Scholarly discussion of the music of John Cage.

[Philip Thomas <>]

Ah, I've always thought the fractions were symbolic of their proportion to a 
whole note. So that eighth note rest is a triplet eighth note, not a triplet 
sixteenth note. This would make sense in relation to its placing on the page. 
This is a notation used by other composers, Michael Finnissy being one 
notable example, and also Christian Wolff in pieces at around the same time 
as the Haiku.

What I really find fascinating in terms of the rhythm vs duration debate is 
that the experience of the performer is so utterly different from that of the 
listener. The pianist is  feeling these accelerandos and counting/measuring 
the whole time but as you say the effect for the listener is of a far more 
simply few sounding events. I love this! But of course, renotating it would 
create something very different again.

Philip
_________________________
www.philip-thomas.co.uk
Dr. Philip Thomas, Reader in Music
Music Department
University of Huddersfield
Queensgate, Huddersfield HD1 3DH
Tel: 01484 471336
www.hud.ac.uk/mhm/mmt
________________________________________
From: Tim Ovens 
[]
Sent: 27 August 2011 06:39
To: One Man John Cage Tribute Band
Cc: Philip Thomas; 

Subject: Re: [silence] Re: Re: RE: Score Size (7 Haiku, Music of Changes)

Hi John,

are we speaking about the same measure? (1st Haiku, 1st measure).

But first, do we agree that, when Cage writes a fraction under or over a
note or rest, this means that the length of this note is just the
fraction of the notated value? E.g. an eigth-note with a 1/3 is the
third of an eigth-note, which means, it is as long as a
triplet-sixteenth (here I made mistake in my last message).

Then the first measure would be like this:
quarter-note rest, the third of an eigth-note (= one triplet-sixteenth),
sixteenth-note rest, quarter-note "c", tied two thirds of a quarter-note
"c" (= two triplet-eigths), tied four-dotted half-note "c".

Does Cage write anywhere anything about these fractions?

Concerning the rhythm I agree with Philip, that at last it is no real
rhythm but durations. But rhythm means the segmentation of time. And
this we have. We have a fixed beat (which is inaudible in contrast to
more classical pieces). And we got a structure of time by the notation.
It is not the feeling of rhythm in the "classical" sense. We can see
this very clearly in the 1st Haiku. It looks extremly complex, but at
last we only hear three sounds with some time between them. This I mean
with non-real or non-audible rhythm. In addition the changing of time
(accelerando) makes the "rhythm" uncontrollable for any listeners. And
in addition the rhythmic notation differs from the space-notation as I
wrote in my last comment.

So difficult for just three sounds ...

Tim

Am 26.08.11 16:50, schrieb One Man John Cage Tribute Band:
> Hi I've been puzzling over those notations recently in Imaginary
> Langscape 4. Quickly, it occurs to me that the passage you describe
> can be renotated as: sixteenth-note rest, triplet eighth-note rest,
> triplet quarter-note, quarter-note, four-dotted half-note ...which
> makes, for me at least, more sense. Not quite sure what you mean by a
> non-real rhythm though. Could you expand on this?
>
> As far as the maintenance of Cage's scores by Peters Edition, it's
> quite clear that they just do not have the funds, man-power or time
> to do very much to the scores but I'm sure that if your wrote an
> explanatory text that could be inserted into the score, they would be
> very grateful. They've always been very very helpful whenever I've
> contacted them with Cage-related (or Ferneyhough-related) questions.
> John
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 26 Aug 2011, at 15:24, Tim 
> Ovens<>
>   wrote:
>
>> 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.