Modern Composition John Cage

Dig: La Monte Young's Piano Piece for David Tudor #1

Notice I've kept quiet through all this?

Anyways, I'm not going to bother to comment on the thread itself, but instead on La Monte Young there, only to say:

KICK. donkey.

I love that piece/idea/? Feeding the piano, hahaha! Oh wow. This is from the interview he gave, yea?

Anyways, I'm not going to bother to comment on the thread itself, but instead on La Monte Young there, only to say:

KICK. donkey.

I love that piece/idea/? Feeding the piano, hahaha! Oh wow. This is from the interview he gave, yea?

I'm not sure - I have it in a collection of short conceptual pieces, required reading for a class I took years ago... ;)

How about Young's Piano Piece for Terry Riley #1

Push the piano up to a wall and put the flat side against it. Then continue pushing into the wall. Push as hard as you can. If the piano goes through the wall, keep pushing in the same direction regardless of new obstacles and continue to push as hard as you can whether the piano is stopped against an obstacle or moving.

Brilliant. Just brilliant. What he said there though was part of this: NewMusicBox I think. Or at least he also mentioned the same piece in the interview.

Also, process music makes me smile.

PS: SPEAKING of things I love, you gotta listen to Rolf Liebermann's Concerto for Jazzband and Symphonic Orchestra. It's totally awesome, in a polystylistic kind of way~

Is art that makes us think about our world in a different way not some of the greatest art of all? By successfully making such a philosophical statement, Cage has created a work that makes us consider the role of sound in our world - those background noises that we don't consider. Making anyone experiencing this work consider the nature of background sound is certainly leading to a different line of thought about the everyday world! 4'33" achieves what great art sets out to achieve. I honestly don't see how this is "insincere"!

How else though would you present such an artwork, such a message in any other form than a piece of music? By leading the audience to consider it as a piece of music, more in depth consideration is given to these background noises. The audience is in the right frame of mind to listen, to consider, to absorb the message.

In terms of your second point, aleatoric music is about introducing a degree of randomness and chance to a piece of music. Taking this principle to the extreme is leaving everything up to background noise. Regardless of whether you consider this noise music or not, the technique is being applied to its extreme.

There is a danger in attributing nature to art. The sea is blue, the spiral of the nautilus shell is logarithmic, the sound of a thunder is powerful. They make you think. But it is unnecessary and in fact incorrect to regard them as art.

If background noises could speak, perhaps they themselves would object to being called art, just as a rhombus would being called a square, and a harpsichord would being called a piano.

I'm not interested in changing anyone's mind, and Cage himself must have anticipated rejection of his idea. But empty gestures like these are totally underwhelming.

To borrow an analogy from algebra: a polynomial can have trivial and non-trivial solutions. The trivial solutions are there, but they are .... trivial. The non-trivial solutions are much more interesting and important.

There are much more interesting and important things to consider in music. Swooning over trivialities is simply misguided.

...empty gestures like these are totally underwhelming.

There are much more interesting and important things to consider in music. Swooning over trivialities is simply misguided.

They're empty gestures to you. They're trivial only to you. You're na

They're empty gestures to you. They're trivial only to you. You're na

They're empty gestures to you. They're trivial only to you. You're na

Not everyone is supposed to "get" everything. Some things are harder than others to understand and appreciate. But objectively, Cage's piece is not only of historical relevance but of artistic relevance for anyone who really gives a damn about music. It's not about appreciating it as "music", whatever that may be, but as a proof-of-concept. It's a question more than an answer, a question which still has no real answer.

If you can't understand any of this, it may be a little too complex to grasp yet. The whole point of advancing the philosophical grounds and arguments behind music is building on what is already understood. Cage showed that almost nothing was understood, even after centuries of composers and music. It was all an illusion, systems and composition techniques, styles, etc, are all built upon fundamentals we don't really understand yet, or sometimes don't bother to try.

Otherwise, Cage would've gotten his answer, and not made the piece.

Even if one overlooks for awhile that this piece is a philosophical statement masquerading as 'music', focusing only on silence/sound is a deficient way to explore the nature of music. To me, music is as much the design as, or even more so than the execution. I'm not making this up - in colloquial setting (at least in my performing experience) when one says 'the music', it may refer to the sound of music, or the score/text.

If one sits down and pens an autograph quietly, away from any instruments (and away from Finale/Sibelius, LOL) isn't he making music? It is music even before any sound is ever executed! We of all people would understand the phrase 'hearing music in my head'. In fact, wouldn't it mean that music is independent from the auditory execution? Wouldn't it mean that the design is paramount, not the sound?

If one sits down and pens an autograph quietly, away from any instruments (and away from Finale/Sibelius, LOL) isn't he making music? It is music even before any sound is ever executed!

This matter is not clear cut at all.

There is a highly prevalent school of thought which holds that music is not music until it is played, or turned from notation into sound.

I actually think this may be the most common view.

I mean, people aren't ignorant simply because they draw the line between art and junk before you do, ...

Absolutely. They're ignorant because they lack knowledge or comprehension.

It's fine to voice a 'distaste' for something ... but to describe it in terms such as: "insane", "this is not music", "insincere", "misguided", "you need no talent NO composition skills", "trivial"; obviously persons making such harsh criticisms have studied this music and put in the effort to listen with an unbiased ear?

I have a real problem with people making misinformed generalized criticisms about things with which they have no experience.

:whistling:

Absolutely. They're ignorant because they lack knowledge or comprehension.

It's fine to voice a 'distaste' for something ... but to describe it in terms such as: "insane", "this is not music", "insincere", "misguided", "you need no talent NO composition skills", "trivial"; obviously persons making such harsh criticisms have studied this music and put in the effort to listen with an unbiased ear?

I have a real problem with people making misinformed generalized criticisms about things with which they have no experience.

:whistling:

I'm not aware of anyone voicing 'generalized criticism' in this thread. As far as I know we have been discussing one particular piece. I surely hope that your comments were accordingly in regards to this one, particular piece.

As for 'this is not music', a number of people who appreciate this piece have argued that the composer didn't intend it to be music but rather a philosophical statement. So explain to me why you'd have a problem with calling something what it is? Have you been paying attention?

I'm not aware of anyone voicing 'generalized criticism' in this thread. As far as I know we have been discussing one particular piece. I surely hope that your comments were accordingly in regards to this one, particular piece.

I wasn't directing the 'generalized criticisms' comment at anything specific. I just don't like the general idea that it's okay to publicly ridicule something for which you have no concept or understanding. Fine n' dandy if you want to say you don't like it though...

As for 'this is not music', a number of people who appreciate this piece have argued that the composer didn't intend it to be music but rather a philosophical statement. So explain to me why you'd have a problem with calling something what it is? Have you been paying attention?

Because I think the poster made that statement with malicious intent - strip any notion of art, and ignoring any notion of philosophical profundity within the piece.

Anyway...I really hate when these discussions get like this.

Have fun, kids.

Of course 4'33'' is music. You can consider it to be the epitome of aleatoric music. We must consider the setting of the first performance of 4'33''. We have David Tudor and John Cage, two people who push the limits of what is music. The audience who attended this performance would expect to hear aleatoric music. It would be expected of them to get what Cage and Tudor were after.

The people would have listen very careful to the sound of nothing and notice, as Cage did, there is sound. There are beautiful sounds. Amazing sounds, sounds we would have not noticed at the very moment if music was being played. Cage successfully challenged the definition of music and it scares a lot of music. It angers even more people!

People like to say oh well anyone could do what Cage did. No, not anyone. I don't think you understand how complex and out of the box it is to say, No music shall be played for this performance. As a composer, we are taught to think, write something. It's hard for us to say, we'll write nothing. It doesn't even cross our mind. How many of us thought of "silence for music" before we heard of Cage? It isn't the most common idea there is.

The simple fact of the matter is that this piece of music, this idea, this expressing, open the minds of many composers bringing new and wonderful ideas to music.

Anyway...I really hate when these discussions get like this.

Have fun, kids.

What do you expect really? Look at how the thread started, haha.

There is a danger in attributing nature to art. The sea is blue, the spiral of the nautilus shell is logarithmic, the sound of a thunder is powerful. They make you think. But it is unnecessary and in fact incorrect to regard them as art.

If background noises could speak, perhaps they themselves would object to being called art, just as a rhombus would being called a square, and a harpsichord would being called a piano.

I'm not interested in changing anyone's mind, and Cage himself must have anticipated rejection of his idea. But empty gestures like these are totally underwhelming.

To borrow an analogy from algebra: a polynomial can have trivial and non-trivial solutions. The trivial solutions are there, but they are .... trivial. The non-trivial solutions are much more interesting and important.

There are much more interesting and important things to consider in music. Swooning over trivialities is simply misguided.

Admittedly art has to have some aspect of humanity involved for it to be true art. It is incorrect however to say that 4'33" does not have this humanity, that it cannot be seen as true art. By forcing an audience to listen to background noise and not take it for granted, Cage is making a philosophical statement and encouraging contemplation about our world. This adds the humanity that makes this true art - art that challenges the role of music and sound.

He is therefore getting to the absolute foundations and basic principles of music and what it actually is. How can such a fundamental question behind music and composition - what is music? - be regarded as trivial? No one is saying that 4'33" is a composition, but by presenting it as one, the underlying philosophical message becomes clearer.

To argue on your terms though, and look at the presented analogy of algebra, despite any trivial (but it must be said that trivial has different connotations mathematically and artistically) solutions found in a problem not always being the "interesting" solutions, they are still present, and true understanding of a problem can only come when they are confronted. 4'33" confronts similar issues involving music. Sound, which is always present, yet as background noise often unimportant is the basic principle of music. Is the role of a composer not at its simplest to craft this sound as seen fit? 4'33" confronts the foundation of sound, the "trivial" aspects and in this way allows greater understanding of the wider "problem" of music.

To DOFTS:

Finally (I think), someone who espouses the second supportive view of the piece. So you argue that this piece is music, and intended to open up new possibilities in the 'sounds of music'. As I said before, this means that any sound is music, as in:

the opposite of evil is good

the opposite of dark is light

and

the opposite of silence is music

So when you're tuning in to the news you're listening to music.

The sound of thunder is music.

A mosquito's buzzing in your ear is music.

Could this be what Rodgers and Hammerstein meant with 'the sound of music' ?

I'd have respect for your view if you actually believe that. Otherwise, it's smack of Terri Schiavo to me (for those not familiar, she was a United States woman who suffered permanent brain damage. The state's legislature passed a LAW that applied only to her, as an injunction to removing her life support).

So does this piece being music have real consequences? Or does the thesis apply ONLY to this piece (as Terri's Law applied only to her)? Or is this piece not music but only a philosophical statement?

the opposite of silence is music

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there. The opposite of music is rap. :P

the opposite of silence is music

Keep in mind when people listen to 4'3'' they actively listen to the sounds. The state of being aware of the background is completely different than what you experience from day to day.

"the opposite of silence is music"

Music and silence are not polar opposites. They work together. There would be no music without silence. To this opposing argument, I daresay these historic quotes voice my opinion for me on the subject.

“Music and silence combine strongly because music is done with silence, and silence is full of music.” Marcel Marceau

“Music is the silence between the notes.” Claude Debussy

Aye, so whenever you write a rest in music, that part in your score isn't music. Gotcha.

Of course not. Because

There is a highly prevalent school of thought which holds that music is not music until it is played, or turned from notation into sound.

Gotcha.

"...so whenever you write a rest in music, that part in your score isn't music. Gotcha."

Of course not. Because

"There is a highly prevalent school of thought which holds that music is not music until it is played, or turned from notation into sound."

Gotcha.

So, a rest (i.e. silence) becomes music when it's notated and performed?

Not unlike 4'33" ?

Gotcha.

What makes you think I subscribe to that school of thought? If you say "silence is not music" then you imply that rest within music is not part of the music.

So do me a favor and do not think I follow things I do not follow.

So, a rest (i.e. silence) becomes music when it's notated and performed?

Not unlike 4'33" ?

Gotcha.

Of course. And therefore so are the evening news, thunder, and mosquito's buzzing.

Gotcha.

You know, I actually haven't seen too many scores for the evening news, thunder, or mosquitoes buzzing.

Perhaps I'm just ignorant.