John Cage Water Walk - revisited

The work of Mr. Cage has been slightly reconstructed in response to an experimental audio assignment.

My construction method, on the surface of course, is obvious: using John Cage's Water Walk as the base (pulled from youtube using the RealPlayer Browser Plugin for FireFox and converted from .rm to .avi using the open-source "alltoavi"). I next opened the avi file in Premiere and began adding audio elements of my own making, such as the sound of the metronome, the duck quack, and the electrical arc sounds. Finally, using Audacity I recorded and used sounds from Nauhaus' "Cross country loop three" from Radio Net - I inserted radio sounds where they would have occur ed had the radios actually been turned on as Cage worked through his instruments on stage. As each radio on stage is pushed to the floor I abruptly cut that radio sound... It should be said that as I recorded the radio sounds I took some liberties as I noticed that by quickly starting and stopping the recorder I could manipulate those sounds to more effectively mimic the sound I was looking for, and yes I do realize that those were not the sounds that would have been coming from the radios on stage, but the fact is that I simply like them and found them to be effective.

My point in doing this in the way that I have is to see what the performance might have sounded like if everything had worked as planned. I do know that Mr. Cage was a great proponent of chance and must have been quite satisfied with the result, but I thought it worth the effort. My decision in choosing the electric arcing sounds had to do with what we are seeing as the blender stalls and then ultimately begins to smoke. I wanted to hear the cacophony that must have been anticipated when the project was originally scored.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• John Cage
• Water Walk
• audio

[goldencricket]

I liked this a lot. I think the metronome was an excellent choice. The one thing I didn't like so much was the duck quack, which I think was slightly disruptive, and not really to good effect.

[nobodady1]

@wmshaxpere Many things occured in this performance that were not written in the piece. The problem with the radios required an adaptation on the performer's part. The laughter was not scored, of course, but was explicitly welcomed in this venue. Random elements are ever present -- even in traditional performances, but this piece, like most of his other work, seems to intentionally allow for SOMETHING to happen that is not planned. What I find most comical is Cage shaking his hand dry.

[nobodady1]

@wmshaxpere Well, the score precisely notates the performer's actions. However, it is also true that no score can dictate every element of performance, nor does the score dictate a listener's response. Considering how in most classical performances, it may be unthinkable to perform a piece in which several of the instruments or instrumentalists weren't able to work, Cage's work embraces the ad hoc circumstances of performance.

[wmshaxpere]

@nobodady1 RE: "preferable to tears" - That's fascinating and and quite funny.) In that I considered the laughter a possibly essential characteristic, you are correct in that each performance would consequently include audience reaction of some sort, or if it were recorded in a "studio" space the result would be lacking that element. That being considered - would you not agree there's a great deal of spontaneity in the work that clearly allows for random elements to be introduced and/or removed?

[nobodady1]

@wmshaxpere Prior to the performance Cage agreed with the moderator that laughter was OK : "preferable to tears" were Cage's words. So there is an openness to the audience response that he got. I can accept also that laughter became integral to this particular performance of Water Walk, but I would not agree that this response is an ESSENTIAL part of the composition as such. That is, alternate performances of the work would be satisfactory without this response.

[wmshaxpere]

I just noticed that the response I just left was under the screen name of another of my accounts. I can see of course, that it looks like this @wmshaxpere is trying to take credit for the work of @xozoome - however I assure everyone involved that both of these persons are indeed - me:-) - I am Jonathan Ellis. I suppose one might say i wear many hats.

[wmshaxpere]

@nobodady1 - as you may have noticed, I also walk this line of disturbance, in that I've enhanced the sounds used in the piece. The sound of the rubber duck for instance was lost within the crowd's response. I wanted to hear them so I "fixed" what was missing for me:-) Still I imagine if the sounds of the audience could have been anticipated - Mr. Cage would have used the sound of discomforted laughter as an essential part of the work. Come to think of it I have no way to be sure that he did not

[nobodady1]

I am very interested in the two sorts of comments, broadly speaking, between those who are disturbed by the audience's laughter, and those who welcome it. Cage actually expressed an ambivilence re audience's reactions. He felt as though his stance vis a vis nbon-intentional sound required that he accept whatever noises an audience may make. On the other hand he said that when HE attends a performance he goes to listen, rather than add to the sounds present.

[giogotico]

FUCKIN AUDIENCE!!!!

[SpaceRitual]

I don't think people laughed because they felt uncomfortable, they laughed because this can either be viewed as art: Or the actions of an insane person. It's awesome that you appreciate what he's doing, I do as well. It can't be hard to see why putting a plant in a bathtub full of water, then watering it with a watering can, and calling it music is humorous. It'd be nice to hear without laughter, but to the general public TV audience, this is insanity. Hopefully a few of them actually listened.