Interesting that both Cage and Babbitt were concerned with allowing the form of each work to be generated by the material itself, though by drastically different interpretations. Both both men were painstaking and mathematical in their formal constructions. Cage's method is also so elaborate and mathematical to invite further comparison to Babbitt. Cage discussing formal structures expressed on several levels made me think of Schenker's method in a new dimension of time.
And although a large portion of Cage's significance is the complete departure from European models, Cage seems to be also positioning himself as continuing the tradition of musical progress with his use of the term Klangfarbenmelodie in reference to the Sonatas and Interludes. But after acknowledging the importance of tone color in that work, he proceeds to admit general disinterest in that dimension. This makes sense because while the Sonatas and Interludes are largely dependent on color, several other works can be performed by flexible instrumentation.
A conservative part of me is offended at Cage's use of the term "composition" to describe a product of chance operations. A composer should only take credit for genius when he carefully selected and constructed each element of the music according to his plan and and intuition. A work is not a product of one's genuine emotional spirit if it is created by decisions of chance. But Cage obviously expended a great deal of time and care in planning the conditions governing chance operations-- does this count?
I am not sure how I feel about Cage's story about the man on top of the hill. I see that the three men walking had tried to overrationalize the situation, while the man atop the hill just stands. Cage seems less interested in the why or how than just enjoying the present.
The Lecture on Nothing is interesting to read because it does explain his music. Cage eschews the Western musical aesthetic which strives for large-scale directional form headed to one point of harmonic or emotional release. Instead, Cage seems more interested in an Eastern aesthetic of cyclical repetition and the idea of music as continuous. This would be a reflection of Cage's interest in Eastern cultures.
I am crazy for Cage's Sonatas and Interludes. The tight structure, rhythmic cohesion, and coloristic writing is very appealing to me. They are diverse, subtle, and very beautiful. While I enjoy our library's performance by Maro Ajemian, I am especially taken by Boris Berman's recording:
This music immediately speaks to me as relevant, well-crafted, and original. It didn't take any explanation for me to understand what Cage is trying to do here.
Unfortunately, I am just less interested in the other works. I don't understand Music of Changes and it does not appeal to me yet on an artistic level.
Cage's aesthetic ideals do speak to me: the rejection of tradition and value judgements. Cage seems a model by trying to understand that which he did not like. And Gann notes that Cage tried to create situations that frustrate our traditional attempts to "get" something from art. But if we aren't "getting" anything from art, why is it there? Why is he constantly searching for rationality? Is this an expression of the post-war search for meaning? Ultimately, Cage's music leaves me perplexed and reflecting, something I can not say of all other music. While others seek only to affirm, Cage asks provocative questions.
Regarding Feldman, I think his music is colorful and it definitely teaches me to be more patient. "I don't push the sounds around." (!!!) He sure does not. Ultimately though, his works also don't speak to me emotionally.
No comments:
Post a Comment