Scholarly discussion of the music of John Cage.

["Harris, Claire" <>]

Hi David,

thanks for clarifying that, it explains why I could find no other information 
backing it up.

It is indeed an interesting grouping and one which there seems to be a 
limited amount written about.

Many thanks,
Claire Harris

________________________________________
From: David P Miller 
[]
Sent: 18 March 2012 00:41
To: Harris, Claire
Cc: 

Subject: Re: [silence] RE: Re: Chance operations in the composition of the 
Variations

Hello again, Claire -

Ah, you've called me out! So of course I had to go back and look at my
article again. I see the statement in the 4th paragraph, "Cage used chance
operations in preparing the Variations scores." I should have been more
careful in that statement: "in at least two of the Variations scores"
would have been more accurate, according to my knowledge. I apologize if
this was misleading - and it will probably mislead others, too. But unlike
a blog posting, I can't now go back to republish it.

That grouping of compositions is really quite fascinating. The
Northwestern University music library includes an archival recording of a
concert that Cage presented in Baltimore, in 1967 I believe, of exactly
that grouping. It would be interesting to know if this set was performed
together at any other time. The recording of Variations IV from Baltimore
would be quite difficult to understand without knowing the nature of the
piece. But knowing it, you can definitely hear that there are different
sound sources inside and well outside the hall. It provides a signficantly
different perspective on the piece than the commercially released
recording at the Feigen-Palmer Galler in Los Angeles.

Warm regards,

David

On Sat, 17 Mar 2012, Harris, Claire wrote:

> Thanks David, that definitely helps.
>
> Interestingly it was an article written by you - 'Indeterminancy and 
> Performance Practice in Cage's Variations' - it is a brief statement 
> concerning the chance procedures and does not explicity say whether you are 
> refering to all the Variations or just saying that some include chance 
> techniques in composition, therefore why I am questioning it.
> My main topic of discussion is Cage's grouping of Atlas Eclipticalis, 
> Variations IV and 0'00", this chapter discussing the links of 
> indeterminancy in composition, realisation and performance so your 
> information is definitely useful.
>
> Many thanks,
> Claire Harris
>
> ________________________________________
> From: David P Miller 
> []
> Sent: 17 March 2012 14:42
> To: Harris, Claire
> Cc: 
> 
> Subject: Re: [silence] Re: Chance operations in the composition of the 
> Variations
>
> Hello again,
>
> One thought that came up, since I posted yesterday.
>
> If Cage used chance operations to determine the number of remarks in the
> Variations V and VII scores - and I believe he did - that would have an
> indirect effect on how these pieces are realized by others.  The
> Variations V score consists of 37 remarks, the Variations VII score only
> 7. What this means, at least, is that if you only have the scores to work
> with, you already know a good deal more about Variations V than VII. Now,
> one ought to do the appropriate background work in any case, and the
> number of remarks still has an indirect relationship at best with what one
> actually performs. (There is no "thirty-seven-ness" about Variations V.)
>
> Your main interest, I think, is in Variations IV. And now I have the score
> in front of me. As you see, it consists of written directions for the use
> of symbols on a transparency sheet in relation to a floor plan of the area
> where the performance is to take place. Cage developed the transparency,
> consisting of points and circles. It's very unlikely that any chance
> operations were involved in -writing- this score. However, the -use- of
> the score will mean, at least, the use of -accident-, as the cut-out
> points are to fall on the floor plan rather than being placed
> deliberately. Further, the sound events that take place at those points,
> typically, will interact in performance in unanticipated ways. So we don't
> have I Ching-based or otherwise systematic chance operations involved, but
> we do have a couple of moments in the process that escape conscious
> intention.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> David
>
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012, David P Miller wrote:
>
>> Dear Claire,
>>
>> It's quite an interesting question. I've been studying and performing the
>> Variations off an on for several years, and haven't yet run into evidence
>> that Cage used chance operations per se in composing these scores, with a
>> couple of exceptions.
>>
>> The Variations V and (unpublished) Variations VII scores each consist of a
>> set number of "remarks". I believe Cage used chance operations to determine
>> the number of remarks and also the number of words in each remark - the
>> latter, at least, for Variations V. However, these two scores, plus the 
>> score
>> for Variations VIII, are to a great extent documentation, after the fact, 
>> of
>> events that had already happened. Cage did not compose the scores first and
>> then develop the performances. So the use of chance operations for the
>> Variations V and VII scores were a device he used to help him get the 
>> writing
>> done - they don't relate to the material or content of a performance.
>>
>> The scores for Variations I and II, as you probably know, consist of
>> transparencies with points or lines on them. I don't believe he used chance
>> operations to determine these - although for the "points" sheets for
>> Variations I, he may have used a technique similar to that for the Music 
>> for
>> Piano series - of highlighting "imperfections" on a drawing surface. That's
>> speculation, however.
>>
>> The other scores - Variations III, IV, and VI - consist (aside from written
>> directions, as in Variations I and II) of geometric elements, circles and 
>> the
>> like, also on transparencies. These are to be cut apart and used according 
>> to
>> the written directions.
>>
>> My main point here is that all of the Variations scores point to processes
>> for making performances - either creating one's own scores, or determining
>> choices on the spot. Any use of chance operations in his general I
>> Ching-based sense would have been peripheral, in that none of these scores
>> are to be performed -directly-. You don't sit down with the Variations I
>> score in front of you and "interpret" the points and lines as you might do
>> with other graphical scores. Chance, randomness, accident, serendipity 
>> arise
>> as you develop the processes these scores point to.
>>
>> It might also help to know what the author of the article said, whom you
>> quoted. (I've published a couple of articles on the Variations, so I'll be
>> amused if it was me.)
>>
>> I hope this helps, and if I have anything factually wrong, I'm sure others
>> will correct me. Also, if I can be of further assistance, please feel free 
>> to
>> write me directly.
>>
>> Warm regards,
>>
>> David M.
>> Boston, Massachusetts
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 
>> 
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, I am currently writing my undergraduate dissertation on Cage, and have
>>> come
>>> accross an issue which I can't seem to find much information on.
>>>
>>> I am currently investigating the indeterminate aspects in Variations IV. I
>>> have
>>> found in an article that chance procedures were used in the composing of
>>> the
>>> Variations scores, but I can't find anymore on this. Most of the
>>> information is
>>> on the indeterminate aspects of the realisation and performance, and does
>>> not
>>> mention Cage's compositional process.
>>>
>>> I wondered if anyone could shed any light on this?
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>> Claire Harris
>>> Edinburgh Napier University
>>
>