Scholarly discussion of the music of John Cage.

[Stefano Pocci <>]

On 10/26/2011 02:47 PM, Matt Rogalsky wrote:

I woke up this morning remembering another point of reference for this piece.

There is an interesting brief discussion about 0'00" at the beginning of the 9th interview in For the Birds, in which Cage describes the piece (and other "zero time" actions) as at least partly a counter-capitalist exercise (a way of making work, without deliberately producing a saleable 'object', if I understand the concept). This is circa 1968, not sure of the exact date of the interview.

------------------------------------------

Daniel Charles: You were talking about our getting rid of the profit motive and employment. That, of course, would be ideal. In reality, we are self-employed and active. We go on living. Through your work, you yourself provide and example of the most painstaking work. Can you clarify your own 'motive'—which aims towards the non-act—on a more technical level? What role, for example, does time—as you conceive it in your latest scores—play?
[…]
when you performed in Gordon Mumma's Configuration last July, your participation was musical as well as theatrical. It was called 0'00", in contrast, it seems to me, with 4'33", which is a more conventional musical work in the sense that it marks its own temporal limitation, a time signature. How would you define this 'zero time' characterizing your latest works, which complicates the distinction between music and theatre, without erasing its 'musical' aspect?

Cage: 'Zero Time' exists when we don't notice the passage of time, when we don't measure it. [Cage's footnote: This _expression_ 'zero time' comes from Christian Wolff. He was the first to use zero time in his compositions, concurrently with clock time.]

Charles: So we should be in zero time all the time, so to speak?

Cage: Sometimes we are and sometimes not. I mean that when I work on the piece you mentioned, or 'in' that piece, I am indeed in 'zero time'.

Charles: 'In' zero time, there's no room for measurement. If I understand you correctly, measure is a variation of the 'profit motive' you want to eliminate.

Cage: Naturally, but that doesn't stop me from working, from doing what my work requires. The difference is that I am no longer working towards my envisaged end, that it, in line with the economy.

-------------------------------------------

Cage and Charles go on to talk about Cage's third 'silent' piece which involves two or more people playing a game such as chess, with actions again highly amplified. "A bridge or chess match, or any game at all, can become a distinct—another essentially silent—musical work."

Does this third 'silent' piece exist as a published score? Perhaps this connects somehow with Reunion (also 1968), although in that collaborative performance the game players' actions were not amplified.

best,

MR

Hi there, I jump in a bit late on this interesting, funny (but serious) discussion about 0'00" and I was about to say that its title reminded me of the time zero concept. However, Matt brilliantly served me the reason why I was connecting the title to such idea: the uncanny conversations between John and Daniel featured in For the Birds which I have been leafing through an uncountable number of times:-) That says it all.

I might be wrong on the following but my way to see 0'00" is that whenever we are completely involved with what we're doing, the passing of time is irrelevant and can't be measured (time flies, right?) so we're in the time zero (here and now). Amplifying the whole process we're into brings in the musical (sound, ears) element, hence the piece can be regarded as a piece of music. I second David's 1962 quote from Conversing with Cage and Joseph's planned rendition of the piece. A pop(corn) remix of it, as it were:-)

Fascinating discussion... Cage's ideas always leave so much room to reflections of all kinds. Thanks to all contributors.

-- 

Stefano

"She's wearing nothing but a smile"