Posted by Rick Denney on January 21, 2004 at 22:27:51:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Tubas and Test-tubes posted by Leland on January 20, 2004 at 21:42:28:
There was another "artist" who copied the 4:33 idea using a different amount of time, and the heirs of Cage are suing him (no joke). We can't ask Cage if he was taking himself too seriously, but I think we have our answer concerning his heirs.
On the other hand, I know musicians of undeniable ability and artistry who see the musical value in Cage's works. They think I'm narrow because I don't see it. So be it.
But it's not Dadaism. It's not purposefully silly. It is, however, intended to give chance a predominant role in musical performance, corresponding to the perceived role of chance in everyday life. Jackson Pollack was of the same school. Random processes were thought to be as valid a basis for music as traditional musical sounds. In that, it was as much a philosophical as artistic statement, and a rebellion against the notion that organization has more value than randomness. Those who don't like it reject it for one or both of two reasons: 1.) On musical grounds, because they expect and desire music to be the product of purposeful direction rather than stochastic noise, or 2.) on philosophical grounds, because they don't believe in the primacy of chance.
Rick "who admits to both positions" Denney