jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (05/02/84)
Karl Malik rightly pointed out that the object of Cage's work (let's defer the use of the term "music" for now) is pure sound - free of emotional or intellectual manipulation. Also free of emotional or intellectual content. And therefore interest. Now, I am admittedly biased, but I think Cage's work has attraction for two reasons: 1. There is a certain segment of humanity that can watch (or listen to) random patterns for hours (well, maybe half-hours) on end and remain captivated. 2. There is another group which will flock to any public figure who so much as mumbles about some kind of Eastern philosophy. I know virtually nothing about Zen, but I have grave suspicions that Cage doesn't really know much more. Anyone have more than an opinion on this? I believe that music should communicate some sense of beauty to its listeners. That doesn't mean "prettiness"; it doesn't rule out violence or perversity (for example, Strauss's "Salome" and "Elektra"). Pure randomness is, by definition, communication of nothing. The people in 1. are receiving no communication, they're merely being hypnotized. I think Cage's work is too close to this to be called music. Now, I can think of at least one counter-argument to this, but I think I'll see if anyone who believes it more than I will post it. Jeff Winslow
wmartin@brl-vgr.UUCP (05/07/84)
Interesting... I first started listening to Cage because I like mushrooms, and he talked about them in some of his pieces with David Tudor. Then I heard the Prepared Piano pieces and found them relaxing and soothing, good study music... Then I heard some of his pieces for multiple radios and found them amusing to listen to ONCE. Of course, there's no music that's more soothing than his 4'33" :-) Will
ags@pucc-i (Seaman) (05/07/84)
I am not exactly a fan of Cage, but I would like to point out that (whether
you like the results or not) Cage's compositions are NOT "purely random"
or "free of emotional or intellectual manipulation".
I do no know whether Cage claims that this is the case, but it is impossible
to avoid imposing one's own decisions on the process, even though it appears
to be governed by random events. This is because there is no such thing as
a "purely random event" in any absolute sense.
If it were possible to perform a work that is "purely random," the performance
would be exceedingly dangerous, to say the least. At precisely one minute
and 37 seconds after the beginning of the performance, each of the following
events would be equally likely:
1. A gong sounds.
2. A fan turns on.
3. A radio turns off.
4. The curtain closes.
5. The curtain opens to reveal a tree growing in the middle of the stage.
6. The performance hall is struck by an earthquake.
7. Three persons in the front row of the audience turn into pumpkins.
8. Every red object in Cleveland suddenly turns green.
9. World War III begins.
10. The Milky Way Galaxy is destroyed by a Doomsday Machine as depicted
on Star Trek.
Unavoidably, when Cage "composes" a work, he sets ground rules that make
certain types of events likely and other types of events unlikely. It
is in the choice of these ground rules that one of Cage's compositions
differs from another, and Cage's "emotional and intellectual manipulation"
have their effect on the eventual performance.
--
Dave Seaman
..!pur-ee!pucc-i:ags
"Against people who give vent to their loquacity
by extraneous bombastic circumlocution."jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (05/10/84)
If, at a Cage concert, an earthquake striking the hall is *just* as likely as a curtain going up, that might explain why his work is unpopular. Sounds rather dangerous to me! Seriously, can anyone supply a source or reference for the following story? "There is a Cage work which calls for several radios to be tuned across the band in a random path (of course) simultaneously. one evening during the performance, there was a widely broadcasted state-of-the-union address on most of the stations. The random nature of the performance was thus hilariously lost." (no one could say it wasn't entertainment, though!) or perhaps it was just a contemporary marx brothers flick... Jeff Winslow
ags@pucc-i (Seaman) (05/12/84)
> "There is a Cage work which calls for several radios to be tuned across > the band in a random path (of course) simultaneously. one evening during the > performance, there was a widely broadcasted state-of-the-union address > on most of the stations. The random nature of the performance was thus > hilariously lost." (no one could say it wasn't entertainment, though!) I can't vouch for the story, but it seems likely enough. What makes you think Cage didn't anticipate the possibility of a program showing up on many different stations at once, or that he didn't consider the effect it would have on the audience? The audience (and its reaction to the work) is a part of the performance. Who says Cage's work is purely random and devoid of creativity? You admitted it was entertaining. PBS once showed a documentary film about Christo's "Running Fence". In the film the artist stated that he considered the effect of his work on the community to be an integral part of the work itself. The most entertaining part of the film (for me, anyway) was listening to the arguments of the people who were virulently anti-fence (why were they so threatened by a little fence?) [OK, so it wasn't so little.] I have noticed that Christo has turned down commissioned works, and I suspect that might be part of the reason (you don't get the same kind of reaction from a community that INVITED you in to do a work which they suggested). I'll confess I enjoyed the Running Fence more than Cage's music. -- Dave Seaman ..!pur-ee!pucc-i:ags "Against people who give vent to their loquacity by extraneous bombastic circumlocution."