Via Maestro Quick, a post from Kyle Gann on a very pomo quote from John Cage.
now saw harmony, for which I had never had any natural feeling, as a device to make music impressive, loud and big, in order to enlarge audiences and increase box-office returns. It had been avoided by the Orient, and our earlier Christian society, since they were interested in music not as an aid in the acquisition of money and fame but rather as a handmaiden to pleasure and religion. (“A Composer’s Confessions,” 1948)
Quoth Gann:I’ve never read anything else of his that left such a bad taste in my mouth.
I can’t say the same, for the simple reason that I’ve never read anything by Cage. I suppose there must be something good to say about a composer who wrote a piece for piano which even the most novice of novice musicians can perform with complete mastery (4′33″), but I don’t know what it is. But that paragraph of Cage’s prompts a few questions:
1) if Cage didn’t “have an ear” for harmony, why did he ever want to write music in the first place? Harmony is inescapable in music, even if the system used is not the classic European system of major and minor scales, triads and progressions. Any two notes, whether played in sequence or simultaneously, imply some sort of harmony, just as they also imply some sort of rhythm. If you don’t like harmony, why bother with music?
2) Does Cage really believe that musicians from the Orient, and from medieval Europe, didn’t try to get money and fame from their musical efforts?
3) And if he was so pure souled as to want only pleasure and not money or fame from his own musical efforts, then why did he ever accept the money and fame that did come his way?
Now, if you will excuse me, I’m going to play some music that Cage thinks is loud and big because it has harmony. BWV 846 et seq.
Tags: John Cage, post modernism in music
August 13, 2008 at 12:17 pm |
1.) Having no ear for harmony doesn’t mean you can’t write music; it just means there is one major parameter that you won’t excel at, so you’ll have to work the other parameters harder. It’s being “differently abled”, compositionally. Is that equivalent to “handicapped”? Absolutely. But just as in physical handicaps, it’s not a comment on whether the individual life/musical output has value. IIRC, it was Schoenberg who first told Cage he had no feeling for harmony (and no, that’s not the pot calling the kettle black).
2.)Consider how many sources of medieval music are unattributed. It’s not that there was no ego involved, but that the composer didn’t rate any higher than the guy who carved the altar.
3). Now that’s a legitimate question!
August 15, 2008 at 1:23 am |
Bwahahahaaa….I enjoy your take on Cage. Now, I’m going to go “prepare” my piano by throwing some tacks on the soundboard and relish the purity of soul that is Cage.
Snarkily yours,
Harper