The Genius of John Cage

It is easy to laugh over the Italian Futurists.  One can shrug away serial composition.  It could be claimed that the day music died was actually about 1890.  But, despite how quickly and easily it is for some to dismiss contemporary forms, I have found that most people meet their match when they try to spar with John Cage.

There is something about Cage that forces the concept of dismissal off of the table.  Suddenly it can't simply be said, "That's not music!"  Truly dueling with Cage requires no less than making personal decisions and declarations about music.  I've often pondered why this is, and one of the paramount explanations I have is among the most obvious: he challenged the definition of music himself.

But, more so than his challenge is how he went about doing it.  The nay-sayers of contemporary music must respond to a fine twist: to find what isn't music.

Cage makes this inversion and forces - by happenstance or intention, I do not know - the debater to play on his terms.  The question of whether something is music is inherently comparative.  Whether it is a dictonary definition or a personal taste, the question calls for an outside standard to be applied.  On the other hand, to ask why a particular example isn't music is to necessarily consider it of its own merits.  Rather than start from an ideal and work down, the case for any piece in question must be made from the ground up.  For the purpose of demonstration, let's work through this with a specific example.

If one asks, "Is Stockhausen's piece, Kontakte, music?" ...the real curiosity concerns what standard will be used.  If the standard is Palestrina, Stockhausen is in for a rough ride.  But, if the standard of comparison is Webern, Stockhausen doesn't turn out too badly.  It becomes evident though, that the outcome is quite different if you approach it working the other way.  "Why isn't Kontakte music?"  The examiner must necessarily make an evaluation on the content of the piece and the qualities of the composer.

But for the sake things, let's consider a more ludicrous example (I think most would consider Stockhausen to be a prolific composer, despite a potential lack of attraction to his work).

It is easy to label the Italian Futurist movement at the turn of the 20th century as crazy.  There are numerous reasons for this, including the fact that they really weren't musicians... despite willingness to explain the future of music  (Luigi Russolo, the author of The Art of Noises was actually a painter).  But ultimately, down beneath the surface of the dismissal:

"They aren't like Bach."   

"They aren't like Chopin."

"There's just nothing like the classics, you know - Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven."

"This isn't music (because Debussy is)."

If one was to start from the ground up... the least that could happen would be a bit of understanding concerning their thought process and the notions of heralding modern technology in art.

Cage turned the tables... and I'm glad.

To Be Continued with an upcoming post: Atonal Music is More than a Numbers Game.