Returning once again to the conversation between Cage and Barnard, wasn t this presupposition just another side of Barnard s permanent demand for a certain music that should affect 62 the greatest possible number of listeners? If Cage just repeated Barnard s argument in the opposite direction, was there actually any essential change in the period after the battles won? This is because he merely repeated Cage s argument mentioned above, implying that musical anarchy should take the form of certain musical objects, namely, of Cage s own works.
Charles took into consideration the structural changes of three instances, of the instances whose emergence, according to Cage s eschatology of music, marked the fall of music into the sphere of death. In Cage s musical anarchy, the composer is nothing but the simple listener, the listener himself becomes the performer and the performer has a tendency to dissolve into the matter performed. But what would happen if we were to take Charles at his word, when he claimed the examination of the most general condition of all music to be Cage s concern?
What would happen if we were to take his argument literally?
La Rocca | Deejays
In this case the return to origin would not put into parenthesis just classical aesthetic positions, as Charles did, but every compositional practice, including Cage s own and thus would make perceivable another tone of Charles argument on musical anarchy. Having this change of tones in mind, musical anarchy would not appear just embodied in some musical works, just 62 Cf. Cage and Barnard, Conversation without Feldman, 8 et seq.
Is not the composer as such anything but a simple listener?
- top gay dating websites Veurne Belgium.
- .
- .
Has not the performer as such a tendency to dissolve into the matter performed? Does the listener as such just catch the previously determined sense of the piece? The an-archy, as groundlessness itself, could be compassionate to Cage s music as well to Schubert s. Because of it the composer as such was nothing but the simple listener of the musical material, every time anew, every time individually, assisting in its forming into the piece.
Because of it the performer as such had a tendency to dissolve into the matter performed, whether playing Cage s music or playing Schubert s. Because of it the listener as such let the music reveal itself in this or that way, each time differently, precisely because it revealed itself individually. Was Cage himself attentive to this branching of anarchy, marked even by the branching hyphenation, of the word itself? In the conversation with Barnard the double gesture of his responses seemed to give the answer: when he agreed with Barnard s opinions suggesting that music should be changed in order to be able to change the society in the right way, to persuade people, his discussion presupposed anarchy to be a condition grounded on a certain origin, on the ideology implicit in the pieces.
Moreover, both of Cage s gestures were noticeable even in the foreword to his collection A Year from Monday, which Barnard cited in the foreword to the printed edition of Conversation without Feldman as an origin that should be returned to. Because the foreword to Cage s collection of writings included not just the call for a certain way of getting musical things done, but also the description of the recent changes.
Expressing his proposal to make musical activities more social and anarchically so, Cage added immediately: As a matter of fact, even in the field of music, this is what is happening.
- Национальная выставка собак Шауляй !
- latino gay escort Bree Belgium.
- older gay men dating site Izegem Belgium.
Should one therefore insist on something that is already there? However, the first of Cage s gestures, his acceptance of Barnard s opinions, perhaps simultaneously implied the branching of anarchy. Maybe Cage could move toward music grounded on a certain program or ideology because he presupposed that the 67 Ibid. Did Schubert know what was going on when he composed his music? Did he know what emerged through the act of composing? Did the greatest music experts actually know that?
After all, did not Cage, in the foreword to Anarchy, say that his task was to find a way of writing which though coming from ideas is not about them? But Cage was perhaps more attentive to the branching of anarchy than it seemed.
In Conversation without Feldman both of the dialogue partners spoke of different kinds of music, among them of the music committed to the classical aesthetics, as Charles would say. Thus Barnard, speaking of the recent music of Cornelius Cardew, related this music repeatedly to a 19th century pastiche, 71 always in the derogative sense. Cardew, namely, criticises the modern music Then he turns around and holds up people like Schumann and says that their results are much better. But Barnard himself, by mentioning the examples of recent political music not contaminated by this contemptible music of the past, which was of course left behind by every progressive musician like him, presupposed this contemptible music to be something bourgeois.
In contrast, Cage in his responses during the conversation never used this identification. When he mentioned some composers from the 19th century once he spoke of Chopin and Schubert, on another occasion of Schubert or Chopin 73 he seemed to be more benevolent toward them than contemptuous of them. As well, his attitude toward popular music and jazz seemed to be more compassionate than Barnard s, although Barnard repeatedly expressed the opinion that music should affect the greatest possible number of listeners. Didn t Cage s benevolence toward these kinds of music testify that he conjectured some anarchy beyond all music, regardless of its actual kind?
And yet the conversation between Cage and Barnard proceeded without the third one: Morton Feldman. Feldman didn t participate, but he was present nevertheless, being the subject of two of Barnard s questions. In both cases Feldman served as a particular reference point.
MUZIKOLOŠKI L I / 2 MUSICOLOGICAL L J U B L J A N A
Barnard thus contrasted his music with the explicitly political pieces by Cardew and Christian Wolff, claiming that their music was more accessible than Feldman s to a general sort of audience. But ten years before Feldman himself had been a dialogue partner in a conversation which likewise proceeded without the third one.
Coming back from England, Feldman spoke about his impressions of the English contemporary musical scene. In the efforts of Cornelius Cardew s circle he found the same talk, the same climate 76 he remembered from his own experience during the fifties, having been a member of the New York circle.
Cardew seemed to be a successor, someone who repeated the gesture of his American colleagues acting according to the motto Down with the masterpiece; up with art. In the conversation mentioned above Feldman pointed out the fact that his music had a tendency to leave the conventional concert setting. I am looking for something else now, replied Feldman, something that will no longer fit into the concert hall, 79 into the sanctuary of bourgeois music, as Barnard would say.
In the conversation Feldman faced even the question of musical anarchy. When his unnamed dialogue partner a friend mentioned the influential opinion that anarchy in art was unforgiveable, claiming that one must learn the rules Down with the masterpiece! But Feldman could also call into question what he called a total consolidation, 81 a presupposition that the composer performer or listener, respectively really knew what he was doing. Did the composer really know what he was doing when he composed?
Did he know what actually emerges through the act of composing? Wouldn t anarchy taken as a principle indicate exactly a tendency to such consolidation? But art seemed to include something more, something that exceeded the composer s knowledge: There s a parable of Kafka about a man living in a country where he doesn t know the rules. Nobody will tell him what they are.
He knows neither right nor wrong, but he observes that the rulers do not share his anxiety. From this he deduces that rules are for those who rule. What they do is the rule. Friedman Cambridge: Exact Change, , Feldman, Conversations without Stravinsky, Looking back, however, the significance of Ahern during these years should not be underestimated. In fact, what Feldman said of Cardew in could justifiably have been claimed in relation to Ahern several years later: If the new ideas in music are felt today as a movement in [Australia], it s because he acts as a moral force, a moral centre.
Barnard, AZ it was Cf. Feldman, Conversations without Stravinsky, Ibid. But Feldman s music faded at the same time as a role model for the musical scene Barnard participated in not just because of its traditional notation, but also because of its sound, which resembled the sound of chamber music with a piano typical for the music of the 19th century.
Incapable of persuading the audience, Feldman s music thus came, in Barnard s opinion, too close to academism, as if it had left anarchy behind, becoming just art, according to the second part Up with art! Becoming bourgeois art, as Barnard would say, falling into the sphere of death. Moreover, Feldman could give him the reason for such an opinion, when he added: I never fully understood the need for a live audience.
My music, because of its extreme quietude, would be happiest with a dead one. Finally, wasn t Feldman, being seemingly backward, as someone whom Barnard and the like-minded progressive musicians left behind, less radical and at the same time more radical than they were? In the lecture on the future of music Cage honoured Feldman, mentioning him among the individuals thanks to whom the battles had been won.
But sometimes they were at odds, sometimes they were taking forked paths like those implied in their pieces, even there, where the branching of paths has not been arranged explicitly in an-archy thanks to which every music leaves us with an unfathomable mystery. It was as if Feldman were posthumously speaking through Cage s last pieces, sending last regards to his friend.
Bibliography Barnard, Geoffrey. AZ it was. New Music Articles 8, no. In John Cage at Seventy-Five, ed. Child of Tree: Percussion Solo. Silence: Lectures and Writings.
Conversation without Feldman. Musique et an-archie. Neither: Die Musik Morton Feldmans. Hofheim: Wolke, Feldman, Morton.
Conversations without Stravinsky. Der Satz vom Grund. Pfullingen: Neske, Pritchett, James. The Music of John Cage. Cornelius Cardew : A Life Unfinished. UDK After being educated in Ljubljana and in several protestant German towns, Formica moved to Vienna at the end of the s where he founded a printing office. Before his death in , he produced approximately 70 books, among which are five high quality music prints.
Die im Laufe des Mit dem deutschen Musikdruck im Jahrhunderts als Kommunikationsmedium. Siehe Art. Frick, , ; Helmut W. Lang, Die Buchdrucker des Jahrhunderts im deutschen Sprachgebiet. Stephan, Signatur , fol. Das Sterberegister aus dem Jahr ist dort nicht mehr erhalten. Verhoff wird vleissig vnnd zum drukh wol dienen. Auch zu Raitung zue geprauchn kan ich e g der zeit nit versechn.
August begann er dort mit seiner Arbeit und erhielt in Urach wohl auch seine Ausbildung. Laupp Jr. Klombner an Nicolaus Gallus, 5. Juni , Stadtarchiv Regensburg, Eccles. I, fasc. Heinrich Hermelink, Hg. VD16 B Laibach: Ig. Bamberg, , und sowie P. Stelle der heutigen Jesuitenkirche befand. Jahrhunderts heiratete.