# Thoughts on High Modern Music



## ido66667 (Aug 29, 2016)

First of all, High Modernism is defined as such: "a form of modernity, characterized by an unfaltering confidence in science and technology as means to reorder the social and natural world". This movment arose in the west after WW2, especially in the 50's and the 60's.

In music, it took the form of Integral Serialism. In that technique, every aspect of the composition is molded according to serial technique; dynamics, rhythm along with pitch are assigned rows, sets and other and manipulated per mathematical rules
Known composers in this style are Stockhausen, Boulez, Babbit, Nono and others. In this thread I am only referring to the composers who wholeheartedly and completely adopted integral serialism, and thus, I am not talking about Britten, Stravinsky, Bartók, Pärt, Shostakovich, and others who used the technique for either some pieces or sections of pieces.

I feel the leading reason for the rise of the style is disillusion from human nature, due to the horrors of WW2. And as such, those composers strived to make their music governed mostly by mathematics. They wanted to take the fallible and subjective nature of human experience out of music, and incorporate objective mathematics.

I am quite partial to that music: as a fan of maths I can recognize how from rigid structures and rules can beget incredible elegance, but, when I listen to music, this isn't what I am looking for.
I think serial technique can be used carefully and partially to great emotional and aesthetical affect, and many composers like Britten have done so. But, I like to still have that subjective and volatile nature of human experience. I best like music (and other art forms) that express our experiences and High Modern music purposely tries to avoid that.

My criticism is that it's too much applied abstract algebra (the field in mathematics concerned with abstract constructs like ordered and partially ordered sets, groups. From there the basic techniques of serialism are derived) and too less music. 

I admit that while I have a grasp on 12-tone technique, I am ignorant when it comes to integral serialism. But I can't help but feeling that even if I studied it deeply, I would develop an appreciation of the underlaying structure, and have intellectual enjoyment from it, but this isn't the only thing I am looking for when I listen to music.

And now to the whole point: what are your thoughts on the subject?


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I'm listening to Claus-Steffen Mahnkopf right now, he studied with Ferneyhough (among others), and his music is probably described as new complexity. I need some of that once in a while! I try to keep up with new composers, but there are lots of "fish in the ocean"  I believe it's important to listen to many different styles of music and I'm addicted to sound. Sometimes it's Mozart other times Lassus or some death metal!


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2018)

Through studying music by Boulez, Babbitt, Nono, Maderna, Stockhausen and other composers associated with mid-20th Century High Modernism it became apparent to me that the composers who thrived on the ideas of the time (such as integral serialism) were totally against the idea of the technique dictating the music. Rather, the composers found their own solution to tame the technique and make music which sounds just as they wanted it to sound, owing to their lasting influence and (relative) popularity.

Boulez himself didn't ever feel like his attempts at total serialism were successful. _Polyphony X_ was withdrawn and _Structures I_ was considered by him to be more an experiment that was a product of its time. Interestingly, Ligeti pointed out that Boulez breaks his own rules in order to tame the beast that is integral serialism and exert some control over more than just the aspects of composition not determined by a serial matrix. _Le Marteau sans maître_, which has had lasting success since its first performance, is a serial composition, but so many other interesting musical decisions overlay the gritty serial procedures underneath that what we hear is total Boulez rather than total Serialism, if that makes sense. Boulez said that the effectiveness of music like that lies in the fact that there is a uniquely musical 'exterior' sound to which we can listen and enjoy whereas anything to do serialism is just not really meant to be something to worry about as a listener.

From my perspective, the interest in serial music comes down to how well a composer manages to apply their own sound and ideas to music, using pitch/rythm/whatever matrices as a guide or a shortcut whose purpose is to help the composer generate some material with which they can create music out of. I would also say Steve Reich's phasing techniques, or any other musical processes he comes up with, are utterly boring to listen to on their own, but when he uses these techniques as a guide to structure melodies, rhythms and harmonies according to his own musical sensibilities we end up with masterworks like _Music for 18 Musicians_ or _Drumming_.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

As a non-musician, I have nothing to say about integral serialism, but I can repeat the obvious: in the marketplace of musical ideas, integral serialism found few buyers--both figuratively and literally.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

shirime said:


> it became apparent to me that the composers who thrived on the ideas of the time (such as integral serialism) were *totally against the idea of the technique dictating the music*. Rather, the composers found their own solution to tame the technique and *make music which sounds just as they wanted it to sound*


It depends on the composer. At least one early convert to serialism, Ernst Krenek, admitted quite frankly that (in his opinion) the appeal of the technique was precisely to surrender control of the music to the formulas, and that the actual sound of the music was "incidental." (That's his word.) And of course John Cage, while no serialist, was very much a product of the same postwar desolation that gave rise to serialism, and he always cited complete surrender of the self as the purpose of aleatoric music.

ADDENDUM: Here's a fuller excerpt of Krenek's quote.

_"the audible results of [serial] procedures [are] not visualized as the purpose of the procedures. Seen from this angle, the results are incidental."_

Krenek goes on to say why he thinks such a thing is desirable, and along the way he quotes a famous remark of Ligeti's concerning the latter's analysis of Boulez's _Stuctures_:

_"Generally and traditionally 'inspiration' is held in great respect as the most distinguished source of the creative process in art... [But] the [serial] composer has come to distrust his inspiration because it is not really as innocent as it was supposed to be, but rather conditioned by a tremendous body of recollection, tradition, training, and experience. In order to avoid the dictations of such ghosts, he prefers to set up an impersonal mechanism which will furnish, according to premeditated patterns, unpredictable situations. Györgi Ligeti, in his analysis of Boulez's _Structures_ for two pianos, characterizes this state of affairs very well: 'We stand in front of a row of vending machines and we can choose freely into which one we want to drop our coin, but at the same time we are forced to choose one of them. One constructs his own prison according to his wishes and is afterwards equally freely active within those walls..."_

So I do think the desire to surrender the self and the music to the technique was at least somewhat genuine for some of these composers. As the OP suggests, the 1950s were a time of extreme distrust and disgust of the human condition, and few genres of art capture this as well as integrated serialism. And I'll admit that the nihilist in me does find something beautiful, if also chilling, about the belief that serialism's algorithms, for all that they are straitjackets, at least have the virtue of being straitjackets of the wearer's choosing, unlike just about everything else life threw at all those disillusioned souls of the 1950s.


----------



## Guest (Jul 30, 2018)

You're certainly right, Eschbeg, but that view of the appeal of serialism was more of a passing phase due to events of the time.


----------



## ido66667 (Aug 29, 2016)

shirime said:


> From my perspective, the interest in serial music comes down to how well a composer manages to apply their own sound and ideas to music, using pitch/rythm/whatever matrices as a guide or a shortcut whose purpose is to help the composer generate some material with which they can create music out of. I would also say Steve Reich's phasing techniques, or any other musical processes he comes up with, are utterly boring to listen to on their own, but when he uses these techniques as a guide to structure melodies, rhythms and harmonies according to his own musical sensibilities we end up with masterworks like _Music for 18 Musicians_ or _Drumming_.


I wholeheartedly agree, though I want too add that the same applies to pre-20th century techniques as well; we all know that you won't be a great composer if you only rehearse the same accepted chord progressions again and again. You need to find how within that framework you can create something unique.



Strange Magic said:


> As a non-musician, I have nothing to say about integral serialism, but I can repeat the obvious: in the marketplace of musical ideas, integral serialism found few buyers--both figuratively and literally.


I wouldn't say it found few buyers. Quite frankly back in the 40's-60's, before the appearance of post-modern movement and counter movements (Neo-Romantic, Minimalism), and excuse the profanity, Serialism was *the ******.

Sure, it had few buyers among the general public, but so did most classical music composed (people weren't flocking to the theaters to hear that new Palestrina motet). Among professionals and enthusiasts, Serialism was highly regarded.
Most famous composers from the era, including Britten, Ligeti, Shostakovich, Bartók, Schnittke (all but one mentioned above) and many more from the 20th century were acquainted with Serial technique and used some (or a lot, depending on the composer) serial technique in their compositions while not subscribing to total Serialism.

Integral (total) Serialism had a lot less followers, but many composers that used it achieved considerable fame; Boulez, Stockhausen, Nono and Babbit are just a few examples, and in the Academia it was all the rage for decades.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

My remarks were directed specifically to integral serialism. I believe my "few buyers" observation still is valid.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I like shirime's observation that Boulez considered Structures to be a failure. Boulez was interested in systems that are self-generating, where the artist tries to remove his intent from the process. Eschbeg was correct in including Cage in this.

I have my doubts as to whether it is possible to completely remove oneself from the art. This can be traced back to Surrealism, with its automatic writing, from the French to Boulez, and with Cage, it was Buddhism and chance. This all stems back to Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, to Freud, who were interested in the idea of the unconscious in Man. This was further encouraged by WWII, which nearly destroyed Europe, culminating in the hydrogen bomb. Why trust Man anymore, or trust the "ego" which drives him to destroy? This sounds like misanthrope, or is it? Maybe it's an attempt to connect with "the spiritual" dimension; this was certainly true in Cage's case.

What about Brian Eno's self-generating systems, like "Music for Airports," which produces completely different results than serialism, and sounds more like minimalism? Perhaps it's just a question of the "input" going into the system.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

I don't think it's productive to talk about popularity in the context of music. Modern pop music is more popular and widely enjoyed than any style of classical music has ever been, so if you want to feel good about listening to what's popular, classical music isn't the right choice. And I know plenty of non-musicians who love modern/avant-garde/serial classical music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Fredx2098 said:


> I don't think it's productive to talk about popularity in the context of music. Modern pop music is more popular and widely enjoyed than any style of classical music has ever been, so if you want to feel good about listening to what's popular, classical music isn't the right choice. And I know plenty of non-musicians who love modern/avant-garde/serial classical music.


This is obviously a response to StrangeMagic's comments, and I fully agree with Fredx. If you're interested in art, go to the art. If you're interested in a tea party, go to a tea party.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Fred's original statement referred to total serialism/integral serialism. For the third time I again assert with little fear of verifiable contradiction that such music has/had agonizingly few buyers. Babbitt thought so also, and bemoaned the lack of both audiences and "proper" funding. He even complained that few showed up when the concerts were free. Let's stick like limpets to the original assertions about total/integral serialism and not expand gaseously into irrelevant statements about people not liking, by inference, "modern" or "avant-garde" music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

A timely thread, as I had just discovered Messiaen's symmetric permutations yesterday as in another thread I posted in. I also have a mathematical background, and can spot patterns quite well (it got me through my undergrad studies when I didn't actually have the time to relate the math to certain concepts), but there is a lot of total serialism that confounds me completely, and I end up listening to it "superficially". 

Most total serial music doesn't work in the way of human perception of functions that produce those series. You can hear something simple function like F(x)=x+1 in pitch, duration, attack, etc., but even F(x)=x^2 reduced to the octave or a certain number of duration types would sound unintelligible. Messiaen was able to actually make it intelligible to the human ear, with symmetric permutations by avoiding the serial, and using modal organization instead.


I suspect the more intelligible serial methods have more selection and manipulation by the composer than the music being purely automatically generated.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> Fred's original statement referred to total serialism/integral serialism. For the third time I again assert with little fear of verifiable contradiction that such music has/had agonizingly few buyers. Babbitt thought so also, and bemoaned the lack of both audiences and "proper" funding. He even complained that few showed up when the concerts were free. Let's stick like limpets to the original assertions about total/integral serialism and not expand gaseously into irrelevant statements about people not liking, by inference, "modern" or "avant-garde" music.


I just don't see the point of mentioning that except as an insult when talking about the music itself.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> *I have my doubts as to whether it is possible to completely remove oneself from the art.* This can be traced back to Surrealism, with its automatic writing, from the French to Boulez, and with Cage, it was *Buddhism and chance.* This all stems back to Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, to Freud, who were interested in the idea of the unconscious in Man. This was further encouraged by WWII, which nearly destroyed Europe, culminating in the hydrogen bomb. *Why trust Man anymore, or trust the "ego" which drives him to destroy?* This sounds like misanthrope, or is it? *Maybe it's an attempt to connect with "the spiritual" dimension;* this was certainly true in Cage's case.


The conscious attempt to remove oneself completely from one's creative work by removing personal choice from the process of creation is a strange perversion of the artistic impulse and a fool's errand. Any Buddhist will tell you that the calculated renunciation of ego is only an insidious form of egotism. Neither total serial control nor a complete abandonment of control through randomness or chance is anything but a false analogy to the goal of Buddhist practice, which seeks freedom from attachment to limiting and destructive thoughts and self-obsession, not the obliteration of the personality. "Spirituality" of the Modernist sort looks suspiciously like nihilism.

Human life has always been fraught with peril and haunted by death. I wouldn't romanticize those "poor disillusioned souls of the 1950s" that Eschberg speaks of, so appalled by the human condition that they thought they had to contrive techniques of self-negation to keep those troublesomely appealing tunes and triads from slipping in through a side door.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> ...in the marketplace of musical ideas, integral serialism found few buyers--both figuratively and literally.


Well, you can count me among those "few buyers." The cpo three CD collection _Jean Barraqué - Oeuvres Completes_, a piece from which I'm listening to right now over headphones (Concerto - Pour 6 Formations Instrumentales Et Deux Instruments (1962-68)) didn't just _grow_ on my CD shelf.









I actually enjoy all sorts of serial styled music and seem to have quite a few discs of such in my collection. This affection for serialism does not diminish in any way my appreciation for Bach Cantatas, Beethoven Symphonies, Brahms piano music or Miles Davis. I certainly find serial-style music more interesting than anything I've heard by Philip Glass and the minimalists. And "interesting" remains a quality I seek in music, which explains my appreciation for Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Miles ... and, yes, Jean Barraqué!


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

These types of debates have been going on here for years. Too many times they degenerate into meaningless discussions on who is better: Boulez or Beethoven. In the end what we enjoy depends on what appeals to our ears. It has nothing to do with mathematics or social movements. Music is sound.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

ido66667 said:


> First of all, High Modernism is defined as such: "a form of modernity, characterized by an unfaltering confidence in science and technology as means to reorder the social and natural world". This movment arose in the west after WW2, especially in the 50's and the 60's.
> 
> In music, it took the form of Integral Serialism. In that technique, every aspect of the composition is molded according to serial technique; dynamics, rhythm along with pitch are assigned rows, sets and other and manipulated per mathematical rules
> Known composers in this style are Stockhausen, Boulez, Babbit, Nono and others. In this thread I am only referring to the composers who wholeheartedly and completely adopted integral serialism, and thus, I am not talking about Britten, Stravinsky, Bartók, Pärt, Shostakovich, and others who used the technique for either some pieces or sections of pieces.


First of all, is this thread topic a "Dorothy Dixer?"

Seriously though, I think its correct to draw a line between those who used serialism to some extent and those who went in the direction of scorched earth type modernism in the 1950's. Bartok, for example, said he merely used the technique in the middle movement of his Violin Concerto No. 2 to prove to Schoenberg that it could be used tonally. When analysing this piece, Yehudi Menuhin said that in breaking all the rules of serialism Bartok was able to utilise it to generate ideas rather than restrict them. He said it was like spinning out motifs like jewels, comparing that to the restricted slide rule of more strictly applied serialism.

While total serialism didn't lead to anything, wiping the slate clean during the 1950's did more or less allow the most radical experiments to be done. I see the decade as being like a laboratory of ideas which, although from the 1960's onwards have lost currency, they at least allowed composers to take up some of these innovations and use them at their own behest. In other words, there where additions to the toolbox of compositional techniques.



> I feel the leading reason for the rise of the style is disillusion from human nature, due to the horrors of WW2. And as such, those composers strived to make their music governed mostly by mathematics. They wanted to take the fallible and subjective nature of human experience out of music, and incorporate objective mathematics.
> 
> I am quite partial to that music: as a fan of maths I can recognize how from rigid structures and rules can beget incredible elegance, but, when I listen to music, this isn't what I am looking for.
> I think serial technique can be used carefully and partially to great emotional and aesthetical affect, and many composers like Britten have done so. But, I like to still have that subjective and volatile nature of human experience. I best like music (and other art forms) that express our experiences and High Modern music purposely tries to avoid that.
> ...


Its not what I'm looking for, either. Its like listening to morse code.

I basically agree with your comments on total serialism being a reaction to WWII.

Once serialism entered the academy it became an artefact, just like say Beethoven. That doesn't sit well with modernism, which is supposed to be about constant progress. Since the 1960's its been more a matter of consolidation rather than out and out progress at all cost.

We are more cynical now, we no longer accept science as our saviour. Technology is only a part of this of course, but dogmas like scientific determinism are doomed to fail. For one thing, it doesn't factor in individual people, who are kind of important in music. The closest parallels to the brief halcyon days of modernism (or High Modernism as you call it) in history are religious dogmas or the imposition of Communist ideology under regimes such as the Soviets. These things just can't last, and apart from that spike in the 1950's, since then things in music have been very different - which is a good thing, in my opinion.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2018)

ido66667 said:


> First of all, High Modernism is defined as such: "a form of modernity, characterized by an unfaltering confidence in science and technology as means to reorder the social and natural world". This movment arose in the west after WW2, especially in the 50's and the 60's.
> 
> In music, it took the form of Integral Serialism. In that technique, every aspect of the composition is molded according to serial technique; dynamics, rhythm along with pitch are assigned rows, sets and other and manipulated per mathematical rules
> Known composers in this style are Stockhausen, Boulez, Babbit, Nono and others. In this thread I am only referring to the composers who wholeheartedly and completely adopted integral serialism, and thus, I am not talking about Britten, Stravinsky, Bartók, Pärt, Shostakovich, and others who used the technique for either some pieces or sections of pieces.
> ...


As the great man said, if it sounds good it is good. There are many ways to write music that sounds good.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Fredx2098 said:


> I just don't see the point of mentioning that except as an insult when talking about the music itself.


Go back and carefully read the OP. There are several "insults" directed at total serialism there also, though my references to Babbitt's own disillusionment with his potential audience were more in the nature of "facts" rather than "insults".


----------



## ido66667 (Aug 29, 2016)

Baron Scarpia said:


> As the great man said, if it sounds good it is good. There are many ways to write music that sounds good.


With all due respects to Ellington, I think a better formulation is "If it sounds good to you, it's good for you". That is, if you like it, then go ahead and enjoy! Let no one deprive you of it.
The problem is there isn't any objective "good". 
And this is where it gets interesting: you think something is aesthetically pleasing, but another think it isn't. So you have a respectful mutual discussion on your tastes in aesthetics.

I think that's shutting down all discussion about tastes in music undercuts the whole purpose of this forum. But still, we must remember at all times during friendly arguments, discussions and debates that everyone is entitled to enjoy their favourite music!



arpeggio said:


> These types of debates have been going on here for years. Too many times they degenerate into meaningless discussions on who is better: Boulez or Beethoven. In the end what we enjoy depends on what appeals to our ears. It has nothing to do with mathematics or social movements. Music is sound.


I want to avoid a simple "X is better than Y" statments. What I would like to see is "I find X more pleasing than Y because A, B, C".

But again, there aren't wrongs and rights here, and each one of us has different tastes in music, all equally valid - but that doesn't mean we should all hide our views on pieces, composers or styles.

Furthermore, historical context is importent in understanding a style in music. You have an informed discussion about John Dowland or Francisco de Millano without mentioning the broader (painting, poetry, prose, philosphy, ect) English or Italian Renaissance, respectively.
And similarly, you can't have an intelligent discussion about Integral Serialism without mentioning the movment it fit into - High Modernism. 
Talking about the artistic context only enriches our understanding of the subject, and as so, we shouldn't be shy of it!

And about math: you really can't talk about a technique of composition without mentioning the underlaying principles. It's the basics. Again, you can't intelligently talk about baroque fugues without mentioning baroque harmonic conventions and theory.



Strange Magic said:


> Go back and carefully read the OP. There are several "insults" directed at total serialism there also, though my references to Babbitt's own disillusionment with his potential audience were more in the nature of "facts" rather than "insults".


Discussion, Criticism, Thoughts ≠ Insults.
Insulting serial music would be to say 


> Wat iz dis shte?!?!!?!
> dis is jst noyz!!!!


à la youtube comments. Fortunately, no one here went down this path...


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

ido66667 said:


> The problem is there isn't any objective "good".


That's just your (subjective) opinion.


----------



## ido66667 (Aug 29, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> That's just your (subjective) opinion.


Are you saying there is an objective way to measure how "good" is a given piece of music?


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

ido66667 said:


> First of all, High Modernism is defined as such: "a form of modernity, characterized by an unfaltering confidence in science and technology as means to reorder the social and natural world". This movment arose in the west after WW2, especially in the 50's and the 60's.
> 
> (...)
> I feel the leading reason for the rise of the style is disillusion from human nature, due to the horrors of WW2. And as such, those composers strived to make their music governed mostly by mathematics. They wanted to take the fallible and subjective nature of human experience out of music, and incorporate objective mathematics.


I guess High Modernity was simply the product of the Cold War instead of relating to WO II. The Cold War was a competition between two very modernistic, rationalistic ideologies so music/art was also very modernistic and rationalistic. As you quoted: "characterized by an unfaltering confidence in science and technology". In music this was a unfaltering confidence in mathematics as fundamental to the new music. Of course Modernism was a reaction to the Romantic Age which was all about feeling. WO II was the first blow to Modernism as it undermined the believe in science, technology and in rationality and progress (in the hands of the nazi's all those modernistic values had led to an industrial annihilation of people). Around 1968 the modernistic believe in rationality and progress was again demolished because of the doom of nuclear war and thus total destruction, giving rise to a new romanticism ('the summer of love') and postmodernism.

Musically, it is interesting to note that many modernistic composers used mathematics to determine every note; yet e.g. Cage experimented with chance thus the absence of determinism of any kind which is of course simply the opposite side of the modernistic coin.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> Go back and carefully read the OP. There are several "insults" directed at total serialism there also, though my references to Babbitt's own disillusionment with his potential audience were more in the nature of "facts" rather than "insults".


The OP seems to appreciate and enjoy the music. The criticism is of the style itself and not about its popularity, it seems.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Personally I've never "heard" math in music. If I have, then I've heard it in all styles of music, probably even more so in "normal" classical music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

ido66667 said:


> Sure, it had few buyers among the general public, but so did most classical music composed (people weren't flocking to the theaters to hear that new Palestrina motet). Among professionals and enthusiasts, Serialism was highly regarded.
> ...


Serialism was highly regarded and so what? Palestrina's music has been sung in churches for like 500 years which isn't a bad run. I bet if you go to any major city in the Western world and looked hard enough you would find a church where his motets or other service music is sung on every Sunday. Plus he was amongst the most influential of all composers in Western music right up to the present. There's scarcely a composer who hasn't been in some way touched by his legacy, and that's not restricted to choral music.



Agamemnon said:


> ...Musically, it is interesting to note that many modernistic composers used mathematics to determine every note; yet e.g. Cage experimented with chance thus the absence of determinism of any kind which is of course simply the opposite side of the modernistic coin.


Not exactly, because he used what can be as extremely rigorous chance techniques in the process pieces, at least. Of course, the results sound like chaos anyway, but the procedures required to produce them are anything but. So on the one hand you got a kind of morse code thanks to total serialism and utter chaos thanks to the strictest chance procedures. They where united in a sense of moving away from the composer's ego or music being associated with any direct expression of emotion.

A telling anecdote is in John Adams' autobiography Hallelujah Junction. Adams was, along with Cage, invited to some big music conference in the then USSR. When one of his pieces was given its Russian premiere, Adams declined to invite Cage despite them being friends. He said he didn't want to invite Cage to something he knew he would strongly disapprove of and have no chance of enjoying, or even caring about one bit. It had some sense of tonality, repetition, a sense of drama and emotion. This was in the 1980's so it shows that despite Cage moving away from rigid control by then his idea of music was still fixed pretty much in the 1950's. But in a way its hard to pin Cage down, apart from the art equals life mantra he contradicted himself so much, even within the same interview.


----------

