Scholarly discussion of the music of John Cage.

[David Bellows <>]

Hi Rod,

> Does she still hold this interpretation with on the updated page that I 
> mentioned? (I should look - and try out some text that I know…)

I think so. I didn't test both of her versions exhaustively but I
think she does still remove wing words at random.

> So, I think that if you are steeped enough in Cage philosophy, there can be 
> some
possible extrapolations that can be used in some creative instances,
but, it needs to genuinely be in the direction of selfless pursuit - a
kind that yields new learning experiences that are not necessarily
pedantic, but ones that produce ideas that push you creatively
forward.

This is terrific advice and something I will keep in mind. My project
involves more than just Cage and his music (and writings) but the
project would not have been possible without Cage as the foundation.
And while I have been reading him for well over 20 years now, there's
always still a lot to learn and discover.

I think between you and Andrew Culver and several others on this list,
I have a far clearer picture of what Cage did and did not do. I think
the main programming is now finished with my mesostic generator and
now I will work on formatting it nicely and integrating the results
into the rest of my project. A vocalist is going to record songs using
lyrics as generated by my mesostic software with a melody generated
algorithmically by my software and accompanied by a piano part that is
algorithmically generated as a type of musical mesostic.

When I get it all into good shape I'll post it here.

Thanks again,
Dave Bellows

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 6:33 PM Rod Stasick <> wrote:
>
>
>         On Jan 14, 2019, at 17:23, David Bellows <> 
> wrote:
>
>         As I was checking my results against Nicki's, I noticed that hers
>         would leave out words in the wing words which she justified with the
>         following:
>
>         "Cage: 'Then I take out the words I don't want.'
>         My interpretation: Don't add all possible words between spine 
> letters.”
>
>
> Does she still hold this interpretation with on the updated page that I 
> mentioned?
> (I should look - and try out some text that I know…)
>
> If she still holds to this “loose” interpretation,
> then I have to say “no” to it.
> Mainly because the idea of taking out words willy-nilly
> doesn’t match up to what we all pretty much know about Cage.
>
> I’m also of the opinion that if you have to second-guess John’s 
> interpretations,
> it always seems to be better to do so in the manner of extrapolation of his
> general philosophy...even if Cage himself may have not have possibly 
> thought of “it.”
>
> What do I mean?
>
> In 2012, I attended a talk given by Ray Kass about Cage’s watercolors.
> During the Q&A session that followed, I asked if Cage had used chance
> operations to determine whether to go clockwise or counter when he
> painted around his various sized rocks that he frequently used.
> The silence that followed was not unlike John’s spoken silence.
>
> A hand to a chin ... silence ... “hmmm...”
>
> “OK, let me ask this: when John drew his circles did he use chance 
> operations
> to decide where on the perimeter of the circle he would start drawing? - 
> ‘cause,
> you know, it’d be easy to divide the perimeter into 64 with 16 at each 
> quadrant...”
>
> < crickets ... >
>
> I remember a similar instance with John even when it didn’t involve his own 
> work.
> He became excited when we were discussing a work I was in the middle of in 
> the early 80s that involved my using a text called “The Man'yōshū.” While 
> mentioning all kinds of
> elements that were being subjected to chance operations, he would offer new 
> suggestions. You could see his eyes light up at the possibilities.
>
> So, I think that if you are steeped enough in Cage philosophy, there can be 
> some
> possible extrapolations that can be used in some creative instances, but, 
> it needs to genuinely be in the direction of selfless pursuit - a kind that 
> yields new learning experiences that are not necessarily pedantic, but ones 
> that produce ideas that push you creatively forward.
>
> Rod