Cage, John (1912 - 92)

[Bryn]

re #45:

[RichardB]

It is called a piece of music but is it?

Why is that important?

Since you mention Cage's mother, there's an anecdote in one of his books which (from memory) goes something like this: Cage went to visit his mother and found her doing the ironing while listening to rock & roll on the radio. Cage remarked that he didn't know she liked rock & roll, and she replied "oh, I'm not fussy about music". After a pause she added "You're not fussy about music either".

But seriously, John Cage was one of a handful of really essential composers and musical thinkers of the 20th century. If you reckon you can improve on what you think Cage was trying to do, why haven't you done it?

[Mandryka]

Sorry but I've got to say my piece about John Cage's most famous .... well ... you see this is one of the problems with 4'33". What exactly is it? It is called a piece of music but is it?

The way I see it John Cage's 4'33" is a good idea VERY BADLY done, and I think it gets the flack it deserves. It is quite rightly ridiculed and a so-called performance of it is possibly one of the stupidest things I have ever seen. Yes I know what you're thinking, this guy does not understand 4'33". Well yes I don't .... BUT ..... I reckon I understand what he was trying to do, so before you push me aside as a luddite who is wrapped up in just popular music and I don't understand experimental music, let me explain, and also give my opinion on how I think he could have made his point much better.

I do love experimental and avande garde music and art, but 4'33" has got me stumped. His mother apparently considered he had gone “too far” with this .… well again .... with this what? I think his mother was dead right, he did go too far. Sometimes exaggeration to make a point works, but if you exaggerate too far you end up loosing your point and the result can sometimes be laughable, and this is a case in point, which is why most people do laugh at it.

So what is 4’33”? Is it a piece of music? Well, we can all hear music in the natural or artificial world but can you say any one part of it is an actual piece of music? John Cage is basically instructing the listener to listen to the ‘music’ around them, therefore it is an instruction to listen, not a piece of music itself. The fact that he is instructing us when to listen and when to stop listening does not mean he has created a piece of music. It is equivalent to going to a restaurant which has, say live background piano music. Everyone is busy talking away while the pianist is playing but at some point someone says “Listen!”, and they all listen for a while untill instructed to stop. Has the person who instructed them to listen and stop listening created a piece of music?

The language can be bent sometimes, especially in art and poetry, but I can't see how it can be bent that far. Let us consider some things:-

Did John Cage compose the ‘music’ you hear in 4’33”? Answer - no.

Does the so-called performer perform the music in 4’33”? Answer - no.

Therefore what is it? Well, it is clearly an instruction and ONLY an instruction, it is more akin to meditation i.e. not a piece of music.

That said, I think I do understand and agree with the point he was trying to make, he just had a rubbish way of making it, he went too far. I think he was also making a point about the importance of silence in music. Is that right? If so, you have to have some music for the silence to be IN.

OK, I've criticized, now my solution. I think Cage would have made his point much better if he had done it this way:-

Instruct the ‘performer’ to actually perform and use whatever instrument they have before them to occasionally - repeat occasionally - play a note or notes. This note or notes should be considered notes that fit and blend in with the background sounds. The performer should be listening intently and know their instrument to the extent that they are able to make sounds that blend in or fit in in some way so that the audience are not quite sure where they came from if not looking at the performer. THEN the performer would earn their title, they would also compose (improvise), and you then actually have a piece of music rather than an instruction to listen or meditate.

So where would John Cage fit into this picture if he had done it this way? What would be his role? Composer? Well, he doesn't compose the music, the performer does, but the performer actually only adds something to existing music, they are a bit like a soloist in a concerto (or the accompanyist). Cage is the composer of the structure of the music.

He realised that everything could be considered music, and there was no such thing as absolute silence. I think he wanted to bring meditation into the concert hall. Well, that is exactly what he did .... the trouble is, he did nothing more. It was still just meditation. He did not convert it into a musical performance, into a piece of music. He did nothing more than a meditation instructor might do with their pupils i.e. define when to start and stop meditating on the music around and in them.

Anyway, that's my view, and I am unanimous in that :)

Why do you think there’s a performer in 4.33? Someone at the piano who starts it off etc. The reason I’m asking is that I have a feeling that focussing on this question will help to get a bit clearer about what Cage’s project in 4.33 was.

[Serial_Apologist]

Why do you think there’s a performer in 4.33? Someone at the piano who starts it off etc. The reason I’m asking is that I have a feeling that focussing on this question will help to get a bit clearer about what Cage’s project in 4.33 was.

My admittedly under-researched answer is that the chance operations Cage undertook to determine the structure and content of the piece came up in this instance with a configuration which precluded sounds. A different shake of the dice would in all probability have elicited different options. Cage had come at this point to a decision not to exclude non-intended ambient sounds from performances of his music. The brain and ear have a tendency to discriminate against what the listener decides beforehand to exclude from the act of attention, whether this be to music or singling out the nearest person with whom to hold a conversation at a loud drinks party. We do this all the time - I am while typing - but the power of exclusion is weakened when filtered through hearing aids, as anyone who has not invested large amounts of money on expensive ones which can filter out surrounding noise will attest. For optimal communication between composer and listener most music in the western concert canon seem to require this sort of concentration, which is a big ask of listeners. Cage was saying that this was an unnatural situation, that open-mindedness to what others will consider the misfortune of external interference or interruption is a necessary precondition for shedding enslavement to preconceptions in general, which he might say belong to the province of Maya, namely of mistaking the menu for the meal, and this in turn interferes with the efficient operation of the organism, indeed in extreme threatening situations its survival, saying the heart, circulation, brain etc operate most optimally when not straitjacketed by forcing. Someone broadly sympathetic to this view might argue on the contrary that attention focussing is vital, not only for operations using fine tolerances such as brain surgery, but for training the mind not to wander. And aren't preconceptions OK as long as they have been agreed and verified as reliable? How otherwise can decisions in general be reached? But a wandering attention is good as long as it remains open to all the sensory inputs intervals set aside for it since it exercises those aspects the brain and sensory apparatus as a whole has in common with other species, reminding us of the natural of which we are a part, but we are in danger of destroying - and ourselves along with it - by living the way we do, which includes over-concentration on minutiae at the expense of wholes.

Maybe this is an aspect of what Stockhausen might have explained as the astral configuration's advice that day to accept the answer given by the dice!

[RichardB]

My admittedly under-researched answer is that the chance operations Cage undertook to determine the structure and content of the piece came up in this instance with a configuration which precluded sounds. A different shake of the dice would in all probability have elicited different options.

That's a nice idea but it isn't the case. In a 1948 talk he already announced his intention “to compose a piece of uninterrupted silence and sell it to Muzak Co. It will be 3 or 4½ minutes long—those being the standard lengths of canned music—and its title will be Silent Prayer.” So the intention was there for some years before the score was actually written in 1952. In between, Robert Rauschenberg's white paintings were a crucial influence. While it's built up from a set of durations using chance procedures, the plan was always that they should contain no intentional sounds.

[Boilk]

That's a nice idea but it isn't the case. In a 1948 talk he already announced his intention “to compose a piece of uninterrupted silence and sell it to Muzak Co. It will be 3 or 4½ minutes long—those being the standard lengths of canned music—and its title will be Silent Prayer.” So the intention was there for some years before the score was actually written in 1952. In between, Robert Rauschenberg's white paintings were a crucial influence. While it's built up from a set of durations using chance procedures, the plan was always that they should contain no intentional sounds.

What's also not the case (apparently) is that Cage was the first person to conceive of a silent piano piece, nor (bizarrely) the first such person called Cage...

[Serial_Apologist]

That's a nice idea but it isn't the case. In a 1948 talk he already announced his intention “to compose a piece of uninterrupted silence and sell it to Muzak Co. It will be 3 or 4½ minutes long—those being the standard lengths of canned music—and its title will be Silent Prayer.” So the intention was there for some years before the score was actually written in 1952. In between, Robert Rauschenberg's white paintings were a crucial influence. While it's built up from a set of durations using chance procedures, the plan was always that they should contain no intentional sounds.

Oh, right!

It is important to put the record right, as there are so many misconceptions about this piece.

[Serial_Apologist]

What's also not the case (apparently) is that Cage was the first person to conceive of a silent piano piece, nor (bizarrely) the first such person called Cage...

Wonderful - thanks!

[ahinton]

Schumann, Sphinxes, from Carnaval, Op. 9 (1834-35)?...

[Mandryka]

Worth watching David Tudor perform it -- for the way he acts the rituals of a piano recital

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HypmW4Yd7SY&ab_channel=pezzipez

There used to be a documentary short on youtube which I can't find now, which I thought was interesting because it put a lot of emphasis on the location of the first performance -- which was outside in the countryside, lots of ambient bird noises etc. The author of the video suggested it was an American pastoral.

[NatBalance]

re #45:

Ha ha, I see we both like to quote from old British sitcoms.

Why is that important?

Well, the sophistication of our language has got us where we are today. If we did not give things names we would not be able to communicate properly ...... which is possibly why I do not understand 4'33". If I were to improve on Cage's work myself it would be an extremely time consuming activity being as I am not in the business.

Why do you think there’s a performer in 4.33? Someone at the piano who starts it off etc. The reason I’m asking is that I have a feeling that focussing on this question will help to get a bit clearer about what Cage’s project in 4.33 was.

Are they not always called the performer, the one at the instrument with a stop watch?

My admittedly under-researched answer is that the chance operations Cage undertook to determine the structure and content of the piece came up in this instance with a configuration which precluded sounds. A different shake of the dice would in all probability have elicited different options. Cage had come at this point to a decision not to exclude non-intended ambient sounds from ..... ...... ...... ..... of what Stockhausen might have explained as the astral configuration's advice that day to accept the answer given by the dice!

Bloom' 'eck! The Campaign for Plain English need to get their peepers on this lot. Sorry Serial but this is way over my head. Is there really no other way to explain to us simpletons the difference between 4'33" and meditation?

[RichardB]

the sophistication of our language has got us where we are today. If we did not give things names we would not be able to communicate properly ......

The sophistication of our language also allows for acknowledging that some things, like music for example, leave behind the possibility of falling neatly into linguistic categories. Whether 4'33" is or isn't music depends primarily on how you listen to it.

[gurnemanz]

Probably of little relevance to Cage but I am reminded of one Heinrich Böll's best-known short stories, Doktor Murkes gesammeltes Schweigen, (Murke's Collected Silences).

Murke has the job of editing radio talks on cultural themes. He has to cut out the places where the speaker pauses. Still using magnetic tape, he is left at the end of the day with tape snippets containing nothing but the silences of the great and the good in the post-war German cultural field. Irritated by the general pretentiousness of the speakers, he takes great, if pointless, pleasure in splicing these silences together as "collected silence" which he then listens back to at home in the evening..

[NatBalance]

The sophistication of our language also allows for acknowledging that some things, like music for example, leave behind the possibility of falling neatly into linguistic categories. Whether 4'33" is or isn't music depends primarily on how you listen to it.

Well, what I am questioning is how 4'33" can be called a piece of music, and how the so-called performer can be called so? I refer you to my restaurant analogy and question why it is not an instruction to listen or meditate on the music around and within you, something that I believe has been done since antient times in China. What did Cage do to convert such mediation into a concert piece?

[Mandryka]

Well, what I am questioning is how 4'33" can be called a piece of music

I'll have a go at the difficult question.

Clearly the sounds you hear when you listen to 4.33 don't have the structure of a sonata or a set of variations. Nevertheless, they can be rather evocative and atmospheric, and you can enjoy paying attention to them like you can enjoy paying attention to the sun glinting randomly on the sea, or the stars on a clear night. Cage thought that there's a way of listening which is common, shared, when you pay attention to a set of variations and the sounds of 4.33. The audience can stand in the same relation to both. And that possibility of a common way of listening makes 4.33, if not music like the Diabelli Variations, close enough, similar enough, to be to be subsumed under the same concept.

It looks to me like an empirical claim, just a contingent fact (or not) of the psychology of attention. I don't know if it's true or not.

and how the so-called performer can be called so?

I think the performer -- with props of instrument and score, and the ritual of performance, opening the piano lid etc -- are important because they let the audience know that a special sort of listening is now required. They must listen to the ambient sounds as music.

As before, I think this is an idea in empirical psychology -- the idea that there is a distinct way of listening to something as music.