random series of notes in music.


Let me guess: you are as much of a fan of Nassim Taleb's book _Fooled by Randomness_ as I am. 
You are of course right: any random sequence can be 'analyzed.' The equivalent in visual art would perhaps be Jackson Pollock's drip paintings. 

Of course, there is a grey area between order and chaos. Think, for example, of Hovhaness' "spirit murmurs" technique, which is in itself aleatory, but is used to create a specific sound to put into an otherwise ordered structure. The result is that his music does not come across as random noise, even though he uses random noise in it.



> Having read most of these comments and the endless arguments about Cage and contemporary music, I'll only say this; we live in the era of postmodernism when everything has been deemed to be of equal value to everything else. That there's no cultural hierarchy because that would only be elitist. I disavow that ideology completely, because it is essentially great thinkers, artists and philosophers who've moved civilization forward and not those who tinker at the margins and shelter and thrive under the aegis of egalitarian totalitarianism.


Yup, this whole postmodernism thing is utter nonsense, but one need not feel threatened by it at all; time itself is the great equalizer. In the longer run, the cream rises to the top, whether we like it or not. It is too early, perhaps, to say whether Cage's work will last down the ages.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

The point of the thread is to appreciate Cage's work - perhaps in a critical manner.

If you don't like Cage, that is acceptable, but what are you doing posting here?

If you've posted once to indicate your dislike, don't keep on posting - that only annoys people.

A number of off topic posts have been removed.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Personally, I find Cage's idea of "everything we do is music" fascinating. Need to get a few things straight first. It wasn't mentioned here yet, but Schoenberg himself accused of Cage of not having an ear for music, and that he was more of an inventor than composer. Cage himself admitted he can't hear relationships between tonality and harmony.

On noodling, Cage himself did believe in using random and indeterminate methods of composition. One example was he used a chess game to compose, where the moves on the chessboard would trigger a sound. Another example was he put score paper on a graph of stars and just marked the locations of where the stars ended up showing through on the score paper.

Serialism is different than Cage, in that it does use mathematical algorithms and matrices to determine the rhythms, tones, and dynamics of a piece. 

I think that should satisfy those who react negatively to Cage's music, or definition of. :lol: Yes, hurl insults, Cage doesn't care, nor should his fans. But I find his music and philosophy fascinating nonetheless.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Taggart said:


> The point of the thread is to appreciate Cage's work - perhaps in a critical manner.
> 
> If you don't like Cage, that is acceptable, but what are you doing posting here?
> 
> ...


This is exactly the point many of us have been trying to make for years.

It would be nice if the anti-Cage or whatever crowd would start an "I hate Cage" Thread where they can trash Cage to their hearts content and leave the rest of us alone.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

brianvds said:


> Let me guess: you are as much of a fan of Nassim Taleb's book _Fooled by Randomness_ as I am.
> You are of course right: any random sequence can be 'analyzed.' The equivalent in visual art would perhaps be Jackson Pollock's drip paintings.
> 
> Of course, there is a grey area between order and chaos. Think, for example, of Hovhaness' "spirit murmurs" technique, which is in itself aleatory, but is used to create a specific sound to put into an otherwise ordered structure. The result is that his music does not come across as random noise, even though he uses random noise in it.
> ...


Are you implying Pollocks's drip paintings are random? If so, you are quite wrong. Those who report that they look random usually have no idea what randomness looks like.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2017)

The zillions of dollars which "Blue Poles" fetches are anything but random!!! Same with Rothko's squares piled on top of each other. If I'd realized squares were so valuable I would have become one myself decades ago. Oh, wait....


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Are you implying Pollocks's drip paintings are random? If so, you are quite wrong. Those who report that they look random usually have no idea what randomness looks like.


I'm reluctant to start a debate on visual art inside a thread on music on a music board. Obviously, Pollock's drip paintings tend not to be entirely random; one can see, for example, the fairly regular and rhythmic swirling motions he made. On the other hand, there is a very random _element_ to them in that the splattering of the paint cannot be precisely controlled (except that it is of course in a sense controlled by the laws of physics).

But that's why I noted that there are grey areas here between complete randomness and complete order. Even a very precise performance of a Mozart concerto will not be entirely ordered, for who can control the coughing in the audience? And zoom right into some highly realistic painting, and you will see random-looking brushstrokes.

When it comes to things like Pollock, or aleatory music, what bothers me (or rather, what used to bother me) is not the work itself but the nonsense that gets talked about it. Especially in visual art, what you see is pretty much what you get. A Pollock painting clearly consists of partially random swirls and splatters of paint - it may well be beautifully decorative, but it cannot possibly express some sort of deep meaning of the sort sometimes ascribed to it. One can analyze it, but there isn't much analysis to be done.

Now I said it used to bother me. Nowadays it doesn't so much anymore, because I have come to see that art (and music) criticism is something of a creative act in itself. I am far more interested in music than in music criticism, but that's just me; a community of critics may well feel very differently.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2017)

Just another unknown known, I expect!!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

brianvds said:


> I'm reluctant to start a debate on visual art inside a thread on music on a music board. Obviously, Pollock's drip paintings tend not to be entirely random; one can see, for example, the fairly regular and rhythmic swirling motions he made. On the other hand, there is a very random _element_ to them in that the splattering of the paint cannot be precisely controlled (except that it is of course in a sense controlled by the laws of physics).
> 
> But that's why I noted that there are grey areas here between complete randomness and complete order. Even a very precise performance of a Mozart concerto will not be entirely ordered, for who can control the coughing in the audience? And zoom right into some highly realistic painting, and you will see random-looking brushstrokes.
> 
> ...


This all makes good sense to me. I don't expect more from Pollock than decorative beauty. Another control on the "quasi-random elements" would be willingness to throw out the paintings that suck. I wonder how much paint and canvas he burned?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> This all makes good sense to me. I don't expect more from Pollock than decorative beauty. Another control on the "quasi-random elements" would be willingness to throw out the paintings that suck. I wonder how much paint and canvas he burned?


And do you expect more that decorative music from (eg) the Cage etudes or Music of Changes?

I suppose there's the pianist or violinist between the thing that Cage made, the score, and the audience.

But then there's the criticism, the interpretation, of Pollock. The performer is a sort of analogue of the art critic, maybe.

I just toss some ideas around, maybe slightly drunkenly after lunch . . .


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> This all makes good sense to me. I don't expect more from Pollock than decorative beauty. Another control on the "quasi-random elements" would be willingness to throw out the paintings that suck. I wonder how much paint and canvas he burned?


That's a good question. Perhaps some of the artistry lies not only in making the works but also in selecting which ones to keep.

Here in South Africa we had a wildlife artist by name of Fritz Krampe. Unlike most artists in the genre, his work is not photographic and he never worked from photos. Apparently he didn't even make sketches. Instead he would just intently observe his subjects, then retire to his studio and try to capture something of them. But apparently he would often make dozens of studies of a subject before getting it right, and the failures would simply be thrown out. Chinese brush painters follow a similar procedure.

The results are not necessarily worse than typical western art; it's just different.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> And do you expect more that decorative music from (eg) the Cage etudes or Music of Changes?
> 
> I suppose there's the pianist or violinist between the thing that Cage made, the score, and the audience.
> 
> ...


No, I am perfectly happy with decorative qualities. I'm pretty sure I don't want to hear Pollock and Cage interpreted by critics, but I might enjoy hearing Pollock interpreted by a pianist.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> You mean implication, not inference. An _Implication_ would be something that can reasonably be _inferred_ from what I wrote. In fact, all of the inferences you have made are yours and all of them are wrong.


Ah! You, too, striving to save the disappearing distinction between inference and implication? I fear the battle is lost. And let's not even think about "comprises" vs. "is comprised of"...


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

It's always an unexpected pleasure to get a grammar lesson. It's like a value-added benefit on top of getting classical music information. And it leaves one in awe.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DaveM said:


> It's always an unexpected pleasure to get a grammar lesson. It's like a value-added benefit on top of getting classical music information. And it leaves one in awe.


The clarifications were about definitions of words, not grammar. There was an apparent discrepancy between what you were trying to convey and what you actually wrote. And what you wrote resulted in putting your words in my mouth. My correction put them back where they belonged.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

That distinction is diction versus grammar.


----------

