Scholarly discussion of the music of John Cage.

[Carl Heppenstall <>]

I'm confused by contrasting inputs and outputs. If the inputs are organized but the outputs aleatoric, why? I think of aleatoric as defining the input process more than how I might tinker or not tinker with the output.

Best,

Carl

Sent from Galaxy 9.

On May 22, 2014, at 12:36 PM, "Bruce, Neely" <> wrote:

I seem to remember reading somewhere (or maybe Jerry Hiller told me, or maybe this came from John himself, many years ago) that John actually tried composing with dice when he first had the idea of composing chance music. But I am not aware of any surviving composition in which he used dice.

Memories are never 100% reliable, of course, and I'd love it if anyone on this list has a similar memory about the young John Cage fooling around with dice...

For what it's worth, I find that dice are a very useful compositional tool. I have lots of pairs of conventional dice, and some beautiful ones with more than six sides. I keep them close at hand when working on certain kinds of music.

---

From: Andrew Culver []
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 11:51 AM
To: Paul Norman
Cc:
Subject: [silence] Re: Cage & Dice

Paul,

I can confirm that dice where never used in my years with John (1981 till his death).

The word ‘aleatoric’ is problematic in itself (as is the word ‘random’) and I would caution against their use with respect to Cage’s work. The problem is that they refer to outcomes, to the effects caused by a process, whereas Cage was working on inputs, and open to any outcome.

Andrew Culver

On May 22, 2014, at 11:42 AM, Paul Norman <> wrote:

Dear subscribers to the silence list,

Did John Cage ever write a piece which utilised the physical rolling of dice?

As part of my research as a composer I have been looking for a piece by John Cage which was composed or performed by utilising the physical rolling of dice. I’m sure that I am not alone in feeling like there is at least one piece. Throughout my classical education I have been introduced to chance music at various times always with a relationship to John Cage and to the rolling of dice. 

(Introductions similar to this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwD7ildTQSw)

However, following my research it seams as though John Cage in fact never wrote a piece which utilised dice. Perhaps (as above) this misassumption comes from explaining the compositional process of John Cage by using dice as a simple example of aleatoric composition, or perhaps it is influenced by the origin and definition of the word “aleatoric”? (see below):

aleatory

ˈeɪlɪət(ə)ri,ˈal-/

adjective

adjective: aleatoric

depending on the throw of a dice or on chance; random.

▪ relating to or denoting music or other forms of art involving elements of random choice (sometimes using statistical or computer techniques) during their composition, production, or performance."aleatory music"

Origin: late 17th century: from Latin aleatorius, from aleator ‘dice player’, from alea ‘die’, + -y¹.

Further the following insights from Laura Kuhn of the John Cage Trust seams to further confirm this thinking: 

“However, as I continued writing Empty Words, it seemed to me that repetitions were creeping into my text, and that the only way they cd be doing that wd be if they existed in the printout to begin with.  I then went back and fd that the printout indeed repeated itself, so that all my work since 1969, since all of it one way or another used the I Ching (not just music but my writing too), beginning with Cheap Imitation, was not what it wd have been had I been tossing pennies manually (as I did from ’51 or thereabouts until I went to the U of I).

The reference to "until I went to the U of I" refers, of course, to his time at the University of Illinois, where he worked with Lejaren Hiller (and Ed Kobrin) and began using the first random number generator created for the FORTRAN computer they were using for the composition of HPSCHD.

This isn't, of course, definitive, but it's telling. I doubt his use of dice for his purposes because they are inherently biased, at least in pairs (probability, using a pair, of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or even 10 being far greater than rolling a 2, 3, 4, 11, or 12 -- 1 being impossible).”

I am hopeful that the subscribers to the Silence list will be able to shed some light on this research question and help lead me towards a definitive answer.

Regards

Paul Norman (MMus)

Paul Norman: Composer - Guitarist

http://www.paulnormanmusic.com