John Cage: Music of Changes - Book I

[67984556]

Who has the pdf file of this piece.I need it because of my presentation.if u have,pls send to me ..future_in@live.cn. Because my presentation in 21 Feb 2012.thx

[xtnzai]

hello there, mind to share the score? thanks

[BeorhtFrognostic]

it's taken me a while to seek out Cage's music, having known about him for some time. I'm finding a lot of his stuff quite enjoyable and interesting.

[Henriksdottir]

I love this music.

[jamesaellis]

Felix looks pissed. XD

[btguinn]

You know how he built a "chance computer" to write this song? I'm pretty sure it was a fifty meter stage, with a piano at one end, and a guy with a coin, a bag of cats, and a bookshelf at the other end.

[Dolphidood]

Do you have the sheet music for this?

[lecheparavaka]

i dont understand this music... my friend who is studying musical composition loves this! i guess the lack of comprehension is the difference between me and a composer..

[Jeremiahdvorak1]

@lecheparavaka John Cage composed this piece by consulting the I Ching. He was part of a New York "school" (the scare quotes are used because his fellow composers did share his aesthetic, only some of his philosophies) which sought to introduce other methods for the "creation" of musical events. By using the I Ching (you might google that =^_^=) he came upon the idea of putting together piano material through the tossing of 3 coins 6 times. The material was then laid out in charts . . . . .

[Jeremiahdvorak1]

@lecheparavaka . . . . which are governed by superstitions (how many events are happening at once during a given structural space) tempi, durations, dynamics & sounds & silences.

What I just typed for you is from "Experimental Music: Cage & Beyond." It is a wonderful book.

I used to think of Cage is not a composer but a kind of music philosopher, but I've changed my tune on that. Cage was all about surrendering control of composition to other forces; chance being the top one. I used to . .

[Jeremiahdvorak1]

@lecheparavaka . . . . think of him as a philosopher and not a composer until I realized that Cage's primary areas of exploration were everything about music that is all too often neglected in musical discourse; time, performance vs. the work itself, composition, and the simple pleasure of listening.

I hope I've helped you like Cage a little (not that you have to. You REALLY do not have to). If you'd like something a bit more pleasant please look up his Sonatas & Interludes for . . . . . . .

[Jeremiahdvorak1]

@lecheparavaka . . . . . Prepared Piano. Sonata #5 is really something.

[DoogBoy123456]

No, no, I believe this is RetromanOMG from Newgrounds....

[danieletiesse]

not schonberg, but reason is dead!

how sick you would be to like this awful "thing"

[zozosecond]

Et dire que je dois faire un dossier la dessus...

[maxxxxximal]

@zozosecond ouais moi aussi :D ca craint

[lmsperry007]

Cage apparently separated the i-Ching in half, 32 sections devoted to sound and 32 devoted to silence, and ordered the song through charts. In this way, although the piece arose from the chance of tossing the coin, Cage's chart structure enforced the total execution of the twelve-note series before repetition of note value. Similar to Boulez, Cage did have an order behind the seeming chaos; Cage left more up to chance because of his social philosophy opposed to Boulez's need for total control.

[lmsperry007]

You can take a brief look into this book and it explains the influence of structure on Cage's work on this piece: The Boulez-Cage Correspondence



[worldbuddy]

what album is this from?

[flammesombres]

@worldbuddy uhm, the album where David Tudor plays Cage's "Music of Changes"?

[thimacek]

Wow,. I manage to have a harder time figuring out his music than Schoenberg's... and that's saying a lot. Wonder what sort of thinking went behind the piece. In a way, it seems unlikely there was none, in spite of the apparent chaos.

[nobodady1]

@thimacek The thinking that went into this was quite elaborate, but none of the thinking is evident in the hearing. On the other hand, quite a bit of thought went into Cage's decision to move toward non-intention, though these thoughts, as such, are not found in the sounds, except insofar as they confirm our sense that there is no order at all. Still, I've heard many performances of this, and often a performer brings something of his own order to the piece, though lightly as from a distance

[PatchworkJunkie]

Thanks for the upload!

Would you mind telling me the year of the recording?

[flammesombres]

@PatchworkJunkie

No problem - 1956, I think.

[darrellcalvillo]

Thank you!!!

[flammesombres]

Haha, well, perhaps I was under the impression that it was really just a joke (and a boring, tired one at that)... if you want to debate properly, I'll be happy to entertain you; otherwise, don't bother commenting. Asininity isn't welcome on my comment-boards.

[flammesombres]

I rate your comment 1/10 in terms of originality.

[jameswiman]

Awesome. I have this score...I need to pull it out and start studying it soon.

I always thought it would be cool to program this with the Boulez 2eme sonata...but that would take a pianist far better than I!!!

[UncleC1025]

@jameswiman What's there to study? Nothing against cage's music at all; I love this piece...but isn't it structurally empty?

[xaber101]

@UncleC1025 The structure of the piece is defined through the technique of nested proportions, just like in most of Cage's pieces from the 1940s. The proportion remains the same for the entire work: 3, 5, 6¾, 6¾, 5, 3⅛. So there are 29⅝ sections, each divided into phrases according to the overall proportion: 29⅝ by 29⅝. This is then divided into four large parts of one, two, one and two sections respectively.

[UncleC1025]

@xaber101 I am aware of this, but if the point of analysis is to find an ideal way in which to recieve a piece, I don't see how the visual perception of the temporal structures would improve the aural reception of the piece in any way. It is my understanding that Cage wished the sounds to be percieved as relating to eachother in every possible way (interpenetrating eachother), meaning that percieved "structure" would destroy the wealth of relationships that could occur.

[jrchittum]

@UncleC1025 Actually, Cage stated that he wished each sound to perceived by itself in no relation to the other sounds surrounding.

of course, this is contrary to how most people thing. As humans we tend to put things into order

So, even though the structure is based on his earlier proportional forms, each sound is meant to inhabit it's own space and exist as such. at least that what Cage said in various writings, including "Silence" and a couple essays in "John Cage: Writer" (pages not handy.)

[UncleC1025]

@jrchittum So my point remains...the only analysis would be an entirely aural and empirical one.

[jrchittum]

@UncleC1025 "Let us take a premise which seems apparent and elementary: music is made of sound. Everyone with ears may hear it...A piece of music is constructed, much as a chair or building is constructed. But there is no greater need to appreciate it through analysis of the details of its construction than there is that need with regard to our own home...The chair is useful for sitting, the home for dwelling, the music for hearing." John Cage, "John Cage: Writer" "Listening to Music 1937" pg 17

[herma57]

nice, rare, very rare recording; ThX so much;