5 Responses

  1. Neal Kosaly-Meyer 17 September 2018 at 9:41 am | | Reply

    Very thought-provoking. The connection to the “Frankenstein”characterization of the Music of Changes makes a lot of sense, and I think I had read that he had a similar reservation about Williams Mix. I’ve been thinking recently about how Music for Piano, the project which is taken up shortly after, is so massive: Cage stuck with that mode of composition (imperfections in the manuscript paper) for such a long time compared with others he used at other times. Your essay implicitly connects some of the dots here–perhaps Cage viewed all of those early chance pieces as Frankenstein monsters to some extent, and on the other hand felt like the Music for Piano compositional method was a more organic, human, non-Frankensteinian breakthrough. I feel an intuitive kinship between the revised scores for 4’33” and Music for Piano, especially the one he gave to Kremen. The “Tacet” version feels connected to Fluxus scores by virtue of its being a text piece, and now that I think of it definitely points towards 0’00”. Thanks for stimulating so much thought!

  2. Anonymous 1 August 2020 at 3:54 pm | | Reply

    Thanks for this wonderful piece of writing.

    It strikes me that the three notations actually reflect three different understandings of time structure.
    The first is metrical, the second is “time observed” through a stop watch, the third is ‘no time’. So the metrical understanding of time structure used to compose the piece vanishes with the second notation and the performer disappears with the third. And that whole trajectory has been largely invisible in its reception until the publication of A Composer’s Confession.

    This might explain the slightly testy tone of Tudor’s account describing the origins of the piece in an interview (from an anthology of interviews by a British journalist whose name I cannot recall.)

  3. Ron Kuivila 1 August 2020 at 3:56 pm | | Reply

    whoops, didn’t sign in

Leave a Reply