Scholarly discussion of the music of John Cage.

[David P Miller <>]

Hi everyone -

Before trying to catch up with the conversation that's exploded on this 
over the last day, I'll just confirm that this one observation of 
Silverman's - which he states more than once - did indeed stand out to me 
as one thing he somehow was unable to get. A sore-thumb comment in an 
otherwise excellent book. The connection with Fluxus works is a good one 
(I've long felt that 0'0" is perhaps Cage's one Fluxus piece), but that 
doesn't make it a "joke".

David M.
Jamaica Plain, Mass.

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Josh Ronsen wrote:

> I'm enjoying the Kenneth Silverman bio of Cage. It could be twice as long; we 
> all know how incredibly active and productive Cage was.
>
> But for a writer who provides a sympathetic, understanding view of the first 
> performance of 4'33", Silverman describes its sequel as:
>
> "Fittingly, Cage dedicated to [Ono and Ichiyanagi] a musical joke he composed (?) in Japan, 
> entitled 0'00" (4'33" No. 2). The score is one sentence long: 'In a situation provided 
> with maximum amplification (no feedback), perform a disciplined action.' ... Clearly having fun, 
> Cage had in mind the sort of 'instruction pieces' Ono had been creating... However much a joke, 
> Cage's radically ma title intimates new musical ideas he was beginning to contemplate." (pg. 
> 184)
>
> Did Cage mean it as a joke? That doesn't seem right, from a composer interested in 
> amplifying the sound of ants walking on grass or the sound of spores falling from 
> a mushroom. If you see 0'00" as a joke, I don't see how you could not see 
> many other pieces by Cage as jokes (scrap yard percussion! star-chart music! the 
> sneeze as a musical action!), which Silverman doesn't present as such. Silverman 
> does point out various critics and articles that do treat Cage as a joke, but 
> that's not what I get from Silverman.
>
> I see 0'00" as a fitting 4'33" No. 2: 4'33" brings ambient, ignored sounds into focus; 
> 0'00" brings another type of ignored sounds into focus, pen writing on paper, swallowing (to name two 
> examples of Cage's 0'00" performances), although Cage's 0'00" performance with a blender is a 
> different type of sound, one that doesn't need to be amplified to be heard by an audience, but the 
> amplification of course changes the sound and changes the focus of the sound. 
>
>  The joke comment sticks out in my mind.
>
> -Josh Ronsen
> http://ronsen.org