malik@delphi.DEC (Karl Malik ZK01-1/F22 1-1440) (05/22/84)
SUBJ; LISTENING Jeff Winslow recently said - 'If I am right about Cage, I am already "listening", and I don't need his kind of stuff to do it.' It could very well be that you are listening. I have no reason to assume that you aren't. But, this seems like a nice opportunity to discuss just what 'listening' means (especially in the context of a discussion of Cage). Our mind is a wonderful filter. We tend to see, hear selectively, according to what we think is important at any given moment. Stop a second and listen to the sounds going on right now. You probably were not aware of them before I brought it up. Relatedly, I have a cheap FM radio in my car. Several times, I have caught myself happilly listening to a piece of music (that I know), when I 'woke up' and noticed that the reception was TERRIBLE. Static, hiss, distortion, and I hadn't even noticed it. I was hearing what I expected to hear - my mind conveniently filling in missing notes and blocking out the noise. I think that this kind of selective ignore-ance is what Cage is trying to get us to be aware of. This is also the link between Cage and Zen - living in the 'now'. Hearing what's really going on now - record scratches, crying babies and all. If you come to Cage's music with a mind-set that's prepared to hear melodies, harmonies, drama, developement, etc., you're bound to be disappointed. There nothing there! Well, there's plenty there, just as there is plently going on around you now, you just aren't prepared to hear it. Kordially, Karl
gtaylor@cornell.UUCP (05/22/84)
Good old Dr. Malik diagnoses the illness correctly again! It occurs to me that no one flaming away on poor old John has said very much about his prepared piano works. My impression of having tied down my friends after a hard evening of "formal rigour" (brahms? mahler?) and played the prepared music for them is usually alswys one of delight and pleasure. Not that there's a whole lot formally different going on in the pieces per se-that emphasis on the act of listening is still there. One friend did cast a dissenting vote, though....he claimed that a prepared piano was in some way an insult to the intergrity ot the instrument, and that whatever pianistic effects the preparation allowed for was overshadowed entirely by other great composers' ability to mimic those same effects without the gimcrackery. Unfortuneately for him, he was such a complete elitist about the whole mater that my formulation of his argument didn't show up until we cooled down and talked it out. I am curious as to whether or not those of you who object to Cage do so because the raw material that's being manipulated rather than the formal constraints of the situation. Seems as if our little discussion about "Western Classicism as Imperialist Lackey Opiate" (courtesy of a HORRIBLE flame in my mail) was met in many instances by the "Of course not, I listen to the music ITSELF." argument. I can't but see some connection between what Cage is up to and that statement of "how I listen to music." Cage's music for the prepared piano seems a nice "neutral ground" to speak music that has "melodies and rhythmic motifs....." (especially since I can hear the whine of flames buzzing this way from the bastions of classicism were I to suggest LaMonte Young or Brian Eno as other posibilities) and still embodies some notion of cagein (cagey?) process. gregariously, gtaylor
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (05/23/84)
Ah, the thrills of prepared piano. Remember when you were a child sitting at your parents' piano, covering strings with rubber pencil erasers, sticking dimes amongst the strings on those notes fortunate enough to have three strings associated with them (the dime kept falling through on the two-stringed notes), laying aluminum foil across entire octaves, and having your mother run in screaming "What are you doing to our piano?!" (You don't remember this? Poor deprived lads and lasses.) The sounds you could get from these and other various techniques was and is astounding. The hollow drum-like thud from the eraser, the chime-like quality from the dime, the I've-forgotten-what-kind-of-sound from foil (boy, do I wish I had a piano now!). And you could "tune" your mini-gamelan to any tuning you like, simply by moving the "preparations" to different points on the strings. More fun than a synthesizer! I'm currently writing a piece myself for unprepared piano. (After all, what piano could truly consider itself "prepared" for what I would do with it...). (Aside from Cage's innovative work, one can hear prepared piano in a 'popular music' (shudder!) context from Brian Eno, e.g., on David Bowie's "African Night Flight" (from The Lodger).) -- "Submitted for your approval..." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (05/23/84)
> I think that this kind of selective ignore-ance is what Cage > is trying to get us to be aware of. Really? How profound! As if he were the only one that ever realized this. I'm very aware of it - I'm also aware that selective "ignore-ance" is precisely that part of my hearing which causes me to enjoy music. He says the glass is half empty - I say it's half full. The non-selective listening described is what a tape recorder does perfectly well. But alas, not even a tape recorder prefers Cage to music. > If you come to Cage's music with a mind-set that's prepared to > hear melodies, harmonies, drama, developement, etc., you're bound to > be disappointed. There nothing there! Well, there's plenty there, just > as there is plently going on around you now, you just aren't prepared > to hear it. I'm not only prepared to hear it, I do hear it, and IT'S NOT INTERESTING. People talking, keyboards clacking, footsteps, chair squeaks, SO WHAT? Cage's work belongs in the realm of philosophy, not music. I love music. Philosophy generally bores me stiff. Nothing personal, Karl - Jeff Winslow