I haven't seen any Cunningham so I can't comment on Doug's observation, The
point is that Cage does "do" a lot to construct his pieces but once "done"
he simply doesn't fuss over them and 'lets things be as they are' (He is not
in the business of "sterilisation of music" al la YES or some other such
band who spend years perfecting (ruining) their music (sic)).
Still, "doing" even for Cage still logically proceeds "letting", since
without it there would be nothing to "let".
'm' said:
>I think these are both inaccurate. Rather, I would say that for Cage,
>the doing has to be such that it is, at every juncture, a form of letting.
>In other words, "letting" is a micropolitical concept which has to infuse
>doing at its most molecular levels. Hence, for example, the infusion of
>chance operations into every step of the compositional process.
But chance/contingency always play a role and can never be factored out. But
interpreted literally, 'letting things be what they are' implies not chance
but doing nothing. Cage on the other hand "makes" music, he does not simply
contemplate music (which of course would still be a form of doing).
Whatever, Cage in his "doing" blatantly disrupts 'things as they are' and
makes a difference in the world, even if he can't control everything (nor
would he want to).
As 'm' puts it:
>A typical Cage composition is, for example, the one
>(I forget the title) where he derived the placements of the notes from
>the knots and imperfections of the paper he was writing on.
"Doing"
>A typical Cage composition is, for example, the one
>(I forget the title) where he derived the placements of the notes from
>the knots and imperfections of the paper he was writing on. Now, this is
>hardly a "free form of composition" in the sense in which you are implying.
>
Nah nah, I'm unsure how much you know about the music-making-recording
process, but Cage's music differs radically form say that of Eno who really
is disciplined. The process you describe Cage using is a well known
technique and merely displaces traditional forms of tonality. Cage uses this
technique to produce weird and wonderful (sometimes awful) marriages of
differing modal scales which may not have arisen if you accept a more
classical approach to composition which imposes rules in advance (V, II, I
chord structures in Jazz, for example) (Bowie does a similar thing with his
cut and paste approach to lyrics).
>I think that the element of actively "letting things be what they are"
>is inherent, in some way, in most forms of anti-oppression,
>anti-authoritarian politics -- in the sense that what motivates these
>politics is a striving to allow people and things to flourish according
>to their desire, or their true nature, etc.
Cute, this was not a reply that I had expected. A point of agreement perhaps
surfaces in the "true nature" bit, but it does raise serious questions does
it not?
> It is not really a _form_
>of politics; perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it is an
>attitude, an impulse, an I-dont-know-what.
But, I would say that this is exactly what does make it a form of politics
(unless you are trying to divorce your thinking from your politics of course).
Thanks,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------
point is that Cage does "do" a lot to construct his pieces but once "done"
he simply doesn't fuss over them and 'lets things be as they are' (He is not
in the business of "sterilisation of music" al la YES or some other such
band who spend years perfecting (ruining) their music (sic)).
Still, "doing" even for Cage still logically proceeds "letting", since
without it there would be nothing to "let".
'm' said:
>I think these are both inaccurate. Rather, I would say that for Cage,
>the doing has to be such that it is, at every juncture, a form of letting.
>In other words, "letting" is a micropolitical concept which has to infuse
>doing at its most molecular levels. Hence, for example, the infusion of
>chance operations into every step of the compositional process.
But chance/contingency always play a role and can never be factored out. But
interpreted literally, 'letting things be what they are' implies not chance
but doing nothing. Cage on the other hand "makes" music, he does not simply
contemplate music (which of course would still be a form of doing).
Whatever, Cage in his "doing" blatantly disrupts 'things as they are' and
makes a difference in the world, even if he can't control everything (nor
would he want to).
As 'm' puts it:
>A typical Cage composition is, for example, the one
>(I forget the title) where he derived the placements of the notes from
>the knots and imperfections of the paper he was writing on.
"Doing"
>A typical Cage composition is, for example, the one
>(I forget the title) where he derived the placements of the notes from
>the knots and imperfections of the paper he was writing on. Now, this is
>hardly a "free form of composition" in the sense in which you are implying.
>
Nah nah, I'm unsure how much you know about the music-making-recording
process, but Cage's music differs radically form say that of Eno who really
is disciplined. The process you describe Cage using is a well known
technique and merely displaces traditional forms of tonality. Cage uses this
technique to produce weird and wonderful (sometimes awful) marriages of
differing modal scales which may not have arisen if you accept a more
classical approach to composition which imposes rules in advance (V, II, I
chord structures in Jazz, for example) (Bowie does a similar thing with his
cut and paste approach to lyrics).
>I think that the element of actively "letting things be what they are"
>is inherent, in some way, in most forms of anti-oppression,
>anti-authoritarian politics -- in the sense that what motivates these
>politics is a striving to allow people and things to flourish according
>to their desire, or their true nature, etc.
Cute, this was not a reply that I had expected. A point of agreement perhaps
surfaces in the "true nature" bit, but it does raise serious questions does
it not?
> It is not really a _form_
>of politics; perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it is an
>attitude, an impulse, an I-dont-know-what.
But, I would say that this is exactly what does make it a form of politics
(unless you are trying to divorce your thinking from your politics of course).
Thanks,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------