Talk:John Cage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

[edit] 4'33" not as music?!?!?!?

I was horrified to find 4'33" flippantly described as not music? As this was one of the main POINTS of cages music (that silence dosen't exist and in fact anything can be music when listening 'properly') it seems heretical.

John

p.s.when I have the time (and so long as no-one argues the case against) I will correct this sillyness somewhat equivalent to an article on religion stating "it's something to do with god" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.13.164.79 (talk • contribs) .

Which is the part you have a problem with -- the paragraph that begins "It is a potential problem..."? I don't see it stated anywhere exactly in the article that 4'33" is "not music". It is stated that the piece "challenges the definition of music" which I think is a fair statement. Feel free to correct anything you think is wrong. Antandrus (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Linkin this paragraph of the text it to the rest of the article which it somehow oppose, it say not that it is 'not sound', but that sound is not what is composed. The opposite view is already there, in the text.

Not everything that has a point is music. 71.0.241.25 05:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that piece has no sound. So, to common sense, it is not musicAbsoluteZero255 00:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Middlebury College Visit

How do I add link and another page? Could someone do this for me? Here is a memory that's worth posting, so that readers gain a sense of Cage's style and devil-may-care approach. Even in his later years, he shared enthusiasm for pushing the envelope. Here is the content of a Middlebury College visit made in the early 1980s:

Middlebury College Visit -- John Cage, early 1980s

John Cage remained vibrant and experimental in his later years, taking advantage of all his performance experiences. During the early 1980s, he and Merce Cunningham visited Middlebury College for several days. As an active music department devotee, I worked with Cage in several sessions.

First, he gathered some 20 of us for a performance. We were assigned time periods based on I-Ching selections he made then. I brought along a hair dryer and decided to turn it on/off for my contribution. After the performance, he was concerned that my hairdryer was performed in too regular and predictable a pattern.

Of course, we also heard a fully-prepared piano performance from Cage. That was quite interesting, especially to the pianists present (including myself). What surprised me were the lovely sounds, which did not play off the dissonance and new scales of Cage's peers. Utterly original and pleasing.

Then, Cage showed us mesostics. The idea was to take a word, in this case Satie. He read Satie's writings, and plucked words from them each time a word contained a letter in Satie's last name. So the first word that had an "S" was selected first, the next word with an "A" was next, and so forth. Those words were recorded on index cards.

What next? At the large public concert that evening, Cage and Cunningham were performing jointly. There was a Cunningham dance troup at Middlebury too, and some 10-15 dancers on stage. The music was performed by Cage. He sat in the left corner of the stage, at a small desk, reading the Satie mesostics created earlier. Often he would sort the cards, and fan them as if playing with a 52 piece deck. Great sounds.

At first, the packed auditorium sat politely. After some time, one heard rufflings and rumblings. Eventually, folks politely slipped out of the auditorium. But it took at least 45 minutes for that movement to begin. Perhaps half the audience remained throughout the performance.

The next day, the music department devotees met with Cage again. He declared the concert a success. His purpose was to create reaction and participation, and he achieved that with splendor. Cage was fairly serious about this performance, so we were not laughing. But performances should be enjoyable and fun...and he achieved that without effort.

What a memory. Please share your own experiences with Cage here as well. Thanks.

Head to Wikipedia:Village Pump for questions about editing and how to link to external pages. --Dante Alighieri 21:55 19 May 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Expanded

I've expanded this quite a lot, but it still needs a lot more and it'll need some more strucutre as it grows (I'm thinking of dividing it up into periods rather than separating biography from music, which seems a bit artificial in the case of Cage). The pieces mentioned at the end are the ones I hope to write about more in the future - it shouldn't just suddenly stop at 4'33" as it does now. I'm pretty sure about my facts, but I've not checked all of them, I admit (I re-reading Cage's books, so I'll do this as I go along). --Camembert

[edit] Naming conventions: 4'43"

Following my earlier query about how to name articles about pieces of classical music (the responses to which I'm very grateful for, and still chewing over), I've got another problem in that area: I want to write an article about the John Cage piece 4'33", but it looks like article titles cannot have quotes in them, so 4'33" doesn't work. Is there any way round this? There are alternative names for the piece (it could be spelled out in words, for example), but this form is by far the most common, and I'd like to use it if at all possible. --Camembert 18:22 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

How does 4'43" (coded as [[4 43|4'43"]]) strike you? Ortolan88 18:44 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

Yes, I know I can use a pipe, and if it comes to that, I will (though I'll probably point it to Four Minutes, Thirty-Three Seconds rather than 4 33). But what I was really trying to ask, in a round about way, was: is there any way to use a " in an article title? --Camembert 23:20 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

How about [[4'33'']] as a quick cheat, with two ' for a " -- Tarquin 23:29 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

It might just work that, it might just work. Rather amusingly, however, if you try to surround the link with two 's to italicize it (as those tyrants at the Manual of Style will say you should, hem hem), it breaks the link, and italicizes one set of brackets instead. And I would be a bit worried about people trying to link to the article but not being able to work out that it's two 's rather than one ". But I can use html tags to italicize, and I don't see anybody else round here writing about John Cage, so... --Camembert 00:23 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)

(above from village pump archive) I take it you never made that page, Camembert? Martin
Not yet, but you know, for me a nine month gap between saying I'm going to do something and actually doing it is not unusual ;-) Seriously, I've been thinking about that (potential) article again recently, and if I ever do make it, I think I'm going to go with Tarquin's suggestion of [[4'33]] (with two apostrophes for a double quote). I'll do it, any day now... --Camembert

I don't see the need for all this substitution and fudging. Why not just use 4′ 33″ (which is, after all, the piece's actual name)? --Paul A 15:55 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)

Because the software doesn't recognise those characters. Try clicking on the following link and seeing what it gets turned into: 4′ 33″ --Camembert

[edit] Pomona book

I don't understand the story about the Pomona book. What happened? -- Error 03:45, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Presumably the book Cage saw everyone reading was a set text - Cage read a completely different and randomly chosen book and still passed the class - 'if I can get away with that', he thinks, 'there's something wrong with the way things are run here' (or maybe, 'If they're making everybody read this one book for no reason...'). I suppose that's the point of the story. I'm not sure how this can be clearer in the article, to be honest... --Camembert
That version makes more sense. If it is certain that the book was a text one, it should be mentioned in the article. -- Error
I don't know that it was for sure - I'm just surmising that it must have been. As far as I know, Cage doesn't make it any more explicit than we have it in the article now (though I've only seen Cage's comments on this in fragments, so I don't know for sure). --Camembert
I've found a reputable-looking source that says: "...at exclusive Pomona College... he rebelled against the rigid textbook-based system, revising for exams by reading materials chosen randomly..."
(Warning: large pdf file. The bit I quoted is on page 16.)
—Paul A 11:15, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I can't get to that .pdf for some reason, but I believe you - I'll fiddle with the article a little bit. --Camembert

[edit] Batt lawsuit

Somebody wrote: "In 2002, British songwriter Mike Batt released an album containing a track called A one minute silence. The estate of Cage launched a lawsuit against Batt, claiming it infringed the copyright of the earlier Cage work. The case was settled out of court for a large undisclosed sum."

This ought to be changed, though I personally do not know the matter well enough. Batt was not - not - claimed to have infringed Cage's copyright because of the silence itself, but because he added Cage as a co-composer for it. The track possibly was presented like "A one minute silence (Batt/Cage)" or in similar ways added Cage's name to it, which is a very different deal.

Personally, I'd see it deleted entirely, but if it is to stay, facts should be clearified.


The CNN page here has the same information. LoopZilla 10:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Even if it is an interesting case in respect of the law involved, I still do not think there is any good reasons for keeping it in the article.

  • I agree: I think this is more an issue of intellectual property and copyright laws pertaining to music. --bleh fu talk fu 14:15, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Disagree. It is still relevant to the article, although I'd be happy to see the facts presented in a clearer way as suggested quercus robur 21:52, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I think addressed in the context of the (re)definition of music, the article might present an interesting perspective; it's certainly something that deserves to be elaborated on. --bleh fu talk fu 07:12, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

This copyright issue is less about music than about issues of appropriation (in addition to law). The whole point of appropriation is that one use anothers work and - hopefully - add to it. Batt clearly credited Cage as co-composer (but I am not sure if he added anything to it, rather he reduced it to a question of silence - a minute digital silence has very little to do with a performed 'make no sound'). Hadn't he credited Cage, I doubt there would be a lawsuit - Cutler added silent track(s?) on his release of an AMM album (or maybe AMM did that themselved) - doubtlessly in honour of Cage - and there were no lawsuit there. In my opinion Carthago should be destoyed and the Batt lawsuit taken out of the article.

Seems the text about Batt lawsuit is out, but I'd like to bring up some facts: On the album Classical Graffiti by the Planets, described as an eight piece classical crossover band, a track is named 'A One Minute Silence (After Cage)' credited to Mike Batt. The album seem to contain many tracks similarly named and thus probably are arrangements of Rodrigo, Bach, Debussy, Ravel, Bizet and Cage.

[edit] External links

Can someone please forward the Wikipedia: policy page regarding advertising with external links. I find the links in "Sites inspired by Cage's work" of dubious value to the article, especially the last one. --bleh fu talk fu June 30, 2005 14:13 (UTC)

Yeah, very dubious. I removed the section. SethTisue 04:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Might be worth noting

I'm not calling into question that Cage had Buddhist beliefs, but the idea that he was an American Buddhist might be questionable: "He did not affiliate himself officially with any Buddhist temples or organisations, nor did he sit zazen (the traditional seated form of Zen meditation)...Similarly, in surveying his use of excerpts from Asian sources during the 1940s and 1950s it becomes apparent that Cage's aesthetic was never any more consistently Hindu or Taoist than he himself ever was, that his works composed through "chance operations" are no more authentically "Buddhist"." (From the Cambridge Companion to John Cage, p. 58) --Knucmo2 18:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Cage was fascinated by and strongly influenced by Zen, but wasn't a "Buddhist". I've changed the article in two places to reflect this. --SethTisue 23:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disagreement with page on 4'33"

We have here the following statement about 4'33"

Neither the whole piece nor the duration of the first performance were decided using chance operations.

But on the page 4'33" the opposite is stated (that the durations were chosen using chance). There is nothing in the note of the score I've seen about chance, but Cage states the first performance timings (33", 2'40", and 1'20") that a copy was made (for the work's dedicatee, Irwin Kremen) "in proportional notation" with durations of 30", 2'23", and 1'40". As these both add to 4'33", I'd suggest that chance didn't play a role, but I have no evidence. Anybody help?

JH(emendator) 11:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gay/LGBT

Someone removed the Gay and LGBT categories on the grounds that Cage was married and the article offers no evidence he was gay. I have reinstated the tags. Yes, Cage was married, but only briefly early in his life; this wasn't unusual for gay men at the time. As for not offering evidence for the categorization, the article says right at the top that Merce Cunningham was Cage's lifelong romantic partner. I don't have a reference source handy at the moment for this well known fact. A citation is needed, but there's no need to delete the categories in the meantime. SethTisue 21:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider ten years a "brief" marriage.F.N. Wombat 04:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)F.N. Wombat
Thankfully our subjective impressions regarding the abstract passage of time are not relevant to this article. Hyacinth (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Where's the criticism section? Surely he has enough people who hate him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.254.149 (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it, provided you have legitimate, NPOV material to put in it. --Wolf m corcoran (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I actually found some material for that section (ie. Xenakis', Boulez' views on Cage's work, some Kahn essays, etc.); problem is, I want to finish writing the biography section first, and I have trouble doing that. There's just too much material to deal with, I have a hard time writing about the Cornish school years.. Anyway, just posting this in case anyone wonders if a Criticism section is going to happen: yes, it is, just give us some time. Jashiin (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles on Cage's works

Hello, I've been working on articles on some of Cage's major works in the past couple of days (see the list on my user page). I've got a couple of questions for people interested in this article and the related ones. The first question is about the prepared piano pieces from the 1940s: should each piece have its own article, or should we have some sort of single article for all of them? I'd say that one article would work better, simply because certain works won't have much material about them in the printed sources, or are too small/short to write a decent article about. If this (single article) should be the case, what would be a good name for this article? I can't think of anything.

The second question is concerning the Works of John Cage article. I've already created the List of compositions by John Cage when I found it. The article doesn't look much like a list, is full of statements that are not NPOV, unverifiable or lacking citations, etc. The original contributor who wrote most of the text hasn't edited here for about a year, and no pages link to the article. Should it be deleted, or should the material be supplied with citations (I can't do this), then moved to Sonatas and Interludes? Or perhaps something else should be done? Jashiin 19:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

upd: Also, what do you think about creating an article for Time bracket (or Time brackets?) the technique, and then list the appropriate works there with comments for each? Rather than making articles for One, One2, One3, One4, etc. Same arguments as above.

Oh, and also the "series": Imaginary Landscapes, Variations, Music for Piano, etc. Is it OK if they get a single article each, with lists of and comments on the individual works? Jashiin 19:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, since there were no replies, I'll do as I see fit, ie. create single articles for several works, like Works for prepared piano by John Cage, which I'm currently working on. Jashiin (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4'33

I'm kind of bothered by the amount of information on the piece. There are 7 (seven!) paragraphs dedicated entirely to 4'33', plus two brief ones about the lawsuit and the Swedish band reference. I suggest merging this section into 4′33″. Any objections? Jashiin (talk) 11:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article structure

And another suggestion: to remove some of the descriptions of individual pieces and replace those with a "Style" section. My reasons:

  • many works now have their own articles (see Category:Compositions by John Cage), and there are more to come.
  • the discussion of some of the works doesn't add significantly to the article. For instance, I don't see how the information on Organ² / ASLSP (which has its own article) helps understand Cage's life and/or personality.
  • removing this information (and the long discussion of 4'33', see my post here above) will result in a lot of free space available, and we'll be able to discuss all major techniques Cage used, in detail. The "Style" section would then cover the following (in chronological order):
    • rhythmic proportions and the subsequent nested proportions technique
    • gamut technique and the use of "magic square"-type charts
    • chance operations using the I Ching
    • improvisations (Child of Tree, Branches, Inlets)
    • time bracket technique

We'd be able to give examples (from the scores) for each technique, too. Alternatively, we could incorporate all this information into the biographical data, the way it is done now (although right now most of these are only covered briefly, if at all) and the way it is done in NG; I just feel that perhaps it sort of distracts the reader from the biography. Any opinions and/or suggestions welcome. Jashiin (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Jashiin, thank you. You are making big improvements, and I think your approach is sensible. I agree with your comment above that there is too much info about 4'33" (although it was seminal, it does have its own article). I think your idea of having articles about groups of compositions is logical (at least until we get so many contributions that those articles get too big and need splitting…). I also agree with your moving content out of this article so that it can discuss his "style" more generally rather than concentrating too much on individual works. Composer articles I think work well with a "biography" followed by a more technical discussion of the music (although, obviously, the composer's creation of the music forms a significant part of their biography). Best regards, RobertG ♬ talk 17:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! I was starting to think that I'm completely alone at this :) I'll be doing what I planned, then, starting with changing things on this page. Jashiin 09:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This looks good, and I agree, mostly. John Cage should be primarily about the composer and his style. I also see the logic in merging Cages “series” pieces into single articles. I think we should make an exception in the case of those pieces which are notable in their own right however. For instance we have a series article Imaginary Landscape which can (and should) be expanded to include a paragraph or so about each of the five works. We can then have an imbedded link directing readers to separate articles covering
Imaginary Landscape No. 4 (nearly as notable as 4’33’’) and maybe Imaginary Landscape No. 1 (since it was one of the first electro-acoustic pieces).
All in all, I think this approach gives the best balance between overview and detail, and allows the possible inclusion of more musical examples or photographs. See String Quartets Nos. 1 - 6, Opus 18 (Beethoven) for an example of sort of what I’m thinking of. If many works in a series are notable it would also be nice to hold them together with a template. What do you think? __S.dedalus (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, actually, you're right – I sort of went overboard with this, after completing Music for Piano (Cage) I just forgot that maybe some works might require a separate article :) As for the template, I'm not sure - I don't think there are any series that contain notable works only. A template would be nice for articles on Cage's books, though (Silence: Lectures and Writings, Empty Words, etc. - because these don't link to each other and don't constitute a series which could have a separate page. Jashiin (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Done: Template:Cage books. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A note on the addition of van Emmerik's dissertation to "further reading"

The work is in Dutch, but I think it should be listed regardless: it includes the standard catalogue of Cage's works, and was used extensively by the John Cage Database, Solomon, and others. Jashiin 15:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The lead

I'd like to discuss the latest edit by an anonymous IP. The person who made the edit wrote that "such opinions are almost never universal", but in my opinion "influence" is something that can be measured, and this particular sentence concentrates on influence only, not significance or worth (sic!). So I'd say the "in the opinion of many" comment is not needed here. But I'm not sure; I'd like to hear other people's opinions. --Jashiin (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The qualification is not necessary. SethTisue (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Word for music using everyday household objects?

I believe there is a specific word given to music made using everyday household objects & appliances and/or the people who make such music. Does anyone know what that word is? --202.180.127.126 (talk) 11:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)