4 ms·

Is it wrong to explore the boundaries of the art form for reasons other than enjoyment? Formal experimentation is powerful and gives ideas to later composers. B

Is it wrong to explore the boundaries of the art form for reasons other than enjoyment? Formal experimentation is powerful and gives ideas to later composers. By constraining oneself to the goal of enjoyable performance, one can't be as free to experiment formally.

ogogmad 5y ago
plausible but [citation needed]
JasonFruit 5y ago
Wrong? I don't see it as a moral issue. I see it as an abandonment of music, but not a moral wrong. I think there's a value distinction to be drawn between boundary explorations that expand the art form and those that simply depart from any definition of it separate from the other arts. That leaves a broad scope for innovation: the composers of the ars subtilior, Carlo Gesualdo, Hector Berlioz, Debussy and Satie, Harry Partch, Antheil and Edgard Varese, and the progression of serialism from Schoenberg through Webern to Boulez — all of them explored and expanded the boundaries of music, but you can still experience their works as music, even if some have argued that it's bad music. It all can be, and has been, accepted as music. But some of Cage's works (of those which he presented as musical) depart from musical material and musical experience to play with the nonmusical culture that surrounds music and musicians, or, abandoning that, the idea of performance itself. Obviously 4'33", with its formalities of opening and closing a piano, is an example of the former, but his lesser-known 0'00" runs simply, "In a situation provided with maximum amplification, perform a disciplined action." In that case, the performer is as justified in a disciplined soiling of their pants as any musical act. I refuse to countenance such wanking. (Cage was by no means alone in this, but he's probably the most famous.) I'm glad to see that even academic composers seem to have retreated from this dissolution.
- fipar 5y ago
  I enjoy reading Cage a lot more than listening to his music (for that matter, he was fine with not being called a musician if people deemed his work not worthy of that, I can’t recall exactly but I believe sound architect is the alternative job description he proposed). I don’t relate to most of his music but I do think he was on an honest quest for something. In fact, I think it could even be fair to say he was a philosopher using sound as his medium, instead of a musician.
  - JasonFruit 5y ago
    I agree with everything you wrote there.
- klelatti 5y ago
  4’33” isn’t about about non musical culture although some have mistakenly construed it as such. Cage made it absolutely clear what it was about in his comments about the piece.
  - JasonFruit 5y ago
    I could have worded that better: to make its point about sounds and, if you please, music, it depends on nonmusical cultural expectations that surround musical performance. Its adherence to the outward trappings of musical performance in the 20th century prompt the audience to perceive what occurs during it as part of a "performance". Apart from that, there's nothing more musical about it than sitting alone in a meadow — which I think was essentially Cage's point. That I find myself using the word "point" so often here emphasizes, to me, that Cage was engaging in philosophy rather than musical composition.
    - klelatti 5y ago
      Your last sentence is very interesting and probably captures our different perspectives. I see Cage’s work as pointing towards an experience that I might enjoy and be enriched by in practice (not always but then I don’t always enjoy performances of my favourite works) and the concept is part but only a part of that. Messiaen found sitting in a meadow quite a musical experience!
      - JasonFruit 5y ago
        That's why I chose the sitting in a meadow comparison: it's an experience you could also choose to interpret as musical even though it is not organized sound. An aside: I think an awareness of and exposure to the sounds of nature is beneficial to a composer, even if I don't think it's intrinsically musical.
swayvil 5y ago
Well you're trading music for a story about music. It's a matter of taste, of course.

ogogmad 5y ago

plausible but [citation needed]

JasonFruit 5y ago

Wrong? I don't see it as a moral issue. I see it as an abandonment of music, but not a moral wrong. I think there's a value distinction to be drawn between boundary explorations that expand the art form and those that simply depart from any definition of it separate from the other arts. That leaves a broad scope for innovation: the composers of the ars subtilior, Carlo Gesualdo, Hector Berlioz, Debussy and Satie, Harry Partch, Antheil and Edgard Varese, and the progression of serialism from Schoenberg through Webern to Boulez — all of them explored and expanded the boundaries of music, but you can still experience their works as music, even if some have argued that it's bad music. It all can be, and has been, accepted as music. But some of Cage's works (of those which he presented as musical) depart from musical material and musical experience to play with the nonmusical culture that surrounds music and musicians, or, abandoning that, the idea of performance itself. Obviously 4'33", with its formalities of opening and closing a piano, is an example of the former, but his lesser-known 0'00" runs simply, "In a situation provided with maximum amplification, perform a disciplined action." In that case, the performer is as justified in a disciplined soiling of their pants as any musical act. I refuse to countenance such wanking. (Cage was by no means alone in this, but he's probably the most famous.) I'm glad to see that even academic composers seem to have retreated from this dissolution.

fipar 5y ago
I enjoy reading Cage a lot more than listening to his music (for that matter, he was fine with not being called a musician if people deemed his work not worthy of that, I can’t recall exactly but I believe sound architect is the alternative job description he proposed). I don’t relate to most of his music but I do think he was on an honest quest for something. In fact, I think it could even be fair to say he was a philosopher using sound as his medium, instead of a musician.
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  I agree with everything you wrote there.
klelatti 5y ago
4’33” isn’t about about non musical culture although some have mistakenly construed it as such. Cage made it absolutely clear what it was about in his comments about the piece.
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  I could have worded that better: to make its point about sounds and, if you please, music, it depends on nonmusical cultural expectations that surround musical performance. Its adherence to the outward trappings of musical performance in the 20th century prompt the audience to perceive what occurs during it as part of a "performance". Apart from that, there's nothing more musical about it than sitting alone in a meadow — which I think was essentially Cage's point. That I find myself using the word "point" so often here emphasizes, to me, that Cage was engaging in philosophy rather than musical composition.
  - klelatti 5y ago
    Your last sentence is very interesting and probably captures our different perspectives. I see Cage’s work as pointing towards an experience that I might enjoy and be enriched by in practice (not always but then I don’t always enjoy performances of my favourite works) and the concept is part but only a part of that. Messiaen found sitting in a meadow quite a musical experience!
    - JasonFruit 5y ago
      That's why I chose the sitting in a meadow comparison: it's an experience you could also choose to interpret as musical even though it is not organized sound. An aside: I think an awareness of and exposure to the sounds of nature is beneficial to a composer, even if I don't think it's intrinsically musical.

swayvil 5y ago

Well you're trading music for a story about music. It's a matter of taste, of course.