The Put On of the Century, or the Cage Centenary

[some guy]

And I, for my part, am still waiting for an argument. Sure, there's been a lot of quarreling, and there's been the usual portion of unsupported assertions (which are great for quarreling), but an argument. Not so much.

Anyway, I do think it matters what you listen to. What you don't listen to maybe not so much. But what you do listen to? Yeah that's important. (If I stopped here, that would be an unsupported assertion. I'd fit right in!) What you listen to is what engages you, or what you are able to engage with. That's at least information, information that can be used by another listener. What one doesn't listen to, however, is just a blank. Or at best rejection. A lot of people think that these negative things are also important. I disagree.

[Parsifal]

People like Daniel Asia and John Adams, I think protest too much.

What confuses me is that anyone is particularly interested in what composers say about music.  They strike me as a self-obsessed, narcissistic lot, by and large.

[Florestan]

What confuses me is that anyone is particularly interested in what composers say about music. They strike me as a self-obsessed, narcissistic lot, by and large.

Should we then dismiss all that Karl said about music? 

Jokes aside, this is like saying that nobody should be interested in what writers say about literature, painters about painting or philosophers about philosophy. Implying that these people are just automata with no meaningful insights about their trade --- an absurd claim.

[Parsifal]

Jokes aside, this is like saying that nobody should be interested in what writers say about literature, painters about painting or philosophers about philosophy. Implying that these people are just automata with no meaningful insights about their trade --- an absurd claim.

I did not say anything about what anyone else  should be interested in.  However, I am equally uninterested in what painters say about painting, writers say about literature, etc.  Artists will sometimes say things about their own work which I find interesting if it gives some insight into a particular work, but I am completely uninterested in what artists say about the work of other artists or their art-form in general.  I wouldn't claim that are automata, just that they tend to be self-obsessed and the opinions not particularly interesting to me.  Should I care the Tchaikovski ridiculted Brahms, who ridiculed just about everyone who was born after Beethoven?  I don't.

[Karl Henning]

"You have heard it said" that Cage does not create masterpieces.  But I'm not sure Cage was even interested in creating masterpieces.  The greatness of 4'33" is not in how complex or dramatic or moving it is in itself, but in how it gets the audience to listen in a different way than it would to (for example) Beethoven or even John Adams.  It is not, nor was ever intended to be, "a masterpiece;" rather, like the few other Cage pieces I've actually heard, it is something for the moment.

And that is a valid approach to music, the most evanescent of the fine arts (with drama).  It's very like the art of improvisation: not to create music that will "stand the test of time," but to create a set of conditions to enable musicians to play the right notes in the right way for the moment.  As a local Denver poet asks, "What shall we do with this moment we are in?"

I might add that this is the approach that conductor Sergiu Celibidache took.  He never took his orchestras into a recording studio; his entire career was built on live performances, where it is not "posterity" or "history" that judges a performance, but rather a particular group of people in a particular section of space-time. -- Actually, this is the approach every great musician takes, even literalists like Lorin Maazel or Pierre Boulez.  No matter how "great" the written music is or how stringent the rehearsals have been, every performance is only the best it can be for the moment the players, singers and audience are in.

John Cage, more than almost any other composer, "composed" his "music" not for "history and posterity," but rather to allow singular moments of greatness, different every time musicians and an audience come together.  That is his legacy.  And that is why he will be remembered, if he is remembered--and I for one hope he will be remembered.

I listen to Cage more than John Adams; which is not hard since I don't listen to Adams anymore.  After listening to several of his works I realized his music did not interest me.  John Cage's music does interest me.

And no argument will change these facts.  Not that it matters what I listen to or don't listen to ...

I agree with both these sage posts.

[Karl Henning]

Should we then dismiss all that Karl said about music? 

Well, maybe you should, though I hope I am no narcissist.

[some guy]

they tend to be self-obsessed

Might be worth considering to try to jettison this notion. I've met hundreds of composers. Very few of them were self-obsessed. If I've noticed any tendency, it's that "they" (those people!) tend to be very nice and generous and interesting.

[North Star]

Might be worth considering to try to jettison this notion. I've met hundreds of composers. Very few of them were self-obsessed. If I've noticed any tendency, it's that "they" (those people!) tend to be very nice and generous and interesting.

True, but OTOH composers have their own artistic goals, and those might influence their views and writings. And I don't care too much about people's dislikes. What they like interests me. (You said sth similar earlier, IIRC)

[dyn]

Most of the composers i've met have been quite nice and friendly (I hope I am, too); they do however tend to have rather idiosyncratic views about music which in light of history often come across as misjudgments. Famously, Tchaikovsky disliked Brahms, Chopin thought Beethoven mediocre and Mick Jagger called rock 'n' roll a dead end. John Adams claiming Cage to be irrelevant is merely following a time-honoured tradition.

(Composers also tend to become more narcissistic and self-obsessed with fame. I mean, look at Wagner. Or Michael Jackson.)

[Parsifal]

Might be worth considering to try to jettison this notion. I've met hundreds of composers. Very few of them were self-obsessed. If I've noticed any tendency, it's that "they" (those people!) tend to be very nice and generous and interesting.

The question is not in whether the composers I listen to are nice or would be pleasant to chat with at a cocktail party.  The question is whether I should be interested if composer X criticizes composers Y's music.  The answer is, I am not.  When composer X criticizes composer Y I assume that composer X is jealous that composer Y's music gets played where composer X's music doesn't.  Perhaps there are even-tempered, quite reasonable composers who express well-judged opinions about music by other composers.  Does that sound like the biography of any composer we read about in the history books?  I am quite sure I do not want to hear the music written by such composers!

[Sergeant Rock]

Perhaps there are even-tempered, quite reasonable composers who express well-judged opinions about music by other composers.  Does that sound like the biography of any composer we read about in the history books?  I am quite sure I do not want to hear the music written by such composers!

Havergal Brian wrote tons of laudatory reviews and articles on composers. These two books of his writings are over 800 pages long.



He didn't seem to have a jealous bone in his body; he promoted his contemporaries in a way he never promoted his own works. But maybe this proves your point    But I hope not. His music is worth hearing.

Sarge

[Karl Henning]

... When composer X criticizes composer Y I assume that composer X is jealous that composer Y's music gets played where composer X's music doesn't.

The error, of course, is in going from this appears to be the case at times to, this must always be the case.

[jochanaan]

Well, maybe you should, though I hope I am no narcissist.

You have never impressed me as such, my friend.

[Parsifal]

This has become more controversial than I intended.  I do not mean to assert that all composers have personality disorders and are intrinsically unable to discuss music other than their own.  I am just saying that I don't find that the fact that they are composers makes them any more likely to have an opinion that I find interesting or useful.  As I mentioned above (and others expressed a similar opinion) a truly great composer probably has a strong artistic vision and may have a skewed view of the works of others.

As far as Brian is concerned, he made his living as a music reviewer, no?  I'm sure he had to write nice reviews to earn his bread.  But again, I feel no temptation to read them.

[Florestan]

Well, maybe you should, though I hope I am no narcissist.

Nope on both accounts. 

[Karl Henning]

Thank you for your kind words, gents.

[Karl Henning]

Might be worth considering to try to jettison this notion. I've met hundreds of composers. Very few of them were self-obsessed. If I've noticed any tendency, it's that "they" (those people!) tend to be very nice and generous and interesting.

Your response does have me wondering, just how many composers our Scarps has met, so that we understand the sampling upon which his conclusions are founded . . . .

[Karl Henning]

Composers (also performers), and like any large group of people, will contain all kinds of people.  And I am sure that there are some whose motives are not pure when they criticize one of their colleagues.  However, I think generally composers can offer insights about the craft of composition that non-professional listeners will not. 

This is why the articles by Daniel Asia are troublesome for me.  What I get from his comments about Cage (and also Carter) is a sincere difficulty understanding music for which he has no natural inclination. It is music which runs counter to his instincts and values and as a composer and he cannot help but express exasperation.

What is lacking, however, and what I feel is what the backlash is premised upon, is his lack of consideration that the deficiency in within himself and not the music.

Precisamente.

[Parsifal]

Your response does have me wondering, just how many composers our Scarps has met, so that we understand the sampling upon which his conclusions are founded . . . .

None that I know of.  I was referring to composers of note whose comments I have encountered (Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Liszt, Weber, etc).

[jochanaan]

Yes big name composers are experts in the field.

And even "big name...experts" can have blind spots.

... there are composers like Boulez, Carter and many others who have judged Cage negatively as well...

I wonder just how "negative" those judgments are, when taken in context.  And I submit that Boulez and Carter may not be the best judges of Cage's musical happenings, because both composers, as great as they are, tend to "micro-manage" their music.  Boulez, in particular, is an advocate of "total serialism" in which every aspect of the composition is strictly ordered--exactly the opposite of Cage's approach.