# Do you consider John Cage a great composer?



## Xisten267

Simple and direct. I'm interested in knowing what the community here thinks of JC.


----------



## hammeredklavier

We can't really say he's objectively a bad composer if there are people who appreciate his music, (regardless how many there are). "Classical music" is only regularly appreciated by about less than 1% of the total population. That doesn't make it bad music. The same logic applies to "avant-garde music".
But I still doubt how much of his musical philosophy overlaps with that of "classical music". I don't think general "avant-garde music" is "classical music". But, I would not say it's objectively worse than "classical music" in terms of artistic value. I know there are people who are into "modern art philosophy" stuff, I respect their preference.

'If you listen to Mozart and Beethoven, it's always the same,' he claimed. 'But if you listen to the traffic here on Sixth Avenue, it's always different.' https://www.gramophone.co.uk/features/article/john-cage-manhattan-music

There are tons of genres out there that claim to be true descendants of "classical music". I just don't think it's fair to exclude them, yet include stuff like Cage within the boundaries of "classical music".

"Yuhki Kuramoto is a Japanese pianist and composer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuhki_Kuramoto
At school, he studied Rachmaninoff and performed as a part-time soloist in orchestras.
Kuramoto's style of music shows influence from a variety of composers from different periods. Most notably, by Rachmaninoff, Chopin and Ravel. 
https://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/yuhki-kuramoto.html 
He was considered an heir to Rachmaninoff and Chopin."


----------



## Ulfilas

An interesting composer, and a groundbeaking thinker. 

But great? That's subjective, but I don't feel it's a descriptive we should overuse.


----------



## consuono

"Do you consider John Cage a great composer?"

No.


----------



## chu42

I said no with a caveat—he's an interesting composer, but not great for me. I enjoy his works in a purely cerebral way, and while I appreciate his ideas, perhaps he would be less denigrated if he had less ideas and more substance.

But Cage will be Cage. I'm glad he existed.


----------



## Rogerx

https://www.talkclassical.com/38335-john-cage-again.html?highlight=John+Cage

https://www.talkclassical.com/4342-john-cage.html?highlight=John+Cage
Related topics


----------



## david johnson

I've never heard his famous 4" 33".


----------



## Phil loves classical

If he's a great composer, then I don't know who isn't.


----------



## SanAntone

No surprise here.


----------



## Jacck

He reminds me of Satie or Feldman, he composed mostly slow dreamy music that could be termed ambient. Not really a fan of that kind of music.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Jacck said:


> He reminds me of Satie or Feldman, he composed mostly slow dreamy music that could be termed ambient. Not really a fan of that kind of music.


 Ambient music?


----------



## Jacck

Phil loves classical said:


> Ambient music?


----------



## JAS

nor do I consider him even a major composer.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> nor do I consider him even a major composer.


I'm surprised you even consider him a composer.


----------



## Fabulin

SanAntone said:


> I'm surprised you even consider him a composer.


To be fair, JAS's statement contains no such information...

But hey, neither does Cage's music! :devil:


----------



## JAS

When I consider him at all, I mostly consider him a mere gadfly, or a bull who enjoyed pushing china off of shelves. I hardly deem that a creative act, at least in any constructive sense. (Apparently we are forbidden from considering him a charlatan or a fraud, due to some assumption of sincerity.)


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> When I consider him at all, I mostly consider him a mere gadfly, or a bull who enjoyed pushing china off of shelves. I hardly deem that a creative act, at least in any constructive sense. (Apparently we are forbidden from considering him a charlatan or a fraud, due to some assumption of sincerity.)


I don't know why you think that. If you think he's a charlatan say it.

I listen to his music and respect what he accomplished. Whether he is considered a composer, writer, or philosopher - it doesn't change my enjoyment and interest in his work. Nor do I suspect it will alter his historical importance - for good or bad depending upon your orientation.


----------



## Barbebleu

You’re better off with Nicholas Cage


----------



## Coach G

There are some Cage pieces that fairly listenable; pieces for prepared piano; the _String Quartet_ to name some. Much else by Cage seems better discussed than enjoyed which is point behind conceptual art. I was once taking a summer class at a local college and during the same week, the college was hosting mycological convention where mushroom enthusiasts from all over the area were holding meetings. I got to talking to some of them and when I mentioned John Cage they all knew who he was and revered and admired him for all he did to promote mycological/mushroom enthusiasm.


----------



## julide

Jacck said:


> He reminds me of Satie or Feldman, he composed mostly slow dreamy music that could be termed ambient. Not really a fan of that kind of music.


Oh but america was so affluent and dull... no wonder it could only produce supermarket music and naive experimentalism


----------



## SanAntone

julide said:


> Oh but america was so affluent and dull... no wonder it could only produce supermarket music and naive experimentalism


LOL, you obviously don't know much about American music. Tell me about the music where you're from?


----------



## julide

SanAntone said:


> LOL, you obviously don't know much about American music. Tell me about the music where you're from?


"Steve Reich has offered one possible explanation for why such criticism is largely misplaced. In 1987 he stated that his compositional output reflected the popular culture of postwar American consumer society because the "elite European-style serial music" was simply not representative of his cultural experience. Reich stated that"

there is nothing wrong with supermarket music and naive experimentalism... its all steve reich said he could compose


----------



## SanAntone

julide said:


> "Steve Reich has offered one possible explanation for why such criticism is largely misplaced. In 1987 he stated that his compositional output reflected the popular culture of postwar American consumer society because the "elite European-style serial music" was simply not representative of his cultural experience. Reich stated that"
> 
> there is nothing wrong with supermarket music and naive experimentalism... its all steve reich said he could compose


There's a lot more to American music than Steve Reich - a composer I have managed to ignore. You still haven't told me anything about the music from where you come from.


----------



## julide

SanAntone said:


> There's a lot more to American music than Steve Reich - a composer I have managed to ignore. You still haven't told me anything about the music from where you come from.


Did i say my countries music was any better. I don't think there's anything to be patriotic about.


----------



## SanAntone

julide said:


> Did i say my countries music was any better. I don't think there's anything to be patriotic about.


I am just interested in where you come from and what music it produces. Can you just try to be polite and let me in on that?


----------



## Coach G

JAS said:


> When I consider him at all, I mostly consider him a mere gadfly, or a bull who enjoyed pushing china off of shelves. I hardly deem that a creative act, at least in any constructive sense. (Apparently we are forbidden from considering him a charlatan or a fraud, due to some assumption of sincerity.)


How are you "forbidden" to consider Cage a "charlatan" or "fraud" when you just said it?


----------



## JAS

Coach G said:


> How are you "forbidden" to consider Cage a "charlatan" or "fraud" when you just said it?


I didn't actually make the forbidden statement; I merely said it was forbidden. It has been thus stated in several threads; the mods do not like it, and usually protest an imagined sincerity that argues against the terms in some technical sense.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> I didn't actually make the forbidden statement; I merely said it was forbidden. I has been thus stated in several threads; the mods do not like it, and usually protest an imagined sincerity that argues against the terms in some technical sense.


Well it is speculation, of a very disrespectful kind, about something which you cannot know. So from that standpoint it is overly pejorative and can serve no useful purpose and inflame the feelings of anyone who happens to enjoy John Cage's work. So if you wish to cause an online ruckus, go ahead and say it as much as you wish. But if you wish to have a productive dialog about John Cage, it would seem appropriate to avoid saying it.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> Well it is speculation, of a very disrespectful kind, about something which you cannot know. So from that standpoint it is overly pejorative and can serve no useful purpose and inflame the feelings of anyone who happens to enjoy John Cage's work. So if you wish to cause an online ruckus, go ahead and say it as much as you wish. But if you wish to have a productive dialog about John Cage, it would seem appropriate to avoid saying it.


So, after telling me that it was not forbidden, now you are saying that I should not say it because it is disrespectful, and I should avoid saying it.

No productive dialog about John Cage or his productions is possible, outside of simple rejection of the whole body of work.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> So, after telling me that it was not forbidden, now you are saying that I should not say it because it is disrespectful, and I should avoid saying it.
> 
> No productive dialog about John Cage or his productions is possible, outside of simple rejection of the whole body of work.


I am trying to explain why the mods might frown on you saying it. But, while I oppose that kind of censorship I am all for conversations which are respectful in which the participants avoid saying things which they know will do nothing but inflame the people who do not share their opinion.

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't enjoy Internet flame wars.


----------



## JAS

I already explained the reason that was typically given.


----------



## Simon Moon

I am not a fan of Cage's music, but I do appreciate anyone that pushes boundaries.

I've only heard a few things by him that I find moderately interesting. The Seasons, Fifty-Eight, Two4, Sixty-Eight.

So, my assessment is, interesting thinker, minor composer.


----------



## consuono

JAS said:


> I didn't actually make the forbidden statement; I merely said it was forbidden. I has been thus stated in several threads; the mods do not like it, and usually protest an imagined sincerity that argues against the terms in some technical sense.


Yep. If you do something silly like that you'll find yourself in the TC jail for a couple of weeks.


----------



## SONNET CLV

I enjoy some of the music of John Cage. I don't enjoy some of the music of Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert ....

I would agree with the contention that Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert are "great composers." I rather respect Cage moreso as an "artist" in a more general sense, one with a philosophical bent who used _sound_ (and sometimes the absence of it) as a vehicle for communicating his artistic/philosophical fancies.

I'm pleased to have a respectable collection of discs by Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert (among others) and I've heard enough of their music to have found pieces I absolutely love and others I could pass on. I'm pleased to have a rather substantial collection of Cage recordings, too, even if I feel somewhat guilty having such "documents" as Cage himself seemed insistent against recording music, preferring "in the moment" creation of musical soundscapes. I like some of Cage's music, and I can pass on other of it.

Because of Cage's influence on late 20th century artistic thinking, I believe we must value his contributions to our cultural history. They have made their mark, even on those who consciously reject them. That, too, means the art is in contention for consideration and evaluation.

Do you have to like Cage's music (art)? No. You don't have to like Mozart, Beethoven, or Schubert, either. But I know that were I to become an artist of any sort, I could not approach my tasks at hand without consideration of what Cage has laid down for us as artistic (and philosophical, and aesthetic) possibilities. For that he achieves a certain greatness.


----------



## consuono

"Because of Cage's influence on late 20th century artistic thinking, I believe we must value his contributions to our cultural history. They have made their mark, even on those who consciously reject them."

Huh? Cage has had zero influence on me.


----------



## tdc

Simon Moon said:


> So, my assessment is, interesting thinker, minor composer.


This is pretty much my assessment as well, and I answered 'no' in the poll. I do acknowledge he has had some influence on some music that I enjoy, for example on Takemitsu. But I don't consider Cage a good composer never mind a great composer.


----------



## flamencosketches

Hell yes. Sorry to be in the minority, though I'm not entirely surprised.


----------



## SanAntone

flamencosketches said:


> Hell yes. Sorry to be in the minority, though I'm not entirely surprised.


Yeah, I too am not surprised and even said so a few pages up. No matter how unimportant the anti-Cagians claim he is they cannot help going on and on about him.

To me he is a very interesting composer, whose music I've found to be remarkable and often enjoyable. You can never say you've heard one of his pieces since often different performances/recordings produce very different sounding results. He is unique and inventive - he makes me think about music in ways no other composer has done.

I ignore the naysayers and just enjoy the music.


----------



## tdc

I don't think he is unimportant, I just don't think composition is his strength. Ideas are. I enjoy some of his percussion music from time to time, because it has a certain rhythmic freshness. I could see this kind of thing inspiring some ideas in a good composer, but Cage himself was not in my view. I was interested in him for a time, listened to a lot of his pieces, wasn't looking for a reason to dislike him or anything, to me it just became apparent that composition itself was not where his talents were. I believe he has more or less admitted this himself.


----------



## SanAntone

tdc said:


> I don't think he is unimportant, I just don't think composition is his strength. Ideas are. I enjoy some of his percussion music from time to time, because it has a certain rhythmic freshness. I could see this kind of thing inspiring some ideas in a good composer, but Cage himself was not in my view. I was interested in him for a time, listened to a lot of his pieces, wasn't looking for a reason to dislike him or anything, to me it just became apparent that composition itself was not where his talents were. I believe he has more or less admitted this himself.


In any event he continuing composing right until the end of his life and his list of compositions is fairly extensive.


----------



## Knorf

Yes, beyond any shadow of doubt in my mind.


----------



## SearsPoncho

No. .


----------



## tdc

SanAntone said:


> In any event he continuing composing right until the end of his life and his list of compositions is fairly extensive.


True, but we are talking about someone who stated the production of sound is music, enjoyed traffic noise as music, released a piece in which the performers play nothing etc. If those were my standards for compositions I could create a fairly extensive list too, pretty easily I might add.


----------



## SanAntone

tdc said:


> True, but we are talking about someone who stated the production of sound is music, enjoyed traffic noise as music, released a piece in which the performers play nothing etc. If those were my standards for compositions I could create a fairly extensive list too, pretty easily I might add.


In any event, John Cage had a long career, was successful in his chosen field, and has millions of fans worldwide. None of that means that your opinion is not right for you, but puts it into some context.

I happen to feel differently from you but understand why you think what you posted. There are plenty of accomplished composers whose music does nothing for me.

John Cage is not one of those composers.

Oh and good luck with your career as a second Cage.


----------



## adriesba

I consider him to be a joke, one that's getting old.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I find it much more interesting to watch this performance than to listen to it.






Compare these performances. The one above seems a lot more accurate than this one below by Tudor. I don't think he's playing all the notes, or right notes from a few spot checks in the first part. I suspect he didn't think some would do their due diligence. Really winging it there.






Here is a link to the score

http://en.scorser.com/Out/300586856.html


----------



## Fabulin

SanAntone said:


> In any event, John Cage had a long career, was successful in his chosen field, and has millions of fans worldwide. None of that means that your opinion is not right for you, but puts it into some context.
> 
> I happen to feel differently from you but understand why you think what you posted. There are plenty of accomplished composers whose music does nothing for me.
> 
> John Cage is not one of those composers.
> 
> Oh and good luck with your career as a second Cage.


Pop stars have more fans than Cage. Does that make them even greater? Asking for a friend.


----------



## SanAntone

Fabulin said:


> Pop stars have more fans than Cage. Does that make them even greater? Asking for a friend.


I think you know the answer, since they would also be greater than any classical music composer. I only mentioned that fact because several people here dismiss Cage easily, whereas his music has found a large audience, so there must be something there which a large number of people find worthwhile. I happily include myself in their number.

Just because a majority of the members of the TC forum (or at least the ones participating in this poll and thread) do not respect the work of John Cage only means that this community is conservative and has trouble tolerating a composer who does not fit their idea of what a composer should be.


----------



## Rogerx

Allerius said:


> Simple and direct. I'm interested in knowing what the community here thinks of JC.


82% says no, so..........


----------



## SanAntone

Rogerx said:


> 82% says no, so..........


Which says more about TC than John Cage. Unfortunately.


----------



## larold

He's a composer far more talked about than listened to. I've never seen nor heard his music scheduled or played in concert. It's difficult to think of anyone with those characteristics being great in any way.


----------



## Chilham

I enjoy, "In a Landscape". Little else.


----------



## annaw

SanAntone said:


> I think you know the answer, since they would also be greater than any classical music composer. I only mentioned that fact because several people here dismiss Cage easily, whereas his music has found a large audience, so there must be something there which a large number of people find worthwhile. I happily include myself in their number.
> 
> Just because a majority of the members of the TC forum (or at least the ones participating in this poll and thread) do not respect the work of John Cage only means that this community is conservative and has trouble tolerating a composer who does not fit their idea of what a composer should be.


Nevertheless, as many members have noted, it takes more than "I like the composer" to say he or she is great. Just this morning I was reading a comparative article about Picasso and Rembrandt. Although the writer of that article concluded that Picasso could be considered a greater artist based on some factors he analysed, the author also said that (at least in his opinion, I guess) Rembrandt should be seen as a far superior painter than Picasso because of his skilful mastery of light and colours, which Picasso simply didn't need to produce his art. This doesn't mean that Picasso isn't one of the most renowned and talented figures in visual arts but it simply shows that he didn't require similar craftsmanship as Rembrandt to realise his vision and understanding of art. Certain similarities could be seen between Picasso's or, even better, Pollock's understanding of painting and Cage's understanding of composing. I will describe this a bit, basing my post on the assumption that it _is_ possible to separate composing skills to some extent from artistry. Whether it is or not, I don't really know.

The fact that Beethoven's mastery of composing - his use of orchestral textures, his understanding of instrumentation and orchestral colours etc - _might_ have been greater than that of Cage, does by no means imply that Beethoven is _de facto_ a superior artist. No, we cannot jump to such a conclusion. Cage's compositions are "great" because of the way he renewed the known understanding of music. As it has been mentioned before, his ideas made him special and the fact that he came up with revolutionary ideas doesn't diminish his importance in any way. The same could also be said about Picasso - his revolutionary ideas and fearlessness to realise them played an integral part in his "greatness" as an artist. It's not thus in any way a heresy to say that Cage wasn't as great composer as this or that one, because it doesn't mean one cannot view him as an immensely great artist or enjoy his works. A bit similar ideas have been mentioned in this thread as well and thus I think it's not worth attacking all those 80% of people whose standards, reasons and understandings might be drastically different from yours. Maybe there's someone who doesn't consider anyone but Mozart "great" - this doesn't mean he or she hates all other music.

(Btw, I don't really think that every composer not as talented as Beethoven shouldn't be called "great". I just used that simplification for the sake of the argument. "Great" is so subjective anyways that I didn't feel it's really a problem.)


----------



## Fabulin

SanAntone said:


> I think you know the answer, since they would also be greater than any classical music composer. I only mentioned that fact because several people here dismiss Cage easily, whereas his music has found a large audience, so there must be something there which a large number of people find worthwhile. I happily include myself in their number.
> 
> Just because a majority of the members of the TC forum (or at least the ones participating in this poll and thread) do not respect the work of John Cage only means that this community is conservative and has trouble tolerating a composer who does not fit their idea of what a composer should be.


Just because you label someone as "conservative and having trouble tolerating..." etc., it doesn't say anything about whether they are right or wrong.


----------



## flamencosketches

Fabulin said:


> Just because you label someone as "conservative and having trouble tolerating..." etc., it doesn't say anything about whether they are right or wrong.


There isn't any real right or wrong here. You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong.


----------



## Rogerx

SanAntone said:


> Which says more about TC than John Cage. Unfortunately.


In a free society every vote count, even if you do not like it.


----------



## SanAntone

larold said:


> He's a composer far more talked about than listened to. I've never seen nor heard his music scheduled or played in concert. It's difficult to think of anyone with those characteristics being great in any way.


It would seem you are not going to the right concerts.



annaw said:


> Undoubtedly. Even if 80% of the people voted "yes", it would say more about TC than John Cage, although one could probably be able to infer, or at least suggest, one or two things about Cage from any kind of results. Still, such polls, especially if "great" is in the title, are in the end only a survey about individual responses.
> 
> Nevertheless, as many members have noted, it takes more than "I like the composer" to say he or she is great.
> 
> [...]


I've noticed that TC is really caught up with the idea of "greatness." Which I think is somewhat odd. All I will ever say is whether I like a composer's music. "Greatness" is not something I care about, since I consider it the product of the test of time - not determined by objective metrics which can be identified and calculated for relatively new works. There is plenty of "great" music i.e. music that has been valued for centuries, that I don't listen to because I don't find it interesting. Most orchestral music is not something I care about.

Of course there is other "great" music that I do find interesting and listen to - but not because it is "great" simply because I find it interesting and like the way it sounds. The music of Machaut, Palestrina, or the chamber music of Schumann, Brahms, Debussy, for example.

However, even by the test of time, John Cage has proven to be an enduring composer with new recordings of his music appearing regularly more than 100 years after his birth.

I voted in the poll interpreting the term "great" as "interesting or favorite".



Fabulin said:


> Just because you label someone as "conservative and having trouble tolerating..." etc., it doesn't say anything about whether they are right or wrong.





flamencosketches said:


> There isn't any real right or wrong here. You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong.


I agree. Funny that this needs to be pointed out.


----------



## SanAntone

Rogerx said:


> In a free society every vote count, even if you do not like it.


Oh, of course. But this TC poll is a small sample size (63 votes), so these polls are meaningless. Cage has over 200,000 monthly listeners on Spotify. That's a lot of people who find something in his music worthwhile on a regular basis.


----------



## Fabulin

flamencosketches said:


> There isn't any real right or wrong here. You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong.


And where two people argue, at least one is wrong. I just find it funny that a result against Cage's "greatness" gets turned into a discussion about the deficiency of the listeners.


----------



## millionrainbows

John Cage doesn't fit the usual Beethoven/Wagnerian paradigm of "great composer" for most of his body of work, since he tried to remove as much of his personality from the work as possible.

His early work, the early piano pieces and the prepared piano works, and works which somehow seem to retain the mark of his personality, such as the original tape version of Fontana Mix and Williams Mix, would be the consideration for a conventional definition of "greatness," and in my opinion, they fit _my own_ criteria for greatness.

There is a curious disparity going on in Cage's work; even though in later works he has tried to remove his personality from the work, it still is recognizable as John Cage to me. Maybe that's one of the consequences of being human, that no matter how much we might try to avoid inserting ourselves into things, we still somehow leave a mark, because we are the "cause" in the cause and effect chain;

Or maybe it's because this particular non-Western indeterminate way of composition, in which the players themselves are responding to instructions and creating the sounds in a very free, uncontrolled way, results in a Zen-like "sound" which sounds a certain random way, and we have associated this with a John Cage "style." Maybe this is why Pierre Boulez abandoned "chance" composition early on.

I have my doubts on this second point, however, since other "almost random" music such as Stockhausen or Morton Feldman's indeterminate works, still bear the imprints of their respective composers. I can't think of any other indeterminate music which I would mistakenly attribute to John Cage. Perhaps there is some example out there.

So, yes, for his music, innovations (prepared piano), writings on music, and his lifelong devotion to music, I would definitely consider him to be a "great composer," and to be included in any history of Western music.


----------



## SanAntone

Fabulin said:


> And where two people argue, at least one is wrong.


No concerning matters of taste.



> I just find it funny that a result against Cage's "greatness" gets turned into a discussion about the deficiency of the listeners.


I am not talking about "deficiency of the listeners" just a bias on TC, or at least among the self-selected group of people taking part in this poll.

Unless you live under a rock, you must have some awareness that John Cage is held in esteem by many musicians and listeners. Which might cause a flicker of doubt in the minds of those here who dismiss him as a "joke" or irrelevant if there was an ounce of humility.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Originality Cage has, yes... Only originality does not make one great.

I recall a composer (forgot his name) who claimed Debussy and Scriabin stole his ideas. Even if it were true, they utilized his ideas to much better extent, and is why they are remembered while he is forgotten.

As in the post above I noted lots of mistakes and deviations Tudor (who premiered the work) did on Music of Changes, in note pitches, duration, dynamics in just the first few bars. His playing is maybe 70% similarity to Vicky Chow's (assuming she got it all correct, which I think she did, or very close aside from some tone clusters). But none of it really matters since it was indeterminate to begin with. What if a player played 70% of a normal piano piece?

Aside from the preparedness in the piano in this piece, is the material itself really that great? I think Schoenberg put it best, that Cage was an innovator more than a composer.


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> Originality Cage has, yes... Only originality does not make one great.


What objective criteria makes "one great" and by what authority?

Why is "greatness" important?


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> . . .
> Unless you live under a rock, you must have some awareness that John Cage is held in esteem by many musicians and listeners. Which might cause a flicker of doubt in the minds of those here who dismiss him as a "joke" or irrelevant if there was an ounce of humility.


It doesn't cause any flicker of doubt, nor should it. The subjective view of any listener is always right. (That does not mean that they all need to agree.)

The one part of your post I agree with is that polls on TC do not really reflect anything but the responses of the TC community, which is pretty small (and tends to be weighed in favor of some pretty crazy stuff). I am actually a little surprised to see how lopsided the results area.


----------



## Ingélou

I don't consider him a 'great' composer because the bar is set too high. 

But he's a 'composer' - worth considering. I like his earlier work best.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> It doesn't cause any flicker of doubt, nor should it. The subjective view of any listener is always right. (That does not mean that they all need to agree.)
> 
> The one part of your post I agree with is that polls on TC do not really reflect anything but the responses of the TC community, which is pretty small (and tends to be weighed in favor of some pretty crazy stuff). I am actually a little surprised to see how lopsided the results area.


The flicker of doubt concerns the disrespectful dismissal of Cage as a joke or charlatan as opposed to a more humble statement, "I don't like his music but recognize that he was a composer of some stature."

I don't care about the results of this poll, or any poll on TC - but the smugness and disrespect effects the entire forum environment, IMO.


----------



## premont

SanAntone said:


> What objective criteria makes "one great" and by what authority?
> 
> Why is "greatness" important?


Precisely. The assessment of greatness is an entirely subjective matter. What I find great means of course something to me, but it has no strictly objective value.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> The flicker of doubt concerns the disrespectful dismissal of Cage as a joke or charlatan as opposed to a more humble statement, "I don't like his music but recognize that he was a composer of some stature."
> 
> I don't care about the results of this poll, or any poll on TC - but the smugness and disrespect effects the entire forum environment, IMO.


Still no flicker in my mind. It might be one thing to dismiss as a crank one person who thinks that Beethoven was a hack, and quite another to overrule my own response to John Cage (and that of many, many other listeners) at the whim of someone with an academic title. Academic expertise may be useful in producing a convincing argument, but if the final argument produced is not convincing, then it still fails, title or not. (I sometimes use expertise to assist me in deciding what to explore in areas that are unknown to me, but having explored it, my own response is far more useful. And if dipping my toe into unknown waters proves uncomfortably cold, I am not like to attempt to wade further into the depths without some really good reason from a very reliable source, that is to say a source that has proven itself to me in other situations.)


----------



## Fabulin

I don't recognize him as a composer of stature, because stature is dependent on human judgement in the first place. It depends on people like you and I.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> Still no flicker in my mind. It might be one thing to dismiss as a crank one person who thinks that Beethoven was a hack, and quite another to overrule my own response to John Cage (and that of many, many other listeners) at the whim of someone with an academic title. Academic expertise may be useful in producing a convincing argument, but if the final argument produced is not convincing, then it still fails, title or not. (I sometimes use expertise to assist me in deciding what to explore in areas that are unknown to me, but having explored it, my own response is far more useful. And if dipping my toe into unknown waters proves uncomfortably cold, I am not like to attempt to wade further into the depths without some really good reason from a very reliable source, that is to say a source that has proven itself to me in other situations.)


John Cage is held in esteem by more than a few academics. Several generations of composers and performers do so, as well as many listeners, and yes, there is a critical and scholarly assessment which is mixed. But usually the negative voices express themselves with a modicum of respect recognizing that dismissing all of the other voices would be ill-mannered, unprofessional and unnecessarily rude.



Fabulin said:


> I don't recognize him as a composer of stature, because stature is dependent on human judgement in the first place. It depends on people like you and I.


See my comment above. John Cage has stature no matter what you may think. You are free to not listen to his music and state why. However, it is not factual to claim that he has no stature as a composer.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Cage was a theorist and agent provocateur. He is remembered for those rather than his music.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Can aleatoric music even be called "composed"?


----------



## Fabulin

SanAntone said:


> See my comment above. John Cage has stature no matter what you may think. You are free to not listen to his music and state why. However, it is not factual to claim that he has no stature as a composer.


See _my _comment above. Etc....


----------



## SanAntone

NoCoPilot said:


> Cage was a theorist and agent provocateur. He is remembered for those rather than his music.


So you say. But I disagree, based on numerous books written about his music and myriad statements by performers and composers.

For example:

*John Cage*
Edited by Julia Robinson
An extended trajectory of Cage literature, from early critical reaction to writing by contemporaries to current scholarship.

*Begin Again: A Biography of John Cage* 
by Kenneth Silverman

*John Cage: Music, Philosophy, and Intention, 1933-1950*
by David Patterson

*John Cage: A Research and Information Guide* (Routledge Music Bibliographies)
by Sara Haefeli

*The Cambridge Companion to John Cage* (Cambridge Companions to Music)
Part of: Cambridge Companions to Music (77 Books) | by David Nicholls

*The Roaring Silence: John Cage: A Life*
by David Revill

*John Cage* (Critical Lives)
Part of: Critical Lives (92 Books) | by Rob Haskins

*No Such Thing as Silence: John Cage's 4'33"* (Icons of America)
Part of: Icons of America (18 Books) | by Kyle Gann

*CageTalk: Dialogues with and about John Cage* (Eastman Studies in Music Book 38)
by Peter Dickinson



NoCoPilot said:


> Can aleatoric music even be called "composed"?


Yes. But Cage did not write aleatoric music. Indeterminate music is not the same thing as aleatoric music.


----------



## Knorf

If you made a Venn diagram who posters who would say rap and hip-hop are not music and those who think Cage was not a great composer, I suspect you'd find very broad overlap.

Because here's what it typically boils down to: those who think great music is bound by very narrow parameters—most likely those restricted to white, mostly dead male composers from Europe from only about a 300 year period of history—they are all going to rail against John Cage.

Those of us who see music as having infinite possibilities, where "mystery remains eternal," where no one single era of human history can contain all but the smallest sliver of its potential, that music is something which taps into an infinite creativity beyond the capability of any other art form to express, and that inevitably slips away gleefully and immediately from all attempts to narrowly define what it is or should be: we are more likely to see John Cage for the great composer he was.


----------



## JAS

I would probably say that rap and hip-hop are music. I just don't care for them. And they are certainly not classical music.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> John Cage is held in esteem by more than a few academics. Several generations of composers and performers do so, as well as many listeners, and yes, there is a critical and scholarly assessment which is mixed. But usually the negative voices express themselves with a modicum of respect recognizing that dismissing all of the other voices would be ill-mannered, unprofessional and unnecessarily rude. . .


I fully understand your position, and I reject it. I am perfectly fine with you considering me ill-mannered, unprofessional and unnecessarily rude.


----------



## adriesba

SanAntone said:


> Which says more about TC than John Cage. Unfortunately.


If the poll results were reversed that would still say more about TC than about John Cage. This poll is based on opinions. There's no need to take it seriously. Same with any other poll on this site, it's just for fun.


----------



## SanAntone

adriesba said:


> If the poll results were reversed that would still say more about TC than about John Cage. This poll is based on opinions. There's no need to take it seriously. Same with any other poll on this site, it's just for fun.


Yeah, I know.

I just find it disappointing that the community of one of the more active classical music forums is unable to minimally appreciate the career of a composer like John Cage. Even if a majority does not like his music, I think Cage is deserving of a their respect, as would any composer. However, some people proudly express ridicule which is a form of venal pettiness that I find beneath the dignity of a group of people who gather together to discuss classical music.

But that's just me.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Here's a set of Cage's works that I'm a fan of.

Imaginary Landscape 1 (1939) 



 One of the first-ever examples of electroacoustic music. Combines muted piano/cymbal with turntables that play sliding pure tones. Perfect for fans of Varese's Poeme Electronique or Deserts. There's also the entire Imaginary Landscapes album you can enjoy on youtube here that contains all of his "Imaginary Landscape" pieces (some written in the 40s or 50s, and "But What About the Noise" was written in the 80s), each with utilize different forces, but have at least have an electronic component.

Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano (1948) 



 The prepared piano borders between a piano sound, a "guitar" sound, a "percussion" sound, and general Klangfarbenmelodie. Each "sonata" has it's own palette emphasis.

Cartridge Music (1960) 



 where performers insert everyday objects into turntable cartridges. This is a gradually evolving electroacoustic soundscape, immediately compelling to me from the first few minutes.

Variations II (1961) 



 Realized here by David Tudor on amplified/prepared piano. The works in the Variations series are indeterminate/happenings works usually "for any number of players producing sound". I particularly like this David Tudor realization - the electronic amplification of the prepared piano allows for possibilities bordering on electroacoustic music not possible in the Sonatas and Interludes.

Etudes Borealis for Cello and Piano (1978) 



 Composed with Chance operations - can either be played with the cello alone, piano alone, or both (the playlist I linked has both). Lyrical in the cello, percussive in the piano. A sense of freedom and unpredictability.

Thirteen (1992) 



 One of his many number pieces. This one is for mid-sized instrumental chamber ensemble.


----------



## adriesba

SanAntone said:


> Yeah, I know.
> 
> I just find it disappointing that the community of one of the more active classical music forums is unable to minimally appreciate the career of a composer like John Cage. Even if a majority does not like his music, I think Cage is deserving of a their respect, as would any composer. However, some people proudly express ridicule which is a form of venal pettiness that I find beneath the dignity of a group of people who gather together to discuss classical music.
> 
> But that's just me.


People ridicule lots of things that they find ridiculous that others may take more seriously. John Cage has been dead for over two decades. I don't think he cares.


----------



## Joachim Raff

Yes, I never rated him until I heard this latest version the 4'33'' . Now I love him.


----------



## JAS

Joachim Raff said:


> Yes, I never rated him until I heard this latest version the 4'33'' . Now I love him.


I think it was a mistake for her to take the coda.


----------



## millionrainbows

SanAntone said:


> Unless you live under a rock, you must have some awareness that John Cage is held in esteem by many musicians and listeners. Which might cause a flicker of doubt in the minds of those here who dismiss him as a "joke" or irrelevant if there was an ounce of humility.


Speaking of "living under a rock," John Cage's name and legacy will live on far beyond the time when the critics here will simply be rotting in their graves in total obscurity. You can't argue with history, and it's already been set in stone.
It's a done deal. History is not for crybabies. Cage's legacy will be laughing at you as you decompose, obscure, forgotten...


----------



## JAS

I have little doubt that Cage will be remembered for a very long time, much as we remember the Titanic and Wrong Way Corrigan.


----------



## consuono

millionrainbows said:


> Cage's legacy will be laughing at you as you decompose, obscure, forgotten...


That's kind of meaningless. So will Ed Wood, Jr or Charles Manson. It's what you're remembered for that's important. I'm happy with my obscurity.

Anyway, isn't that kind of an egocentric sentiment to express about a composer who was supposed to be about this "Zen" non-ego?


----------



## Eclectic Al

premont said:


> Precisely. The assessment of greatness is an entirely subjective matter. What I find great means of course something to me, but it has no strictly objective value.


I tend to agree with the above regarding the assessment of greatness.

However, whatever your criteria for assessing "greatness" I think it devalues the term "great" if you consider more than a very small number of composers great - no more than 10, say.

Hence, I think the way to approach this sort of thread is to accept that different posters will judge greatness in different ways but to ask them to judge a composer as "great" only if they are within the top 10 according to that poster's subjective assessments.

If you limit numbers in this way I would be staggered to find many people considering Cage to be great - but it's fine if they do.


----------



## Eclectic Al

This thread has prompted my to consider how I might judge greatness in a composer. I think it is partly externally determined and partly internally. Both external and internal are to some extent subjective, although less so (I think) for the external bit.

I think the external bit is that I probably require the composer to have produced a number of works (- it doesn't have to be a large number, but it's more than one or two) which a substantial number of people on sites such as this regard as masterpieces.

That clearly brings in figures like Bach, Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart, Brahms, etc. Is there sufficient support on sites like this for Cage having produced a number of masterpieces - I am not sure. But let's suppose there is - he clearly has supporters. I guess figures like Varese would qualify.

The internal bit is that I have to like those works - as otherwise I feel I am just parroting others' views. People seem sometimes to imply that introducing subjectivity like this into the judgement devalues it: on the contrary I think it is critical.

Anyway, for me that eliminates Cage. It's seems questionable whether that many people agree about his "masterpieces", and I haven't encountered works of his which I like to anything like the extent of the WTC or Beethoven's late quartets, for example.

I think it brings you back a little to numbers. If you only allow yourself 10 great composers I think the slots are filled well before you get close to including Cage.


----------



## Mandryka

Eclectic Al said:


> However, whatever your criteria for assessing "greatness" I think it devalues the term "great" if you consider more than a very small number of composers great - no more than 10, say.


But there's been more than 1000 years of music extant. You allow less than one great composer a century!


----------



## Eclectic Al

Mandryka said:


> But there's been more than 1000 years of music extant. You allow less than one great composer a century!


Yeah. I'm tough like that. (You can have 15 if you like - again it's subjective. ) I think, though, that if you get up to 50 (say) "great composers", which is still only 5 per century on your 1000 year basis, then you're not really talking about "great"; you're talking about "very influential" or "very innovative" or "technically excellent". I think great should be reserved for the very rare exceptions.

Clearly, as well, the incorporation of the "do I like it" bit is quite likely to reduce the 1000 years for many people. Some people just don't like early music, or baroque, or indeed classical, as well as others not liking contemporary styles. Hence, for any individual the pool in which they are fishing may well be smaller than is implied by your basis.

Then there is ignorance. Just because I am not familiar with a period of music does not mean I cannot come up with a list of greats ignoring that period. If I then discover it, I might change my list as a result, and some of my former greats might be cast into the realms of the very good indeed.


----------



## JAS

I think that the people who advocate for Cage being great are using him as an embodiment of someone who was an iconoclast who wanted to tear down the system, a kind of patron saint of sticking your thumb in the eye of the established norms. And those of us who do not consider him great dismiss him for much the same reason.

For me, my particular beef isn't really with Cage as an individual. I consider the entire avant-garde movement to be a corrosive stain on whatever it was associated with.


----------



## Handelian

millionrainbows said:


> Speaking of "living under a rock," John Cage's name and legacy will live on far beyond the time when the critics here will simply be rotting in their graves in total obscurity. You can't argue with history, and it's already been set in stone.
> It's a done deal. History is not for crybabies. Cage's legacy will be laughing at you as you decompose, obscure, forgotten...


I think Cage has been laughing at an awful lot of people for an awful long time! But not for the reasons some think!


----------



## mikeh375

JAS said:


> For me, my particular beef isn't really with Cage as an individual. *I consider the entire avant-garde movement to be a corrosive stain *on whatever it was associated with.


How is that remark helpful in a discussion unless of course it's not meant to be. Plenty of people on this site like contemporary (as in the last 100 odd years) and avant-garde music, including me. One can't help but feel slighted in one's aesthetic choices with remarks like that. I'm not the opinion police, but perhaps a bit more tact would be in order for the sake of cordiality.


----------



## Mandryka

JAS said:


> I think that the people who advocate for Cage being great are using him as an embodiment of someone who was an iconoclast who wanted to tear down the system, a kind of patron saint of sticking your thumb in the eye of the established norms. And those of us who do not consider him great dismiss him for much the same reason.
> 
> For me, my particular beef isn't really with Cage as an individual. I consider the entire avant-garde movement to be a corrosive stain on whatever it was associated with.


I get the impression that he was very much part of the establishment in fact, clearly not the symphony orchestra and Classic FM establishment, but among people who were exploring new trends in the last quarter of the last century. A better example of an iconoclast would be Christian Wolff, or, in another way, Julius Eastman.


----------



## JAS

mikeh375 said:


> How is that remark helpful in a discussion unless of course it's not meant to be. Plenty of people on this site like contemporary (as in the last 100 odd years) and avant-garde music, including me. One can't help but feel slighted in one's aesthetic choices with remarks like that. I'm not the opinion police, but perhaps a bit more tact would be in order for the sake of cordiality.


In a discussion, establishing positions is always helpful. Any conversation in which only advocates are allowed to say anything is not a discussion, it is a fan club meeting. In a discussion, you are not required to agree with me, endorse my ideas or try to make me feel better, and I am not obligated to do any of that for you. The advocates of avant-garde don't want the opposition to show tact; they want it to be silent.

I have always thought it was very interesting that the avant-garde movement as a whole is very quick to make itself at home, put its feet up on the furniture, leave muddy footprints wherever it likes, chip the china and drop cigarette ashes on the carpeting, but can never seem to withstand any push back of any kind. It attacks, attacks, and attacks anything it sees as convention, but withers under the glare of resistance.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> I think that the people who advocate for Cage being great are using him as an embodiment of someone who was an iconoclast who wanted to tear down the system, a kind of patron saint of sticking your thumb in the eye of the established norms. And those of us who do not consider him great dismiss him for much the same reason.
> 
> For me, my particular beef isn't really with Cage as an individual. I consider the entire avant-garde movement to be a corrosive stain on whatever it was associated with.


This and similar opinions are examples of classical music listeners who are part of the dominant faction of CM listeners, drawn to the tightly-defined exclusive definition of classical music by white European males of the 18th century. This is the dominant paradigm of classical music, and the reason the majority of listeners are drawn to this genre. This dominance of music by white European males of the 18th century is evidenced in any history of classical music.

This exclusive definition of CM as music by white European males of the 18th century produces the effect of excluding the avant-garde and much modernism, and preserving the dominance this definition, because it benefits the dominant group and keeps the definition "pure."

The elements which preserve this definition of CM are largely unstated and invisible, hidden behind opinions that serve to exclude other forms. 
There are ever-growing claims by these conservative listeners that they are 'victims' of the avant grade and that figures like John Cage seek to somehow 'destroy' this paradigm.

This perceived 'victimization' is based on the fear of the dominant group, who wish to preserve the old paradigm because they have invested so much effort and time into it. Thus, they transfer this fear on to figures like John Cage, whom they perceive as trying to 'destroy' classical music and its system.

I don't think this is true. Knowing what kind of man John Cage was, I think he was motivated to do his art, not to "destroy the system." He studied with Schoenberg and wrote some early piano pieces under his influence, and Schoenberg surely saw that Cage was serious, even commenting on his pupil.

After all, the notion of an artist devoting his life to the destruction of a system is rather ludicrous. It makes Cage sound malevolent and evil, as if he were the "Hitler" of classical music.


----------



## Handelian

millionrainbows said:


> You're an example of a classical music listener, who has consrvative taste, and is part of the dominant faction of CM listeners, drawn to the tightly-defined exclusive definition that classical music represents music by white European males of the 18th century. This is the dominant paradigm of classical music, and the reason the majority of listeners are drawn to this genre.
> 
> This exclusive definition of CM as music by white European males of the 18th century produces the effect of excluding the avant-garde and much modernism, and preserving the dominance this definition, because it benefits its members and keeps the definition "pure."
> 
> The elements which preserve this definition of CM are unstated and invisible, hidden behind opinions that exclude other forms. There is an ever-growing claim by these conservative listeners that they are 'victims' of the avant grade and that figures like John Cage seek to somehow 'destroy' this paradigm.


Very cleverly written but of course meaningless. I am not a 'victim' at all. A 'victim' is someone who suffers. As I never listen to Cage's music, how can he make me suffer?


----------



## Lisztian

Eclectic Al said:


> Yeah. I'm tough like that. (You can have 15 if you like - again it's subjective. ) I think, though, that if you get up to 50 (say) "great composers", which is still only 5 per century on your 1000 year basis, then you're not really talking about "great"; you're talking about "very influential" or "very innovative" or "technically excellent". I think great should be reserved for the very rare exceptions.
> 
> Clearly, as well, the incorporation of the "do I like it" bit is quite likely to reduce the 1000 years for many people. Some people just don't like early music, or baroque, or indeed classical, as well as others not liking contemporary styles. Hence, for any individual the pool in which they are fishing may well be smaller than is implied by your basis.
> 
> Then there is ignorance. Just because I am not familiar with a period of music does not mean I cannot come up with a list of greats ignoring that period. If I then discover it, I might change my list as a result, and some of my former greats might be cast into the realms of the very good indeed.


Picky indeed  I tend to think the whole 'great composer' thing doesn't make that much sense now that I think about it. All I know is that I have met a bunch of people for whom Cage is their absolute favourite composer. I can't, in good faith, denigrate any composer where this is the case (not that I don't like Cage: I hardly know his music at all).


----------



## consuono

mikeh375 said:


> How is that remark helpful in a discussion unless of course it's not meant to be. Plenty of people on this site like contemporary (as in the last 100 odd years) and avant-garde music, including me. One can't help but feel slighted in one's aesthetic choices with remarks like that. I'm not the opinion police, but perhaps a bit more tact would be in order for the sake of cordiality.


What I don't understand is why such criticism, even harsh criticism, hurts the feelings of those who love the music being discussed. I don't care if my particular tastes are slighted. They are what they are. If someone despises Bach or Beethoven, I really ultimately don't care. I'm secure enough within myself about their accomplishments that I don't have to have the approval of others to feel that they are indeed great accomplishments.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> You're an example of a classical music listener, who has consrvative taste, and is part of the dominant faction of CM listeners, drawn to the tightly-defined exclusive definition that classical music represents music by white European males of the 18th century. This is the dominant paradigm of classical music, and the reason the majority of listeners are drawn to this genre.
> 
> This exclusive definition of CM as music by white European males of the 18th century produces the effect of excluding the avant-garde and much modernism, and preserving the dominance this definition, because it benefits its members and keeps the definition "pure."
> 
> The elements which preserve this definition of CM are unstated and invisible, hidden behind opinions that exclude other forms. There is an ever-growing claim by these conservative listeners that they are 'victims' of the avant grade and that figures like John Cage seek to somehow 'destroy' this paradigm.


You will just have to imagine me striking the pose you gave of Cage in that picture (and without the beard). I listen to nearly a thousand years of music, nearly all of which would generally be considered to be within the broad net of classical. Admittedly, most of it is European, and male and at least white-ish. (There are exceptions to all of these restrictions, and I can give examples if they are really necessary.) Those characteristics may be a major part of its legacy, but they are not its definition, nor are they necessarily the reason that I listen. As for exclusion, any definition of categories is inherently a process of distinction, or it is nothing at all.

Ironically, what is John Cage if not a white male of mostly European descent?

I have no real problem with avant-garde wanting to do its own thing as long as it really does do its own thing. I would still mock it if I ran into it, but I would be perfectly happy if it was just like Pop music, which I mostly manage to avoid very nicely since it never tries to nose its way in as part of the classical tradition.


----------



## SanAntone

Here's three quotes from teh Grove Encyclopedia of Music and Musicians.

Cage, John (Milton, Jr.)
James Pritchett, Laura Kuhn and Charles Hiroshi Garrett
_(b Los Angeles, Sept 5, 1912; d New York, Aug 12, 1992). American composer. One of the leading figures of the postwar avant garde. The influence of his compositions, writings and personality has been felt by a wide range of composers around the world. *He had a greater impact on music in the 20th century than any other American composer.*_

Schoenberg [Schönberg], Arnold
O.W. Neighbour
_(b Vienna, Sept 13, 1874; d Los Angeles, July 13, 1951). *Austro-Hungarian composer.*
_
Stravinsky, Igor (Fyodorovich)
Stephen Walsh
_(b Oranienbaum [now Lomonosov], nr St Petersburg, 5/June 17, 1882; d New York, April 6, 1971). Russian composer, later of French (1934) and American (1945) nationality. *One of the most widely performed and influential composers of the 20th century, he remains also one of its most multi-faceted.* A study of his work automatically touches on almost every important tendency in the century's music, from the neo-nationalism of the early ballets, through the more abrasive, experimental nationalism of the World War I years, the neo-classicism of the period 1920-51 and the studies of old music which underlay the proto-serial works of the 1950s, to the highly personal interpretation of serial method in his final decade. To some extent the mobile geography of his life is reflected in his work, with its complex patterns of influence and allusion. In another sense, however, he never lost contact with his Russian origins and, even after he ceased to compose with recognizably Russian materials or in a perceptibly Slavonic idiom, his music maintained an unbroken continuity of technique and thought._

I'd say John Cage holds his own with the other two major composers of the 20th century, at least according to the primary reference source. Of course a lot depends upon the person who wrote the article. O.W. Neighbor makes no attempt to sum up Schoenberg's importance, whereas Walsh and Pritchett, Kuhn and Garrett offer fuller statements on their subjects.


----------



## mikeh375

consuono said:


> What I don't understand is why such criticism, even harsh criticism, hurts the feelings of those who love the music being discussed. I don't care if my particular tastes are slighted. They are what they are. If someone despises Bach or Beethoven, I really ultimately don't care. I'm secure enough within myself about their accomplishments that I don't have to have the approval of others to feel that they are indeed great accomplishments.


I agree Consuono and am also totally secure in music and my choices within it, JAS's opinion or anyone else's is irrelevant, as it should be. However, is it right to be so needlessly contentious and insulting when proffering opinions, especially on a forum of mixed taste?


----------



## JAS

mikeh375 said:


> I agree Consuono and am also totally secure in music and my choices within it, JAS's opinion or anyone else's is irrelevant, as it should be. However, is it right to be so needlessly contentious and insulting though, especially on a forum of mixed taste?


It is not needlessly contentious as long as avant-garde core's essence is to attack the thing that it claims inheritance from. Break the connection, and we will be fine. It should have the courage to be its own thing, and to stand on its own.

And note that this is a thread called "Do You Consider John Cage a Great Composer?" with an op that states: "I'm interested in knowing what the community here thinks of JC." I am not, generally, posting in the various threads that advocate lots of modern music that I consider to be an abomination.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> In a discussion, establishing positions is always helpful. Any conversation in which only advocates are allowed to say anything is not a discussion, it is a fan club meeting. In a discussion, you are not required to agree with me, endorse my ideas or try to make me feel better, and I am not obligated to do any of that for you. The advocates of avant-garde don't want the opposition to show tact; they want it to be silent.


Of course you are correct. This thread is a "call to arms" to see whether or not the respondents support the dominant faction of CM listeners who are drawn to the tightly-defined exclusive definition of classical music as being 'music by white European males of the 18th century,' or if they have a an inclusive view of music. 
It's also a litmus test to see if John Cage is a perceived threat, or if he is accepted. It reveals how tightly these views are held, and if the dominant group feels threatened that their paradigm is 'under attack' by figures such as Cage.



> I have always thought it was very interesting that the avant-garde movement as a whole is very quick to make itself at home, put its feet up on the furniture, leave muddy footprints wherever it likes, chip the china and drop cigarette ashes on the carpeting, but can never seem to withstand any push back of any kind. It attacks, attacks, and attacks anything it sees as convention, but withers under the glare of resistance.


It's obvious that you see people who are not part of the dominant CM faction as "intruders" who are destructive of your metaphorical "living room," a living room which obviously represents your lifestyle and identity as a listener. This lifestyle and identity is the _dominant faction_ of CM listeners, who are drawn to the tightly-defined exclusive definition of classical as "music by white European males of the 18th century."

'Intruders' who do not subscribe to the dominant ideology are seen as 'dirty and destructive,' constantly attacking the dominant group.


----------



## JAS

^^^ I am very happy to be part of the _dominant faction_ of CM listeners. Please stay out of my living room. Do whatever you like in your own living room, as long as you are not making Meth (which puts the whole neighborhood at risk of an explosion), or keeping a human heart in an aquarium (which at least suggests that you might be a serial killer with cannibalistic tendencies).


----------



## Coach G

Cage is a conceptual artist. To approach Cage any other way, would be like listening to Schoenberg and listening for a melody when the entire purpose of his serial system was to eliminate tonality. Therefore, one is lost when one tries to approach Cage or Schoenberg the way you'd approach Beethoven or Tchaikovsky. The music of Cage is just there to make us THINK about sound and music, what constitutes music as "organized sound", to facilitate thought and discussion. And by looking at this thread, Cage has succeeded in reaching that objective, even among the detractors who, as much they profess to not like Cage's art are here talking about it.

When my wife, my teenage son, and I , went to New York and visited the Museum of Modern Art, we landed in a gallery of conceptual art. One piece was a giant ice cream cone made of plastic. Another was a painting called _Orange_, with the canvas painting just one shade of orange. WE also saw some of the pop art with the soup cans by Warhol. I read somewhere that recently, someone tacked a banana peel to a canvas and it sold somewhere for thousands of dollars. It's conceptual. It's not supposed to be interpreted the same way as paintings by the Dutch masters.


----------



## SanAntone

The battle is over, John Cage won. The guardians of CM just cannot deal with the fact that they lost control over their sacred cow.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> ^^^ I am very happy to be part of the _dominant faction_ of CM listeners. Please stay out of my living room. Do whatever you like in your own living room, as long as you are not making Meth (which puts the whole neighborhood at risk of an explosion), or keeping a human heart in an aquarium (which at least suggests that you might be a serial killer with cannibalistic tendencies).


You may be a part of the dominant faction of Talk Classical.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> The battle is over, John Cage won. The guardians of CM just cannot deal with the fact that they lost control over their sacred cow.


Except that, apparently, we are the _dominant faction_ of CM listeners. Please pick one.



SanAntone said:


> You are a dominant faction of Talk Classical.


I do not know if that is really true, although it does seem that Cage is not very popular here. In general, I think TC is much more biased in favor of modernist trends than the population at large.


----------



## Fabulin

Coach G said:


> Cage is a conceptual artist. To approach Cage any other way, would be like listening to Schoenberg and listening for a melody when the entire purpose of his serial system was to eliminate tonality. Therefore, one is lost when one tries to approach Cage or Schoenberg the way you'd approach Beethoven or Tchaikovsky. *The music of Cage is just there to make us THINK about sound and music, what constitutes music as "organized sound", to facilitate thought and discussion.* And by looking at this thread, Cage has succeeded in reaching that objective, even among the detractors who, as much they profess to not like Cage's art are here talking about it.


Facilitating discussions about food, or making us think of food, would not make us think of someone as a necessarily "great cook", would it?



Coach G said:


> When my wife, my teenage son, and I , went to New York and visited the Museum of Modern Art, we landed in a gallery of conceptual art. One piece was a giant ice cream cone made of plastic. Another was a painting called _Orange_, with the canvas painting just one shade of orange. WE also saw some of the pop art with the soup cans by Warhol. I read somewhere that recently, someone tacked a banana peel to a canvas and it sold somewhere for thousands of dollars. It's conceptual. *It's not supposed to be interpreted the same way as paintings by the Dutch masters*.


So no wonder if (when) it will not be regarded as high as the paintings by the Dutch masters.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> Except that, apparently, we are the _dominant faction_ of CM listeners. Please pick one.


When the primary reference source for classical music acknowledges John Cage as an important composer, then that speaks more convincingly than your comments on TC. John Cage has won.



> I do not know if that is really true, although it does seem that Cage is not very popular here. In general, I think TC is much more biased in favor of modernist trends than the population at large.


TC is an isolated small group of people who are ardent about classical music, mostly conservative classical music judging by the listening thread. You have the curious idea that you can control which composers are included in the classical music genre.


----------



## millionrainbows

JAS said:


> You will just have to imagine me striking the pose you gave of Cage in that picture (and without the beard). I listen to nearly a thousand years of music, nearly all of which would generally be considered to be within the broad net of classical. *Admittedly, most of it is European, and male and at least white-ish. (There are exceptions to all of these restrictions, and I can give examples if they are really necessary.) Those characteristics may be a major part of its legacy, but they are not its definition, *nor are they necessarily the reason that I listen. As for exclusion, any definition of categories is inherently a process of distinction, or it is nothing at all.


This definition, and these characteristics are unspoken, and kept hidden and invisible, because they preserve the dominance of the group.



> Ironically, what is John Cage if not a white male of mostly European descent?


Then by that definition, you would accept John Cage. Obviously, John Cage represents opposition to the definition of of classical music as 'music by white European males of the 18th century.'


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> . . . You have the curious idea that you can control which composers are included in the classical music genre.


Actually, that would be you. I am just speaking for my own opinion, in keeping with the theme of the thread. It was MR who made me spokesperson for the _dominant faction_ of CM listeners.



millionrainbows said:


> . . .
> Then by that definition, you would accept John Cage. Obviously, John Cage represents opposition to the definition of of classical music as 'music by white European males of the 18th century.'


No, because that isn't my criteria. That was merely your own odd suggestion.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> Actually, that would be you. I am just speaking for my own opinion, in keeping with the theme of the thread. It was MR who made me spokesperson for the _dominant faction_ of CM listeners.


John Cage is already a member of classical music composers, I am not demanding that he be included, he already is. And not only that but he is considered an important composer.

You keep calling for the avant-garde to be excluded from classical music, "I am very happy to be part of the dominant faction of CM listeners. Please stay out of my living room. Do whatever you like in your own living room, as long as you are not making Meth (which puts the whole neighborhood at risk of an explosion), or keeping a human heart in an aquarium (which at least suggests that you might be a serial killer with cannibalistic tendencies)."


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> John Cage is already a member of classical music composers, I am not demanding that he be included, he already is. And not only that but he is considered an important composer. . . .


To some, but not to others. We each get to make up our own minds on matters of opinion. This is not a case of an objective, measurable fact.


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> To some, but not to others. We each get to make up our own minds on matters of opinion. This is not a case of an objective, measurable fact.


There is a difference between an opinion given on an anonymous Internet forum and one in the Grove Encyclopedia of Music and Musicians.

I don't care what you think of John Cage. But what I have argued against is your refusal to accept the fact that your opinion runs counter to the consensus assessment of John Cage by the closest thing to an objective source available.


----------



## Coach G

SanAntone said:


> John Cage is already a member of classical music composers, I am not demanding that he be included, he already is. And not only that but he is considered an important composer.
> 
> You keep calling for the avant-garde to be excluded from classical music, "I am very happy to be part of the dominant faction of CM listeners. Please stay out of my living room. Do whatever you like in your own living room, as long as you are not making Meth (which puts the whole neighborhood at risk of an explosion), or keeping a human heart in an aquarium *(which at least suggests that you might be a serial killer with cannibalistic tendencies).*"


Did you mean to say _serial killer_ as in someone who can't stop killing people, or _serial killer _ as in someone who means to stamp out _serial_ music as in 12-tone; or someone who _kills it _with serial _music_ (i.e. Schoenberg _kills it_ with his serial _music_)?

This is, after all, a classical music forum, and as I tell my children and my grandson, sorry for the "Dad" jokes.


----------



## SanAntone

Coach G said:


> Did you mean to say _serial killer_ as in someone who can't stop killing people, or _serial killer _ as in someone who means to stamp out _serial_ music as in 12-tone; or someone who _kills it _with serial _music_ (i.e. Schoenberg _kills it_ with his serial _music_)?
> 
> This is, after all, a classical music forum, and as I tell my children and my grandson, sorry for the "Dad" jokes.


Ask JAS - he was the one who made that statement.


----------



## Phil loves classical

SanAntone said:


> What objective criteria makes "one great" and by what authority?
> 
> Why is "greatness" important?


I'll pull a Cage on you and reverse your question, what objective criteria makes John Cage great and by what authority? Personally I don't find greatness that important. Cage is an interesting composer. I just have a problem of Cage being considered a 'great' composer, when there are guys like Palestrina and Rihm (and a whole whack of others who I think are more deserving)



NoCoPilot said:


> Can aleatoric music even be called "composed"?


I believe it can, and depends on what you set and limit as the indeterminate variables. If the conditions were to drop a cat on a piano and press Record, then no.


----------



## SanAntone

Grove on Beethoven:

_German composer. His early achievements, as composer and performer, show him to be extending the Viennese Classical tradition that he had inherited from Mozart and Haydn. As personal affliction - deafness, and the inability to enter into happy personal relationships - loomed larger, he began to compose in an increasingly individual musical style, and at the end of his life he wrote his most sublime and profound works. From his success at combining tradition and exploration and personal expression, he came to be regarded as the dominant musical figure of the 19th century, and scarcely any significant composer since his time has escaped his influence or failed to acknowledge it. For the respect his works have commanded of musicians, and the popularity they have enjoyed among wider audiences, he is probably the most admired composer in the history of Western music._

Grove on Mozart:

_Austrian composer, son of (1) Leopold Mozart. His style essentially represents a synthesis of many different elements, which coalesced in his Viennese years, from 1781 on, into an idiom now regarded as a peak of Viennese Classicism. The mature music, distinguished by its melodic beauty, its formal elegance and its richness of harmony and texture, is deeply coloured by Italian opera though also rooted in Austrian and south German instrumental traditions. Unlike Haydn, his senior by 24 years, and Beethoven, his junior by 15, he attempted most of the art-music forms of his time and excelled at them all._

Grove on Cage:

_American composer. One of the leading figures of the postwar avant garde. The influence of his compositions, writings and personality has been felt by a wide range of composers around the world. He had a greater impact on music in the 20th century than any other American composer._

If you accept the assessments of Beethoven and Mozart, you must also accept the assessment of Cage. Otherwise you are being intellectually dishonest.


----------



## Mandryka

Coach G said:


> The music of Cage is just there to make us THINK about sound and music, what constitutes music as "organized sound", to facilitate thought and discussion.


With all due respect, Coach, I am sure you're wrong. In fact, it seems to me so evident that you are wrong that I can't believe you have heard very much Cage. Have you heard Four or Two2 for example?


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> I'll pull a Cage on you and reverse your question, what objective criteria makes John Cage great and by what authority?


The Grove Encyclopedia of Music and Musicians.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> . . . If you accept the assessments of Beethoven and Mozart, you must also accept the assessment of Cage. Otherwise you are being intellectually dishonest.


The key is that while I might, or might not, accept their assessment of Beethoven and Mozart it would not be _because_ they have said so. If I agree with the Grove on some points, it is merely a coincidence of agreement. I rely on Grove for statements of fact, and discussions of various subjects. There is no intellectual dishonesty on my part since the premise you offer is false on its face. You have this very odd position that it should trump my own opinion, which is utter nonsense. (Please note that the title of the thread is _not_ "Does the Grove Dictionary Consider John Cage a Great Composer?," unless it has changed very recently.)


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

SanAntone said:


> _American composer. One of the leading figures of the postwar avant garde. The influence of his compositions, writings and personality has been felt by a wide range of composers around the world. He had a greater impact on music in the 20th century than any other American composer._..


Note that none of this necessarily makes Cage "great."


----------



## SanAntone

JAS said:


> The key is that while I might, or might not, accept their assessment of Beethoven and Mozart it would not be _because_ they have said so. If I agree with the Grove on some points, it is merely a coincidence of agreement. I rely on Grove for statements of fact, and discussions of various subjects. There is no intellectual dishonesty on my part since the premise you offer is false on its face. You have this very odd position that it should Trump my own opinion, which is utter nonsense. (Please note that the title of the thread is not "Does the Grove Dictionary Consider John Cage a Great Composer?," unless it has changed very recently.)


The objective assessment is that John Cage is an important composer. Your opinion is irrelevant.


----------



## vtpoet

SanAntone said:


> The Grove Encyclopedia of Music and Musicians.


Oh Jeez. Not another one of these. Maybe he won some medals too? Awards perhaps? Prove that he wears an epaulet on his shoulder and I will concede that he is the greatest composer who ever lived.


----------



## SanAntone

The OP was interested in what TC thought of John Cage. I don't know why they were interested in that question, unless they wanted to create a ruckus.


----------



## JAS

SanAntone said:


> The objective assessment is that John Cage is an important composer. Your opinion is irrelevant.


Your assertion that John Cage is an important composer (even you aren't saying "great") and that it is an "objective assessment," based on the Grove Dictionary, is irrelevant, beyond being a reflection of your own opinion (which is fine as far at that goes). Most people would not agree, which isn't necessarily the most significant factor, but it is what it is. My answer to the question posed by the thread is no, and not even an important one. (At best, he might be important _within the avant-garde community_, which itself is not important to me.)



SanAntone said:


> The OP was interested in what TC thought of John Cage. I don't know why they were interested in that question, unless they wanted to create a ruckus.


Just get over it, and the thread will probably wither and vanish soon enough, and you can go back to your fantasy world.


----------



## millionrainbows

SanAntone said:


> Here's three quotes from teh Grove Encyclopedia of Music and Musicians. Cage, John (Milton, Jr.), etc.
> 
> I'd say John Cage holds his own with the other two major composers of the 20th century, at least according to the primary reference source. Of course a lot depends upon the person who wrote the article. O.W. Neighbor makes no attempt to sum up Schoenberg's importance, whereas Walsh and Pritchett, Kuhn and Garrett offer fuller statements on their subjects.


I don't think this discussion really concerns John Cage's standing as a composer; Cage is already established.

What this discussion thread is _really_ about is the listeners in this forum, classical music listeners who are part of the dominant faction of CM listeners, drawn to the tightly-defined exclusive definition of classical music by white European males of the 18th century. This is the dominant paradigm of classical music, and the reason the majority of listeners are drawn to this genre, and to this forum.

All the defense of John Cage is unnecessary, since this thread is not really about him, but about listeners and their allegiances.


----------



## SanAntone

vtpoet said:


> Oh Jeez. Not another one of these. Maybe he won some medals too? Awards perhaps? Prove that he wears an epaulet on his shoulder and I will concede that he is the greatest composer who ever lived.


I don't like the word "great" when applied to composers. I never use it. I think it is a useless term. But importance can be measured, and signifies more than a personal opinion about a composer. The Grove Encyclopedia is a respected source for information about composers, and can serve as something more objective than our own personal opinions.

Not replace them, but put them into a wider context. I don't enjoy Mahler or Wagner, but I recognize that they were important composers. I don't care what TC thinks about John Cage, but his place as an important composer is a fact.


----------



## Phil loves classical

SanAntone said:


> The objective assessment is that John Cage is an important composer. Your opinion is irrelevant.


No question about that. 4'33" is a revolution on what constitutes music, and what Cage thought as his most important work.

A question in my mind is what if this absolute nobody, who never composed a note of music, thought of the same idea before anyone. Would it have been revolutionary? Exact same idea, same genius in its conception, but whole different result.


----------



## vtpoet

millionrainbows said:


> ...drawn to the tightly-defined exclusive definition of classical music by white European males of the 18th century. This is the dominant paradigm of classical music, and the reason the majority of listeners are drawn to this genre, and to this forum.


And there it is. Peak troll has been reached.

One listens to X because [Cultural Marxism]. A book a while back made the same argument about Beethoven. The only reason Beethoven is considered superior to Berwald is Cultural Marxism-white male oppression. All art is political and if you don't like my art it's because you're the oppressor.


----------



## vtpoet

SanAntone said:


> I don't care what TC thinks about John Cage, but his place as an important composer is a fact.


Yes, he is a Triton among minnows.


----------



## annaw

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think this discussion really concerns John Cage's standing as a composer; Cage is already established.
> 
> What this discussion thread is _really_ about is the listeners in this forum, classical music listeners who are part of the dominant faction of CM listeners, drawn to the tightly-defined exclusive definition of classical music by white European males of the 18th century. This is the dominant paradigm of classical music, and the reason the majority of listeners are drawn to this genre, and to this forum.
> 
> All the defense of John Cage is unnecessary, since this thread is not really about him, but about listeners and their allegiances.


MR, oh no. :lol:

Anyways, we cannot completely separate the listeners and the composers because the listeners, in the end, are those who give this subjective assessment of "greatness". David Hume put forth a rather elegant way to define or see this greatness:

"[...] and hence a true judge in the finer arts is observed, even during the most polished ages, to be so rare a character; Strong sense, united to delicate sentiment, improved by practice, perfected by comparison, and cleared of all prejudice, can alone entitle critics to this valuable character; and the joint verdict of such, wherever they are to be found, is the true standard of taste and beauty." (_Of the Standard of Taste_)

The quote is above is also the reason why I wouldn't blindly regard every award-winning composer "great". Even if our standards aren't as high as Hume's, critics aren't all similarly trustworthy or unbiased. Again, this doesn't mean that the awards Cage has received are meaningless but they need to be approached with some reservation. Van Gogh died penniless without any real recognition during his lifetime. Didn't make him any worse. (But there are lots of other arguments that could be used to show Cage's "greatness". I just think that being recognised is not always the most trustworthy one.)

I'm still of opinion that while Cage might not have been as skilful craftsman as, say, Bach, his ideas of music are worth recognition. Art needs to move and that kind of ideas, even if sometimes overly extreme, make it move.


----------



## SanAntone

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think this discussion really concerns John Cage's standing as a composer; Cage is already established.
> 
> What this discussion thread is _really_ about is the listeners in this forum, classical music listeners who are part of the dominant faction of CM listeners, drawn to the tightly-defined exclusive definition of classical music by white European males of the 18th century. This is the dominant paradigm of classical music, and the reason the majority of listeners are drawn to this genre, and to this forum.
> 
> All the defense of John Cage is unnecessary, since this thread is not really about him, but about listeners and their allegiances.


Yep. But I don't go in for the race/class thing. That would be more relevant if we were talking about the stature of Jazz _vis a vis_ Western Art Music. Interestingly, Ernest Ansermet considered jazz of equal artistic quality as classical music. But that is not what this thread is about.

As I said many posts ago, this poll says more about TC than John Cage.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> The battle is over, John Cage won. The guardians of CM just cannot deal with the fact that they lost control over their sacred cow.


Wait a second. I thought the purpose of the avant garde is to run counter to the "establishment" or the "sacred cows". This seeming insistence on finding a one-to-one correspondence between a "sacred cow" like a Mozart, for instance, and someone like Cage is...odd. So the avant garde demands to be considered "establishment"?


----------



## Fabulin

Revolutionary establishment fueling a constant need for further revolutionary behaviour... Now _that's _an 18th century idea!


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Wait a second. I thought the purpose of the avant garde is to run counter to the "establishment" or the "sacred cows". This seeming insistence on finding a one-to-one correspondence between a "sacred cow" like a Mozart, for instance, and someone like Cage is...odd. So the avant garde demands to be considered "establishment"?


I have no idea and don't care what the purpose of "the avant-garde" is. I'll leave that to the TC guardians at the gate of classical music to decide. After all they so need to have something to mock.


----------



## millionrainbows

_ classical music is '__music by white European males of the 18th century.'_



JAS said:


> No...that isn't my criteria. That was merely your own odd suggestion.


As can be seen in any music encyclopedia, classical music as a genre is overwhelmingly 'music made by white European males of the 18th century.' 
This is the dominant and obvious definition of classical music, although this definition is mostly unstated and hidden. This is done to preserve its dominance. This is also the basis of music theory as it is taught, and as it is presented in most all textbooks.

Why classical music is this way is simply and obviously because it was created by the European culture and men who made it. Classical music represents 'music made by white European males of the 18th century' and there's really no escaping that fact, and to do so would be to ignore the obvious.

To say that 'this is not my criteria' avoids all the reasons why classical music has a distinct identity as a genre. It ignores the entire cultural context and origins of classical music, and dehumanizes it. Music is a creation of humanity, not something which can be taken out of its human and cultural context.

To say that one can ignore all the human extra-musical factors, such as composers, performers, and stories which are part of the classical music experience is disingenuous, and would make classical music encyclopedias obsolete, and boring. Of course, people aren't like that. They are attracted to music because they identify with it on many levels, not just musical reasons.

I see the avoidance of the definition of classical music as 'music made by white European males of the 18th century' as an effort to keep its characteristics unstated and hidden. This preserves its dominance and its defining characteristics.

Otherwise, the tightly defined paradigm of classical music would be vulnerable, and open to degradation by figures like John Cage.

I would avise you to go ahead and stick with the tight definition of classical music, instead of rejecting its criteria as 'not your own.' Otherwise, how can you preserve its meaning?


----------



## consuono

Fabulin said:


> Revolutionary establishment fueling a constant need for further revolutionary behaviour... Now _that's _an 18th century idea!


Revolutionaries do tend to become Establishment in the end. They just think that the current Establishment consists of the wrong people.


----------



## SanAntone

Are you sure they're not defining the music of the Classical Period?


----------



## consuono

If only a very small minority think John Cage is a great composer, how is his greatness established as an objective "fact"? It seems at some point a consensus has to come into play. I'm hardly a "gatekeeper" of anything.


----------



## annaw

MR, here is a list of definitions of "classical music":

Cambridge dictionary: "music that is considered to be part of a long, formal tradition and to have lasting value"

Collins: "any style of music based on long-established principles of composition and polyphony and marked by stability of form, intellectualism, and restraint" (also "a style of music composed, esp at Vienna, during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. This period is marked by the establishment, esp by Haydn and Mozart, of sonata form" but *this is a definition for the music composed during Classicism*)

Oxford Learner's Dictionary: "music written in a Western musical tradition, usually using an established form (for example a symphony). Classical music is generally considered to be serious and to have a lasting value"

Macmillan: "music written according to standard European forms or structures by people such as Mozart and Beethoven"

*The 18th century stuff is only about the Classical period not classical music in general.* What about Brahms, Wagner, serialism etc if we defined all classical music as pre-Romantic music...? I doubt the late Romantics are pop or jazz artists.


----------



## consuono

millionrainbows said:


> _ classical music is '__music by white European males of the 18th century.'_
> 
> As can be seen in any music encyclopedia, classical music as a genre is overwhelmingly 'music made by white European males of the 18th century.'
> This is the dominant and obvious definition of classical music, although this definition is mostly unstated and hidden. This is done to preserve its dominance. This is also the basis of music theory as it is taught, and as it is presented in most all textbooks.
> 
> Why classical music is this way is simply and obviously because it was created by the European culture and men who made it. Classical music represents 'music made by white European males of the 18th century' and there's really no escaping that fact, and to do so would be to ignore the obvious.
> 
> To say that 'this is not my criteria' avoids all the reasons why classical music has a distinct identity as a genre. It ignores the entire cultural context and origins of classical music, and dehumanizes it. Music is a creation of humanity, not something which can be taken out of its human and cultural context.
> 
> To say that one can ignore all the human extra-musical factors, such as composers, performers, and stories which are part of the classical music experience is disingenuous, and would make classical music encyclopedias obsolete, and boring. Of course, people aren't like that. They are attracted to music because the identify with it on many levels, not just musical reasons.
> 
> I see the avoidance of the definition of classical music as 'music made by white European males of the 18th century' as an effort to keep its characteristics unstated and hidden. This preserves its dominance and its defining characteristics.


And this is exactly the "postmodern" dogma that we got into in a 20th century music thread. "Postmodern" thinking that we are told doesn't even exist. The music of Bach and Mozart would be great regardless of their skin tone, as is the music of Oscar Peterson or Art Tatum or Scott Joplin. This serves to cheapen their achievements in the service of identity politics.

With that I'll bow out before I end up in the TC jail again.


----------



## annaw

millionrainbows said:


> _ classical music is '__music by white European males of the 18th century.'_
> 
> As can be seen in any music encyclopedia, classical music as a genre is overwhelmingly 'music made by white European males of the 18th century.'
> This is the dominant and obvious definition of classical music, although this definition is mostly unstated and hidden. This is done to preserve its dominance. This is also the basis of music theory as it is taught, and as it is presented in most all textbooks.


As it is taught _in America_ according to that Neely video, at least. You still don't have proof about the rest of the world.



> Why classical music is this way is simply and obviously because it was created by the European culture and men who made it. Classical music represents 'music made by white European males of the 18th century' and there's really no escaping that fact, and to do so would be to ignore the obvious.


Take that 18th century out of the definition because a huge amount of classical was composed _after_ Classical period. Otherwise, I don't see anyone stating the opposite - of course majority of classical is composed by male Europeans. That's history.



> To say that 'this is not my criteria' avoids all the reasons why classical music has a distinct identity as a genre. It ignores the entire cultural context and origins of classical music, and dehumanizes it. Music is a creation of humanity, not something which can be taken out of its human and cultural context.


If you wish to define classical music as music composed by the 18th century white Europeans, then indeed, you ignore a huge cultural context of all the composers who didn't leave in the 18th century, who weren't/aren't male and who weren't/aren't European. Why would you then use such definition?



> I see the avoidance of the definition of classical music as 'music made by white European males of the 18th century' as an effort to keep its characteristics unstated and hidden. This preserves its dominance and its defining characteristics.


Why do you insist upon this definition? I've heard people say that 4'33'' or rap aren't music but I've yet not heard someone say that Brahms's piano trios or Puccini's _La Boheme_ aren't music. According to your definition they aren't. I don't believe there are many who exclude all female and black composers from their classical music repertoire just because they are female or black. The fact that the American music education supposedly doesn't put enough emphasis on them, as Neely argues, doesn't mean that Americans should thus change the whole definition of all classical music for the whole world. Instead of changing the definition, why don't you teach the people and widen their horizons?


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> I see the avoidance of the definition of classical music as 'music made by white European males of the 18th century' as an effort to keep its characteristics unstated and hidden. This preserves its dominance and its defining characteristics.


For the uninitiated, Millionrainbows is constantly using that phrase because he has recently watched a Youtube video, and like certain cartoon dogs I can think of, he is now utterly fixated on the concept to the exclusion of any other mode of discourse on the subject of art music dating from about 1100 to 2020, written by composers stretching from the west coast of the US, round the globe via Europe, to the eastern edges of Japan.

No, mention 'classical music', and he sees squirrels. And thus it's all just European 18th Century.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> If only a very small minority think John Cage is a great composer, how is his greatness established as an objective "fact"? It seems at some point a consensus has to come into play. I'm hardly a "gatekeeper" of anything.


I accept Grove's assessment, which granted does not use the term "great" which I don't think they ever do - Grove acknowledges Cage as an influential and important American composer of the 20th century.

I don't think greatness can be established except cumulatively over time. The old "test of time." But I have been mystified why greatness seems to be so important to many members of TC. There's all the lists, more than a hundred tiers, and dozens of threads devoted to which composer is greater, etc.

It is a preoccupation on TC that I don't share, but TC enjoys discussing.


----------



## JAS

absolutelybaching said:


> for the uninitiated, millionrainbows is constantly using that phrase because he has recently watched a youtube video, and like certain cartoon dogs i can think of, he is now utterly fixated on the concept to the exclusion of any other mode of discourse on the subject of art music dating from about 1100 to 2020, written by composers stretching from the west coast of the us, round the globe via europe, to the eastern edges of japan.
> 
> No, mention 'classical music', and he sees squirrels. And thus it's all just european 18th century.


squirrel!!!!!!!

For the record, I suspect that squirrels are merely an 18th century, European, male, white concept anyway. They are just trying to oppress the chipmunks and the pigeons.


----------



## SanAntone

*More than 80% of 82 voters on the TC forum do not think John Cage is a great composer.*

TC has spoken.

For what it's worth.


----------



## adriesba

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think this discussion really concerns John Cage's standing as a composer; Cage is already established.
> 
> What this discussion thread is _really_ about is the listeners in this forum, classical music listeners who are part of the dominant faction of CM listeners, drawn to the tightly-defined exclusive definition of classical music by white European males of the 18th century. This is the dominant paradigm of classical music, and the reason the majority of listeners are drawn to this genre, and to this forum.
> 
> All the defense of John Cage is unnecessary, since this thread is not really about him, but about listeners and their allegiances.


Oh wow! You figured it out! Those who don't like John Cage's music are racist because they prefer the music of certain dead, white males to the music of this other dead, white male!


----------



## vtpoet

SanAntone said:


> But I have been mystified why greatness seems to be so important to many members of TC....


Oh c'mon. It's discussed because it's fun and, at its best, leads to interesting discussions about how and what's valued in art.


----------



## JAS

vtpoet said:


> Oh c'mon. It's discussed because it's fun and, at its best, leads to interesting discussions about how and what's valued in art.


As long as most participants don't take it too seriously, and start (rather bizarrely) to accuse others of long-seated racism based on it.


----------



## millionrainbows

annaw said:


> *The 18th century stuff is only about the Classical period not classical music in general.* What about Brahms, Wagner, serialism etc if we defined all classical music as pre-Romantic music...? I doubt the late Romantics are pop or jazz artists.


Well, of course I would include Wagner and Mahler, and other 19th century in the mix as "classical."

The 18th century indicator is used because that's when it was "born" in its developed form.


----------



## Mandryka

adriesba said:


> Oh wow! You figured it out! Those who don't like John Cage's music are racist because they prefer the music of certain dead, white males to the music of this other dead, white male!


Wasn't Beethoven black?


----------



## Guest002

millionrainbows said:


> Well, of course I would include Wagner and Mahler, and other 19th century in the mix as "classical."
> 
> The 18th century indicator is used because that's when it was "born" in its developed form.


Phew! I listen to a lot of Purcell, Tallis, Byrd, Monteverdi, Pachelbel, Altenburg and Lully.

Relieved to know they weren't fully developed musicians and that I can listen to them feeling _so_ much more inclusive and woke.


----------



## vtpoet

JAS said:


> As long as most participants don't take it too seriously, and start (rather bizarrely) to accuse others of long-seated racism based on it.


But my best friend is the Yellow River Piano Concerto....


----------



## vtpoet

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Phew! I listen to a lot of Purcell, Tallis, Byrd, Monteverdi, Pachelbel, Altenburg and Lully.
> 
> Relieved to know they weren't fully developed musicians and that I can listen to them feeling _so_ much more inclusive and woke.


You lie. We all know you listen to Britten. A place is being reserved for you at a cultural re-education camp. And lose the glasses.


----------



## JAS

vtpoet said:


> But my best friend is the Yellow River Piano Concerto....


Just another example of white, male, European domination, foisting itself on a traditional Asian folk tune that wasn't hurting anyone. (Actually, I am rather fond of that myself, and also the Butterfly Lovers' Violin concerto.)


----------



## JAS

Mandryka said:


> Wasn't Beethoven black?


Maybe not quite yet.


----------



## Guest002

vtpoet said:


> You lie. We all know you listen to Britten. A place is being reserved for you at a cultural re-education camp. And lose the glasses.


Well, he didn't include the 20th century in with the racist stuff, so I think I'm alright with that.

But did you just mention "yellow" in the post above this? Yellow‽  
Tut.


----------



## millionrainbows

adriesba said:


> Oh wow! You figured it out! Those who don't like John Cage's music are racist because they prefer the music of certain dead, white males to the music of this other dead, white male!


I didn't call anyone a racist.

The dominant faction are keeping the defining characteristics of classical music hidden, and unstated, in order to preserve its dominance.

But as long as we're on the subject of race, isn't it obvious that the overwhelming majority of classical music was created by white European males? After all, it didn't come from Africa. Music is a reflection of the culture and times it was created in. I'd say 'classical' music fits all of those qualities.


----------



## vtpoet

JAS said:


> Just another example of white, male, European domination, foisting itself on a traditional Asian folk tune that wasn't hurting anyone. (Actually, I am rather fond of that myself, and also the Butterfly Lovers' Violin concerto.)


"Foisting"? I can tell you this much: That Asian folk tune was no virgin after that piano concerto was done with it.


----------



## vtpoet

millionrainbows said:


> I didn't call anyone a racist.
> 
> The dominant faction are keeping the defining characteristics of classical music hidden, and unstated, in order to preserve its dominance.


Yes. They're the mayonnaise in the club sandwich of classical music. The truth is out.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> I didn't call anyone a racist.
> 
> The dominant faction are keeping the defining characteristics of classical music hidden, and unstated, in order to preserve its dominance.


Then by all means reveal them to us and set them free. Put an end to the conspiracy! (Or is that what you think you have been doing in all these threads?)


----------



## vtpoet

JAS said:


> Then by all means reveal them to us and set them free. Put an end to the conspiracy! (Or is that what you think you have been doing in all these threads?)


Obviously, you've never tried to remove mayonnaise from a slice of bread.


----------



## JAS

vtpoet said:


> Obviously, you've never tried to remove mayonnaise from a slice of bread.


As far as I can recollect, that may well be true.


----------



## millionrainbows

SanAntone said:


> *More than 80% of 82 voters on the TC forum do not think John Cage is a great composer.*
> 
> TC has spoken.
> 
> For what it's worth.


So that proves the point that TalkClassical's dominant membership is attracted to the genre for all the reasons I have already stated.


----------



## adriesba

millionrainbows said:


> I didn't call anyone a racist.
> 
> The dominant faction are keeping the defining characteristics of classical music hidden, and unstated, in order to preserve its dominance.
> 
> But as long as we're on the subject of race, isn't it obvious that the overwhelming majority of classical music was created by white European males? After all, it didn't come from Africa. Music is a reflection of the culture and times it was created in. I'd say 'classical' music fits all of those qualities.


Sure, you didn't say "racist", but why are you bring race into this?

This sentence sounds a lot like trying to say that the listeners of classical music are somehow being racist-



> The dominant faction are keeping the defining characteristics of classical music hidden, and unstated, in order to preserve its dominance.


----------



## Coach G

JAS said:


> Just another example of white, male, European domination, foisting itself on a traditional Asian folk tune that wasn't hurting anyone. (Actually, I am rather fond of that myself, and also the Butterfly Lovers' Violin concerto.)


There's nothing wrong with _Butterfly Lovers_ and the _Yellow River Concerto_; but what I think is much more profound is the music of Chen Yi and Huang Ruo. Unless your idea of Chinese "classical" music is the really soothing background-for-a-Chinese-restaurant fare; you might want to check out how Chen Yi captures the essence of Chinese music in a more urgent, profound, way; sort of what Bartok did with Hungarian folk music, even with a bit of Schoenberg's sense of atonality mixed in here and there. Huang Ruo incorporates many traditional Chinese instruments and also doesn't attempt to present a more-or-less Occidental variation of Chinese music.


----------



## millionrainbows

adriesba said:


> Sure, you didn't say "racist", but why are you bring race into this?
> 
> This sentence sounds a lot like trying to say that the listeners of classical music are somehow being racist-


Why aren't you asking the same question about gender? Or about "Europe?" I can't think of any other characteristics that are this "charged" with meaning and power. These characteristics are all representative of power.

For a form of music or art to become a dominant cultural force, it must be based on power.

Of course, nowadays, power in music is determined by economics and media exposure.


----------



## SanAntone

Coach G said:


> There's nothing wrong with _Butterfly Lovers_ and the _Yellow River Concerto_; *but what I think is much more profound is the music of Chen Yi and Huang Ruo. *Unless your idea of Chinese "classical" music is the really soothing background-for-a-Chinese-restaurant fare; you might want to check out how Chen Yi captures the essence of Chinese music in a more urgent, profound, way; sort of what Bartok did with Hungarian folk music, even with a bit of Schoenberg's sense of atonality mixed in here and there. Huang Ruo incorporates many traditional Chinese instruments and also doesn't attempt to present a more-or-less Occidental variation of Chinese music.


Yes, I find their music interesting. But they seem to have been trained in the Western classical style and compose accordingly. Can you point out a work of either or both which "captures the essence of Chinese music in a more urgent, profound, way".

I would have said that Toru Takemitsu creates classical music with a obvious Japanese cultural flavor.


----------



## adriesba

millionrainbows said:


> Why aren't you asking the same question about gender? Or about "Europe?" I can't think of any other characteristics that are this "charged" with meaning and power. These characteristics are all representative of power.
> 
> For a form of music or art to become a dominant cultural force, it must be based on power.
> 
> Of course, nowadays, power in music is determined by economics and media exposure.


OK then. How is whiteness/Europeanness/maleness relevant to whether or not one likes or dislikes John Cage's music?


----------



## millionrainbows

The Chinese composition "Taking Tiger Mountain By Strategy" is an example of 'propoganda' art, in which the art serves a dominant ideology. I think this is a flawed model, because art's highest purpose is being "the forgotten language of the soul."

No matter how powerful, pervasive, or successful art becomes, it must ultimately demand from its viewers the highest of all standards and reactions: that they be human beings.


----------



## Coach G

SanAntone said:


> Yes, I find their music interesting. But they seem to have been trained in the Western classical style and compose accordingly. Can you point out a work of either or both which "captures the essence of Chinese music in a more urgent, profound, way".
> 
> I would have said that Toru Takemitsu creates classical music with a obvious Japanese cultural flavor.


Chen Yi: Momentum, Chinese Folk Dance Suite for Violin and Orchestra, Dunhuang Fantasy, Romance and Dance for Two Violin and Orchestra, Tu (BIS records)

Huang Ruo: Chamber Concertos 1-4 NAXOS American Composers Series


----------



## SanAntone

Coach G said:


> Chen Yi: Momentum, Chinese Folk Dance Suite for Violin and Orchestra, Dunhuang Fantasy, Romance and Dance for Two Violin and Orchestra, Tu (BIS records)
> 
> Huang Ruo: Chamber Concertos 1-4 NAXOS American Composers Series


Thanks. If those works are on Spotify, I'll listen to them.


----------



## millionrainbows

adriesba said:


> OK then. How is whiteness/Europeanness/maleness relevant to whether or not one likes or dislikes John Cage's music?


For me, it's not an issue, because I am not so attached to a paradigm of classical music as others here are.

For those others, however, John Cage's music, worldview, and aesthetic is perceived as a threat.

They will not admit it explicitly, but they are aligned with the definition of classical music as 'music made by 18th century white European males' and will oppose any composer whom they see as a threat to this definition.

BTW: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler, Brahms, Wagner: all white, all male, all European. Would you disagree?


----------



## adriesba

millionrainbows said:


> For me, it's not an issue, because I am not so attached to a paradigm of classical music as others here are.
> 
> For those others, however, John Cage's music, worldview, and aesthetic is perceived as a threat.
> 
> They will not admit it explicitly, but they are aligned with the definition of classical music as 'music made by 18th century white European males' and will oppose any composer whom they see as a threat to this definition.


A definition you made up.

So an American (probably Euro-descended) white male who was taught by Schoenberg who was partially taught by Zemlinsky who was taught by Bruckner (among others), etc. is somehow not of the tradition of white European male music and is thus considered a threat to that aesthetic.

Aren't these all out of the same tradition, and the difference is old vs. new or traditional vs. avant garde?


----------



## SanAntone

adriesba said:


> A definition you made up.
> 
> So an American (probably Euro-descended) white male who was taught by Schoenberg who was partially taught by Zemlinsky who was taught by Bruckner (among others), etc. is somehow not of the tradition of white European male music and is thus considered a threat to that aesthetic.
> 
> Aren't these all out of the same tradition, and the difference is old vs. new or traditional vs. avant garde?


Except Schoenberg rejected Cage as a composer and Cage rejected Schoenberg as a teacher, so you can't really connect Cage to Schoenberg as you have tried to. Cage was essentially self-taught and also significantly influenced by the music from non-western cultures.

For me, John Cage is a classical music composer but does not represent the traditional western art music that is usually thought of as classical music. He is an iconoclast who wished to create music in defiance of the paradigm of the Romantic era's hero-composer-genius that was defined by Beethoven.

Because of his study of Zen, Cage's priorities and goals for his music were very different from the ones usually assumed by classical music composers. Yet, Cage was a serious composer of art music, whose works have had a huge impact on the path 20th century music has taken.

I have believe his music will stand the test of time.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Coach G said:


> There's nothing wrong with _Butterfly Lovers_ and the _Yellow River Concerto_; but what I think is much more profound is the music of Chen Yi and Huang Ruo. Unless your idea of Chinese "classical" music is the really soothing background-for-a-Chinese-restaurant fare; you might want to check out how Chen Yi captures the essence of Chinese music in a more urgent, profound, way; sort of what Bartok did with Hungarian folk music, even with a bit of Schoenberg's sense of atonality mixed in here and there. Huang Ruo incorporates many traditional Chinese instruments and also doesn't attempt to present a more-or-less Occidental variation of Chinese music.


I'm more of a fan of Qigang Chen, who was supposedly Messiaen's last student.

"His compositions display real inventiveness, very great talent and a total assimilation of Chinese thinking to European musical concepts." - Olivier Messiaen






I've grown to despise both Butterfly Lovers and the Yellow River Concerto. Here is an interesting interview with Chen, on the impact of the Cultural Revolution on the Arts. Question I had in mind later in this interview, had he become 'whitewashed' by Messiaen or did he find his own individuality?


----------



## Guest002

adriesba said:


> A definition you made up.


To be fair, MR didn't make it up. A video on Youtube did, which he's lapped up as the 'next profound insight'. He now can't think in any terms other than that. Mention the 16th century, or Takemitsu, or Trish Clowes, or Samuel Coleridge-Taylor and he'll somehow turn them all into white, 18th century European males. Which is a bit of an achievement if you think about it for a second. Of sorts.

So you can't blame him for making it up, but you should feel free to blame him for banging on about it quite so much, devoid of context and real meaning -and maybe ask him the question, if classical music is so exclusive and exclusionary, and so representative of a privileged elite minority to the exclusion of all others... why the hell did he join a group called 'Talk Classical' in the first place?


----------



## Coach G

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm more of a fan of Qigang Chen, who was supposedly Messiaen's last student.
> 
> "His compositions display real inventiveness, very great talent and a total assimilation of Chinese thinking to European musical concepts." - Olivier Messiaen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've grown to despise both Butterfly Lovers and the Yellow River Concerto. Here is an interesting interview with Chen, on the impact of the Cultural Revolution on the Arts. Question I had in mind later in this interview, had he become 'whitewashed' by Messiaen or did he find his own individuality?


Beautiful music! Interesting interview!


----------



## adriesba

SanAntone said:


> Except Schoenberg rejected Cage as a composer and Cage rejected Schoenberg as a teacher, so you can't really connect Cage to Schoenberg as you have tried to. Cage was essentially self-taught and also significantly influenced by the music from non-western cultures.


Fair point ‎‎‎‎‎‎‎


----------



## adriesba

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> To be fair, MR didn't make it up. A video on Youtube did, which he's lapped up as the 'next profound insight'. He now can't think in any terms other than that. Mention the 16th century, or Takemitsu, or Trish Clowes, or Samuel Coleridge-Taylor and he'll somehow turn them all into white, 18th century European males. Which is a bit of an achievement if you think about it for a second. Of sorts.
> 
> So you can't blame him for making it up, but you should feel free to blame him for banging on about it quite so much, devoid of context and real meaning -and maybe ask him the question, if classical music is so exclusive and exclusionary, and so representative of a privileged elite minority to the exclusion of all others... why the hell did he join a group called 'Talk Classical' in the first place?


Ah, so this is what was discussed in the Wagner thread. I guess I'd better stop right now then. I could do without a debate on this topic.


----------



## Guest002

adriesba said:


> Ah, so this is what was discussed in the Wagner thread. I guess I'd better stop right now then.


Yeah! It's prudent to do so. Just be aware that, as you've already discovered, someone's so impressed with the video that its contents will appear in every thread ever present on this forum. Brace yourself, basically!


----------



## SeptimalTritone

SeptimalTritone said:


> Here's a set of Cage's works that I'm a fan of.
> 
> Imaginary Landscape 1 (1939)
> 
> 
> 
> One of the first-ever examples of electroacoustic music. Combines muted piano/cymbal with turntables that play sliding pure tones. Perfect for fans of Varese's Poeme Electronique or Deserts. There's also the entire Imaginary Landscapes album you can enjoy on youtube here that contains all of his "Imaginary Landscape" pieces (some written in the 40s or 50s, and "But What About the Noise" was written in the 80s), each with utilize different forces, but have at least have an electronic component.
> 
> Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano (1948)
> 
> 
> 
> The prepared piano borders between a piano sound, a "guitar" sound, a "percussion" sound, and general Klangfarbenmelodie. Each "sonata" has it's own palette emphasis.
> 
> Cartridge Music (1960)
> 
> 
> 
> where performers insert everyday objects into turntable cartridges. This is a gradually evolving electroacoustic soundscape, immediately compelling to me from the first few minutes.
> 
> Variations II (1961)
> 
> 
> 
> Realized here by David Tudor on amplified/prepared piano. The works in the Variations series are indeterminate/happenings works usually "for any number of players producing sound". I particularly like this David Tudor realization - the electronic amplification of the prepared piano allows for possibilities bordering on electroacoustic music not possible in the Sonatas and Interludes.
> 
> Etudes Borealis for Cello and Piano (1978)
> 
> 
> 
> Composed with Chance operations - can either be played with the cello alone, piano alone, or both (the playlist I linked has both). Lyrical in the cello, percussive in the piano. A sense of freedom and unpredictability.
> 
> Thirteen (1992)
> 
> 
> 
> One of his many number pieces. This one is for mid-sized instrumental chamber ensemble.


^ For those who don't know much of Cage's music and would like to explore, I made this starting list above.

There's nothing like listening to a composer's _music_ and getting to know it. The opinion that Cage had "interesting ideas" but "less so his actual music" has been expressed a lot in this thread, but I do not agree. For any composer, the music is always, always of primary value and any valuable musical ideas are extracted from understanding what's going on in the music, or initially worked out in order to create the music but then drop to the background.

4'33" is also not some Emperor's New Clothes stunt or a joke, it's merely a natural part of his oeuvre. If you listen to, e.g. Cartridge Music (1960) as in my above list or Bird Cage (1972) you'll realize that we might as well have had a piece called "Crowd Music" i.e. 4'33". There are "silent" music compositions before the Cage, but these don't have the performance rhythm that makes 4'33" click. There are 3 movements, each with a different specified duration. The resetting/shuffling/coughing punctuates the movements. Here's a good performance.

Schoenberg once said that his later works were 12-tone _compositions_, not _12-tone_ compositions, and the same idea applies to Cage. The compositions are of primary value. Imaginary Landscape 1 and Cartridge Music are particularly good places to start in the list I made above, but all these works are all awesome and worth tackling.


----------



## SanAntone

This is also a very interesting recording of Cage's music

View attachment 146141


*Gamelan Cage*: the parallels between Balinese gamelan and certain works by John Cage - the ones of the'prepared piano' period - seemed obvious to John Noise Manis who, together with Andrew McGraw, embarked on producing this recording in Bali with a purposely put together gamelan orchestra led by I Madé Subandi. Special arrangements of Cage's scores were produced giving them a whole new sonic dimension. This release come with extensive booklet notes describing the preparatory and recording processes of these two fascinatingly adventurous projects.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> As can be seen in any music encyclopedia, classical music as a genre is overwhelmingly 'music made by white European males of the 18th century.'


An absurd statement. "Classical music," as generally (if loosely) understood, spans more than a millennium. The tradition is Western, but not exclusively European. You know the difference between "classical" and "Classical period"- the difference is unmissable - so it's clear you're being both tendentious and obfuscatory.



> This is the dominant and obvious definition of classical music,


No it isn't.



> although this definition is mostly unstated and hidden.


It's unstated because most people have no reason to lie about it.



> This is done to preserve its dominance.


The dominance of its nonexistence, no doubt.



> This is also the basis of music theory as it is taught, and as it is presented in most all textbooks.


You're on more secure, but still slightly shaky, ground here. Yes, modern Western music theory is grounded in 18th and 19th century European practice. Most music listeners need not know or care.



> Classical music represents 'music made by white European males of the 18th century' and there's really no escaping that fact, and to do so would be to ignore the obvious.


No need for free men to escape.



> To say that 'this is not my criteria' avoids all the reasons why classical music has a distinct identity as a genre.


That "distinct identity" is more a mental conceit, an artifact of social tradition and practical classification, than a musical reality. I'll bet you understand this too.



> It ignores the entire cultural context and origins of classical music, and dehumanizes it.


Dehumanizes what? How?



> Music is a creation of humanity, not something which can be taken out of its human and cultural context.


No one is doing that.



> I see the avoidance of the definition of classical music as 'music made by white European males of the 18th century' as an effort to keep its characteristics unstated and hidden. This preserves its dominance and its defining characteristics.


You already said that. It's bunk. And whatever "defining characteristics" you have in mind (white, male, 18th century European characteristics?) are not defining, dominant, or even preserved. Some of them couldn't even survive Beethoven.



> Otherwise, the tightly defined paradigm of classical music would be vulnerable, and open to degradation by figures like John Cage.


Whether or not Cage has "degraded" anything has nothing to do with anyone keeping anything hidden.



> I would avise you to go ahead and stick with the tight definition of classical music, instead of rejecting its criteria as 'not your own.' Otherwise, how can you preserve its meaning?


I would advise you not to advise people. Not that anyone's likely to care.

I'll conclude this too-easy takedown by pointing out that much "avant-garde" music of the 20th century and the present day eschews defining characteristics of MOST of the world's music traditions, not merely those of Europe. It isn't merely Haydn who would be totally baffled by the sounds of a feather stroking a cactus being offered as music.


----------



## millionrainbows

SanAntone said:


> Except Schoenberg rejected Cage as a composer and Cage rejected Schoenberg as a teacher, so you can't really connect Cage to Schoenberg as you have tried to. Cage was essentially self-taught and also significantly influenced by the music from non-western cultures.


I don't think it's as clear as that. Listen to Jane Kirstein's recording of Cage's early piano works, called John Cage: Music for Keyboard 1935-1948, and you will hear some of Cage's 12-tone works, which demonstrate a unique approach and use of the 12-tone method.


​

His problem with Schoenberg was that Cage told him (my paraphrasing) "I have no feeling for harmony," to which Schoenberg replied, "Then you will encounter a brick wall through which you can not pass." Cage replied, "Then I will devote my life to smashing my head against that brick wall."
Later after Cage had attained recognition, Schoenberg commented that Cage was a good "inventor" in music.


----------



## Coach G

Woodduck said:


> ...I would advise you not to advise people...


Fools won't take it and the wise don't need it.


----------



## millionrainbows

> An absurd statement. "Classical music," as generally (if loosely) understood, spans more than a millennium. The tradition is Western, but not exclusively European. You know the difference between "classical" and "Classical period"- the difference is unmissable - so it's clear you're being both tendentious and obfuscatory. No it isn't. It's unstated because most people have no reason to lie about it. The dominance of its nonexistence, no doubt. You're on more secure, but still slightly shaky, ground here. Yes, modern Western music theory is grounded in 18th and 19th century European practice. Most music listeners need not know or care. No need for free men to escape. That "distinct identity" is more a mental conceit, an artifact of social tradition and practical classification, than a musical reality. I'll bet you understand this too. Dehumanizes what? How? No one is doing that. You already said that. It's bunk. And whatever "defining characteristics" you have in mind (white, male, 18th century European characteristics?) are not defining, dominant, or even preserved. Some of them couldn't even survive Beethoven. Whether or not Cage has "degraded" anything has nothing to do with anyone keeping anything hidden. I would advise you not to advise people. Not that anyone's likely to care. I'll conclude this too-easy takedown by pointing out that much "avant-garde" music of the 20th century and the present day eschews defining characteristics of MOST of the world's music traditions, not merely those of Europe. It isn't merely Haydn who would be totally baffled by the sounds of a feather stroking a cactus being offered as music.
> 
> 
> 
> Here he goes again.
Click to expand...


----------



## millionrainbows

Coach G said:


> Fools won't take it and the wise don't need it.


If JAS wants to keep John Cage and the avant garde out of his paradigm, he's better off to accept those qualities of the definition, rather than disavow them. After all, it's what defines what he's trying to protect.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Here he goes again.


And he will probably "go here again" until shoveling the **** from the bulls in this pasture exhausts him.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> And he will probably "go here again" until shoveling the **** from the bulls in this pasture exhausts him.


That was quick! I wish my CD orders were that fast!

Back on topic: Yes, I consider John Cage to be a great composer.


----------



## bluto32

SeptimalTritone said:


> <snip>
> 
> 4'33" is also not some Emperor's New Clothes stunt or a joke, it's merely a natural part of his oeuvre. If you listen to, e.g. Cartridge Music (1960) as in my above list or Bird Cage (1972) you'll realize that we might as well have had a piece called "Crowd Music" i.e. 4'33". There are "silent" music compositions before the Cage, but these don't have the performance rhythm that makes 4'33" click. There are 3 movements, each with a different specified duration. The resetting/shuffling/coughing punctuates the movements. Here's a good performance.
> 
> <snip>


I am intrigued by the notion of a "performance rhythm" in 4'33''! What makes the performance above a good one in your view? Please could you provide a link to a bad performance in order to compare?


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> If JAS wants to keep John Cage and the avant garde out of his paradigm, he's better off to accept those qualities of the definition, rather than disavow them. After all, it's what defines what he's trying to protect.


Cage has only a very small presence in my paradigm. It is a square container, marked "waste."


----------



## SanAntone

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think it's as clear as that. Listen to Jane Kirstein's recording of Cage's early piano works, called John Cage: Music for Keyboard 1935-1948, and you will hear some of Cage's 12-tone works, which demonstrate a unique approach and use of the 12-tone method.
> 
> His problem with Schoenberg was that Cage told him (my paraphrasing) "I have no feeling for harmony," to which Schoenberg replied, "Then you will encounter a brick wall through which you can not pass." Cage replied, "Then I will devote my life to smashing my head against that brick wall."
> Later after Cage had attained recognition, Schoenberg commented that Cage was a good "inventor" in music.


Cage only studied with Schoenberg for about two years in the mid 30s and had dropped Schoenberg, as someone who influenced his composing, by 1940.

People have exaggerated the relationship between Schoenberg and Cage for a long time, but I think it should be obvious from Cage's mature style that his lessons with Schoenberg are no longer very relevant.

Schoenberg lost interest in Cage when he realized that Cage had other priorities than the ones Schoenberg considered appropriate for a composition student of his.

I would say that Henry Cowell was more of an influence, but Cage was essentially self taught.


----------



## fluteman

Allerius said:


> Simple and direct. I'm interested in knowing what the community here thinks of JC.


JC is the greatest ever by far, regardless of what metric one uses. Number one with a bullet. The winna, and still champeen of the world.

Wait. Which JC are we talking about?


----------



## hammeredklavier

millionrainbows said:


> 'music made by white European males of the 18th century.'


I'm actually surprised you're not using expressions like "religiously-dogmatic, bewigged, kneehigh-wearing" this time.



millionrainbows said:


> I hope camus will seek out a flexible teacher, not someone who comes across as a nun, complete with guilt-tripping and knuckle-rapping.





millionrainbows said:


> Polyphony is overrated. Counterpoint is too strict. What used to be a "passing tone" B-C is now a major seventh chord. You polyphony guys are old hat. The study of it is really more of a historical pursuit than it is a vital, living style of music. Row, row, row your boat, gently into obsolescence.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> Wasn't Beethoven black?


The first time I heard that theory, I thought "So what?"


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> Wasn't Beethoven black?





consuono said:


> The first time I heard that theory, I thought "So what?"


When I first heard it, I thought "Maybe that explains why his music is so rhythmic."


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> When I first heard it, I thought "Maybe that explains why his music is so rhythmic."


You're the best, dude. Don't go away again.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I must stress that avant-garde music like Cage's has its practical applications/uses in modern culture.
The types of mood it creates are indispensable as "background music" for modern cultural entertainment contents like this: 
1:40




Just like how Yuhki Kuramoto's music, in the context of a sad movie, can make people cry.


----------



## millionrainbows

hammeredklavier said:


> I must stress that avant-garde music like Cage's has its practical applications/uses in modern culture.
> The types of mood it creates are indispensable as "background music" for modern cultural entertainment contents like this:


What kind of half-baked generalization is this?

What is "avant garde music like Cage's?"

These are meaningless generalizations.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

On the subject of John Cage, I advocate a prolonged period of silence.


----------



## consuono

millionrainbows said:


> What kind of half-baked generalization is this?
> 
> What is "avant garde music like Cage's?"
> 
> These are meaningless generalizations.


So is "white European male".


----------



## erki

For me Cage is not a composer in typical/classical sense but more like a phenomenon. And I sincerely welcome this. He and many others have expanded the meaning what we consider music today. Obviously not for everyone as this topic crops up again and again.


----------



## SanAntone

The strongly negative response in this poll to John Cage surprises me a little. Maybe the word "great" was too much, and it might have been better to phrase the question a little less all or nothing.

Out on the wider Internet his music receives a more friendly reception than on TC. I'm not sure why that is. I mean, yeah, he has done some controversial work, but there are also some pieces that appeal to a broad range of listeners.

These may not be them. But they are worth at least a sample listen. I would be interested to hear from some of the "no" voters what they think.


----------



## Coach G

SanAntone said:


> Cage only studied with Schoenberg for about two years in the mid 30s and had dropped Schoenberg, as someone who influenced his composing, by 1940.
> 
> People have exaggerated the relationship between Schoenberg and Cage for a long time, but I think it should be obvious from Cage's mature style that his lessons with Schoenberg are no longer very relevant.
> 
> Schoenberg lost interest in Cage when he realized that Cage had other priorities than the ones Schoenberg considered appropriate for a composition student of his.
> 
> *I would say that Henry Cowell was more of an influence, but Cage was essentially self taught.*


When I first heard the piano works of Henry Cowell I thought of it as the link between the piano music of Charles Ives and the piano works and prepared piano works of John Cage.


----------



## cello suite

No accounting for taste. We could say that the descriptor "great" is largely subjective; what's popular is fairly meaningless. E.G. There are "indie" bands I like a lot more than I do certain pop "artists." (I use that term very loosely.) Anyway, John Cage... Yes. I found the prepared piano pieces had a soulful quality. I listened to them more than once, several times even, which says something (regarding my own tastes / dislikes). On a side note, I enjoyed some of his writings as well, namely "Silence."


----------



## Fabulin

Pat Fairlea said:


> On the subject of John Cage, I advocate a prolonged period of silence.










 ...................


----------



## millionrainbows

consuono said:


> So is "white European male".


I don't think that's a meaningless generalization. After all, white males from Europe wrote it. And that's very meaningful to the majority of listeners here at TC, because they identify with it for exactly those reasons.


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think that's a meaningless generalization. After all, white males from Europe wrote it. And that's very meaningful to the majority of listeners here at TC, because they identify with it for exactly those reasons.


So, William Henry Fry and Edward MacDowell are okay because they aren't, strictly speaking, European?


----------



## consuono

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think that's a meaningless generalization. After all, white males from Europe wrote it. And that's very meaningful to the majority of listeners here at TC, because they identify with it for exactly those reasons.


When you advocate for some other dead white (ethnically) European male to strike back at those listening to dead white European males, then yeah, the generalization is meaningless.


----------



## Eclectic Al

There is another thread going on whether classical music is racist. How come this one on John Cage has become one covering the same ground? The other one is pretty tedious, so having two going on at once is underwhelming.

On the JC question, I listened to the first two pieces posted by SanAntone, and am confirmed in my view that this is not a great composer. Those were pleasant enough doodles at the piano, such as a teenager might improvise if they have a penchant for the sustaining pedal. Both were around 10 minutes, and outlasted my attention after about one. I didn't listen to the other pieces, as they appeared to last considerably longer, and I didn't want to spend the time.

So no: not great. I suspect the only reason anyone would play the pieces I did listen to is because of the marketing effect from his enfant terrible status. I think that is not uncommon: mediocre people have their creations given a degree of status as a result of some other headline grabbing stunt they have carried out. Their work is more interesting as an example of how to carry out marketing than as art.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think that's a meaningless generalization. After all, white males from Europe wrote it. And that's very meaningful to the majority of listeners here at TC, because they identify with it for exactly those reasons.


You think anyone cares whether the music they find themselves loving is writen by a certain race type? Perhaps you are suggesting that non-white male Europeans don't get the chance to be recorded or performed in the first place?


----------



## SanAntone

Eclectic Al said:


> There is another thread going on whether classical music is racist. How come this one on John Cage has become one covering the same ground? The other one is pretty tedious, so having two going on at once is underwhelming.
> 
> On the JC question, I listened to the first two pieces posted by SanAntone, and am confirmed in my view that this is not a great composer. Those were pleasant enough doodles at the piano, such as a teenager might improvise if they have a penchant for the sustaining pedal. Both were around 10 minutes, and outlasted my attention after about one. I didn't listen to the other pieces, as they appeared to last considerably longer, and I didn't want to spend the time.
> 
> So no: not great. I suspect the only reason anyone would play the pieces I did listen to is because of the marketing effect from his enfant terrible status. I think that is not uncommon: mediocre people have their creations given a degree of status as a result of some other headline grabbing stunt they have carried out. Their work is more interesting as an example of how to carry out marketing than as art.


I may have chosen the wrong works to post; I was trying to find some things which were more conventional and less foreign to a traditional classical music listener. However, if one frees their mind of expectations and allows the music to play out, I find that those two piano works produce a meditative stasis that can be quite pleasant.

However, here's a couple of different sounding works, one for a large orchestra the other for an eight piece ensemble, which might present a more balanced picture of some of what Cage was about.











His career was so varied and his works covered such a wide territory of styles, it is impossible to present him by posting a handful of works. Of course his music is not for everyone, but I can't think of any composer for whom the same could not be said.


----------



## SanAntone

One more: _Ten_


----------



## SanAntone

I also echo the complaint that this thread is in danger of being being hijacked by the other discussion. OTOH, I would not lose any sleep if this thread were to die from exhaustion.


----------



## SanAntone

A favorite of mine.


----------



## millionrainbows

Eclectic Al said:


> There is another thread going on whether classical music is racist. How come this one on John Cage has become one covering the same ground? The other one is pretty tedious, so having two going on at once is underwhelming.


Because open hostility and intolerance of John Cage is indicative of a defensive, exclusionary attitude, which is fertile ground for racism. IMHO


----------



## JAS

millionrainbows said:


> Because open hostility and intolerance of John Cage is indicative of a defensive, exclusionary attitude, which is fertile ground for racism. IMHO


So merely hating noise is racist. Wow!


----------



## Handelian

millionrainbows said:


> Because open hostility and intolerance of John Cage is indicative of a defensive, exclusionary attitude, which is fertile ground for racism. IMHO


No it isn't. Because I do not like the sex pistols music it is not an implication of racism. Stop being so silly and making such silly comments.


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think that's a meaningless generalization. After all, white males from Europe wrote it. And that's very meaningful to the majority of listeners here at TC, because they identify with it for exactly those reasons.


This is rich. You're taking your racist statements and trying to spread them to other members of TC - reminds me of Trump spreading Covid around.


----------



## Xisten267

For me John Cage is much more a kind of "cultural shaker" than a musician, and in my opinion his pieces created in a more traditional fashion (examples at post #207) show clearly his shortcomings as a composer (particularly as a melodist and as an harmonist). He had a very idiosyncratic way of musical thinking and I can see the importance of his influence on later composers, and I view positively the raise of interest in fundamental questions about music that his work produced in other musicians, but I don't believe in the answers that he ultimately provided to these questions (Question: "What is music?"; John Cage's answer: "Everything we do is music.").

P.S.: Before someone calls me racist for not liking Cage, let me add that to me Scott Joplin and Duke Ellington deserve much more the title of "great composer" than him.


----------



## SanAntone

Allerius said:


> For me John Cage is much more a kind of "cultural shaker" than a musician, and in my opinion his pieces created in a more traditional fashion (examples at post #207) show clearly his shortcomings as a composer (particularly as a melodist and as an harmonist). He had a very idiosyncratic way of musical thinking and I can see the importance of his influence on later composers, and I view positively the raise of interest in fundamental questions about music that his work produced in other musicians, but I don't believe in the answers that he ultimately provided to these questions (Question: "What is music?"; John Cage's answer: "Everything we do is music.").
> 
> P.S.: Before someone calls me racist for not liking Cage, let me add that to me Scott Joplin and Duke Ellington deserve much more the title of "great composer" than him.


Yes, his thinking has influenced much of the art produced in the last half of the 20th century and beyond. It could be argued that his work has had a greater impact on artists than composers, but that would not be entirely true. Both groups of creators have been impacted by the work of John Cage.

But I disagree that he is not primarily a composer (I don't ever use the term "great" and consider that a stumbling block for this thread). His catalog has over 300 works published by C.F. Peters, a music publishing house whose roster includes many 20th century composers. Many of his scores are written for standard instruments, although some call for radios or phonographs and other non standard orchestra instruments. He considered himself a composer first and foremost, and even his lectures he considered a kind of music, since they often included sounds and organization principles found in musical compositions.

I assume the works you are referred to in post #207 were _In a Landscape_ and _Dream_, the two piano pieces which were written using only the "white keys" of the piano as an intentional limitation (the other two works are completely different and I don't think fit your description). I would not say that Cage was composing in a "traditional manner" with these pieces, and the melodic and harmonic content was purposely restricted as I said to a limited palette. As I wrote in a later post, those works when listened to without expectations that they are going to be like Chopin or even Satie, and if the listener allows his mind to open up and remain as empty as possible, those works can produce a calm, still, meditative stasis that is a bit different than listening to a Beethoven sonata.

I think Cage has suffered from analysis using mainstream classical works as the yardstick, when his goals as a composer do not utilize the same priorities that mainstream composers employ in their work. Cage rejected harmony early in his career, so it is not really relevant to complain of his lack of harmonic skill in his works. He is after something other than harmonic movement. While some of the same chords and harmonies appear in some of the music, their function (or really lack of function) is undermined and frustrated when a listener attempts to hear mainstream harmonic movement, such as found in a tonal work.


----------



## Mandryka

Re Cage and harmony, key works are the 13 harmonies. It's interesting to compare them with the originals by Billings.

And famously he said that James Tenney had made him interested in harmony.

He wrote an acrostic about it, sorry I can't make a better image right now


----------



## Flamme

''John Cage'' sounds like an FBI or CIA officer or a false name


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> ....
> 
> I think Cage has suffered from analysis using mainstream classical works as the yardstick, when his goals as a composer do not utilize the same priorities that mainstream composers employ in their work. Cage rejected harmony early in his career, so it is not really relevant to complain of his lack of harmonic skill in his works. He is after something other than harmonic movement. While some of the same chords and harmonies appear in some of the music, their function (or really lack of function) is undermined and frustrated when a listener attempts to hear mainstream harmonic movement, such as found in a tonal work.


So he consciously rejected the foundations of what we call "western music", but yet we're supposed to use that same yardstick to say that he was a "great composer"...and the onus is on us to agree, or else it's evidence of narrow- mindedness at best.

The problem with that is that the "yardstick" becomes whatever Cage said it is. There is no possibility of a "wrong answer" or "badly composed", because since it's from Cage (or Ferneyhough or Saunders) and it's to be judged using the Cage (or Ferneyhough or Saunders) Yardstick, it's by definition great. That's the problem with "modern music" as a whole: the standards are non-existent since they are made up on the fly and are completely individual.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> So he consciously rejected the foundations of what we call "western music".


In a lot of his music he used traditional instruments in traditional ways to create pitches. And a lot of his music is composed, with no more indeterminacy than a piece by Mozart. I think that Cage was not a simple composer who can be summed up by a formula like "rejected western music's foundations." He didn't. But he did explore other ways of composing.

If you listen to the 13 Harmonies from the Apartment House you'll see that he was even exploring functional harmony - by a process of elimination.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> In a lot of his music he used traditional instruments in traditional ways to create pitches. And a lot of his music is composed, with no more indeterminacy than a piece by Mozart. I think that Cage was not a simple composer who can be summed up by a formula like "rejected western music's foundations."


So then let's compare him head-to-head with Mozart, shall we? "But that's not fair...Cage and Mozart had different goals in mind and were working within different philosophical frameworks..."

None of the Cage advocates would say that Cage's "greatness" lies in his similarity to the "Mainstream Greats", but rather depends on the extent to which he consciously rejected them...and you know it.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> So then let's compare him head-to-head with Mozart, shall we?


OK. Are the 13 harmonies more spare, austere and simple than K 301? Yes. Is the 5th piano sonata more warm and human, more rhythmically clear than k 301. Possibly. Now what?


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> OK. Are the 13 harmonies more spare and simple than K 301? Yes. Are they more warm and human. Possibly. Now what?


In other words, Cage really can't compete with Mozart using traditional standards. Now what? Make new standards, that's what.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> In other words, Cage really can't compete with Mozart using traditional standards. Now what? Make new standards, that's what.


Oh, that's a surprise, I thought those things I mentioned were traditional standards! Sorry. I'm obviously not in touch with the tradition.


----------



## consuono

Mandryka said:


> Oh, that's a surprise, I thought those things I mentioned were traditional standards! Sorry. I'm obviously not in touch with the tradition.


They are. Are you saying Cage is equivalent to Mozart? What a surprise. Anyway, predictably you take one or two tonal, somewhat traditional instances of Cage and say "See there! He's traditionally 'great'! He could do that, too!" It's disingenuously trying to have your cake and eat it, too.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> So he consciously rejected the foundations of what we call "western music", but yet we're supposed to use that same yardstick to say that he was a "great composer"...


I wrote just the opposite, that using the yardstick of traditional classical music is inappropriate for analysing a Cage work; the music theory tools that are usually applied to works from the common practice period. These tools also break down with music of the late 19th century when composers like Debussy and others turned away from the system of tonality. Cage just went further than most composers.

In fact no analysis is needed. Cage's work either reaches you or it doesn't. Of course this same standard can be applied to all music, all art.



> That's the problem with "modern music" as a whole: the standards are non-existent since they are made up on the fly and are completely individual.


The only standard (and is the same standard for all music) is if it ignites your imagination and gives you enjoyment.


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> If you listen to the 13 Harmonies from the Apartment House you'll see that he was even exploring functional harmony - by a process of elimination.


The music for 13 Harmonies was taken from colonial composers like William Billings, and others. Cage adapted them using a process of alteration using chance procedures. The harmonies were not his but theirs and his composing was one of transformation - in effect divorcing the harmonies from their original function.


----------



## Mandryka

SanAntone said:


> The music for 13 Harmonies was taken from colonial composers like William Billings, and others. Cage adapted them using a process of alteration using chance procedures. The harmonies were not his but theirs and his composing was one of transformation - in effect divorcing the harmonies from their original function.


the transformations are eliminations I think.


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> They are. Are you saying Cage is equivalent to Mozart?


Cage is Cage, Mozart is Mozart. Everything is what it is, and not another thing.


----------



## Andrew Kenneth

consuono said:


> (...) Are you saying Cage is equivalent to Mozart? (...)


They're remarkably similar.


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> the transformations are eliminations I think.


I am not sure. I know that he subtracted notes from Satie for _Cheap Imitation_.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Are you saying Cage is equivalent to Mozart?


Who is the equivalent of Mozart? Each composer brings his own wonder for our enjoyment. It is not a zero sum game; I can enjoy Cage and Mozart. Contrary to you I do not compare and evalulate composers, it is enough for me to enjoy their music.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> None of the Cage advocates would say that Cage's "greatness" lies in his similarity to the "Mainstream Greats", but rather depends on the extent to which he consciously rejected them...and you know it.


Nope. Any "advocate" of Cage - or at least I - would say that Cage's "greatness" lies in how much his music brings joy to the listener. The "mainstream greats" are not part of the equation.

There is no other standard.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> Nope. Any "advocate" of Cage - or at least I - would say that Cage's "greatness" lies in how much his music brings joy to the listener. The "mainstream greats" are not part of the equation.
> 
> There is no other standard.


Well then by that standard Cage would have to be considered substandard, since very few apparently find "joy" in his work.

Btw a rough "equivalent" of Mozart would be someone who works within the continuum of "western music", not one who breaks from it. I don't quite understand the indignation and puzzlement when those who do love Mozart et al express distaste and disapproval of Cage et al. I thought that was the purpose of the avant garde.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> ...Contrary to you I do not compare and evaluate composers....


One more thing: sure you do. We all do. You said yourself that you think Brahms ranks higher than Joachim Raff.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> One more thing: sure you do. We all do. You said yourself that you think Brahms ranks higher than Joachim Raff.


Well, I don't do it as a regular thing, and IIRC that was in the form of a rhetorical question. I almost always talk about the composers that I enjoy more than others, but do not place much stock in talking about "greatness."


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Well then by that standard Cage would have to be considered substandard, since very few apparently find "joy" in his work.
> 
> Btw a rough "equivalent" of Mozart would be someone who works within the continuum of "western music", not one who breaks from it. I don't quite understand the indignation and puzzlement when those who do love Mozart et al express distaste and disapproval of Cage et al. I thought that was the purpose of the avant garde.


He may not bring you joy, and according to this poll 88% do not consider him a "great composer" and may not find joy in his work. But as has already been established, TC is a small sample size and Cage has an large audience of people who presumably find joy in his work.

And you were the one who brought Mozart up. I certainly never compared Cage to Mozart.

I think of Mozart as a unique composer and don't compare him to anyone. But, I think Mozart might enjoy John Cage, after all he came up with the Musikalisches Würfelspiel long before Cage did.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I listened to Thirteen due to some interest in the mixed reviews on the Overrated/Underrated thread. At first I thought: Hey, doesn't sound so bad, and there was enough variety to keep me intrigued, but after a couple minutes, I did ask myself where it was heading, because the idea was getting monotonous. In the end I don't think the 30:00 length (exactly, as in I'm cutting it off here just because it's 1/2 an hour) was justified. Here are the comments/notes on it from JohnCage.org:

The composition was prepared in parts, using flexible time-brackets and without overall score. Long tones are to be played soft, short tones may have any dynamic. Cage also indicates that the two percussionists whose parts are identical should not attempt to play in unison. Long tones extended by breath or bow should be so extended imperceptibly.


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> I listened to Thirteen due to some interest in the mixed reviews on the Overrated/Underrated thread. At first I thought: Hey, doesn't sound so bad, and there was enough variety to keep me intrigued, but after a couple minutes, *I did ask myself where it was heading*, because the idea was getting monotonous. In the end I don't think the 30:00 length (exactly, as in I'm cutting it off here just because it's 1/2 an hour) was justified. Here are the comments/notes on it from JohnCage.org:
> 
> The composition was prepared in parts, using flexible time-brackets and without overall score. Long tones are to be played soft, short tones may have any dynamic. Cage also indicates that the two percussionists whose parts are identical should not attempt to play in unison. Long tones extended by breath or bow should be so extended imperceptibly.


The problem I observe happening again and again with people who listen to a work by John Cage is they are "listening to IT" as opposed to simply listening. When you began to ask yourself, "where it was heading" you are thinking too much. IMO, Cage should be listened to in the same way you listen to the sound of the seagulls, the wind, and the sound of the waves of the ocean while at the beach.

The music is not "heading" anywhere, it is just being.


----------



## SanAntone




----------



## Phil loves classical

SanAntone said:


> The problem I observe happening again and again with people who listen to a work by John Cage is they are "listening to IT" as opposed to simply listening. When you began to ask yourself, "where it was heading" you are thinking too much. IMO, Cage should be listened to in the same way you listen to the sound of the seagulls, the wind, and the sound of the waves of the ocean while at the beach.
> 
> The music is not "heading" anywhere, it is just being.


Ya, I figured that. But a couple of minutes of that is enough for me. I'm more interested in ideas than sounds.


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> Ya, I figured that. But a couple of minutes of that is enough for me. I'm more interested in ideas than sounds.


Music is sound(s). Ideas are not music.

But I don't want to argue with you about it.


----------



## Phil loves classical

SanAntone said:


> Music is sound(s). Ideas are not music.
> 
> But I don't want to argue with you about it.


I would clarify I'm more interested in musical ideas, rather than music as sounds without explicit ideas.


----------



## consuono

Phil loves classical said:


> I would clarify I'm more interested in musical ideas, rather than music as sounds without explicit ideas.


It's a simplistic argument anyway. The Art of Fugue isn't just a collection of sounds.


----------



## Phil loves classical

consuono said:


> It's a simplistic argument anyway. The Art of Fugue isn't just a collection of sounds.


Well that's the argument coming from a guy (I mean Johnny) who said "Beethoven was wrong". Wrong! Not just that Cage had an alternative way of defining or composing music, but implying it's the right way.

"Beethoven was in error, and his influence, which has been extensive as it is lamentable, has been deadening to the art of music."


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> It's a simplistic argument anyway. The Art of Fugue isn't just a collection of sounds.


The Art of Fugue is entirely made up of sounds. The method that went into creating the work is something separate from the music, and has no relevance other than on a musicological or theoretical basis. You need not do anything other than listen to the work in order to "get" it and enjoy it.

Listening to Bach is no different than listening to Cage.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> The Art of Fugue is entirely made up of sounds. The method that went into creating the work is something separate from the music, and has no relevance other than on a musicological or theoretical basis. ...


No. There's no separating the two. The work sounds satisfying precisely because of the craftsmanship and thought that went into arranging those sounds. And no, traffic noise in Manhattan isn't as "musical". That's like saying that some pots of paint and a blank canvas are as "beautiful" or as "great" as or "equivalent to" a Rembrandt painting. Sound or tone is the raw material, not an end in itself.


----------



## Phil loves classical

SanAntone said:


> The Art of Fugue is entirely made up of sounds. The method that went into creating the work is something separate from the music, and has no relevance other than on a musicological or theoretical basis. You need not do anything other than listen to the work in order to "get" it and enjoy it.
> 
> Listening to Bach is no different than listening to Cage.


I'm sure it could be listened to that way. But not the only way, in that one can be heard has having more form.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SanAntone said:


> Yes, his thinking has influenced much of the art produced in the last half of the 20th century and beyond. It could be argued that his work has had a greater impact on artists than composers, but that would not be entirely true. Both groups of creators have been impacted by the work of John Cage.


The Beatles were more influential artists than Cage in the 20th century. Both the Beatles and Cage were not classical music composers. They declared themselves as not being part of the pratice/tradition. ("traffic noise is more musically interesting than Mozart and Beethoven" -Cage).
[ "Paul McCartney talking about classical music and composing": 



 ]

But I still think Cage's music is interesting as sound effects for horror films. (I'm serious, I'm not mocking Cage here)
In horror films, I would prefer to have Cage's music as background music over any of the classical music we consider great. So his music still has practical uses/applications. its way to create grotesque moods with discords is perfectly appropriate for that sort of visual content.


----------



## Woodduck

SanAntone said:


> Music is sound(s). Ideas are not music.
> 
> The Art of Fugue is entirely made up of sounds. The method that went into creating the work is something separate from the music, and has no relevance other than on a musicological or theoretical basis. You need not do anything other than listen to the work in order to "get" it and enjoy it.
> 
> Listening to Bach is no different than listening to Cage.


It's the same in a way, but also different. You yourself have expressed that difference here, in post #248:



> The problem I observe happening again and again with people who listen to a work by John Cage is they are "listening to IT" as opposed to simply listening. When you began to ask yourself, "where it was heading" you are thinking too much. IMO, Cage should be listened to in the same way you listen to the sound of the seagulls, the wind, and the sound of the waves of the ocean while at the beach.
> 
> The music is not "heading" anywhere, it is just being.


Western music, for at least the last several centuries up until the mid-20th century, is always "heading somewhere." This is part of its essential nature and is key to its power to express emotion. This expression is effected musically through structures that mimic the trajectories of human feeling, and involve states of tension and release, suspense and resolution, expectation and satisfaction or frustration. These states occur as "narratives" in time; music, as a "metaphor" for them, happens in time. Time has past, present and future, and the structuring of the listener's experience of time - his memory of what he has heard, his perception of what he is hearing, and his anticipation of what he may hear - distinguishes the experience of music from the mere hearing of unstructured sounds (seagulls, the wind, etc.). Music activates much more complex mental processes than random sounds do, and a composer's ability to create a powerful perceptual experience of time, integrating past, present and future into a convincing structure, is a mark of his skill.

Listening to music as structured time - more than "just being" - calls those complex functions of the brain into action, and the exercise of them is experienced by the listener as a heightened sense of his own being, which is in fact enlarged by the process. It's paradoxical that in listening to a work of Bach and experiencing its constant play of tensions and resolutions - the essence of time - we also feel freed from time, free simply to "be," submitting to the narrative, becoming the journey, fully inhabited and reshaped by the thing which we behold. As music listeners we transcend time by submitting to it - giving up our everyday struggle with it and simply giving it full sway over us in a play of sounds which imitate, like actors in a play, the dynamics of life behind the proscenium of an aesthetic stage, with the result that we may feel, if only for a moment, liberated, cleansed, inwardly balanced and reconciled with life and the relentless march of time. It's an amazing transmutation of the root of all our fears into the profoundest relaxation and pleasure! But that's the power of music.

The musical pursuit of the controlled structuring of subjective time has been more highly developed in the West than in any other culture I'm aware of, and it's been achieved largely through tonal harmony. I'm unaware of any Western music before the mid-20th century which relinquishes the control of time - or, more accurately, uses time in such a way as to still the subjective sense of it - and thereby becomes something more akin to meditation than to music as previously practiced. Such music may use the familiar components of melody, harmony, rhythm, etc., but use them, in a sense, against themselves - for example, by slowing down the sense of progression to the extent that the listener can no longer expect things to happen in a regular or structured way. This, I think, is where listening to Cage (or Feldman) is no longer like listening to Bach, and where the listener is asked to change his expectations of what music can or "should" do. I can understand some people's lack of interest in doing this. Meditation isn't for everyone; I myself am rarely in the mood for it, and I'm more likely to want the seagulls and the wind than someone's musical "mantra." But I recognize it as a legitimate sort of music, albeit one that resists being judged by many traditional aesthetic criteria.

POSTSCRIPT

I'm moved to reflect on these things here partly out of a desire to avoid the interminable and useless arguments about "modern music" (which is no longer modern), and partly to tell millionrainbows to mind his own damned business and not be attempting to define and "explain" to the forum my thoughts and beliefs, or those of other members. We all speak for ourselves here, and we should speak ONLY for ourselves.


----------



## SanAntone

I should have said that _Listening to Bach can be no different than listening to Cage._

Your description of listening to one kind of music is nice, and I agree with most of what you said, for what it's worth. You have described exactly the kind of criticism of Cage or other non-Western music using the priorities and attributes of traditional Western classical music to beat-up on other kinds of music, including John Cage's.

There is plenty of music of which your idea about "heading somewhere" and the manner of experiencing time do not apply. Some Indian music, African music, free improvised music, and Morton Feldman and John Cage to name two classical composers, but much of the so-called avant-garde could be included.

However in the post you quoted, I said specifically "musical analysis".

The tools of analysis are real, yes - but analysis is a different activity from listening, and for me, something I avoid when listening, to any music. I may or may not (and have done) analyze a work if I choose, but not while I am listening.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Factoid from the documentary I posted in the John Cage thread: *John Cage is the biggest seller at C.F. Peters for American composers.* His music has increased in sales more than tenfold from what it was during his lifetime.






The section with *Gene Caprioglio*, Vice President for New Music at Peters, begins about 16 minutes in.

The tiny world of TC may think one thing about John Cage but the objective hard data of dollars and cents says another.

I think I've made my points here, and probably won't contribute anything further.


----------



## Woodduck

SanAntone said:


> There is plenty of music of which your idea about "heading somewhere" and the manner of experiencing time do not apply. Some Indian music, African music, free improvised music, and Morton Feldman and John Cage to name two classical composers, but much of the so-called avant-garde could be included.


Very true. I was speaking of what we in the West call our "classical" tradition. I'll note, though, that even some of the music of other cultures which you mention is not entirely devoid of elements that create tension and expectation in the listener. Even a simple, unharmonized melody is apt to do this. This may be short-term expectation and far from the long-range "narrative" cultivated in Western music, but it's nonetheless signifiicant. A melody has a form - a beginning and an end. Moreover, most music worldwide has some form of tonality, which in conjunction with melody creates a sense of destination. We are all human, and time is the river which carries us all forward.



> The tools of analysis are real, yes - but analysis is a different activity from listening, and for me, something I avoid when listening, to any music. I may or may not (and have done) analyze a work if I choose, but not while I am listening.


That's the way we all listen, isn't it, unless we have some specific purpose in thinking about musical
structure, or unless we encounter something disturbing that forces us to wonder why the music is doing what it's doing.



> Factoid from the documentary I posted in the John Cage thread: *John Cage is the biggest seller at C.F. Peters for American composers.* His music has increased in sales more than tenfold from what it was during his lifetime.
> 
> The tiny world of TC may think one thing about John Cage but the objective hard data of dollars and cents says another.


Objective hard data has to be interpreted before it says anything.


----------



## Roger Knox

SanAntone said:


> Factoid from the documentary I posted in the John Cage thread: *John Cage is the biggest seller at C.F. Peters for American composers.* His music has increased in sales more than tenfold from what it was during his lifetime.


It seems ironic that the composer who advocated the most for letting sounds be sounds ended up having high sales of his scores. To my recollection Cage was critical of recordings, though there are recordings of some of his works. When more than one version of a piece is possible, a particular recording would tend to "freeze" that piece in one way. Furthermore the sense of a piece as an event, significant for many Cage pieces, becomes lessened in the repeatable recording.

That's all I have to write about Cage.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> ...
> Factoid from the documentary I posted in the John Cage thread: *John Cage is the biggest seller at C.F. Peters for American composers.* His music has increased in sales more than tenfold from what it was during his lifetime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The section with *Gene Caprioglio*, Vice President for New Music at Peters, begins about 16 minutes in.
> 
> The tiny world of TC may think one thing about John Cage but the objective hard data of dollars and cents says another.
> 
> ...


That doesn't tell me much. What other American composers did Cage beat out for the title? How do Cage's sales compare with those of Bach? The tiny world of Cage fans may think one thing, but the objective hard data of dollars and cents says another.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I'm sorry to say, but it doesn't matter if you consider John Cage NOT to be a great composer. I think someone said it here before. He is amongst the very most important composers of western art music. And he was a cool guy!


----------



## consuono

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> I'm sorry to say, but it doesn't matter if you consider John Cage NOT to be a great composer. I think someone said it here before. He is amongst the very most important composers of western art music. And he was a cool guy!


I'm sorry to say, but it doesn't matter if he was a cool guy. Wagner says hi.

And who says he's important? Grove's Dictionary? The faculty of Bumblechuck Conservatory? Anyway, I thought Cage and his fans eschewed such notions of "greatness". Or "importance".


----------



## Phil loves classical

I'm sorry to say, but Cage can be an important composer without being a great one. Maybe he was too chill. He was obviously an important one since there are 18 pages of him on this thread alone. Keep it going.


----------



## consuono

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm sorry to say, but Cage can be an important composer without being a great one. Maybe he was too chill. He was obviously an important one since there are 18 pages of him on this thread alone. Keep it going.


The question is how many leave the thread and go pull out some Cage sheet music or recordings. There's quite a bit that can get several pages of back-and-forth. I remember some "composer" whose name I can't even remember now was quite the topic for several pages because of some electronic work that was posted.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

consuono said:


> I'm sorry to say, but it doesn't matter if he was a cool guy. Wagner says hi.
> 
> And who says he's important? Grove's Dictionary? The faculty of Bumblechuck Conservatory? Anyway, I thought Cage and his fans eschewed such notions of "greatness".


I wasn't sorry to say. Let us make a nice new music history that is based on what you had for breakfast.


----------



## consuono

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> I wasn't sorry to say. Let us make a nice new music history that is based on what you had for breakfast.


OK, you might as well.


----------



## Phil loves classical

consuono said:


> The question is how many leave the thread and go pull out some Cage sheet music or recordings. There's quite a bit that can get several pages of back-and-forth. I remember some "composer" whose name I can't even remember now was quite the topic for several pages because of some electronic work that was posted.


I'm sorry to say (ok it's getting old), but his importance is beyond his scores and recordings. There is really nothing to analyse in his scores, where they exist. That's the power of his legacy.


----------



## consuono

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm sorry to say (ok it's getting old), but his importance is beyond his scores and recordings. ...


Which is to say, he's important to music in the way that Ed Wood Jr is to filmmaking.


----------



## Phil loves classical

consuono said:


> Which is to say, he's important to music in the way that Ed Wood Jr is to filmmaking.


Who's Ed Wood Jr.? My analogy is he's the Don King of music.


----------



## consuono

Phil loves classical said:


> Who's Ed Wood Jr.? My analogy is he's the Don King of music.


Mr Wood was an "important" filmmaker, the subject of a Johnny Depp biopic, and not many filmmakers have been biopic subjects. Philistine!


----------



## Roger Knox

Phil loves classical said:


> There is really nothing to analyse in his scores, where they exist.


Yes, I'm familiar with some Cage pieces that consist of written directions. If you don't have to be able to read music, the potential market increases.


----------



## Mandryka

Phil loves classical said:


> There is really nothing to analyse in his scores, where they exist.


I am sure this is wrong. For example, even where there scores contain time brackets there is a harmonic design. If you're interested I could find you things to read.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Mandryka said:


> I am sure this is wrong. For example, even where there scores contain time brackets there is a harmonic design. If you're interested I could find you things to read.


What I mean is analysis is not meaningful in the work as it is in more traditional music. There is nothing new in what Cage did in terms of harmony, etc. In the conclusion of this analysis for Four^2.

'William Brooks, for instance, asserts that "when we impose an analysis-we violate Cage's intention; we make his work conventional"'.

These 2 performances amongst others available are different from each other, and there is really nothing special in terms of harmony, etc. in light of what's already been done before. It's his way of openness in achieving differing results that is unique.

'Cage's Number Pieces have rarely been analyzed in detail for two primary reasons: their scores represent a multiplicity of possible performances in which sounds' order and duration can vary widely, and a teleological analytical narrative seems to contravene Cage's description of his indeterminate works and what we know of his compositional process.'

https://mtosmt.org/issues/mto.17.23...cket notation specifies,in which each may end.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

In very the article you just linked the author Drake Andersen writes, right after the Brooks quote

"I submit that while analysis is ultimately an intentional act, the clear patterns, tendencies, and relationships in Four2 suggest that Cage had specific musical results in mind, even if these results constitute a range of possibilities more than any single realization... Benedict Weisser suggests that each Number Piece “deliberately aspires to be different” and describes Cage’s “growing interest in hearing a ‘result’ within certain boundaries” as he was composing the Number Pieces. By analyzing this composition, I have merely sought to identify some of these “boundaries.” The analysis of an indeterminate work is a unique opportunity to discover both what is possible, and what else is possible—in other words, what typically results from the situation that Cage delineates, and how widely the results might vary in outlier performances."

That Andersen article is such an analysis - a harmonic/pitch class analysis that compares and contrasts hypothetical and real-world performances to illustrate the gamut of possibility offered by the score.


----------



## Mandryka

Phil loves classical said:


> 'William Brooks, for instance, asserts that "when we impose an analysis-we violate Cage's intention; we make his work conventional"'.


I don't think this will hold water.

Re harmony, note that Cage changed his views on this. From the experiments involving subraction from existing tonal musics in, for example, the 13 harmonies through to the experiments inspired through contact with John Tenney in the late number pieces.

But Brooks talks about analysis -- there's rhythm to analyse too (especially in the earlier pieces, dance pieces like the piano sonatas. And, I think no less interestingly, in the piano etudes.)


----------



## Mandryka

consuono said:


> Which is to say, he's important to music in the way that Ed Wood Jr is to filmmaking.


One thing I'm thinking about is that extended periods of very quiet music is a phenomenon in the avant garde. You hear it, for example, in Chaya Czernowyn's _Hidden_. I expect that Luigi Nono must be one of the inspirations for this, things like _Guai ai gelidi mostri_, but I think Cage too. Could _Hidden_ have been written without Cage -- I don't know for sure but I wouldn't be surprised if the answer were no.


----------



## Phil loves classical

SeptimalTritone said:


> In very the article you just linked the author Drake Andersen writes, right after the Brooks quote
> 
> "I submit that while analysis is ultimately an intentional act, the clear patterns, tendencies, and relationships in Four2 suggest that Cage had specific musical results in mind, even if these results constitute a range of possibilities more than any single realization... Benedict Weisser suggests that each Number Piece "deliberately aspires to be different" and describes Cage's "growing interest in hearing a 'result' within certain boundaries" as he was composing the Number Pieces. By analyzing this composition, I have merely sought to identify some of these "boundaries." The analysis of an indeterminate work is a unique opportunity to discover both what is possible, and what else is possible-in other words, what typically results from the situation that Cage delineates, and how widely the results might vary in outlier performances."
> 
> That Andersen article is such an analysis - a harmonic/pitch class analysis that compares and contrasts hypothetical and real-world performances to illustrate the gamut of possibility offered by the score.


Still later after the part you quoted:

"In the course of defending the analysis of Cage's works, Rob Haskins acknowledges that "any analytical description of his music can never account for the multiplicity of connections that exist, in part *because those connections did not originate with the composer himself*""

Meaning to me, you can analyze his music all you want, but what you find is not something he really intended in a meaningful way.



Mandryka said:


> I don't think this will hold water.
> 
> Re harmony, note that Cage changed his views on this. From the experiments involving subraction from existing tonal musics in, for example, the 13 harmonies through to the experiments inspired through contact with John Tenney in the late number pieces.
> 
> But Brooks talks about analysis -- there's rhythm to analyse too (especially in the earlier pieces, dance pieces like the piano sonatas. And, I think no less interestingly, in the piano etudes.)


Written by James Pritchett, an author on Cage, about the period around 1990:

"It is this change-from moving out to bringing together-that we are hearing when we identify the late pieces with a renewed interest in harmony. *I cannot, however, explain from any technical point of view why this change is apparent. There is no compositional technique in the number pieces that differs in any significant way from what Cage did forty years earlier.* The change is in purpose. It is a change in energy; an inner change, a change in content. It is a motion from extending to balancing, from exhaling to inhaling; a shift from yang to yin, heaven to earth, stars to stones."

Face it, Cage was not inventive in the construction of harmony or rhythm itself that's worth studying, only in how he got them.

With the great Masters, it's the end result that's the prize, and is studied. With Cage (not a great master of composition) it's the process that is the prize, not the end result. With 4'33", the process itself of creating music is internalized, which is both its beauty (I'm doing pretty well, sounds good doesn't it?), and its redundancy.


----------



## Mandryka

Phil loves classical said:


> With the great Masters, it's the end result that's the prize, and is studied. With Cage (not a great master) it's the process that is the prize, not the end result.


I'd be interested to know what you make of Rob Haskin's analysis on One5 and Five2 in _Anarchic Societies of Sounds_ (which may be taken from his doctorate, which used to be online.) How innovative it is, I just cannot say, but I'd like to know what you think.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Mandryka said:


> I'd be interested to know what you make of Rob Haskin's analysis on One5 and Five2 in _Anarchic Societies of Sounds_ (which may be taken from his doctorate, which used to be online.) How innovative it is, I just cannot say, but I'd like to know what you think.


Haskins already made that comment I bolded in the last post. That's enough for me. I'm sure anything can be analysed to the bone. I just listened to Five^2. I thought it was great (in a personalized way. I'm into Zen-like music). Perfect length. The comments on the JohnCage.org is enough for me.

https://johncage.org/pp/John-Cage-Work-Detail.cfm?work_ID=74


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> Haskins already made that comment I bolded in the last post. That's enough for me.
> 
> "In the course of defending the analysis of Cage's works, Rob Haskins acknowledges that "any analytical description of his music can never account for the multiplicity of connections that exist, in part because those connections did not originate with the composer himself""


The performer adds many interpretive choices to any performance of any work by any composer.

That said, I think it is wrong-headed to talk about analysizing the music of John Cage. Again, this is a constant phenomenon on TC, i.e. of having expectations for his music no different than those created by traditional classical music, and then complaining that it does not conform to the same paradigm.


----------



## Mandryka

Phil loves classical said:


> Haskins already made that comment I bolded in the last post. That's enough for me. I'm sure anything can be analysed to the bone. I just listened to Five^2. I thought it was great (in a personalized way. I'm into Zen-like music). Perfect length. The comments on the JohnCage.org is enough for me.
> 
> https://johncage.org/pp/John-Cage-Work-Detail.cfm?work_ID=74


Be careful. Those number pieces are a dangerous drug. A rabbit hole which will suck you up. You could find yourself listening to nothing else for weeks and weeks.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Cage was pretty comedic here. Notice how many times Bernstein had to remind how serious it is. The boos in the end may have delighted Cage.


----------



## consuono

^ I love the applause after "this week we're presenting the last of the avant garde works in this series". :lol:


----------



## SanAntone

Phil loves classical said:


> Cage was pretty comedic here. Notice how many times Bernstein had to remind how serious it is. The boos in the end may have delighted Cage.


That clip of _Water Walk_ was from a "I've Got a Secret" appearance by Cage. When the host (Gary Moore, I think) said that the audience might laugh in places, and how did he feel about that, Cage said he thought laughter was better than tears.

He could not perform the work as written since the radios could not be plugged in because of a dispute between two labor unions, who apparently control what can and cannot occur on stage for television. So instead of turning them on and off, he first tapped them (indicating "on") and then pushed them off the table (indicating "off"). Cage was very good with this kind of public event.

I'm not sure if it was that performance in the 2nd clip or an earlier one of the _Concerto for Prepared Piano and Orchestra_, that caused Cage to make one of his very rare displays of anger regarding his treatment by the NY Phil. And he was right, they were unprofessional, smugly disrespectful of both Cage and Bernstein, and proud of it, making themselves look bad in the process.

Bernstein meant well, but did not understand Cage, IMO.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Phil loves classical said:


> Still later after the part you quoted:
> 
> "In the course of defending the analysis of Cage's works, Rob Haskins acknowledges that "any analytical description of his music can never account for the multiplicity of connections that exist, in part *because those connections did not originate with the composer himself*""
> 
> Meaning to me, you can analyze his music all you want, but what you find is not something he really intended in a meaningful way.


And the sentence right after:

"Yet a rigorous analysis of a work like Four2 uncovers a wealth of potential connections that, as Hünermann reminds us, "are subject to Cage's compositional decisions, even if the details emerge from chance operations" (2014, 612). By returning to the two primary objections to the analysis of Cage's compositions-the works' inherent multiplicity and Cage's compositional principle of non-intention-we may untangle these seemingly contradictory observations."

In physics, there are many processes where random settings, whether thermodynamic, statistical, or quantum, produce essentially regular results. We analyze those end results. Similarly, an artist, operating by intuition, creativity, and musical facility, can define random parameters, and we can look at the typical end results and see what kinds of sounds and textures are created. And those results from Cage's different pieces are unique and special. If we couldn't look at these results, we'd never be able to analyze any kind of indeterminate/aleatoric work, and there many such works, even not written by Cage. But we can - that's what the Andersen article does!


----------



## Mandryka

In Haskin's book, there's a detailed account of the compositional process of some of the time bracket pieces, references to manuscripts, notebooks etc. I think he shows that it's clear that Cage put a good deal of care into the compositions. How the brackets overlap mattered to him big time.


----------



## Phil loves classical

SeptimalTritone said:


> And the sentence right after:
> 
> "Yet a rigorous analysis of a work like Four2 uncovers a wealth of potential connections that, as Hünermann reminds us, "are subject to Cage's compositional decisions, even if the details emerge from chance operations" (2014, 612). By returning to the two primary objections to the analysis of Cage's compositions-the works' inherent multiplicity and Cage's compositional principle of non-intention-we may untangle these seemingly contradictory observations."
> 
> In physics, there are many processes where random settings, whether thermodynamic, statistical, or quantum, produce essentially regular results. We analyze those end results. Similarly, an artist, operating by intuition, creativity, and musical facility, can define random parameters, and we can look at the typical end results and see what kinds of sounds and textures are created. And those results from Cage's different pieces are unique and special. If we couldn't look at these results, we'd never be able to analyze any kind of indeterminate/aleatoric work, and there many such works, even not written by Cage. But we can - that's what the Andersen article does!


None of the possible results/instances of this Cage piece have very much significance in the pantheon of music. There are lots of more minor composers whose works will show a higher level of design. Why study this work over those others? There is nothing very sophisticated or profound.

"Indeed, there are only seven distinct pitch classes available in the piece: the D-minor diatonic collection minus B-flat, plus the raised seventh degree written as both Csharp and Dflat. *The limited pitch material ensures that many of the sonorities that emerge from any given performance will be recognizable subsets of the same diatonic scale*. Further constraining the harmonic possibilities is the fact that ic6 is not possible as part of any simultaneity in the piece."


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> In Haskin's book, there's a detailed account of the compositional process of some of the time bracket pieces, references to manuscripts, notebooks etc. I think he shows that it's clear that Cage put a good deal of care into the compositions. How the brackets overlap mattered to him big time.


As Cage got older and with the last period of his life, i.e. the number pieces, he became more concerned with what the works might sound like and more interested in liking what might happen. This was markedly different from earlier periods when he expressed the idea of removing his ego, i.e. his likes and dislikes, from the process entirely.

However, I still maintain that attempts to analyze works by Cage do not serve any useful purpose. "Understanding" any music is mostly futile beyond what the sounds communicate, IMO, and this is especially true for Cage.


----------



## Flamme

He was certainly an ''eleph-ant'' of musical thought so much so that he inspired a whole band with his glory!!!


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> ....
> I'm not sure if it was that performance in the 2nd clip or an earlier one of the _Concerto for Prepared Piano and Orchestra_, that caused Cage to make one of his very rare displays of anger regarding his treatment by the NY Phil. And he was right, they were unprofessional, smugly disrespectful of both Cage and Bernstein, and proud of it, making themselves look bad in the process.
> ...


Anger though in that situation would seem to be inconsistent with the "anti-ego" view. Perhaps what the NY Phil. did was "more musically interesting" a la traffic noise. That's the quagmire you can get into.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> ... "Understanding" any music is mostly futile beyond what the sounds communicate, IMO, and this is especially true for Cage.


Well, since understanding any music is directly related to what the sounds communicate, IMO, going by the endless threads on the subject, understanding Cage's music seems to be a mystery to many...including me.


----------



## SanAntone

DaveM said:


> Well, since understanding any music is directly related to what the sounds communicate, IMO, going by the endless threads on the subject, understanding Cage's music seems to be a mystery to many...including me.


Cage's music is a mystery; I find all music to be mysterious in a sense. But a mystery need not be a problem, I often find Cage's mysterious music to be very enjoyable. I think music by nature is mysterious since it does not communicate with the same concrete sense of an essay or piece of fiction, or even how a painting depicts a scene.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Alphonse Allais - Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man (1897)


----------



## SanAntone

hammeredklavier said:


> Alphonse Allais - Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man (1897)





> He is the author of many collections of *whimsical* writings. A poet as much as a humorist, he cultivated the verse form known as holorhyme, i.e. made up entirely of homophonous verses, where entire lines are pronounced the same. For example:
> 
> Par les bois du djinn où s'entasse de l'effroi,
> Parle et bois du gin, ou cent tasses de lait froid.[1]
> 
> Allais wrote the earliest known example of a completely silent musical composition. His Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Great Deaf Man of 1897 consists of twenty-four blank measures. It predates *similarly silent but intellectually serious works* by John Cage and Erwin Schulhoff by many years.


If you hoped to make a point, you failed.

"Rauschenberg felt an overwhelming urgency about showing them [his White Paintings], as though he had just discovered something important. In October he wrote to Parsons that he considered them "almost an emergency." He insisted on their separateness, their resistance to Art (capitalized), which for Cage had always signified the delusional self-importance of Schoenberg and the artists who aimed to "get somewhere."

"They are not Art because they take you to a place in painting art has not been," Rauschenberg proudly announced to Betty Parsons. Then he said something revealing. They are large white (1 white as 1 God) canvases organized and selected with the experience of time and presented with the innocence of a virgin. Dealing with the suspense, excitement and body of an organic silence, the restriction and freedom of absence, the plastic fullness of nothing, the point a circle begins and ends. This language seems much more compatible with Buddhism than with Judeo-Christianity.

The "plastic fullness of nothing" and the "body of an organic silence" recall Cage's phrasings in "Lecture on Something." In February 1951, Cage said: "[ I] t is of the utmost importance not to make a thing but rather to make nothing. And how is this done? Done by making something which then goes in and reminds us of nothing." Cage said: "[ N] o silence exists that is not pregnant with sound." And he said: "Every something is an echo of nothing." Rauschenberg's letter to Betty Parsons continues this Zen-like language. The "point a circle begins and ends" seems to describe the Zen enso, the black ink "zero" drawn on a white paper void, a visual image of something-us-circling within nothing and identical with it, yet different."

- Where the Heart Beats: John Cage, Zen Buddhism, and the Inner Life of Artists by Kay Larson


----------



## consuono

> It predates similarly silent but intellectually serious works by John Cage and Erwin Schulhoff by many years.


Sooooo...how do you tell the difference? Does "intellectually serious" consist of some manifesto written apart from that silence, and how does "intellectual seriousness" increase a work's value when we're told that such values are irrelevant?

Otherwise you'd have to say that this Frenchman beat Cage to the punch.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Sooooo...how do you tell the difference? Does "intellectually serious" consist of some manifesto written apart from that silence, and how does "intellectual seriousness" increase a work's value when we're told that such values are irrelevant?
> 
> Otherwise you'd have to say that this Frenchman beat Cage to the punch.


The difference is with the intention of the composer. If the work was done as a whimsical joke, that is different from the John Cage work 4'33" and the Robert Rauschenberg White Paintings in which nothingness was the subject of the artwork, done with serious intent. They were not making a joke, they were making a serious statement.

Cage's work was a little different in that he knew that other sounds would fill the block of silence he created and which became the work.


----------



## SanAntone

I think the last thing John Cage would want is to be considered a great composer. In the thread about "greatness" I wrote that because of John Cage's Buddhism, his goal was to remove his ego as much as possible. Seeking "greatness" would be the opposite of his Buddhist beliefs.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> The difference is with the intention of the composer. If the work was done as a whimsical joke, that is different from the John Cage work 4'33" and the Robert Rauschenberg White Paintings in which nothingness was the subject of the artwork, done with serious intent. They were not making a joke, they were making a serious statement. ...


Don't you see how that's inconsistent with this idea of obliterating the ego and the role of the composer?


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> Don't you see how that's inconsistent with this idea of obliterating the ego and the role of the composer?


No. By turning to chance operations Cage removed the act of composition from his taste of likes and dislikes, hence his ego was not at work.


----------



## SanAntone

Removing the ego does not contradict making a statement about nothingness. And the best way to make that statement is with a work produced by chance operations.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> Removing the ego does not contradict making a statement about nothingness. And the best way to make that statement is with a work produced by chance operations.


And so he could have no objections if by chance his work is butchered. Removing the ego means we don't even talk about John Cage, or what his opinion about chance and nothingness was.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> And so he could have no objections if by chance his work is butchered. Removing the ego means we don't even talk about John Cage, or what his opinion about chance and nothingness was.


His work was butchered by the NY Phil when they took the instructions for playing indeterminately during a certain durational block as an opportunity to make fun of him and the work. It was the fact that they intentionally wanted to sabotage the work that bothered him. He would have accepted any production of sounds done with honesty toward the work.

Removing his ego in the act of composition does not mean he disappears completely. But if you wish to stop talking about John Cage, that might be a good idea.


----------



## KenOC

SanAntone said:


> The difference is with the intention of the composer. If the work was done as a whimsical joke, that is different from the John Cage work 4'33" and the Robert Rauschenberg White Paintings in which nothingness was the subject of the artwork, done with serious intent. They were not making a joke, they were making a serious statement.


Some may disagree, saying that silence is silence regardless of "composer's intent" (or anything else, for that matter). But their position is readily proven invalid by none other than *Dr. Karlheinz Klopweiser*, a noted authority on such things, who speaks of "German silence, which is of course organic, as opposed to French silence, which is ornamental."


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> ...
> Removing his ego in the act of composition does not mean he disappears completely.


What?? That doesn't make sense. "Make me a good man, Lord...but just not yet."


KenOC said:


> Some may disagree, saying that silence is silence regardless of "composer's intent" (or anything else, for that matter). But their position is readily proven invalid by none other than *Dr. Karlheinz Klopweiser*, a noted authority on such things, who speaks of "German silence, which is of course organic, as opposed to French silence, which is ornamental."


:lol: :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

What is the "ego" that Cage wished to remove from his work? Did he succeed? Do we find "ego" in all composed music? Is musical composition an egotistical or egocentric act?

Post #291 speaks of "the idea of removing his ego, i.e. his likes and dislikes, from the process" of composing. That's a curious definition of ego, and one that appears to me to be unrealizable so long as one is offering anything at all as a musical work, and contradicted by the very act of doing so. You can't advertise yourself as a composer and produce works having titles and being performed in your name at concerts, and claim not to be expressing your "likes and dislikes."

It seems clear to me that "composing" by chance methods, or leaving the substance of a piece up to the performers, and claiming to be thus "renouncing one's ego," is just a sly trick to illustrate an _idea_ of something that doesn't really exist. That's not exactly my idea of Buddhism, or of anything else.


----------



## SanAntone

Woodduck said:


> What is the "ego" that Cage wished to remove from his work? Did he succeed? Do we find "ego" in all composed music? Is musical composition an egotistical or egocentric act?
> 
> Post #291 speaks of "the idea of removing his ego, i.e. his likes and dislikes, from the process" of composing. That's a curious definition of ego, and one that appears to me to be unrealizable so long as one is offering anything at all as a musical work, and contradicted by the very act of doing so. You can't advertise yourself as a composer and produce works having titles and being performed in your name at concerts, and claim not to be expressing your "likes and dislikes."
> 
> It seems clear to me that "composing" by chance methods, or leaving the substance of a piece up to the performers, and claiming to be thus "renouncing one's ego," is just a sly trick to illustrate an _idea_ of something that doesn't really exist. That's not exactly my idea of Buddhism, or of anything else.


I am not making an argument in defense of Cage. I am offering his description, as I understand it, of his development as a composer and the influence Buddhism had on his work. It makes sense to me.

However, you are free to reject what he has written and spoken about.


----------



## Woodduck

SanAntone said:


> I am not making an argument in defense of Cage. I am offering his description, as I understand it, of his development as a composer and the influence Buddhism had on his work. It makes sense to me.
> 
> However, you are free to reject what he has written and spoken about.


I wasn't trying to argue with you particularly. I just find ideologies and agendas attached to art to be interesting to dissect. The 20th century with its diverse "Modernist" movements was the most ideology-rich era in history; everyone seemed to need a rationale for what they were doing. Generally I think art is better experienced without ideology attached, unless it's explicit in the work (as in the texts of religious works).


----------



## Phil loves classical

SanAntone said:


> Removing the ego does not contradict making a statement about nothingness. And the best way to make that statement is with a work produced by chance operations.


Agree with you there. Like it or hate it, there is something unique about chance music. But I think over time, it did form its own recognizable voice, and inevitably associated with making a statement, thereby projecting an ego.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Yes. Woodduck and consuono are right. Paradoxically, by asserting a particular vision of Ego-less (aleatoric, indeterminate, open-form) music, the avant-garde put _more_ of their ego, their philosophy, their aesthetics, into their music than ever before. Compare that to Baroque artists, who by and large respected the same harmonic and contrapuntal principles existing outside the ego or desires of any particular artist. Their personality shaped the surface of the work, while the latter-20th-century artists' ego went all the way to the bottom.


----------



## SanAntone

Woodduck said:


> I wasn't trying to argue with you particularly. I just find ideologies and agendas attached to art to be interesting to dissect. The 20th century with its diverse "Modernist" movements was the most ideology-rich era in history; everyone seemed to need a rationale for what they were doing. Generally I think art is better experienced without ideology attached, unless it's explicit in the work (as in the texts of religious works).


I agree with you and always want to listen to a work without any outside information. I happen to be reading a couple of books about Cage and a couple of books about Buddhism (an old fascination for me going back more than 45 years) and the information is fresh in my mind. When I listen to Cage or any composer I just listen without trying to think about anything I've read about them or their process of composing.



Phil loves classical said:


> Agree with you there. Like it or hate it, there is something unique about chance music. But I think over time, it did form its own recognizable voice, and inevitably associated with making a statement, thereby projecting an ego.


I don't buy it. When different performances of Cage's works produce very different realizations, there is not much recognizable of Cage's voice. His part of the composing was creating the setting and form for the performers to execute their interpretation of the materials he provided for the indeterminate work.



Isaac Blackburn said:


> Yes. Woodduck and consuono are right. Paradoxically, by asserting a particular vision of Ego-less (aleatoric, indeterminate, open-form) music, the avant-garde put _more_ of their ego, their philosophy, their aesthetics, into their music than ever before. Compare that to Baroque artists, who by and large respected the same harmonic and contrapuntal principles existing outside the ego or desires of any particular artist. Their personality shaped the surface of the work, while the latter-20th-century artists' ego went all the way to the bottom.


I also don't buy this. By not exercising his choice to include sounds he liked and to exclude those he disliked Cage allowed his work to develop with musical content he might not wish to happen. He said that if a chance procedure produced an occurrence that he didn't like, he never changed the music, he changed himself, i.e. he chose to disconnect his judgmental response and accepted it and even began to like it.

That is not involving his ego.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

SanAntone said:


> By not exercising his choice to include sounds he liked and to exclude those he disliked Cage allowed his work to develop with musical content he might not wish to happen....That is not involving his ego.


Yes, he may not have wished for the specific content on any given day (an ego-removal of some sort), but he wished that there was such-and-such opportunity for the content to arise. His ego was not in the content, but deeper- in the framing and generative structure of the content itself. And in the end, _everything _in the conception of a work becomes its content.


----------



## SanAntone

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Yes, he may not have wished for the specific content on any given day (an ego-removal of some sort), but he wished that there was such-and-such opportunity for the content to arise. His ego was not in the content, but deeper- in the framing and generative structure of the content itself. And in the end, _everything _in the conception of a work becomes its content.


So, in other words the fact that John Cage had a career as a composer was an ego enterprise. That is your interpretation of his career. Mine is that because of his method of using chance procedures to create works which superseded his choice of musical content, his ego was involved in a much less direct way than for a composer like Beethoven.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

SanAntone said:


> So, in other words the fact that John Cage had a career as a composer was an ego enterprise. That is your interpretation of his career. Mine is that because of his method of using chance procedures to create works which superseded his choice of musical content, his ego was involved in a much less direct way than for a composer like Beethoven.


Much of this I agree with. An infusion of the ego is practically unavoidable if one is going to compose music. It is true that John Cage succeeded in removing his voice, or will, from a certain layer of the music, in a certain way. But it is precisely that philosophy, that way of thinking about music, that style, that he is asserting when he composes. The rationale for the pieces, the act of saying to oneself "Now I am going to compose a piece where I don't know the notes in advance" is a product of his own thoughts about music, and his own likes and dislikes. True, it operates at a wider, more background level, but ironically I think that this makes his Ego more present and more inescapable.


----------



## Woodduck

The idea of "ego" in music is interesting. For me, as a listener to many kinds of music, I don't get a sense of the composer as an individual present before me in very much of what I hear. I do think that the Romantic movement's interest in exploring the feelings of the individual - as opposed to Classicism's concern with affect as a more universal category of emotion, not necessarily personally relevant to the composer - trended more and more to a sort of musical autobiography. Berlioz jump-started this trend in his _Symphony Fantastique,_ and Schumann clearly embraced it. Tchaikovsky, in a number of works, seems to be baring his soul in public, and with Mahler I sometimes feel as if I'm attending an open house at a primal therapy session. There was a clear reaction against this kind of emotional demonstration in Debussy's whole-tone dreams, Stravinsky's tart neoclassicism, and Satie's whimsies, and post-Schoenberg serialism provided a whole new system whereby composers - Boulez comes first to mind - could avoid the emotional tensions tonal music had allowed to reach such extremes. Art movements of the 20th century that focused on the absurd, the abstract, and popular art all reinforced the move away from Romantic self-expression (which of course never actually died).

The large picture seems to be one of a trajectory of "ego" in music rising slowly during the 19th century, climaxing around the end of that century, and then falling sharply. Cage could be seen as creating an original way of getting away from "egocentric" art through a rejection not only of expressive content but, at the extreme, of any predetermined content at all. This amounts, in 4'33," to a rejection of anything resembling music as previously known.

I do think that the whole notion of rejecting ego completely in music is a bit of a trick and a self-deception, rationalized by a strange idea of what "ego" is. I don't think "ego" is a dirty word. Basically, it's the self-consciousness intrinsic to being a human person, and it can be expressed in healthy or unhealthy ways. Surely there is nothing unhealthy about choosing the notes of a musical composition. I can't help feeling that Cage's quasi-Buddhist ideology of egolessness, whatever else it did for him, served the ulterior, even if unconscious, motive of sparing him the fate of being a mediocre and forgotten composer of more conventional music. Obviously I have no proof of this theory, but the works of his that I've heard do nothing, to my mind, to contradict it.


----------



## KenOC

The fact is that Cage, with ego, was no better composer than without. Compare with the ego-burdened Shostakovich, proposing a 2nd Cello Concerto.


----------



## consuono

Woodduck said:


> I can't help feeling that Cage's quasi-Buddhist ideology of egolessness, whatever else it did for him, served the ulterior, even if unconscious, motive of sparing him the fate of being a mediocre and forgotten composer of more conventional music.


Bingoooo...and I think that applies to many more "modern" composers other than Cage.


----------



## JAS

As far as I can tell, John Cage's forays into the musical world were pretty much all about ego, trying to put his stamp on everything, and foisting his own (often crazy) ideas on everyone else and insisting that we needed to "accept" them as music (as his advocates continue to do).

I can see being a composer as somewhat akin to being a politician. People sometimes decry a candidate running for president as being ambitious, but who else would run for that office? Similarly, who composes music without wanting to be recognized? (Yes, there are many composers in the distant past who are unknown, but that was a very different context, and hardly anyone in the middle ages could reasonably expect to make a name for himself and be remembered.)


----------



## SanAntone

> I can't help feeling that Cage's quasi-Buddhist ideology of egolessness, whatever else it did for him, served the ulterior, even if unconscious, motive of sparing him the fate of being a mediocre and forgotten composer of more conventional music.


This is the same kind of thinking by philistines who charge that modern painters only turned to non-representational art because they did not have the talent/skills to paint recognizable landscapes and portraits. The considered opinion of the Archie Bunkers of the world.

From about 1936 to 1952 John Cage composed in the same manner as all classical composers, it was only after 1952 that he began using chance procedures exclusively and for the rest of his life. During the pre-chance period he composed one of his most popular and respected works the _Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano_, as well as many other successful pieces.

IMO, just having the creativity to come up with the prepared piano was noteworthy, and the music is wonderful. Sort of like having a gamelan/percussion ensemble at your fingertips.

I almost feel sorry for those of you who cannot enjoy Cage's work. I get enormous joy out of his music and ideas.


----------



## Mandryka

Re Cage and ego, there are three distinct egos to think about: composer, musician and listener. This comes up very clearly in music which is, as far as I know, constructed entirely from chance operations, like the etudes and the Music of Changes. Cage has done his bit, should the performer who is playing for an audience now take that score and embellish it to make it poetic, expressive? If not, how is the listener supposed to deal with being subjected to what is no less random than a cat walking on the keyboard?


----------



## Mandryka

Is it true that John Cage is the only composer to have constructed music entirely from random processes? If so, why? Can we conclude that this type of experiment in aleatoric music has been a failure?


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> This is the same kind of thinking by philistines who charge that modern painters only turned to non-representational art because they did not have the talent/skills to paint recognizable landscapes and portraits. The considered opinion of the Archie Bunkers of the world.


Well, I think that's partly the reason. Also there's the fact that photography made the old subjects obsolete. However, the old CP masters were tough acts to follow. But still you want to be a composer, but you know that all you're ultimately going to be doing is riffing on the old guys. What to do? You redefine not only "composer" but "music" -- and then the implicit rule is that if one does not agree to the "greatness" and "importance" of the result, then one is a "philistine". You mention these early, more conventional works of Cage. If he had died at, say, 35 we probably wouldn't be talking about him at all. 


> IMO, just having the creativity to come up with the prepared piano was noteworthy, and the music is wonderful. Sort of like having a gamelan/percussion ensemble at your fingertips.


But it's a lot easier than coming up with intricate, tonal and satisfyingly-crafted counterpoint or deft, sensitive orchestration.


----------



## Phil loves classical

SanAntone said:


> I don't buy it. When different performances of Cage's works produce very different realizations, there is not much recognizable of Cage's voice. His part of the composing was creating the setting and form for the performers to execute their interpretation of the materials he provided for the indeterminate work.


I think that is worth going further. His earlier chance works like Imaginary Landscape 1 and Music of Changes allowed no interpretation on the performer, and everything derived purely on chance, which is the purest removal of ego. But the randomness of sounds started being recognizable voice even within the same work over time. Beyond Cage's control, it became associated with his voice. Later he started introducing more of his ego once he limited the possible outcomes. Also once a performer has room for interpretation, the ego obviously comes in, even if it's not Cage's (which Cage may or may not approve, like how he didn't like Moorman's performance of one of his works). Even in his earliest works, where he removed his ego entirely, there could be a perceived ego on the listener associated with Cage.


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> Re Cage and ego, there are three distinct egos to think about: composer, musician and listener. This comes up very clearly in music which is, as far as I know, constructed entirely from chance operations, like the etudes and the Music of Changes. Cage has done his bit, should the performer who is playing for an audience now take that score and embellish it to make it poetic, expressive? If not, how is the listener supposed to deal with being subjected to what is no less random than a cat walking on the keyboard?


The performer should invest this music with the same seriousness, and perform it to the best of his ability, as he would with any work - that is the performers duty.



Mandryka said:


> Is it true that John Cage is the only composer to have constructed music entirely from random processes? If so, why? Can we conclude that this type of experiment in aleatoric music has been a failure?


Many composers have used chance, Boulez for one although he abandoned it rather quickly. Boulez could not let go of control, remove his ego at all. I can't see how it can be viewed as failure since so much (wonderful, IMO) music has been created.

No composer's work can be viewed as a failure if that composer can make a comfortable living off the royalties of his compositions, as would Cage if he were still alive. And I can guess that the folks buying his music are not just fans of Justin Bieber, these are professional musicians, conductors, and performers - mostly from the classical field, I'd wager.

Again there seems to be a disconnect between TC and the real world.


----------



## Mandryka

SanAntone said:


> Many composers have used chance,


This is true but, as you know, it sidesteps the thing I was hoping to home in on. As far as I know no other composer has constructed music entirely out of chance operations.


----------



## Mandryka

SanAntone said:


> No composer's work can be viewed as a failure if that composer can make a comfortable living off the royalties of his compositions, as would Cage if he were still alive. And I can guess that the folks buying his music are not just fans of Justin Bieber, these are professional musicians, conductors, and performers - mostly from the classical field, I'd wager.
> 
> Again there seems to be a disconnect between TC and the real world.


This is true but, as you know, it sidesteps the thing I was hoping to home in on. As far as I know the music based entirely on chance operations has failed to influence the course of music.

This is a complex area, because of graphic scores. Was Cardew trying to do something in Treatise which is similar to what Cage was trying to do in Variations II? I think this is an interesting question to explore.


----------



## consuono

> No composer's work can be viewed as a failure if that composer can make a comfortable living off the royalties of his compositions, as would Cage if he were still alive.


There go J. S. Bach and Mozart.


----------



## Mandryka

Phil loves classical said:


> I think that is worth going further. His earlier chance works like Imaginary Landscape 1 and Music of Changes allowed no interpretation on the performer, and everything derived purely on chance, which is the purest removal of ego. But the randomness of sounds started being recognizable voice even within the same work over time. Beyond Cage's control, it became associated with his voice. Later he started introducing more of his ego once he limited the possible outcomes. Also once a performer has room for interpretation, the ego obviously comes in, even if it's not Cage's (which Cage may or may not approve, like how he didn't like Moorman's performance of one of his works). Even in his earliest works, where he removed his ego entirely, there could be a perceived ego on the listener associated with Cage.


I'd be interested to know what you think of Claudio Crismani's essay on performing the Etudes Australes.



> "ETUDES AUSTRALES": A PLANETARY JOURNEY
> 
> John Cage is without a doubt one of the most extraordinary figures in today's musical world. In Cage's works the Sonic Phenomena' are isolated, even separated, from any reference whatsoever to rhythm, harmony, melody and development: the sequence of these sounds is determined by the ancient Chinese 1-Ching and therefore appears, and I stress appears, to be random.
> 
> Cage introduced this Random Element' into contemporary western music in the early 1950's. What followed was a re-evaluation of the hitherto traditional figures of Composer and Performer. This proved to be a provocative and determined challenge for those who were still assessing the heritage of the Vienna School (Stockhausen and Boulez, for instance).
> 
> Cage became a reference point, a prophet and provocateur: but all prophets are above all natural provocateurs, are they not?
> 
> This was then linked to a new way of perceiving, and therefore writing music, which was innovative in its fundamental elements, such as time and melody.
> 
> In his book entitled 'A Year From Monday' John Cage says: "we have played Winter Music many times recently; I remember that when we played it for the very first time, the pauses were very long and the sounds seemed to be very much separated in space. They were of no hin-drance whatsoever to each other. In Stockholm, when we played at the Opera, I realised that Winter Music had become melodic. Christian Wolf had foreseen this a few years earlier when he told me that: "what we create today will inevitably become melodic."
> 
> The Etudes Australes are of fundamental importance in Cage's numerous works written for piano. This is due to the sheer size of the Etudes Australes, (two parts divided into four volumes, each of which is divided into eight studies) and to Cage's extraordinary exploitation of piano sounds, that is his use of the keyboard and therefore of the sounds produced by the piano.
> 
> In the Etudes Australes Cage transcribed, or translated, Stellar Maps of the Southern Hemisphere taken from the book Atlas Australis' into musical signs and paths.
> 
> According to Cage: "when music is played, the correspondence between space and time should result in the music sounding as it appears." In each study both the exact pitch of each note and the seemingly random sequence (1-Ching) of the notes themselves are written with great precision; there is no absolute rhythmic pattern; instead, the amount of time to be taken into consideration between one note and the next and between one chord and the next while the music is being played is carefully written. The music is therefore independent of gravity, as would occur during a journey into outer space. In Cage's fertile imagination, the musician playing the Etudes Australes is compared to the captain of a team of astronauts. In each study the harmonic resonance created by the piano's strings are dead), stated. These are obtained with the use of the sustaining pedal and by keeping certain keys depressed throughout the Study by means of purpose-built rubber objects.
> 
> This music is devoid of a narrative th= e proper. It is rather series of feelings be experienced bravely 'on the spot.'
> 
> The duration of each Study is linked to the visionary nature of its graphic plan. I also believe that the perfection of the piano's strings is of paramount importance, too.
> 
> With regard to the Etudes Australes, a brilliant observation was made by the critic James Rosenbaum in his book One day with John Cage'. According to Rosenbaum: "In a purely visual context an extremely interesting phenomenon occurs: when one is looking at the horizon in an attempt to find an indefinite and indefinable point in space where the blue line limiting the view of the surface of the sea and that of the visible heavens become one, our eyes perceive images which do not exist, images which the laws of physics do not allow us to see; this phenomenon is known to sailors as 'Morgan le Fay'. With regard to hearing, in conditions of absolute silence we hear noises or sounds which we would not perceive otherwise. These circumstances of 'static sound' have provided us with and influenced the writing of some of the most memorable pieces of music for piano, such as the Finale of the Chopin's Second Sonata, the beginning of Scriabin's Fifth Sonata, Debussy's 'Canope' Prelude and John Cage's 'Etudes Australes'."
> 
> Mention was made earlier of Cage's being inspired to write the Studies by a series of Stellar Maps, or perhaps by an imaginary journey across the Southern Hemisphere; in the light of these considerations, the Artistic Producer Eduardo Ogando and I would like to dedicate this recording of the Etudes Australes to the memory of the most romantic and visionary of all cosmonauts, to the bravest of visitors to this planet: 'To the Small Prince and to its Creator Antoine de Saint-Exupery.'
> 
> Claudio Crismani (Translation: The Office - Ts)


----------



## Phil loves classical

Mandryka said:


> Re Cage and ego, there are three distinct egos to think about: composer, musician and listener. This comes up very clearly in music which is, as far as I know, constructed entirely from chance operations, like the etudes and the Music of Changes. Cage has done his bit, should the performer who is playing for an audience now take that score and embellish it to make it poetic, expressive? *If not, how is the listener supposed to deal with being subjected to what is no less random than a cat walking on the keyboard?*


Cage did control certain parameters so it wasn't like a cat on a keyboard, even on Music of Changes. I took statistics and finite math, and there are expected values you can get from randomness, and Cage was smart enough work with that on register as well, which makes the music more interesting (potentially at least). So it was actually more randomness than a cat on a piano (ie. a cat can only span a certain range of notes at a time between front and hind legs, and has limited range of dynamics with force on hitting the keys).


----------



## consuono

I listened to some of his Sonatas and Interludes. Every now and then there is a tiny snippet of an interesting idea, but for the most part I'd rather listen to (and play) Satie, who was more clever at that "game" anyway. Or even Scriabin. And they just dealt with the piano as it is, mostly.


----------



## Mandryka

Phil loves classical said:


> Cage did control certain parameters so it wasn't like a cat on a keyboard, even on Music of Changes. I took statistics and finite math, and there are expected values you can get from randomness, and Cage was smart enough work with that on register as well, which makes the music more interesting (potentially at least). So it was actually more randomness than a cat on a piano (ie. a cat can only span a certain range of notes at a time between front and hind legs, and has limited range of dynamics with force on hitting the keys).


More info on this appreciated. You have the start of your next doctorate there!


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

Woodduck said:


> The idea of "ego" in music is interesting. For me, as a listener to many kinds of music, I don't get a sense of the composer as an individual present before me in very much of what I hear...


When I read philosophy, for example, I get the sense that I'm reading an argument which exists in the abstract rather than the opinions of the author, who recedes into the background of the work. It is the same with great music- I am trying to comprehend some transcendental abstract structure- and I must leave even the composer behind in order to do it.



Woodduck said:


> I do think that the Romantic movement's interest in exploring the feelings of the individual - as opposed to Classicism's concern with affect as a more universal category of emotion, not necessarily personally relevant to the composer - trended more and more to a sort of musical autobiography. ...The large picture seems to be one of a trajectory of "ego" in music rising slowly during the 19th century, climaxing around the end of that century, and then falling sharply.


Well, it depends, I think, on what exactly is meant by "Ego". If we mean the outwardly perceptible intensity of feeling, then I would agree. Certainly the Pathetique is more overt in its emotion than Schonberg's Piano Concerto.

However, if by Ego we refer, in a broader sense, to the _personality_ of the artist, then I see Ego as experiencing a continuous increase from the Romantic to the Modern. The distinction between the Romantic and the Classical lies in the greater _means of metaphor_ that became available to artists; "more" of the work, such as its harmony, its method of development, its large-scale form, could be bent to the desires of the artist. It was not so much, then, that more personal feelings were introduced into music but rather that they became presented in more and more subjective forms, where the feeling itself assumed control over more of the being, structure, and presentation of the music.

This only increased in the early twentieth century. The style, the aesthetics, the philosophy of the work became decisions that the artist had to make in accordance with his own personality and views on music. That most artists chose a style hostile to overt, bodily emotion is almost inconsequential.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Mandryka said:


> More info on this appreciated. You have the start of your next doctorate there!


I should have said Music of Changes has more range, rather than more randomness of a cat on a piano. There is an equal amount of randomness. It's the way of translating randomness to musical elements and range that was the 'composing' part of what Cage did.


----------



## Andrew Kenneth

John Cage - 4'33"
Berliner Philharmoniker - Kirill Petrenko


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ Brilliant performance. I discover something new each time.


----------



## SanAntone

Andrew Kenneth said:


> John Cage - 4'33"
> Berliner Philharmoniker - Kirill Petrenko


He took it faster than most, the video is 3'42" with applause.


----------



## Woodduck

I believe Cage's instructions in the score indicate that 4'33" may take any length of time. It certainly would make no difference to the essence of the piece.


----------



## bluto32

That performance just drags for me - not enough going on to keep my attention. IMHO, Johnny Cage went downhill rapidly after Mortal Kombat.


----------



## consuono

SanAntone said:


> He took it faster than most, the video is 3'42" with applause.


That's the HIP version, maybe.

Btw that cellist near the front looks eerily like Cage making a cameo appearance a la Hitchcock.


----------



## DaveM

Andrew Kenneth said:


> John Cage - 4'33"
> Berliner Philharmoniker - Kirill Petrenko


Assuming a concert of 2 hours, I would demand (4x60+33)/7200 plus adding a little for applause = 4% of my money back.


----------



## SanAntone

Woodduck said:


> I believe Cage's instructions in the score indicate that 4'33" may take any length of time. It certainly would make no difference to the essence of the piece.


Yeah, I was trying to be funny.


----------



## Woodduck

SanAntone said:


> Yeah, I was trying to be funny.


Good to know that admirers of Cage can joke about him. I have a number of 4'33" jokes up my sleeve, but I'm being exquisitely tactful for a change.


----------



## Gallus

A composer with interesting ideas who will be remembered, but I wouldn't say 'great', exactly.

I've enjoyed some of his piano works, that's about it.


----------



## science

4'33" is -- seriously -- the defining work of post-WWII classical music. It's an impeccable Rorschach test. It is by very, very far the single most notorious work since _Le Sacre du printemps_. Of course only a tiny few people are really passionate advocates for it, but the intensity of the fury and scorn that it attracts is unique in the entire repertoire; of the 5890 works (for example) currently listed on the TC project, the other 5889 put together do not attract more anger and derision. The ferocity of the opposition to it enshrines it in the canon far more firmly than any advocacy could ever do, making it one of the paradigmatic works of modernist art in any medium. At a popular level, he may even be the most famous post-war composer, entirely due to the notoriety of this one work.

If John Cage had done nothing else, he would be one of the great composers, and if he hadn't done it, he would be just one of those modernists that only aficionados have ever heard of -- a peer of Babbitt, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Barraqué, all of whom were of course "great composers" to people who enjoy that kind of music, but are almost unknown to the rest of the world.


----------



## Mandryka

science said:


> 4'33" is -- seriously -- the defining work of post-WWII classical music. It's an impeccable Rorschach test. It is by very, very far the single most notorious work since _Le Sacre du printemps_. Of course only a tiny few people are really passionate advocates for it, but the intensity of the fury and scorn that it attracts is unique in the entire repertoire; of the 5890 works (for example) currently listed on the TC project, the other 5889 put together do not attract more anger and derision. The ferocity of the opposition to it enshrines it in the canon far more firmly than any advocacy could ever do, making it one of the paradigmatic works of modernist art in any medium. At a popular level, he may even be the most famous post-war composer, entirely due to the notoriety of this one work.
> 
> If John Cage had done nothing else, he would be one of the great composers, and if he hadn't done it, he would be just one of those modernists that only aficionados have ever heard of -- a peer of Babbitt, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Barraqué, all of whom were of course "great composers" to people who enjoy that kind of music, but are almost unknown to the rest of the world.


Stockhausen also had the Helicopter quartet (which I've never heard!)


----------



## JAS

science said:


> . . . If John Cage had done nothing else, he would be one of the great composers, and if he hadn't done it, he would be just one of those modernists that only aficionados have ever heard of -- a peer of Babbitt, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Barraqué, all of whom were of course "great composers" to people who enjoy that kind of music, but are almost unknown to the rest of the world.


One would hope that he (or his advocates) might at least have a little embarrassment that his supposed fame as a composer rests so heavily on a work that contains not a single note.


----------



## science

JAS said:


> One would hope that he (or his advocates) might at least have a little embarrassment that his supposed fame as a composer rests so heavily on a work that contains not a single note.


Why? That's precisely what so offends you, and if you weren't so offended, almost no one would have heard of it.

Speaking of single notes, have you ever seen a thread on Scelsi's extremely interesting work _Four Pieces on a Single Note_ (_Quattro Pezzi su una nota sola_)?


----------



## JAS

science said:


> Why? That's precisely what so offends you, and if you weren't so offended, almost no one would have heard of it. . . .


Because it is entirely being famous merely for a stunt. It is like being the Kardashians, although I fully understand that they have no shame.


----------



## science

SanAntone said:


> The battle is over, John Cage won. The guardians of CM just cannot deal with the fact that they lost control over their sacred cow.


The ironic thing is that he won BECAUSE the "guardians" could not deal with it. He didn't win in spite of them, he won because of them. In a century full of works that offend them, he managed to create this single little pinprick that they can't stop screaming at.


----------



## science

JAS said:


> Because it is entirely being famous merely for a stunt. It is like being the Kardashians, although I fully understand that they have no shame.


You know how many stunts there have been?


----------



## JAS

science said:


> You know how many stunts there have been?


It is remembered only because it is the most outrageous of humbugs. It isn't even a slightly clever stunt. The only reason that no one ever did it before is that everyone else had at least a shred of tact, basic decency and self-respect.


----------



## Mandryka

science said:


> Speaking of single notes, have you ever seen a thread on Scelsi's extremely interesting work _Four Pieces on a Single Note_ (_Quattro Pezzi su una nota sola_)?


Music based on a single note has been a significant trend over the past 50 years. A physical note, with all its overtones.


----------



## Phil loves classical

JAS said:


> It is remembered only because it is the most outrageous of humbugs. It isn't even a slightly clever stunt. *The only reason that no one ever did it before* is that everyone else had at least a shred of tact, basic decency and self-respect.


I believe it was the opportune time for it. If he did that just 20 years earlier, it wouldn't have seen the light of day. The controversy it creates shows how great the divide is in perception. I think the best thing to make it go away is for the other side to accept it. Once there is widespread acceptance (even if faked) the buzz will go away.


----------



## JAS

Phil loves classical said:


> I believe it was the opportune time for it. If he did that just 20 years earlier, it wouldn't have seen the light of day. The controversy it creates shows how great the divide is in perception. I think the best thing to make it go away is for the other side to accept it. Once there is widespread acceptance (even if faked) the buzz will go away.


But if the piece has any value at all, it is entirely in the fun of ridiculing it, and those who advocate it.


----------



## science

JAS said:


> It is remembered only because it is the most outrageous of humbugs. It isn't even a slightly clever stunt. The only reason that *no one ever did it before* is that everyone else had at least a shred of tact, basic decency and self-respect.


Are you sure?

If you're going to be so condescending, you should begin by getting your facts straight.

Anyway, the only reason it's remembered at all is not because *it* is inherently so *outrageous*, but because *you* are so *outraged*. The composition can't promote itself, can't bring so much attention to itself.

You're outraged because you understand that it's a joke at your expense, but if you could stop making yourself the butt of the joke, there'd be no joke.


----------



## JAS

science said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> If you're going to be so condescending, you should begin by getting your facts straight.
> 
> Anyway, the only reason it's remembered at all is not because *it* is inherently so *outrageous*, but because *you* are so *outraged*. The composition can't promote itself, can't bring so much attention to itself.
> 
> You're outraged because you understand that it's a joke at your expense, but if you could stop making yourself the butt of the joke, there'd be no joke.


It is not a joke on us (no matter how many utterly lame attempts are made to cast it as such); the joke is _entirely_ on the advocates. No one else falls for the con job. The rest of us see it for exactly what it is, a silly stunt. (While it is true that we often bring it up, we almost always do so in the form of a joke. That isn't because we are offended.)


----------



## Phil loves classical

science said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> If you're going to be so condescending, you should begin by getting your facts straight.
> 
> Anyway, the only reason it's remembered at all is not because *it* is inherently so *outrageous*, but because *you* are so *outraged*. The composition can't promote itself, can't bring so much attention to itself.
> 
> You're outraged because you understand that it's a joke at your expense, but if you could stop making yourself the butt of the joke, there'd be no joke.


The other ones are quite different in concept. I liked In Futurum in particular: rhythmic silence.

http://forgotten-leaves.blogspot.com/2014/01/in-futurum-no-one-can-hear-you-play.html


----------



## SanAntone

Andrew Kenneth said:


> John Cage - 4'33"
> Berliner Philharmoniker - Kirill Petrenko


What I found ridiculous were the strained expressions on Petrenko's face with his outstretched arms. What is he doing?


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden

SanAntone said:


> What I found ridiculous were the strained expressions on Petrenko's face with his outstretched arms. What is he doing?


He's according silence (or the emptiness, or the aleatory, depending on your point of view) the same level of conductorial attention he would an ordinary work. Whether this is advisable or not, aesthetically, dramatically, or even in the best interests of the work...I'm on the fence about. (But after further consideration, leaning toward the negative)


----------



## SanAntone

Ich muss Caligari werden said:


> He's according silence (or the emptiness, or the aleatory, depending on your point of view) the same level of conductorial attention he would an ordinary work. Whether this is advisable or not, aesthetically, dramatically, or even in the best interests of the work...I'm on the fence about. (But after further consideration, leaning toward the negative)


Who or what is he conducting? Does he think he is controlling the sounds of the audience and concert hall? Silly and pretentious and completely pointless theater - or maybe that was the point - to give the audience something to watch. For me it was the worst kind of BS that classical music often promotes.


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> It is not a joke on us (no matter how many utterly lame attempts are made to cast it as such); the joke is _entirely_ on the advocates. No one else falls for the con job. The rest of us see it for exactly what it is, a silly stunt. (While it is true that we often bring it up, we almost always do so in the form of a joke. That isn't because we are offended.)


I asked my daughter, who is a cellist with a Master's in performance, two questions. Does she think most professional classical musicians would view 4'33" as music and does she think most professional classical musicians would view 4'33" as an important work. She said yes to both. She said it was taught in her music history class as well.

When experts in a field disagree with you, do you think it's possible you may be missing something about that subject? It's one thing to not enjoy 4'33" or to believe it's not important. It's another thing to repeatedly make fun of something that professionals in the field view as important.

On the issue of Cage's greatness as a composer, I don't think 4'33" is relevant. I do enjoy some of his music (e.g. Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano and conventional piano pieces). I don't know whether to consider him great since I'm not really sure how to evaluate that. I generally view greatness as something like athletes in a Hall of Fame. The number of athletes in various Halls tend to be over 100/century. By that standard, Cage may very well be great.


----------



## JAS

mmsbls said:


> I asked my daughter, who is a cellist with a Master's in performance, two questions. Does she think most professional classical musicians would view 4'33" as music and does she think most professional classical musicians would view 4'33" as an important work. She said yes to both. She said it was taught in her music history class as well.
> 
> When experts in a field disagree with you, do you think it's possible you may be missing something about that subject? It's one thing to not enjoy 4'33" or to believe it's not important. It's another thing to repeatedly make fun of something that professionals in the field view as important. . . .


In this case, no. Why should their opinion of the work be taken over my opinion of the work? (It isn't as if the work is unknown to me.) If I am missing something, they should be able to point it out. (I can already point out what they might be missing: the work has no notes.) I also know plenty of people with professional music training who agree with me. (Perhaps your daughter does not know them.)


----------



## Mandryka

Ich muss Caligari werden said:


> conductorial attention


What's that?

Cncsm. S. M#


----------



## Mandryka

SanAntone said:


> For me it was the worst kind of BS that classical music often promotes.


Is it more bull than having David Tudor at the piano for it? I mean, if you're going to perform it you have to get the audience to listen to it as music, don't you?


----------



## Andrew Kenneth

SanAntone said:


> What I found ridiculous were the strained expressions on Petrenko's face with his outstretched arms. What is he doing?


According to the description of the youtube video 4'33" was performed as an unexpected encore on oct 31th.
This was the last concert before the BPO's 2nd covid-lockdown.

A piece of silence ushering in orchestral lockdown (more silence) due to a pandemic that already has caused many to die.
Might explain the strained expression. (also the musicians seem dead serious during this performance)


----------



## SanAntone

Mandryka said:


> Is it more bull than having David Tudor at the piano for it? I mean, if you're going to perform it you have to get the audience to listen to it as music, don't you?


It depends on what Tudor did at the piano. If he just sat there and made some indication for the different sections, that's okay. But if he made various kinds of gestures during the silence as if he were playing something, it's pretentious and distracts from the music/sound of the ambient space. My understanding is that he merely opened and closed the keyboard cover at the beginning and end of each section.



Andrew Kenneth said:


> According to the description of the youtube video 4'33" was performed as an unexpected encore on oct 31th.
> This was the last concert before the BPO's 2nd covid-lockdown.
> 
> A piece of silence ushering in orchestral lockdown (more silence) due to a pandemic that already has caused many to die.
> Might explain the strained expression. (also the musicians seem dead serious during this performance)


Petrenko's presence was unnecessary especially if he were to call attention to himself "conducting silence."


----------



## adriesba

mmsbls said:


> I asked my daughter, who is a cellist with a Master's in performance, two questions. Does she think most professional classical musicians would view 4'33" as music and does she think most professional classical musicians would view 4'33" as an important work. She said yes to both. She said it was taught in her music history class as well.
> 
> When experts in a field disagree with you, do you think it's possible you may be missing something about that subject? It's one thing to not enjoy 4'33" or to believe it's not important. It's another thing to repeatedly make fun of something that professionals in the field view as important.
> 
> On the issue of Cage's greatness as a composer, I don't think 4'33" is relevant. I do enjoy some of his music (e.g. Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano and conventional piano pieces). I don't know whether to consider him great since I'm not really sure how to evaluate that. I generally view greatness as something like athletes in a Hall of Fame. The number of athletes in various Halls tend to be over 100/century. By that standard, Cage may very well be great.


I don't know that opinions of musicians can really be taken too much more seriously than opinions of listeners. Musicians have been uplifting and criticizing each other for ages. Pretty much all well-loved composers had their detractors or still do, and many works that have fallen into obscurity were respected in their day. To say that such and such deserves respect because musicians say it does to me just sounds like an appeal to authority. Considering how subjective music is, I would be wary of giving excessive credence to opinions of musicians or critics as opposed to opinions of listeners. Plus you'd have to see how many music professionals take 4'33" seriously vs how many do not. Even then, this would still be simply opinion. And to be clear, I do believe there is an objective component to music, but considering that 4'33" has no actual composed music, I don't see how an objective assessment of it as music can be made. One would have to think outside the box. But at that point, maybe music isn't the subject of discussion anymore.


----------



## Luchesi

JAS said:


> It is not a joke on us (no matter how many utterly lame attempts are made to cast it as such); the joke is _entirely_ on the advocates. No one else falls for the con job. The rest of us see it for exactly what it is, a silly stunt. (While it is true that we often bring it up, we almost always do so in the form of a joke. That isn't because we are offended.)


I got the sense that he just wanted informed people to think about the concept and talk about concept vs the formal backdrop (the concert experience). ...and he surely succeeded in that!
Compared to lecturing people, it's an emphatic statement -- and light-hearted (after the shock-of-the-new).

Of course maybe he wanted to anger specific people. Artists are often troubled (because their foundations for beliefs are 'merely' artistic) and they keep it sublimated.

Added -
I get the notion people are jealous because they didn't think of it first and they didn't have the means and opportunity to put it out there.


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden

SanAntone said:


> Who or what is he conducting? Does he think he is controlling the sounds of the audience and concert hall? Silly and pretentious and completely pointless theater - or maybe that was the point - to give the audience something to watch. For me it was the worst kind of BS that classical music often promotes.


The composer himself - with the level of conscious understanding and awareness he'd attained - would have seen in Petrenko's antics simply one possibility among many and would have been in accord with it. As he would have been as well with your response to the conductor's performance. That is the very crux of _4' 33''_ and what it has to teach us.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I always felt the original concept of 4'33" flawed, with Tudor opening and closing the piano cover. It drew attention to what he was playing or not playing. I think it's no wonder a lot of people didn't get it, and not their fault in my view. How do you direct an unspoken question (what is music?) to the audience, when it was usually answered by the performer? For Petrenko to face the orchestra and make reach out his hands to the orchestra, it's calling for the attention to what is coming from the orchestral players, not the audience, so it's similarly flawed to me. I think if he turned on the podium and reached to the audience, or just straight up in the air to the whole hall, it would make more logical sense, but some may object to it being unsubtle. Better to make an unsubtle but logical presentation than to mislead (or not provide enough guidance) in my view.


----------



## Mandryka

Ich muss Caligari werden said:


> The composer himself - with the level of conscious understanding and awareness he'd attained - would have seen in Petrenko's antics simply one possibility among many and would have been in accord with it. As he would have been as well with your response to the conductor's performance. That is the very crux of _4' 33''_ and what it has to teach us.


He wasn't tolerant of antics at all, Cage had a temper on him and was quick to lose it with people who he thought performed his music with bad faith. There is, for example, a famous story about his reaction to Julius Eastman's performance of his Song Books.


----------



## SanAntone

Luchesi said:


> I got the sense that he just wanted informed people to think about the concept and talk about concept vs the formal backdrop (the concert experience). ...and he surely succeeded in that!
> Compared to lecturing people, it's an emphatic statement -- and light-hearted (after the shock-of-the-new).
> 
> Of course maybe he wanted to anger specific people. Artists are often troubled (because their foundations for beliefs are 'merely' artistic) and they keep it sublimated.


My sense from reading comments by Cage concerning 4'33" that he did not want to anger anyone. He had something he wished express about the quality of silence and about the constant presence of canned Muzak around us. He was inspired by a number of things, the paintings of Robert Rauschenberg, Zen Buddhism, and ideas about the nature of music and sound.

There will always be people who question the integrity of composers like John Cage or Erik Satie with his irreverent titles and works like _Vexations_, or artists like Rauschenberg or Pollock, or anyone who presents a kind of art that is based on principles different to what we have taken for granted about art or music.

I am interested in the music of Cage and the art of Rauschenberg and feel compassion for the people who cannot appreciate the beauty and joy in their work. An artist with a new vision is always something I enjoy.


----------



## Phil loves classical

mmsbls said:


> I asked my daughter, who is a cellist with a Master's in performance, two questions. Does she think most professional classical musicians would view 4'33" as music and does she think most professional classical musicians would view 4'33" as an important work. She said yes to both. She said it was taught in her music history class as well.
> 
> When experts in a field disagree with you, do you think it's possible you may be missing something about that subject? It's one thing to not enjoy 4'33" or to believe it's not important. It's another thing to repeatedly make fun of something that professionals in the field view as important.
> 
> On the issue of Cage's greatness as a composer, I don't think 4'33" is relevant. I do enjoy some of his music (e.g. Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano and conventional piano pieces). I don't know whether to consider him great since I'm not really sure how to evaluate that. I generally view greatness as something like athletes in a Hall of Fame. The number of athletes in various Halls tend to be over 100/century. By that standard, Cage may very well be great.


I think the Classical musician's or composer's view may not necessarily be relevant, since there is no performer or composer in 4'33". Their area of expertise is on performance/composing. 4'33" is more philosophical. In fact Cage thought the sounds made by the audience comprised the music, so the audience are the performers. So I endorse JAS's view (although I'm just a nobody) as one view as valid as any musician's. Classical musicians may see 4'33" significant in a different way, in that it's one piece where they show up and don't play.


----------



## Woodduck

science said:


> 4'33" is -- seriously -- the defining work of post-WWII classical music. It's an impeccable Rorschach test. It is by very, very far the single most notorious work since _Le Sacre du printemps_. Of course only a tiny few people are really passionate advocates for it, but the intensity of the fury and scorn that it attracts is unique in the entire repertoire; of the 5890 works (for example) currently listed on the TC project, the other 5889 put together do not attract more anger and derision. The ferocity of the opposition to it enshrines it in the canon far more firmly than any advocacy could ever do, making it one of the paradigmatic works of modernist art in any medium. At a popular level, he may even be the most famous post-war composer, entirely due to the notoriety of this one work.
> 
> If John Cage had done nothing else, he would be one of the great composers, and if he hadn't done it, he would be just one of those modernists that only aficionados have ever heard of -- a peer of Babbitt, Stockhausen, Xenakis, Barraqué, all of whom were of course "great composers" to people who enjoy that kind of music, but are almost unknown to the rest of the world.


Was this written with a twinkle in your eye? It isn't the "outrage" of Cage's detractors that make 4'33" notorious. The thing is more likely to generate knowing smiles and, ultimately, shrugs of indifference than "anger" and "fury." I don't know what watering holes you frequent, but they must be the ones where you put 4'33" on the jukebox and it causes all the regulars to pelt you with beer mugs.

"Epatez le bourgeois!" may have excited young artists in 1920, but I believe the revolution died at about the time giant soup cans stopped being fashionable mantelpieces.


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> I asked my daughter, who is a cellist with a Master's in performance, two questions. Does she think most professional classical musicians would view 4'33" as music and does she think most professional classical musicians would view 4'33" as an important work. She said yes to both. She said it was taught in her music history class as well.
> 
> When experts in a field disagree with you, do you think it's possible you may be missing something about that subject? It's one thing to not enjoy 4'33" or to believe it's not important. It's another thing to repeatedly make fun of something that professionals in the field view as important...


It doesn't take someone with an education in music, classical or otherwise, to determine if 4'33" is music or not. Practically, any individual off the street, if asked, would question the premise that it is music and might look at you quizzically for having asked the question in the first place.

It _is_ an interesting concept and nothing more. As for the alleged music involved, if it is total silence, then nothing was created and nothing was scored. If it is the sounds of life around us, then it is not the creation of Cage or any other particular individual.


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> Was this written with a twinkle in your eye? It isn't the "outrage" of Cage's detractors that make 4'33" notorious. The thing is more likely to generate knowing smiles and, ultimately, shrugs of indifference than "anger" and "fury." I don't know what watering holes you frequent, but they must be the ones where you put 4'33" on the jukebox and it causes all the regulars to pelt you with beer mugs.
> 
> "Epatez le bourgeois!" may have excited young artists in 1920, but I believe the revolution died at about the time giant soup cans stopped being fashionable mantelpieces.


I remember as a 20-year-old having a feeling of 'pride' that these art pieces had become well-known beyond the sophisticated artworld of New York City. I grew about 25 miles north of NYC. That's neither here nor there... just something I remember.


----------



## Luchesi

DaveM said:


> It doesn't take someone with an education in music, classical or otherwise, to determine if 4'33" is music or not. Practically, any individual off the street, if asked, would question the premise that it is music and might look at you quizzically for having asked the question in the first place.
> 
> It _is_ an interesting concept and nothing more. As for the alleged music involved, if it is total silence, then nothing was created and nothing was scored. If it is the sounds of life around us, then it is not the creation of Cage or any other particular individual.


When you compose aren't you inspired by ambient noises or a view out of a favorite window? I'm just a performer and I'm inspired by so many odd things (unrelated to making music, but nonetheless, part of the art of living).


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden

Mandryka said:


> He wasn't tolerant of antics at all, Cage had a temper on him and was quick to lose it with people who he thought performed his music with bad faith. There is, for example, a famous story about his reaction to Julius Eastman's performance of his Song Books.


Only human, all-too human; even the Dalai Lama has his moments. To me, the great thing about _4'33"_ is as a reviewer of John Gann's 255-page book on the work (_No Such Thing as Silence_, Yale, 2010) notes (and as amply demonstrated by our discussion) , "Cage's so-called silent piece is as resonant with philosophical, historical, and acoustical complexities as many a noisier composition..." If one of the prime - some would argue central - purposes of art is to generate a response, then John Cage has to be reckoned, like him or not, as one of the greats. There is another aspect of the work I believe has gone unmentioned here - how democratic a work it is - anyone can play it!


----------



## Andrew Kenneth

Slovenian industrial/experimental band Laibach cover 4'33" in this 2018 videoclip=>


----------



## mmsbls

adriesba said:


> I don't know that opinions of musicians can really be taken too much more seriously than opinions of listeners. Musicians have been uplifting and criticizing each other for ages. Pretty much all well-loved composers had their detractors or still do, and many works that have fallen into obscurity were respected in their day. To say that such and such deserves respect because musicians say it does to me just sounds like an appeal to authority. Considering how subjective music is, I would be wary of giving excessive credence to opinions of musicians or critics as opposed to opinions of listeners. Plus you'd have to see how many music professionals take 4'33" seriously vs how many do not. Even then, this would still be simply opinion. And to be clear, I do believe there is an objective component to music, but considering that 4'33" has no actual composed music, I don't see how an objective assessment of it as music can be made. One would have to think outside the box. But at that point, maybe music isn't the subject of discussion anymore.





JAS said:


> In this case, no. Why should their opinion of the work be taken over my opinion of the work? (It isn't as if the work is unknown to me.) If I am missing something, they should be able to point it out. (I can already point out what they might be missing: the work has no notes.) I also know plenty of people with professional music training who agree with me. (Perhaps your daughter does not know them.)





DaveM said:


> It doesn't take someone with an education in music, classical or otherwise, to determine if 4'33" is music or not. Practically, any individual off the street, if asked, would question the premise that it is music and might look at you quizzically for having asked the question in the first place.
> 
> It _is_ an interesting concept and nothing more. As for the alleged music involved, if it is total silence, then nothing was created and nothing was scored. If it is the sounds of life around us, then it is not the creation of Cage or any other particular individual.


I generally agree with all of you, but you didn't really respond to my post. I did not say the opinions of musicians should be taken more seriously than that of listeners. I did not say that 4'33" deserves respect simply because musicians think it's an important work. I also didn't say that 4'33" should be considered music. Personally I do not believe it is music for very specific reasons (not simply that there are no notes).

I merely suggested that when a significant number of experts disagree with one's opinion, I think it's wise to consider whether one may have missed something. Certainly in fields where I'm an expert, I strongly consider views of other experts that disagree with me. I also suggested that one can believe something is not true or not important and argue that point, but to actually make fun of something experts believe is perhaps best avoided.


----------



## mmsbls

Phil loves classical said:


> I think the Classical musician's or composer's view may not necessarily be relevant, since there is no performer or composer in 4'33". Their area of expertise is on performance/composing. 4'33" is more philosophical. In fact Cage thought the sounds made by the audience comprised the music, so the audience are the performers. So I endorse JAS's view (although I'm just a nobody) as one view as valid as any musician's. Classical musicians may see 4'33" significant in a different way, in that it's one piece where they show up and don't play.


Interestingly, Cage explicitly referred to performers of 4'33", and he was not thinking of the audience. I would say that many members of the classical music community (performers, conductors, musicologists) do believe that 4'33" is classical music. Given that they spend their life's work on classical music, I think it's reasonable to consider them as having an important view.

I have no problem with someone feeling that 4'33" is not music, is not important, or shouldn't ever be performed in concerts. I think that it can be debated but probably ought not to be the object of ridicule on classical music sites. I especially think that members of TC who find value in 4'33" ought not to be ridiculed on classical music sites. Of course, I don't think any TC member should be ridiculed on TC for any reason.


----------



## JAS

mmsbls said:


> I generally agree with all of you, but you didn't really respond to my post. I did not say the opinions of musicians should be taken more seriously than that of listeners. I did not say that 4'33" deserves respect simply because musicians think it's an important work. I also didn't say that 4'33" should be considered music. Personally I do not believe it is music for very specific reasons (not simply that there are no notes).
> 
> I merely suggested that when a significant number of experts disagree with one's opinion, I think it's wise to consider whether one may have missed something. Certainly in fields where I'm an expert, I strongly consider views of other experts that disagree with me. I also suggested that one can believe something is not true or not important and argue that point, but to actually make fun of something experts believe is perhaps best avoided.


No, it does not. Is that a direct enough response? One of the big problems with people in any field is that they often get caught up in their own zeitgeist. I have seen it happen in literary academics.


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> No, it does not. Is that a direct enough response? One of the big problems with people in any field is that they often get caught up in their own zeitgeist. I have seen it happen in literary academics.


The response is direct, but I honestly don't know to what your "it" refers. What does not?


----------



## JAS

mmsbls said:


> The response is direct, but I honestly don't know to what your "it" refers. What does not?


It is getting caught up in the fashionable trends of the field. It takes a lot of confidence to see through the emperor's new clothes, and risk saying something about it.


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> It is getting caught up in the fashionable trends of the field. It takes a lot of confidence to see through the emperor's new clothes, and risk saying something about it.


I apologize, but I still don't know what you meant by "it does not." I assume you do not mean that getting caught up in the fashionable trends of the field does not.

Anyway in the case of 4'33" I do not think it takes confidence to see through the emperor's new clothes. It simply requires either going along with the crowd or having a particular view of music that is less expansive than some other people's views. There's nothing wrong with having that view of music. As I said, I personally don't view 4'33" as music but accept that significant elements of the classical music community do view 4'33" as music.


----------



## JAS

mmsbls said:


> I apologize, but I still don't know what you meant by "it does not." I assume you do not mean that getting caught up in the fashionable trends of the field does not.
> 
> Anyway in the case of 4'33" I do not think it takes confidence to see through the emperor's new clothes. It simply requires either going along with the crowd or having a particular view of music that is less expansive than some other people's views. There's nothing wrong with having that view of music. As I said, I personally don't view 4'33" as music but accept that significant elements of the classical music community do view 4'33" as music.


No, an opinion does not gain a sheen of respect merely because there are people who say it does, even if they are professionals in the related field (and sometimes _especially_ if they are professionals in the related field).


----------



## DaveM

mmsbls said:


> I generally agree with all of you, but you didn't really respond to my post. I did not say the opinions of musicians should be taken more seriously than that of listeners. I did not say that 4'33" deserves respect simply because musicians think it's an important work. I also didn't say that 4'33" should be considered music. Personally I do not believe it is music for very specific reasons (not simply that there are no notes).
> 
> I merely suggested that when a significant number of experts disagree with one's opinion, I think it's wise to consider whether one may have missed something. Certainly in fields where I'm an expert, I strongly consider views of other experts that disagree with me. I also suggested that one can believe something is not true or not important and argue that point, but to actually make fun of something experts believe is perhaps best avoided.


Presumably, in the field that you are an expert, you are considering the views of other experts _in your field_. If 4'33" isn't music and 'the opinions of musicians [shouldn't] be taken more seriously than that of listeners', then who are the experts whose opinion we should be considering on the subject of 4'33" and what are they experts in?

Again, I think 4'33" is nothing more than an interesting concept. Anything beyond that IMO is nothing more than something that has become a fad. And so you actually have people scheduling it in concerts which implies the performance of something profound when actually one is taking advantage of the ever-present gullibility of an unfortunate segment of the masses.


----------



## SanAntone

mmsbls said:


> Interestingly, Cage explicitly referred to performers of 4'33", and he was not thinking of the audience. I would say that many members of the classical music community (performers, conductors, musicologists) do believe that 4'33" is classical music. Given that they spend their life's work on classical music, I think it's reasonable to consider them as having an important view.
> 
> *I have no problem with someone feeling that 4'33" is not music, is not important, or shouldn't ever be performed in concerts. I think that it can be debated but probably ought not to be the object of ridicule on classical music sites. I especially think that members of TC who find value in 4'33" ought not to be ridiculed on classical music sites. Of course, I don't think any TC member should be ridiculed on TC for any reason.*


Thank you for saying this, I have asked for the same thing. I don't understand the people who ridicule John Cage, 4'33" and/or those of us who respond positively to the work. I guess it is too hard for them to live and let live.


----------



## Woodduck

Ich muss Caligari werden said:


> If one of the prime - some would argue central - purposes of art is to generate a response, then John Cage has to be reckoned, like him or not, as one of the greats.


This makes sense only if there's such a thing as a "great response generator." I'm sure Donald Trump would approve of that category.


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> No, an opinion does not gain a sheen of respect merely because there are people who say it does, even if they are professionals in the related field (and sometimes _especially_ if they are professionals in the related field).


When I evaluate expert views, I don't so much think of respect but rather the collective knowledge and thought of those experts. I may think their view is wrong, but I want to make sure I understand why they think they are correct. If you believe you truly understand Cage's and others' views concerning 4'33" and why it's important and you feel you have good reasons to disagree, fine.

In all honesty though, when you make statements like



JAS said:


> As far as I can tell, John Cage's forays into the musical world were pretty much all about ego, trying to put his stamp on everything, and foisting his own (often crazy) ideas on everyone else and insisting that we needed to "accept" them as music (as his advocates continue to do).





JAS said:


> Because it is entirely being famous merely for a stunt. ....





JAS said:


> But if the piece has any value at all, it is entirely in the fun of ridiculing it, and those who advocate it.





JAS said:


> ...No one else falls for the con job. The rest of us see it for exactly what it is, a silly stunt....


you give the impression of not understanding 4'33" or Cage.

There was a forum member who knew Cage. This post perhaps gives a sense of that member's view of 4'33" and Cage.



some guy said:


> ...Épater la bourgeoisie is exactly what 4'33" is not. Cage thought about this piece for five years, worried that people would react just like you and HC and so many others have reacted. And decided to go forward with it after all, spurred on by Rauschenberg's White Paintings and by his 1951 visit to an anechoic chamber.
> 
> Your prejudices of course seem very strong and very real and very valid to you, but they match neither the historical record nor first hand acquaintance with Cage himself.
> 
> As for original, an audience member at a q & a start his question by praising Cage for being the most original and influencial composer of the century. I didn't have any problem with that assessment, but Cage's response was to simply say, "These things were in the air at the time."
> 
> He was the most humble and self-effacing person I ever met, I can tell you that. And I've met dozens of composers, and very few of them are anything other than humble and self-effacing. They are certainly, not in their persons, the radically destructive forces of corruption and ugliness that some people perceive them to be by hearing a second or two of some music that, like cooked carrots, they're sure they won't like.
> 
> Not that I'm thinking any of this will convince anyone. I know people who still insist that the French are rude and arrogant. I go to France all the time, two or three times a year. Lived there for awhile, too, in Paris. Haven't run across a rude or arrogant person there yet. Maybe that one store clerk that one time.... I've seen a lot of rude Americans there, and Swiss and Germans and Russians. That is, I've seen a lot of rude _tourists_ there.


----------



## JAS

mmsbls said:


> When I evaluate expert views, I don't so much think of respect but rather the collective knowledge and thought of those experts. I may think their view is wrong, but I want to make sure I understand why they think they are correct. If you believe you truly understand Cage's and others' views concerning 4'33" and why it's important and you feel you have good reasons to disagree, fine.
> 
> In all honesty though, when you make statements like . . . you give the impression of not understanding 4'33" or Cage.


And, in all honesty, I think I DO understand 4'33" and Cage, and you and those who defend him do not.



mmsbls said:


> There was a forum member who knew Cage. This post perhaps gives a sense of that member's view of 4'33" and Cage.


Good for him.


----------



## mmsbls

DaveM said:


> Presumably, in the field that you are an expert, you are considering the views of other experts _in your field_. If 4'33" isn't music and 'the opinions of musicians [shouldn't] be taken more seriously than that of listeners', then who are the experts whose opinion we should be considering on the subject of 4'33" and what are they experts in?
> 
> Again, I think 4'33" is nothing more than an interesting concept. Anything beyond that IMO is nothing more than something that has become a fad. And so you actually have people scheduling it in concerts which implies the performance of something profound when actually one is taking advantage of the ever-present gullibility of an unfortunate segment of the masses.


Fine. As I've said, I don't see 4'33" as music, but I'm hardly the person that people should look to for educated views on that subject. I do think musicians are the "experts" in that area, and I take their opinions on 4'33" very seriously.


----------



## mmsbls

JAS said:


> And, in all honesty, I think I DO understand 4'33" and Cage, and you and those who defend him do not.


I'm not sure people would think I defend Cage. I was actually once called a musical racist for my view that 4'33" is not music. And I certainly don't think I understand him.



JAS said:


> Good for him.


In all honesty, after reading that post, do you not have any uncertainty that your view of Cage as "all about ego" and 4'33" as a stunt and con job might be mistaken? Sure, you think it's worthless, but might it actually not have been a con job?


----------



## JAS

mmsbls said:


> . . . In all honesty, after reading that post, do you not have any uncertainty that your view of Cage as "all about ego" and 4'33" as a stunt and con job might be mistaken? Sure, you think it's worthless, but might it actually not have been a con job?


In all honesty, I can see many angles on many complex issues, even quite a few that I ultimately disagree with. (And some ideas are interesting to think about, even if they are unfounded and do not really hold up well to much analysis.) The only explanations that make sense to me in regard to Cage are that he was just promoting himself by being as outrageous as possible, or he was stark raving mad. (His actions are certainly the opposite of someone who was not trying to promote himself and garnish a lot of attention.) If he was not actively trying to con others because he actually believed his own nonsense, then the con job was on himself. I suffer no such delusion.


----------



## Woodduck

SanAntone said:


> Thank you for saying this, I have asked for the same thing. I don't understand the people who ridicule John Cage, 4'33" and/or those of us who respond positively to the work. I guess it is too hard for them to live and let live.


The problem is that 4'33," a clever idea and an interesting experiment in awareness-training, is touted, straight-faced, as a world-convulsing artistic achievement and a philosophical revolution that replaces the concept of music as understood by human beings across cultures since we came down from the trees. The natural, and really the most benign, response to outrageous and absurd claims, especially when they're made by pretentious academics, is humor. Like it or not, the jokes are here to stay. (and some of them are pretty good, I think. )

I would agree that ridicule can be taken too far and get too personal, but that's a two-way street. Don't imagine that people who have the temerity to resist the claims of the self-appointed avant garde don't take their share of condescension. Hell, you can get skewered around here just for claiming that Mozart's reputation as a great composer is actually deserved and not merely a statistic determined by polling people suffering from similar cultural biases.

There's a very, very long thread on TC about 4'33" that started several years ago and went on seemingly forever. It contains everything from jokes to aesthetic philosophy. Maybe worth looking up.


----------



## consuono

JAS said:


> ...The only explanations that make sense to me in regard to Cage are that he was just promoting himself by being as outrageous as possible, or he was stark raving mad. (His actions are certainly the opposite of someone who was not trying to promote himself and garnish a lot of attention.) If he was not actively trying to con others because he actually believed his own nonsense, then the con job was on himself. I suffer no such delusion.


I would disagree a little bit. I don't think he was a complete charlatan nor do I think he was crazy. I think he was a mediocre guy who wanted to be known as a great composer and innovator but didn't have the talent or giftedness or other wherewithal to be such. I think that applies to a lot of contemporary composers.

What influence would something like 4'33" have? Encouraging non-composition or calling random taps and noises "serious art"? That's nothing but trying to negate what we think of as "music", and there's not much talent required to negate anything...and the influence can only be negative as well. And as someone said above, no it doesn't fill me with "fury" and indignation. The ones who seems to be most indignant in these threads are the ones who get their knickers in a twist over anyone else not genuflecting before Cage's awesome inventiveness and genius.


----------



## JAS

consuono said:


> I would disagree a little bit. I don't think he was a complete charlatan nor do I think he was crazy. I think he was a mediocre guy who wanted to be known as a great composer and innovator but didn't have the talent or giftedness or other wherewithal to be such. I think that applies to a lot of contemporary composers.


The tricky part of charlatan is perceived sincerity and motivation. It may be imprecise to say charlatan (a word I specifically avoided), but suitable enough given common usage. The alternative might be false prophet, which does not speak to motivations. There are a lot of people who are sincerely promoting all kinds of miracle cures that they actually believe in, even though they don't actually work and in some cases do a great deal of harm. What do we call these people and the effect of what they are doing?


----------



## SanAntone

Woodduck said:


> The problem is that 4'33," a clever idea and an interesting experiment in awareness-training, is touted, straight-faced, as a world-convulsing artistic achievement and a philosophical revolution that replaces the concept of music as understood by human beings across cultures since we came down from the trees. The natural, and really the most benign, response to outrageous and absurd claims, especially when they're made by pretentious academics, is humor. Like it or not, the jokes are here to stay. (and some of them are pretty good, I think. )
> 
> I would agree that ridicule can be taken too far and get too personal, but that's a two-way street. Don't imagine that people who have the temerity to resist the claims of the self-appointed avant garde don't take their share of condescension. Hell, you can get skewered around here just for claiming that Mozart's reputation as a great composer is actually deserved and not merely a statistic determined by polling people suffering from similar cultural biases.
> 
> There's a very, very long thread on TC about 4'33" that started several years ago and went on seemingly forever. It contains everything from jokes to aesthetic philosophy. Maybe worth looking up.


I won't be looking up the long thread on 4'33". There's so much more to John Cage's work than 4'33" and I think the subject has been exhausted, with more heat than light.


----------



## consuono

JAS said:


> The tricky part of charlatan is perceived sincerity and motivation. It may be imprecise to say charlatan (a word I specifically avoided), but suitable enough given common usage. The alternative might be false prophet, which does not speak to motivations. There are a lot of people who are sincerely promoting all kinds of miracle cures that they actually believe in, even though they don't actually work and in some cases do a great deal of harm. What do we call these people and the effect of what they are doing?


I don't know, but (genuine question here) did Cage ever demonstrate that he fully grasped the techniques, methodology etc of "the Big Three" before essentially dismissing them?


SanAntone said:


> I won't be looking up the long thread on 4'33". There's so much more to John Cage's work than 4'33" and I think the subject has been exhausted, with more heat than light.


You've said words to that effect quite a bit, and I detect almost a sense of embarrassment that this work receives the attention it does...but yet we're told that it was as earth-shattering as Rite of Spring (which Stravinsky fans don't disown).


----------



## consuono

These threads often bring to mind Orwell's essay "Benefit of Clergy", which was his ferocious takedown of Salvador Dali:


> ...his aberrations are partly explicable. Perhaps they are a way of assuring himself that he is not commonplace. The two qualities that Dali unquestionably possesses are a gift for drawing and an atrocious egoism. 'At seven', he says in the first paragraph of his book, 'I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since.' This is worded in a deliberately startling way, but no doubt it is substantially true. Such feelings are common enough. 'I knew I was a genius', somebody once said to me, 'long before I knew what I was going to be a genius about.' And suppose that you have nothing in you except your egoism and a dexterity that goes no higher than the elbow; suppose that your real gift is for a detailed, academic, representational style of drawing, your real métier to be an illustrator of scientific textbooks. How then do you become Napoleon?
> 
> There is always one escape: into wickedness. Always do the thing that will shock and wound people. At five, throw a little boy off a bridge, strike an old doctor across the face with a whip and break his spectacles - or, at any rate, dream about doing such things. Twenty years later, gouge the eyes out of dead donkeys with a pair of scissors. Along those lines you can always feel yourself original. And after all, it pays! It is much less dangerous than crime.


----------



## SanAntone

consuono said:


> You've said words to that effect quite a bit, and I detect almost a sense of embarrassment that this work receives the attention it does...but yet we're told that it was as earth-shattering as Rite of Spring (which Stravinsky fans don't disown).


Not embarrassment, just a somewhat sad feeling that the work and the controversy are usually the only things most people know about Cage. I also find it a little sad that so many otherwise intelligent people leap to take cheap shots at him over this work. It is an easy work to belittle.

The mark of an interesting person, IMO, is one who may not like or even respect the work, or anything about Cage's work, but one who does not so eagerly grab the low hanging piece of fruit, 4'33", because they have humility, and are generally kind, and have the generosity to allow Cage and his fans this work in peace.


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden

Woodduck said:


> This makes sense only if there's such a thing as a "great response generator." I'm sure Donald Trump would approve of that category.


Apples and oranges, *Woodduck*, though both of course are demonstrably fruit. In point of fact, much as I loathe Trump, I must accord him a level of greatness: he knows how to manipulate - like demagogues before him - the socio-pathologies of the nation and wield them to his own purpose. So yeah, great, but in a way and word he would himself use: sad.


----------



## DaveM

SanAntone said:


> Thank you for saying this, I have asked for the same thing. I don't understand the people who ridicule John Cage, 4'33" and/or those of us who respond positively to the work.I guess it is too hard for them to live and let live.





SanAntone said:


> Not embarrassment, just a somewhat sad feeling that the work and the controversy are usually the only things most people know about Cage. I also find it a little sad that so many otherwise intelligent people leap to take cheap shots at him over this work. It is an easy work to belittle.
> 
> The mark of an interesting person, IMO, is one who may not like or even respect the work, or anything about Cage's work, but one who does not so eagerly grab the low hanging piece of fruit, 4'33", because they have humility, and are generally kind, and have the generosity to allow Cage and his fans this work in peace.


Geez, you're taking this awfully personally aren't you. This is nothing more than some back and forth among people who see 4'33" of relative silence as either an important something or an irrelevant nothing. Do you really think it's a measure of one's personality?


----------



## Phil loves classical

mmsbls said:


> Interestingly, Cage explicitly referred to performers of 4'33", and he was not thinking of the audience. I would say that many members of the classical music community (performers, conductors, musicologists) do believe that 4'33" is classical music. Given that they spend their life's work on classical music, I think it's reasonable to consider them as having an important view.
> 
> I have no problem with someone feeling that 4'33" is not music, is not important, or shouldn't ever be performed in concerts. I think that it can be debated but probably ought not to be the object of ridicule on classical music sites. I especially think that members of TC who find value in 4'33" ought not to be ridiculed on classical music sites. Of course, I don't think any TC member should be ridiculed on TC for any reason.


Cage described the piece as "the absence of intended sounds." The regular performers produce little or no sounds. The sounds from the audience becomes part of the composition, so in essence the audience becomes the aural performers more than the those originally set to perform. Personally I don't have a problem with anyone saying it is or isn't music, just a difference in definition. I can see it either way, and doubt if there would ever be a compromise between the 2 sides.

On the subject of the opinions of musicians, I have little doubt if you went back in time and ask all the great composers pre-1920, if 4'33" is music, they would laugh or become enraged (especially Beethoven I can imagine). It's the definition of music changing. Unintended sounds always existed before 4'33". Asking contemporary musicians that are taught it is music, is almost like asking a league of magicians whether magic exists.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/433-by-Cage


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden

It would be interesting to know if Cage would now be embarrassed by _4'33''_ - rather say like Saint-Saëns was by his "greatest hit", _Le Carnaval des animaux_; might he resent its celebrity over his other work? Little matter; my perspective: there is no good reason why music, like the other fine arts, shouldn't expand its reach into areas philosophical or other, even to the point where it questions its own nature and accoutrements as 4'33'' does. If it doesn't appeal to some, or offends others, they don't have to listen to it! :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

Ich muss Caligari werden said:


> If it doesn't appeal to some, or offends others, they don't have to listen to it! :lol:


That's a relief. I'm highly susceptible to earworms.


----------



## consuono

Ich muss Caligari werden said:


> ... If it doesn't appeal to some, or offends others, they don't have to listen to it! :lol:


Or you can listen to it during any 4 minutes and 33 seconds of your day. You can't argue with the price. :lol:

I just thought...if I do that per Cage's instructions without buying the sheet music, is that copyright infringement?


----------



## mmsbls

Phil loves classical said:


> Cage described the piece as "the absence of intended sounds." The regular performers produce little or no sounds. The sounds from the audience becomes part of the composition, so in essence the audience becomes the aural performers more than the those originally set to perform. Personally I don't have a problem with anyone saying it is or isn't music, just a difference in definition. I can see it either way, and doubt if there would ever be a compromise between the 2 sides.


The reason I don't consider 4'33" as music is precisely because I view one requirement for music to be that the sounds are intentional. But again, my view is not so important.



Phil loves classical said:


> On the subject of the opinions of musicians, I have little doubt if you went back in time and ask all the great composers pre-1920, if 4'33" is music, they would laugh or become enraged (especially Beethoven I can imagine). It's the definition of music changing. Unintended sounds always existed before 4'33". Asking contemporary musicians that are taught it is music, is almost like asking a league of magicians whether magic exists.


Well, music can evolve such that what earlier composers viewed as music could be different than what today's composers view as music. I admit that I have trouble defining music for the group who actually create music. I think it's better left up to them to define music. I still will likely view 4'33" as not music even though I accept that a significant portion of the classical music community views it as music.


----------



## SanAntone

The BBC on 4'33" which address two of points which have come up repeatedly in this thread.

On the evening of 29 August 1952, David Tudor stepped onto the platform of the aptly named Maverick Concert Hall, a historic timber-hewn venue nestling in forest near Woodstock, New York to play John Cage's new piece 4'33".

Seating himself at the piano he placed a score on the stand, set a stopwatch, closed the lid - and sat quietly for 33 seconds. Briefly opening then re-shutting the lid, he re-set the stopwatch and sat for two minutes 40 seconds, occasionally turning the score's pages. He repeated the process, this time for one minute 20 seconds. Finally he stood, bowed to polite applause from the remaining audience and walked off stage.

So passed the premiere of John Cage's 4'33", the three-movement 'silent piece' titled for its chance-determined total duration and marked 'Tacet, for any instrument or combination of instruments'. It would confirm John Cage as one of the most controversial - and significant - composers of the 20th century.

At the post-concert discussion, shock and bemusement gave way to anger. Cage had seemingly thumbed his nose at the entire western concert tradition, even at music itself. Amid the uproar, an irate local artist shouted, 'Good people of Woodstock, let's drive these people out of town!'

*What is the point of John Cage 4′ 33″?*

Cage offered some intriguing insights when asked afterwards about the event: 'They missed the point. There's no such thing as silence. What they thought was silence, because they didn't know how to listen, was full of accidental sounds. You could hear the wind stirring outside during the first movement. During the second, raindrops began patterning the roof, and during the third the people themselves made all kinds of interesting sounds as they talked or walked out.'

Many assumed 4'33" was some kind of Dadaist publicity stunt; indeed, a critic dismissed a subsequent New York performance as 'Greenwich Village exhibitionism'. While undoubtedly subversive, however, it was far from renegade for its own sake, but sprang from many years spent pondering the nature of silence, intentionality, listening and performance. Another critic would later declare it 'the pivotal composition of this century'.

Cage's ideas had begun to coalesce in 1948, when he first mooted a silent piece. This, he said, would be dubbed 'Silent Prayer', and he joked semi-seriously about submitting it to the Muzak company in protest at what he saw as their sonic intrusion of public spaces. The same year he embarked in earnest on a study of Zen Buddhism and eastern philosophies that set him on a path 'from making to accepting', and the possibilities afforded by openness to environmental and unintended sounds.

*Is John Cage's 4'33" considered music?*

In 1951, two encounters helped shape his thinking: with the artist Robert Rauschenberg and with the anechoic chamber at Harvard University. Cage was especially taken with the former's White Paintings, describing them as 'airports for lights, shadows and particles'. Emerging from the complete, echoless silence of the latter, he expressed surprise at having been able to hear two sounds, one high and one low, which an engineer informed him comprised the sounds of his own nervous system and blood circulation. Hence that famous conclusion above, 'There's no such thing as silence'.

For many composers and artists at the time and since, 4'33" signalled a seismic re-imagining of the very stuff of art and life, and the constructs that too often divide them. Tudor called it 'one of the most intense listening experiences you can have'. Arguably, that remains as true now as it was in 1952 - and the piece remains just as enigmatic, brimming with questions still pertinent today.

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

I think it is fair to say that critical opinion has matured over time, moving away from anger and ridicule to acceptance and even admiration.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I find that part of Cage's statement "What they thought was silence,* because they didn't know how to listen*..." kind of condescending. I'm sure he knows it's clearly a matter of different perspective. He could have said he's simply drawing attention to a different world of sounds.


----------



## mmsbls

Phil loves classical said:


> I find that part of Cage's statement "What they thought was silence,* because they didn't know how to listen*..." kind of condescending. I'm sure he knows it's clearly a matter of different perspective. He could have said he's simply drawing attention to a different world of sounds.


I've always felt that 4'33" should not be performed without a preliminary explanation of the work. There's simply no reason to expect people to understand "how to listen" without such an explanation, and doing so simply invites ridicule and misunderstanding.


----------



## SanAntone

Another discussion of 4'33" this one from NPR on what would have been Cage's 100th birthday.

Some excerpts:

In the audience is a broad cross-section of the city's classical musical community, including composers like Morton Feldman and Earl Brown, whose works are being performed this particular night. Also present are some vacationing members of the New York Philharmonic, looking to keep up with the antics of the new music renegades, and composer John Cage, who's premiering two new works. For the first, which would later become known as "Water Music," pianist David Tudor, a lifelong Cage collaborator, plays prepared piano, a duck call and a transistor radio. For the second, the provisionally entitled "Four Pieces," Tudor starts a stopwatch, sits down in front of the piano, closes the lid and begins a performance in which he never plays a note.

In the Maverick that night, one could likely hear the sound of the breeze in the trees, rain pattering lightly on the rooftop, the chirping of crickets, a dog barking aimlessly somewhere in the distance, the sound of bodies shifting their weight on creaky pine benches, the sound of breath being drawn and being expired.

This was music for John Cage. And unlike compositions designed to make the outside world fall away, here was a music that, when it engaged you, made the present world open up like a lotus blossoming in stop-motion photography. It was all very much in keeping with Cage's Zen world view, which emphasized the power of unmediated experience and direct perception of what Cage called the "isness" of life.

As one might expect, many listeners found this view unpalatable, despite the fact that the hall itself could be a metaphor for Cage's ideal union of music and nature. There was an uproar. People thought 4'33" was a joke or some kind of avant-garde nose-thumbing.

But, in fact, Cage's little silent composition was no joke and it would have an incalculable, if characteristically quiet, influence on a great deal of music that came after.

The emerging technology of portable recorders permitted the cataloging and manipulation of environmental sounds by musicians. Composer Steve Reich explored the rhythms of the human voice and of trains. The sound of the ocean was as central to The Who's Quadrophenia as Pete Townshend's thrashing guitar. Brian Eno, who credits Cage with inspiring him to become a composer, recorded a series of so-called "ambient" albums, music of a quietude, designed to compliment rather than compete with the sounds of life. Today hip-hop producers use street noise in their musical fabric and DJs use vinyl LP surface noise to communicate nostalgia and authenticity.

In a sense, Cage gave musicians aesthetic permission, spiritual encouragement even, to go beyond the tonalities of standard instrumentation and engage with the infinite possibilities of sound. While he composed prolifically until his death in 1992 at the age of 79, Cage remained more well-known for his ideas than his music, and the enigmatic 4'33" is the ultimate expression of those ideas.

"The most important piece is my silent piece," he affirmed. "I always think of it before I write the next piece." One critic called it "the pivotal composition of this century." Pianist David Tudor called it "one of the most intense listening experiences you can have."

But all this puts a weightiness on 4'33" that seems at odds with its playful sense of simply being allied to the world. *As Cage writes at the end of his Silence, "I've spent many pleasant hours in the woods conducting performances of my silent piece, transcriptions - that is, for an audience of myself."' By inviting us to do the same, Cage transformed the art of music, and the art of listening, irrevocably.*


----------



## SanAntone

This book is a well- written and researched book about the genesis and impact of 4'33"

*No Such Thing as Silence: John Cage's 4'33"*
By Kyle Gann

View attachment 146955




> With Cage in mind, Susan Sontag wrote in 1969, "The notions of silence, emptiness, reduction, sketch out new prescriptions for looking, hearing, etc." This radical vision of the artistic and experiential potency of silence is at the heart of Kyle Gann's investigation of 4'33", No Such Thing as Silence. The former Village Voice new-music critic examines the ways in which Cage's piece was and is boosted and derided, and the result is an easily digestible yet illuminating volume.
> 
> Gann recognizes that for many listeners, 4'33" seems simply a gag or a provocation. Yet he concludes that really it is "an act of framing, of enclosing environmental and unintended sounds in a moment of attention." To Gann, the piece frames Cage's entire oeuvre, at a stroke communicating his interest in the sounds of nature, the uses and limitations of avant-garde music practice, and his debt to influences from composers like Erik Satie and Morton Feldman to the philosophical writings of Ananda Coomaraswamy and Meister Eckhart....
> 
> While compelling as poetry and primary source, Cage's own volume titled Silence (1961) should be preceded by Gann's fascinating primer. Moments of textbooklike exposition (do we need a definition of the Bauhaus movement?) are counterbalanced by energetic accounts of Cage's avant-garde exploits. Gann's keen understanding of the period allows him to productively explore Cage's misinterpretations (of Zen, of the artwork of peers like Robert Rauschenberg), which informed the composer's practice as well. - J. Gabriel Boylan at Bookforum.com


----------



## Isaac Blackburn

SanAntone said:


> (BBC): For many composers and artists at the time and since, 4'33" signalled a seismic re-imagining of the very stuff of art and life, and the constructs that too often divide them....


How this merger of art and life is actually accomplished is another problem. 4:33 seems more to pull art "down" to the level of ordinary life than in raise life "up" to the level of art. It creates the rapt attentiveness that the audience typically reserves to meaningful narrative presentations and directs it at "ordinary" sounds, but we must remember that this state of attentiveness is not in itself art, nor does it require any piece of music for its inducement. I find myself commonly in such a state after listening to truly great music, and the old masters were aware that music, upon lifting the listener to a purified, refreshed, and more spiritual view of the world, would leave its elevated residue even after the notes had stopped playing.


----------



## Woodduck

Isaac Blackburn said:


> How this merger of art and life is actually accomplished is another problem. 4:33 seems more to pull art "down" to the level of ordinary life than in raise life "up" to the level of art. It creates the rapt attentiveness that the audience typically reserves to meaningful narrative presentations and directs it at "ordinary" sounds, but we must remember that this state of attentiveness is not in itself art, nor does it require any piece of music for its inducement.


I believe Cage felt that by redirecting people's attention to the "ordinary" he was helping them see how extraordinary the ordinary is. It's the goal, or at least the effect, of various forms of meditation, which is why I consider 4'33" a meditation exercise and not a piece of music. It merely uses the trappings of a concert as a stimulus. I don't know enough about Cage to say whether he thought this kind of experience was superior to the normal experience of music, or simply another way of appreciating sound. As you say, the attentiveness of meditation is not a form of art, and I'm not at all sure that a quasi-concert situation is even the best way to induce such a state. I suspect not. In any case I don't feel the need for such an inducement, and would rather hear music when that's what I've bought a ticket for.

BTW, I think that quote, "For many composers and artists at the time and since, 4'33" signalled a seismic re-imagining of the very stuff of art and life, and the constructs that too often divide them....", is a load of horse pucky. "Seismic reimagining of the very stuff of art and life..." _Sheesh!_ And they wonder why we mock them?


----------



## SanAntone

I think sentence from the Kyle Gann book sums up 4'33" well, it is "an act of framing, of enclosing environmental and unintended sounds in a moment of attention."

Btw, if you haven't read _Silence_, it is a worthwhile read.


----------



## rice

SanAntone said:


> I think sentence from the Kyle Gann book sums up 4'33" well, it is "an act of framing, of enclosing environmental and unintended sounds in a moment of attention."
> 
> Btw, if you haven't read _Silence_, it is a worthwhile read.


Doesn't the fact that this "composition" is published, "performed" and even recorded, completely corrupted the original idea?

"As Cage writes at the end of his Silence, "I've spent many pleasant hours in the woods conducting performances of my silent piece, transcriptions - that is, for an audience of myself."' By inviting us to do the same, Cage transformed the art of music, and the art of listening, irrevocably."

The paying audiences sitting in a hall watching the person on stage doing nothing are not doing that, unfortunately.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Isaac Blackburn said:


> How this merger of art and life is actually accomplished is another problem. 4:33 seems more to pull art "down" to the level of ordinary life than in raise life "up" to the level of art. It creates the rapt attentiveness that the audience typically reserves to meaningful narrative presentations and directs it at "ordinary" sounds, but we must remember that this state of attentiveness is not in itself art, nor does it require any piece of music for its inducement. I find myself commonly in such a state after listening to truly great music, and the old masters were aware that music, upon lifting the listener to a purified, refreshed, and more spiritual view of the world, would leave its elevated residue even after the notes had stopped playing.


I wouldn't say 4'33" is pulling art down to ordinary life, but finding art in the ordinary. A sort of realism in contrast to previous artistic ideals. Art can exist in both. Cage was influenced by Zen, which embraces the ordinary, as also found in haiku.

Here is my haiku I just made up with 4'33" as its inspiration:

disgruntled whispering
the scurrying of feet -
a motionless pianist


----------



## SanAntone

rice said:


> Doesn't the fact that this "composition" is published, "performed" and even recorded, completely corrupted the original idea?
> 
> "As Cage writes at the end of his Silence, "I've spent many pleasant hours in the woods conducting performances of my silent piece, transcriptions - that is, for an audience of myself."' By inviting us to do the same, Cage transformed the art of music, and the art of listening, irrevocably."
> 
> The paying audiences sitting in a hall watching the person on stage doing nothing are not doing that, unfortunately.


I was confused, too, over recordings of 4'33" until I realized that the sounds in and surrounding the room where you were listening to the recording was the venue.


----------



## hammeredklavier

It is no surprise that this poll is lopsided!


----------



## cybernaut

An important composer, with a lot of fresh ideas....but I haven't heard much music by him that I'd want to hear a second time. The piece above is pretty cool though.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Yes, it is a cool piece! The prepared piano is like a pitched super-percussion instrument with a flexible interplay of timbres.

I want to give another shout out to the Imaginary Landscape 1 



 (1939), an atmospheric early electroacoustic work with, to me, a light touch of humor and tension. It has tone generators, muted piano, cymbals, and it's a very listenable work.


----------



## Red Terror

cybernaut said:


> An important composer, with a lot of fresh ideas....but I haven't heard much music by him that I'd want to hear a second time. The piece above is pretty cool though.


Precisely. He was full of great ideas and concepts but the results were less interesting. Schoenberg's assessment of Cage's abilities was certainly on point.


----------



## jkl

I don't know Cage's music so I might explore. Which ones do you all recommend?


----------



## Luchesi

david johnson said:


> I've never heard his famous 4" 33".


Some philosophers say that Nothing Unreal Exists. I'm glad they cleared that up..


----------



## cybernaut

this is a very informative video:


----------



## cybernaut




----------



## Superflumina

To me he's a bit of a figure like Giulio Caccini, the early Baroque composer. Highly innovative and wrote some fine music that I like but he's not one of my favorites and I tend to enjoy the work of his contemporaries more.


----------



## Chilham

jkl said:


> I don't know Cage's music so I might explore. Which ones do you all recommend?


In a Landscape
Sonatas and Interludes (if you're in the right mood)


----------



## jkl

Chilham said:


> In a Landscape
> Sonatas and Interludes (if you're in the right mood)


Thanks, I guess I am in the right mood, I shall give that a listen


----------

