Scholarly discussion of the music of John Cage.

[Philip Thomas <>]

Yes, I'm not sure about the rhythmic structure in the Haiku. At fleeting 
glance I can't see how it matches the rhythmic structure given (that of Music 
of Changes) so it may be that the instructions from the earlier piece were 
simply copied wholesale into the later piece. Does anyone know?

I'm not quite sure what you mean about the structure of the later haiku - I 
think it may be that the bar lines are rather more obscured because of the 
density of material,, but I THINK I can still see them on my score, 
continuing the 2.5, 3.5, 2.5 structure.

My take on the notation is that the durations don't fit any traditional 
metric system and in many ways are just as good read 'graphically'. The first 
note of the first Haiku falls slightly after the mid point between the second 
and third 'beat' and the fractions (triplet eighth note + 16th note) match 
this, but if notated more 'rhythmically' one would think of it as falling 
within a metric scheme, which would alter the perception of the articulation. 
I like to think of every note as being a 'down-beat' so try not to think of 
notes 'bouncing off' beats, etc..So it's not a case of the rhythm being 
'inaudible' as there's no rhythm! Instead there's durations, durations of 
silence and durations of sounds.

Best wishes
Philip

(Incidentally, any UK-based subscribers to the list might be interested to 
come along to the Queen Elizabeth Hall, London, on 13th September for a 
concert of Cage's music given by Apartment House, including 'Radio Music', 
the 'Concert for piano and orchestra', 'Music for...', the String Quartet and 
more besides 
http://ticketing.southbankcentre.co.uk/find/music/classical/tickets/john-cage-night-57041)



-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ovens 
[mailto:]
Sent: 26 August 2011 15:24
To: Philip Thomas
Cc: 
''
Subject: [silence] Re: RE: Score Size (7 Haiku, Music of Changes)

Hi Philip, hi all

thanks for the prompt reply. Strange, the bars in my (newly bought)
Music of Changes are 7.8 length. I found this information: "[The]
available Peters edition unwisely reduces Cage's original to 85%
(presumably the original sheets were 12 1/2 x 9 1/2 in.). Instead of
10cm 4/4 measures, the two-measure systems actually span 17cm."
(http://www.lafolia.com/archive/covell/covell200604cage1951.html)

For the Haiku the score makes sense - only that it is terrible to read.
It is beautyful but more people could and would play them if there would
be a more legible score. What I do not understand are the remarks. They
are copied from the "Music of Changes", and just added here, right?  The
rhythmic structure 3 - 5 - 6 3/4 - ... you find in the "Changes", but
not in the Haiku I suppose. And the remark about the duration in space
(2.1/2 cm is a quarter note) also makes no sense here, shoul be 1/2 Inch
= quarter note. I think Peters should add an explaining forward. It is
nice to solve riddles, but sometimes I would like to spend more time on
playing and less on solving riddles.

Do you, or does anyone know why the first four Haiku have the 2.5 - 3.5
- 2.5 structure (evoking the Haiku) but the succeeding only are divided
to two parts (2.5 - 6)?

May I ask for any opinions on the realisation of the fractions, Cage
writes over or under many notes or rests, for example in the first Haiku
he writes under the first eigth-note rest 1/3. I suppose this means that
it is as long as a triplet-eigth-note rest. After this comes a "normal"
sixteenth-note rest, followed by quarter note c tied to another quarter
note c. Over this he writes 2/3, so this tied c is as long as two
triplet-note eigths. And then again tied another c, which is a four
dotted half-note. Could one say that the lenght of this tied notes
(quarter+two triplet eight-notes+four dotted half-note) is a sort of
non-real rhythm? On one hand I have to hold the first quarter note much
longer than one quarter note (according to the space notation). On the
other hand the rhythm is inaudible because of the tiing of the notes.

So we can concentrate on counting as attentive as possible or we just
follow the spatial notation - also as attentive as possible. Two ways
which should be correct, one terrible difficult, the other surprisingly
simple. Such is life?

Tim

Am 26.08.11 14:10, schrieb Philip Thomas:
> Hi Tim
>
> My copy of Seven Haiku, from which I play, marks a unit of 1/2 inch to be 
> equal to MM 60. This is borne out, so that bars are of lengths 2.5 inches, 
> 3.5 inches and 2.5 inches (i.e. units of 5, 7, 5, to match haiku). As you 
> say, however, it does make reading the score very difficult and parts are 
> indecipherable.
>
> However my copy of Music of Changes does not match Cage's measurements. 
> Cage writes that quarter note = 2.5 cm and notates the score in bars of 4 
> units. However each of my bars is 8.6 cm length, again making the notation 
> rather small and difficult to read in the most dense passages.
>
> Thus my understanding is that 7 haiku is (frustratingly) correct but Music 
> of Changes is a reduction in print size.
> Best wishes
> Philip
>
>
> _____________________
>
> www.philip-thomas.co.uk
> Dr. Philip Thomas
> Senior Lecturer, Music Department
> University of Huddersfield
> Queensgate, Huddersfield HD1 3DH
> Tel: 01484 471336
> www.hud.ac.uk/mhm/mmt
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ovens 
> [mailto:]
> Sent: 26 August 2011 12:59
> To: 
> 
> Subject: [silence] Score Size (7 Haiku, Music of Changes)
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> for long time I have been out of this list. Can anyone tell me how the 
> search
> in the archive is working now? For example I could not find any entry for 
> the
> words Haiku or Changes, but I am sure there are any.
>
> Are there any old editions with Seven Haiku or Music of Changes? I did 
> contact
> Gene Caprioglio from Peters in New York, but he wrote:
> "8.5 by 11 inches IS the size intended by Cage.   Is your copy 8.5x11?  The
> height of the staff should be a tiny bit over 1/8 inch.  If it is, than 
> carry
> on, you have the correct music.   If there are larger copies extant, they 
> are
> wrong.   They should be ignored.   They were not produced by C.F. Peters
> Corporation."
>
> But in this size Cages remarks on the space and time make no sense. Besides
> this Haiku score is in parts not legible (e.g. no. 5), because the 
> handwriting
> is smeared over by the diminuishing. How do you handle with this?
>
> Best,
> Tim
>
>
> ---
> This transmission is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you 
> receive it in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and remove it 
> from your system. If the content of this e-mail does not relate to the 
> business of the University of Huddersfield, then we do not endorse it and 
> will accept no liability.
>


---
This transmission is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you 
receive it in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and remove it 
from your system. If the content of this e-mail does not relate to the 
business of the University of Huddersfield, then we do not endorse it and 
will accept no liability.