Thread: John Cage

Originally Posted by Edward Elgar

This is a composer who's ideas were better than his music in my opinion.

In many people's opinions, so far as I can tell. It's an odd notion, though. He was a composer. He thought with sounds, he thought about sounds, he distinguished between intentional sounds and unintentional sounds. I don't see how one can separate his ideas from his music. (No one does this with anyone else. Well, maybe Schoenberg a little.)

Originally Posted by Edward Elgar

Although quite a bit of his music is lacking in artistic merit (such as his radio music)

Given who Cage was, and his contributions to music, to how we think about music, this is a very peculiar statement. Indeed, it would be a peculiar statement about anyone, come to think of it. I despise the music of Bax, for instance, but I would never in a million years, or at least 750,000 years, say that about any of his pieces.

But back to Cage. Part of his importance to music was how he redefined what could be considered music. How he elevated the roles of performer, as you've pointed out, but also of listener, which if you had considered, you might have considered "lacking in artistic merit" a trifle off the point!

Originally Posted by Edward Elgar

John Cage I understand is a [controversial] figure and I know how we all like that so let battle commence!

Why? You really want battles? How lacking in artistic merit!! (In any event, it is 2009 already. Almost twenty years after his death. Almost a hundred years after his birth. Maybe it's time for listeners, for members of online music forums, to catch up with creative musicians around the world and appreciate the many benefits Cage conferred on the whole business!!)

Yo some guy, let me first start by thanking you for providing your own differing opinion that provides the basis for a good, healthy argument which is the word I immaturely infered with "let battle commence". I too think that Cage's input was highly beneficial to music. His musical ideas, which do include the listener as an entity in the performance process, are revolutionary concepts for audiences to grasp even decades after their formulation.

However Cage's radio music and music for music-box require decidedly no work from the performer. These in my opinion are not even revolutionary or innovative and are quite conventional works. 4:33 requires little work from the performer yes, yet it is still revolutionary as it includes the listener in the music making process to the highest degree. This is what I believe makes the radio music and music for music-box lack artisticly.

I think his music is a small slice of how far he took his ideas. His output does reflect his idea that music lies in everything, but to what extent did he explore the possibilities? That's why I believe his ideas were better, or rather wider reaching, than his music. I see you appreciate the need for a future of classical music and it would be interesting to find out if others feel that Cage is the way forward or not.

I don't think I could say I am a fan of his, but give him his due he did have ideas that were different.

I think I would have to get to know the man and his works a little better, before I could fully discuss him.

This audience did not know whether to take him seriously or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSulycqZH-U


Margaret

Yes, I agree, I think it is an inspired clip. It gave people an insight into Cage's future music.


Margaret

I have so much fun with this forum, and I learn so much. But, if I had never gotten anything more than that link to the Cage video, all my time here would be worthwhile! Thanks.

Hi msegers,

Glad you liked it, I think it gave a good indication of what John Cage was like.


Margaret

Really nice composer.
I see you are crazy about the AMERICANS.
So try Tedesco.

I recently had the chance to hear the solo piano work In a Landscape (1948) by John Cage and thought it was an effective piece. Very evocative.

I think that the reason why Cage can still be such a 'controversial' figure is that people who haven't heard any of his actual music (as opposed to simply hearing or reading about 4'33") start ignorantly judging his whole output. I think these people can be very inflexible and unwilling to correct their assumptions by learning about the actual facts.

For example, I bought a cd yesterday of Cage's music, in the EMI American Classics series, and have been pleasantly surprised. The piece Credo in Us is especially engaging, incorporating snippets of Dvorak's Symphony No. 9 (on vinyl records), radio broadcasts, and music played live by the pianist and percussionist. The non-live sounds are turned up and down, becoming a kind of orchestra/accompaniment to the live players. There is a dialogue, and sometimes the players subvert the recorded/radio material, sometimes they complement it. There's alot of collage going on in this work, such as when (towards the end) the pianist starts belting out what sounds like a honky-tonk tune. The most amazing thing is that this innovative piece was composed in the 1940's, about a decade before Varese started using taped sounds in his own music.

Another interesting thing is that he actually composed for a variety of instruments, from prepared piano, to toy piano and even carillon (bells). So he was probably one of the most versatile composers around.

Originally Posted by Andre

I think that the reason why Cage can still be such a 'controversial' figure is that people who haven't heard any of his actual music... start ignorantly judging his whole output. I think these people can be very inflexible and unwilling to correct their assumptions by learning about the actual facts.

I think that's a perfect metaphor for the human condition: "judge, blame, attack first and find out (may be) after".