Scholarly discussion of the music of John Cage.

[Stefano Pocci <>]

On 04/11/2013 06:49 PM, Andrew Culver wrote:
> Good find, Stefano.
>
> I believe John would have considered this a mistake, and would have 
> considered fixing it by removing "am I doing something wrong".
>
> As it is, the answer is: "Yes, John, you are doing something wrong."
>
> Which makes it right, or at least positive, hmmm?
>
> Nice.
>
> Would he have allowed this rule-pun to survive? Why not?
>
> This should not be taken, however, as an invitation to relax the rules 
> at will. Cage considered them essential, and both he and I spent many 
> hours proofing mesostics and removing or reworking rule-breaking 
> passages. And the software Jim Rosenberg and I wrote were inflexible 
> rule-enforcers.
>
> Recall the desire to find a way of writing that is not about ideas, 
> but produces them. With respect to the source text, the function of 
> the rules is to strip away extant meaning, while simultaneously 
> brushing words against each other in unexpected combinations, thus 
> releasing new meanings.
>
> Andrew Culver




Thanks Andrew. I understand how much rules meant for John and so "I did 
something wrong" when I deliberately ignored or violated them, but I did 
to make the mesostic sound nice and intelligible as I was more 
interested in its graphical quality.

However, I've recently become more fascinated with the challenge that 
the rules impose on the composition of mesostics. Sometimes you need to 
leave some blanks because any word fit and these blanks make them 
mysterious and apparently meaningless, but as you recalled the idea 
underlying them, that is old ideas 'remixed' that produce newer ones, I 
guess that's probably what John had in mind.

About the Meister Eckhart mesostic. Both the Italian translation by 
Michele Porzio and the French one by Daniel Charles have no mistakes 
instead :-) They respect the 50% rule.


Stefano