What do you think of John Cage?

[Derek]

What do you think about John Cage?

My personal feeling is that he didn't create music (except for a few things which are obviously music, just weird music), he was a sound-effect technician. But, despite his causing controversy over the definition of music, perhaps his views on music provided a good antidote to entrenched ways of thinking in western classical music. I would even venture to suggest that his compositions which involved indeterminate performances may have indirectly led to modern improvisation workshops in universities. So, I think what he did may have had long-term value---even though the specific sounds he created may not be, to everyone's ears, music.

[ongaku_oniko]

Well, just as an example,

But lets say that Kim Jong il, The Lybian dude who's name I never bothered to remember, Sadam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden etc etc etc helped some people realize that the world needs to change and in the long term, made people realize what is wrong, and do not repeat what they did...

Does that make them good people?

I'm not sure if my example made sense. But what I'm trying to say is, the byproduct was not part of what John Cage was thinking of when he created his... I don't even wanna call it music. So I don't think the credit can be given to him.

[Derek]

LOL, I find it hard to lump soft spoken John Cage in with those people. He was strange, perhaps even a bit looney, but I wouldn't say he's a bad person. I don't know what sort of person he was. I feel like I've read he was nice...just like I've read Xenakis was nice, too. Lots of people are nice...but there are nice, crazy people out there. Like me, for example. 

[ongaku_oniko]

Oh i'm not trying to say he's a bad person. I don't know him at all. He may be the nicest person on earth.


But is he a good musician? I don't think so. Well, at least no better than my 6 yr old cousin or my 3 yr old niece.

Or that drunk guy in Chinatown.

[Derek]

Well, I can't say I disagree with you there. I just think the controversy he generated, and the introduction of indeterminacy in performance may indirectly be leading to a rebirth, or renaissance, of improvisation in the western classical world. Like maybe new composers influenced by John Cage felt well, okay, so we can perform indeterminately, but how about indeterminately within the notes of a scale? Couldn't hurt right?

I understand Xenakis was also trying for indeterminacy, but from what I've seen, using math equations and plugging them into the computer rarely translates to sound that a human enjoys, and for me that's what music is all about. I don't like John Cage's music, but as far as I could tell he was pretty honest about why he did what he did. I don't think he ever said anything ridiculous like you ought to just cram piles of intelligence into your sounds to make your music valid...he just liked sounds. PERIOD. Haha.

*edit* I guess what I'm saying is---perhaps his antidote was that, we had become so intensely habituated in the western world to do *exactly* as the composer says---that John Cage became a "benevolent dictator" and set the performer free! That's what I'm trying to say----and that this may be creating a positive self fulfilling prophecy leading to this renaissance that I suggest may be in the process of building.

[ongaku_oniko]

The thing that I really dislike about John Cage is his shamelessness.

I mean I was shocked when I listened to Michael Theilson Thomas (sp?) explain the pieces the YTSO was going to play by John Cage back in the first YTSO.

Can you even call it a composition? "Play any instument you want within an approximate timeframe, at any tempo or dynamic you want"??

Might as well give the whole orchestra a blank score and say play however you want. Wow, I'm a genius composer as well!

I don't mind people liking random sounds. sometimes I do too. But to put random sounds together and call it a composition... Then again, I guess that's what you were trying to say about Xenakis

I hate people who seem to think that technology will be able to do anything too. I don't know Xenakis, so I don't know how he composed his music. If it's with a computer, then I wouldn't call him a composer at all.

[Derek]

Yes, I agree, perhaps he was a bit loony. But maybe the western world's shackles were just that tight---we needed a loon to make us think for ourselves again, so to speak. I don't know when this renaissance will be in full blossom, but I feel like I've seen evidence of it. Perhaps when we're old men, it will be common for improvisation to be part of a classical performance.

My feeling about Xenakis is his process had little to do with whether he or anybody enjoyed the sounds. I would venture to say even serialism has this same problem. It consists of an arbitrarily conceived theory of some kind, that generates music which has little to do with whether one enjoys it. Of course with serialism, the human picks the tone row, so maybe some are better than others. It's sort of a gray area. But I still believe it to be an amusical process. I don't hate anybody who creates music in these ways, I just think it's amusical, given that I believe music is about enjoying sound. Unless of course you're going for effect----Xenakis, Schoenberg, and others provide excellent music for horror stories, war, volcanoes, etc. I remember a documentary about the birth of an island, sertsey, which I believe was filled with serialist music. It fit perfectly. But....its not something I'd pop in a cd player to listen to.

[ongaku_oniko]

DISCLAIMER: This is not meant to offend, only in good fun. All credit goes to Ongaku Oniko when you guys play this at Carnegie Hall  

I just came up with an awesome composition, which will help break the shackles of music: I call it Shackles.

It is a mini-musical play with an orchestra, a piano and a singer.

There are 3 parts, Intro, Resistance, Rebellion

Intro: 2:00mins

Entire orchestra 0:00 - 1:30:
play C (any C, as long as it's a C, for any amount of length, any dynamic, any rhythm)
No other notes can be played, and no pauses.

1:31-1:40:
no sounds

1:41-1:50:
singer sings (Completely in C, without changing tones) "Why do we have to play in C"

1:51-1:59:
No sounds except for the entire orchestra stomping their feet in excitment, some members going "ooh" in surprise

2:00:
some members (whoever wants to) plays a G, as if it was a mistake

Resistance:

0:00-0:15:
silence

0:16-0:45:
Singer singers "G?" (In G, any rhythm, length of time, dynamics), and each tie the singer stops, the orchestra plays a  sudden C, then silence for 1 second

0:46-1:00:

The pianist timidly plays the chromatic scale softly


Rebellion:

0:00-1:30:
Extremely fast and furious playing, any note, any rhythm, any length of time but each memer must have played every single note at least once. Singer sings as loud as possible.

1:31-1:35:
silence

1:36-1:40:

sudden laughter by the whole orchestra

1:41-1:54:
The concertmaster takes his violin slowly walks towards the piano, everyone else watches in silence

1:55-1:56:
pause

1:57-2:00:
The concertmaster suddenly smashes his violin as hard as he can on the piano, everyone cheers until 2:00, sudden stop.


I'm totally more creative than John Cage, IMO

[Derek]

LOL well what I had hoped was going to provoke interesting discussion just turned into hilarity. You're quite right, nobody should be called a genius for this sort of thing.

[retrouvailles]

John Cage actually did compose some good music that is worth listening to. He wasn't just a "sound-effect technician", whatever that is. You can perhaps apply that to all composers. I would like to know if Derek has heard any of the three Constructions for percussion ensemble, the Sonatas and Interludes for prepared piano, or the Three Dances for 2 prepared pianos. These are my favorite pieces by John Cage. They all explore different timbres, rhythms, and are influenced by world music. They use conventional notation and even have some elements of tonality. They are completely listenable and are not uncompromising. They are in no way similar to John Cage's notorious "joke compositions" (a title that some people give to them). If they are not music to you myopic critics, then I don't know what is. Listen to these and then develop a proper opinion on John Cage. The amount of ignorance in all of you haters is staggering.

[Bob]

I'm not a Cage expert....

Experimenter with sounds.

Brought new philosophy/ideas to music.

Emphasized silence as part of music.  At least that's what I took away from it, not so much the environmental sounds.  And I really don't want to contribute to the environment sound (or "environmental white noise" is what I'm thinking it is) as an audience member.

I don't listen to his music much if at all.  I've discussed and thought about Cage things more than listening to any of music by Cage.

[john11inc]

I have a que-

Just kidding.  I was just pretending to be even vaguely inquiring or open to ideas for a whole of half a sentence, as a transparent-as-glass way to start a thread with no purpose other than to express my ideas in a way which is not thought out or substantiated (and because I am pretending to ask a question, I remove the burden of such substantiation because I admit to an ignorance that I subsequently ignore when promoting my ideas as valuable) and to find people who feel the same to help me springboard into even more degenerative and purely personal inconsequentia by making it look as though my ideas were, perhaps, correct, because I managed to find someone else who isn't an expert on John Cage and thinks their similar opinions are valuable (because finding non-experts is A- harder, and B- more useful, than finding experts on the internet).

What a waste of a topic, and what a waste of time it would be to attempt to discuss this with you seriously.  Dislike him and hold resolute to that, if you will, but to begin a "conversation" with the intent (utterly blatant, I add) of learning nothing shows just how much anyone should care about anything you could possibly say on the matter.

[ongaku_oniko]

Sometimes the arrogance of human beings truly baffle me.

If you read our posts with even the slightest intent to have an open mind, you would've realized that none of them were really serious.

Sure, I personally dislike John Cage. Am I stopping others from liking him? No. Am I stopping people from saying good things about him? No.

That the thread was made implies there will be responses from both sides. How can you say that the OP was only pretending to want a true discussion?

But of course, people tend to not be able to stand those whose opinions are different from their own, especially the people who think they're always right.

Of course, these same people are never hypocrits who only use ad hominem in their attacks, and provide no evidence for anything either. Oh, wait...

now, retrouvailles did have something to add.

But I would like to say that John Cage isn't known for his other works. It doesn't appear to be why he is famous. Thus, I don't think they really come into play here, since my belief is that he became famous based on what I think is worthless music that cannot be called compositions. Of course I could very well be wrong, but that's just my opinion. Even if he has written normal music, to publish such nonsense is just shameless. I don't see how that YTSO piece they played can rightfully be called a composition. I migt as well g copyright a blank score.

[john11inc]

If you read our posts with even the slightest intent to have an open mind, you would've realized that none of them were really serious.

How serious you are is irrelevant to my comments regarding Derek.

How serious you are is irrelevant to your obvious lack of capability to be serious.

How serious you are is irrelevant to the amount of justification of your statements.

How serious you are is irrelevant to the poor thinking that you believe justifies your statements.

How serious you claim to be is irrelevant to the fact that you believe your ridiculous statements.

[ongaku_oniko]

How serious you are is irrelevant to my comments regarding Derek.

How serious you are is irrelevant to your obvious lack of capability to be serious.

How serious you are is irrelevant to the amount of justification of your statements.

How serious you are is irrelevant to the poor thinking that you believe justifies your statements.

How serious you claim to be is irrelevant to the fact that you believe your ridiculous statements.

However many times you write, your ad hominem attacks will still be ad hominem

[Bob]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_cage

[retrouvailles]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_cage

And the purpose of linking to his Wikipedia page is what?

[Bob]

Just to have more info here.  To make my own link to it here pretty much.

And some people might not know who John Cage is.

[retrouvailles]

Well, hopefully some of the ignorant haters here (ahem, Derek) will actually do some real research into Cage's actual pieces of music and realize that his post among the 20th century greats is at least somewhat deserved, and not just for the uproar surrounding 4'33" and some of his other challenging works that people doubt as music.

[soitainly]

 I find it hard to relate to John Cage. At what point does someone say they are an artist. Is it just because they thought of something different, or does it have to have some substance that relates to the rest of society. I think a lot of critics and journalists are self serving and tend to look for something different to "discover" thus making their mark as a journalist. This in turn inspires would be artists to try and come up with something different, with little regard for substance. This attitude is prevalent in all the arts, and especially since anything new gets disseminated so quickly in the internet age, it takes more and more outrageousness to cause a stir.

[cygnusdei]

I don't.

[madvillain]

I have a problem with his ideas on music.  I can't remember what specific interview it was but I remember him waxing eloquent about a coke bottle reflecting the suns light and the sounds of traffic and then slaging beethoven.  His music itself never really made much of an impression on me.

[ongaku_oniko]

now this, on the other hand, is pure genius. Deserves a page in history

Atonality Lied

A Unique Lieder that cannot be sung and played by anyone else. Props to the composer, pianist and singer!

[retrouvailles]

now this, on the other hand, is pure genius. Deserves a page in history

Atonality Lied

A Unique Lieder that cannot be sung and played by anyone else. Props to the composer, pianist and singer!

Please, just leave and let the adults talk. If any of you ignorant, stubborn skeptics would just listen to some of the pieces I recommended, you would see the true genius in John Cage's music. Just remember, he is an often performed composer, and all those people who play his music can't all possibly be idiots for doing so (even though some are probably idiots anyways, but not because they perform his music).

[ongaku_oniko]

Please, just leave and let the adults talk. If any of you ignorant, stubborn skeptics would just listen to some of the pieces I recommended, you would see the true genius in John Cage's music. Just remember, he is an often performed composer, and all those people who play his music can't all possibly be idiots for doing so (even though some are probably idiots anyways, but not because they perform his music).

Again, I'm not sure why you need to be so serious, most of my posts in topics like this are in jest.

I'm not saying he doesn't have good music... Simply that he was shameless to call that piece played in the YTSO a composition. It's no different than me saying that a blank score is my composition, really.

And no, performers are not idiots. There's nothing wrong in liking his music. I mean I like random sounds too. I play random sounds on the piano all the time.

[retrouvailles]

And no, performers are not idiots. There's nothing wrong in liking his music. I mean I like random sounds too. I play random sounds on the piano all the time.

That's just the thing. A lot of his music does not ask for random sounds (especially the pieces I mentioned). Do your research.

[51072]

The sonatas for prepared piano are very beautiful. Shame so many people disregard him simply because of 4.33 and other similar works.

[ahinton]

I will openly admit that, after having heard many (though not quite all) of Cage's works over quite a few years, his music has done and continues to do very little for me; in fact, the works that I happen to find the most disappointing are those such as the Freeman Études for violin and the 30 Pieces for String Quartet, to the extent that they tend largely to eschew some of the more once-controversial things for which he remains rather better known.

His one-time teacher Schönberg described him as an inventor rather than a composer - meaning a composer as Schönberg understood that description (and, after all, if a composer is not also an inventor...) and berated him for his lack of proewss in the harmony department.

All that said, there can be no denying the importance of Cage in American musical history of the past century. I happen not to care for much of Copland's music either (albeit rather obviously for quite different reasons), but there's no denying his importance in that same history either, especially given all that he did tirelessly to promote the cause of American music in general and the music of many of his colleagues in particular.

One does not have to be attracted to the music of Cage in order to accept and appreciate his position. Schönberg might well have said much the same about Xenakis's approach to harmony as he did about Cage - indeed, several musicians in Xenakis's early days did indeed cast doubts over his abilities as a composer - but Messiean at least had the perception, broad-mindedness and small-c catholicity to apprecaite at the outset that here was a musician of a most unusual persuasion who would go his own way as indeed Xenakis then did. Would any of us seek to cast doubt upon the assessment of a composer of the order of Messiaen?

The saddest thing about Cage seems to me to be his propensity for continuing to attract, even almost two decades after his death, the kind of tasteless and infantile jibes of which there are some typical examples in this thread. I have no idea what their useful purpose may be for anyone other than those who seem intent upon making them and presumably derive some kind of pleasure in so doing, but then perhaps I don't need to and am in any case better off not knowing.

For me, there's more in any given page of Carter's Piano Sonata, Variations for Orchestra, Concerto for Orchestra, Oboe Concerto, Symphonia or any of his string quartets (except perhaps the third!) than I can find in the whole of Cage with which I am familiar (and I somehow doubt that what I've not yet heard of Cage would be likely to change this view), but that is a genuine and genuinely felt personal view, no more, no less.

Cage once criticised Varèse for the fact that, as he saw it, Varèse didn't think of sounds as sounds - he thought of them as Varèse. Varèse was, to me, right to do so and that is perhaps one reason why I can warm to his work but not to that of Cage. I am nevertheless pleased that Cage had the honesty to express this opinion, even though it is one with whose very premise I cannot even bring myself to identify, let alone agree.

Best,

Alistair

[ongaku_oniko]

There is no denying the importance of Cage in American musical history of the past century.
-Ahinton

One does not have to appreciate his position in order to acknowledge this fact. Just because he has influenced people doesn't mean he deserves the kind of attention he has gotten. Just as rappers are a big part of the music industry in North America right now, being influential does not imply having a gift, or a talent in music.

The saddest thing about Cage seems to me to be his propensity for continuing to attract, even almost two decades after his death, the kind of tasteless and infantile jibes of which there are some typical examples in this thread.

To quote yourself from another thread, since you claimed that you are not a hypocrite,
please answer this in regarding your claim that posts against Cage here are "tasteless and infantile jibes": "On which and whose value-judgemental scale (if any), might I ask?"

Even if some of his works are up to a common standard, there are many more composers at this level who are not well known, because they did not compose the kind of pieces for which Cage was famous for. Thus, we evaluate his fame by the pieces which brought him fame; and I personally have concluded that he does not deserve it. Others are very welcome to conclude otherwise.

[ahinton]

To quote yourself from another thread, since you claimed that you are not a hypocrite,
please answer this in regarding your claim that posts against Cage here are "tasteless and infantile jibes": "On which and whose value-judgemental scale (if any), might I ask?"

I "claimed" no such thing; I stated it as fact. "In regarding" should read "in regard to". Again, I stated, not "claimed", that this thread included such jibes; it is up to you, the reader, to decide (or not) which these are and on which and whose value-judgemental scale they are based (if so you choose).

Even if some of his works are up to a common standard

On the basis of which and whose value-judgemental scale (if any) might this "common standard" have been established (if indeed it has), might I ask?

there are many more composers at this level who are not well known, because they did not compose the kind of pieces for which Cage was famous for. Thus, we evaluate his fame by the pieces which brought him fame; and I personally have concluded that he does not deserve it. Others are very welcome to conclude otherwise.

Indeed. I have already made my own views known and emphasised that these are purely personal, rather than "value-judgements"; they do not, however, include any assessment of his fame or of whether or to what extent it may be - or may be perceived to be - "deserved".

Best,

Alistair

[ongaku_oniko]

On the basis of which and whose value-judgemental scale (if any) might this "common standard" have been established (if indeed it has), might I ask?

I never claimed that there was a common standard, I simply stated that even if some of his works are up to a common standard, however you like to perceive this common standard, and whether any of his works meet the criteria is up to you, the reader to decide.



And of course, all of my posts are my own opinion, I assume that the readers are intelligent enough to realize this, and that they won't assume I believe that my opinions are the cold hard facts and truths.

[ahinton]

I never claimed that there was a common standard, I simply stated that even if some of his works are up to a common standard, however you like to perceive this common standard, and whether any of his works meet the criteria is up to you, the reader to decide.

I did not state that you had made such a claim per se, my question being "on the basis of which and whose value-judgemental scale (if any) might this "common standard" have been established (if indeed it has)?", the relevant operative caveats being "if any", "if indeed it has" and "might".

And of course, all of my posts are my own opinion, I assume that the readers are intelligent enough to realize this, and that they won't assume I believe that my opinions are the cold hard facts and truths.

I think that you may be confident that this is indeed the case where most members are concerned.

Best,

Alistair
[/quote]

[ongaku_oniko]

I did not state that you had made such a claim per se, my question being "on the basis of which and whose value-judgemental scale (if any) might this "common standard" have been established (if indeed it has)?", the relevant operative caveats being "if any", "if indeed it has" and "might".

I'm never sure what purpose you have in responding to mine, and they always sound like attacks to me.

Regardless, I'll answer this question honestly, to the best of my ability. However you choose to interpret my words, I can't help it, I will try to explain it as clear as possible, though I'm sure you can still distort it, if you so wish to.

The truth is, I still have not listened to John Cage's pieces, the ones that retrouvailles have suggested. I don't think I have enough musical knowledge to have a real critical and musical opinion on these pieces. The only thing I can base them on, even if I listened to them, would be whether they sound good to me or not. I can't give an "objective" musical view of his pieces.

But I assume, and I know this is a big assumption, but I still assume that there are many other composers of the time who composed music that are of a similar musical level. These people did not become famous. 

In regards to what the common standard is, I think that the common standard is different for everyone, depending on how they view music, and how they choose to interpret and critique the music. But my assumption,  another big one, is that no matter what criteria you give(as long as it's a relatively reasonable one)  in determining good and bad music, even the best of John Cage's music would not make the cut in comparison to other composers who have a similar level of influence and fame.

[ahinton]

I'm never sure what purpose you have in responding to mine, and they always sound like attacks to me.

Yes, you're rather too keen to interpret too many responses as "attacks", especially what you perceive to be "ad hominem" ones; that's up to you, like so much else - but just read each response from whomsoever might make it in its own terms and try to form a balanced view of it/them as best you can.

I will refrain from responding to the remainder of your post here.

Best,

Alistair

[omar_roy]

If it's with a computer, then I wouldn't call him a composer at all.

How does this disqualify one from being a composer?

[ongaku_oniko]

Well, the composer would be the computer, not the person.

What I mean is, if the notes are generated by a computer algorithm. Like Ray Kurzweil trying to imitate Chopin by making this computer that took in all of chopin's compositions and calculated an "average" and spew out these crappy piece of music with no rhythm or anything.


If you're using a computer to help you write down the notes, then that still counts as you composing.

[Derek]

How does this disqualify one from being a composer?

I'm not sure that it disqualifies one so much as, have you ever heard a piece written by a computer (running a program written by a composer) that wasn't woefully short of what a human is capable of on his own? I sure haven't. I'm willing to be proven wrong. I found something by David Cope's program, and it was okay...but...it was just that. Okay.

[omar_roy]

I'm not sure that it disqualifies one so much as, have you ever heard a piece written by a computer (running a program written by a composer) that wasn't woefully short of what a human is capable of on his own? I sure haven't. I'm willing to be proven wrong. I found something by David Cope's program, and it was okay...but...it was just that. Okay.

I have never heard of such a thing.

I was thinking more along the lines of electronically composed music like Techno, Trance, etc etc.

[pikko]

John Cage Year Lublin 2012

Lublin, Poland

01.01.2012 - 31.12.2012

John Cage Year Lublin 2012

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!