Scholarly discussion of the music of John Cage.

[Philip Thomas <>]

Hi Tim
I don't have the scores with me to hand for a week or so now so will respond 
to you (in private for fear of swamping the silence list with performer 
minutiae) when i can access them. However, I did make an error with the 
'whole-note' thing - that was clearly wrong (a result of converting 
terminology!). I don't recall being confused about it when I learnt it, and 
usually the proportions are similar to other kinds of so-called 
'irrationals', such as 3:2 and 7:8.
I'll also check the Wolff notations which are very similar but printed rather 
than hand written and check the correlation there.
I really like your description of understanding these as a player.
Best wishes
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: 28 August 2011 06:31
To: Philip Thomas
Cc: One Man John Cage Tribute Band; 

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

Philip, what do you mean with "proportion to a whole note" I do not truly
understand. Do you mean the proportion to the next bigger value (1/3
over an eigth-note = triplet eigth note, 2/3 over a quarter-note means 2
triplet quarter-notes)? When it is the proportion to a whole note, then
the written value (eigth-note, quarter, ...) makes no sense, because a 1/3
would then ever mean a triplet quarter-note. The relation to the placing
I do not see. For example in the 5th Haiku he writes a 4/5 over a
quarter-note. This should be in your meaning as long as 4 quintuplet
quarter-notes, but in the notation it takes less space than a
quarter-beat. I still think it is the length of 4 quintuplet-eigths
(which is 4/5 of a quarter-note). For me a clue is, that wherever he
writes 3/4, 3/5, 3/7 he writes a dotted note. For example a dotted
eigth. So it looks as if he means three (triplet) sixteenth-notes. On
the other hand this is not logical, because taking serious it should be
the three quarter length of a dotted eigth-note.

Can one say that the written durations are important and logical for the
process of writing the pieces down, but for the playing they are not?
Especially clear this is when Cage writes several measures with only
rests (in the Music of Changes). The rests have various values as double
dotted whole-note rests, eight-note rests with a 1/3, .... But when
playing I just have to count the beats in space without caring for the
various types of rests. As a player the way of writing gives me the
feeling of this very complicate and precise structure. And it prevents
me from playing just "anyhow". Like science. It is too complicate to
understand what happens in space (black holes, dark energy, expanding of
the universe and so on), but when looking at the stars I do not need to
know the exact physical laws. But to know about the existence of these
laws it can make the regarding of them diferent.

Tim

Am 27.08.11 10:51, schrieb 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.
>


---
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.