9W][WdIjhkYjkh[i B_pAejp
?dÇBeea_d]Coi[b\_dj^[Cekj^"ÈW'/.'[iiWoh[j^_da_d]^[hh[bW# j_edi^_fjej^[b[]WYoe\@e^d9W]["j^[ZWdY[h"Y^eh[e]hWf^[hWdZ ÓbccWa[hOledd[HW_d[hZ[Yh_[Zj^[WXi[dY[e\ceh[ikijW_d[Z Yh_j_YWbWdZj^[eh[j_YWbh[Ô[Yj_eded9W][Êimeha"]_l[d^_i[dehceki _cfWYjedWhj_ijie\^[h][d[hWj_ed$EXl_ekibo"j^[Yh_j_YWbi_jkWj_ed ^WiY^Wd][ZYedi_Z[hWXboi_dY[HW_d[hÊi[iiWoWff[Wh[Z$O[jj^[ gk[ij_edii^[hW_i[ih[cW_d_cfehjWdj\ehj^_da_d]j^hek]^iec[ e\j^[_cfb_YWj_edie\9W][Êimeha\ehWhjWdZcki_YjeZWo$
HW_d[hÊiYedY[hdbWo_dWjj[cfj_d]jeZ[j[hc_d[m^[j^[hm^Wji^[ l_[m[ZWi9W][ÊiÇh[\kiWbe\c[Wd_d]ÈmWiYed]hk[djm_j^Wfeij# ijhkYjkhWb_ijÇh[\kiWbjeÓnc[Wd_d]"ÈWiWhj_YkbWj[Z_dj^[bWj[ '/,&iXoHebWdZ8Whj^[i"@kb_WAh_ij[lW"WdZej^[him^eiek]^jje h[j^_daj[njkWb_joWiWd_dY[iiWdjfheZkYj_l_joe\bWd]kW]["i_]d_Ó# YWj_ed"WdZfem[hj^Wj_cfb_Y_jbokdZ[hc_d[j^[kd_joWdZYe^[h# 1. Yvonne Rainer, “Looking Myself in [dY[e\ÇWkj^ehÈWdZÇmeha$È' the Mouth,” October No. 17, Summer 1981, p. 76. HW_d[hÊibeei[bo#ijhkYjkh[Zj[njfedZ[him^[j^[h9W][WdÇc[j^eZi e\ded#^_[hWhY^_YWb"_dZ[j[hc_dWj[eh]Wd_pWj_ed"ÈXohWdZec_p_d] i[gk[dY[ie\i_]d_Ó[hiWdZ[nYbkZ_d]ikX`[Yj_l[ef[hWj_edie\ i[b[Yj_edWdZYedjheb"kbj_cWj[boÇWjj[cfjjeZ[doj^[l[ho\kdYj_ed e\bWd]kW][ÈWbje][j^[h$7dZi^[medZ[him^[j^[h9W][Êifhe]hWc# cWj_YÇ_dZ_\\[h[dY[ÈWdZh[\kiWbe\Wkj^ehi^_f"fei[ZWij^[ijhW# j[]_Yh[`[Yj_ede\Whj_ij_Y][d_kiWdZWkj^eh_jo"X[Yec[Yecfb_Y_j m_j^Wikffh[ii_ede\ikX`[Yj_l_joWdZfeb_j_YWbYedj[ijWj_ed$HW_d[h j^[dYedYbkZ[ij^WjÇ9W][Êi[\\ehjije[b_c_dWj[WdZikffh[ii c[Wd_d]i^ekbZ_ddemWoX[Yed\ki[Zm_j^j^[h[\kiWbjeÓnc[Wd# 2. Ibid., pp. 67, 68, 76. _d]e\m^_Y^8Whj^[iif[Wai$È(
7iW\[cWb[Whj_ijm^ei[emdYWh[[h[cXeZ_[iWi[je\^_ijeh_YWb jhWdi_j_edi\hec9W][WdWdZc_d_cWb_ijfh_dY_fb[i_dj^['/,&i jemWhZi[d]W][c[djim_j^dWhhWj_l[WdZf[hiedWbWdZfeb_j_YWb
''. ^_ijeh_[i_dj^['/-&iWdZ'/.&i"HW_d[hcWoX[_Z[Wbbofei[Zje Yecfh[^[dZj^[fej[dj_WbiWdZb_c_jie\Y[hjW_dYecfei_j_edWb ijhWj[]_[i$7dZ^[hgk[ij_edi"WXekjj^[^_ijeh_YWb[\\[Yjie\Wdj_# h[\[h[dj_WbWdZZ[#ikX`[Yj_\o_d]ijhWj[]_[i"h[cW_dm_j^ki$7dZo[j" ckY^WXekj^[hWYYekdjh[cW_dikdiWj_i\o_d]"f[h^Wfiij[cc_d] \hec^[hkdZ[hijWdZ_d]e\9W][Êifhe`[YjWiWh[bWj_l[bokd_Ó[Z" 3. Of course, in the context of dance ioij[cWj_Yi[je\fh_dY_fb[i$) in the 1960s, in and around Merce Cunningham, Cage’s practice may indeed have been experienced as >Wl_d]fkjHW_d[hÊiYh_j_gk[edj^[jWXb["?fhefei[jeij[fXWYa a coherent aesthetic; one gets a more vivid sense of this from the recent WdZbeea"dejWjiec[el[hWbbÇf^_beief^oÈe\9W][Êimeha"Xkj autobiography of Carolyn Brown, WjWi[je\Yecfei_j_edWbijhWj[]_[iWdZZ[l_Y[i$HW_d[hÊi[\\ehjje Chance and Circumstance: Twenty Years with Cage and Cunningham, Ç[nWc_d[Y[hjW_djhekXb_d]_cfb_YWj_edie\9W][Êi_Z[WiÈj[dZi New York: Knopf, 2007. jefh[i[djWi^ece][dekiWdZÓn[ZWi[je\ijhWj[]_[im^ei[ ^_ijeh_YWb[bWXehWj_edmWi\Whceh[j[djWj_l[ÅWdZceh[Ybei[bo _cfb_YWj[Zm_j^[c[h]_d]feijijhkYjkhWbfWhWZ_]ciÅj^WdHW_d[h WYademb[Z][i$
?m_bbekjb_d[^[h[Wi[h_[ie\cel[i][d[hWj[Z_d9W][Êimehakfje j^[[Whbo'/+&i"Wjj^[cec[djm^[d^[_iij_bbcel_d]WmWo\hec cki_YWbijhkYjkh[WdZYedl[dj_edWbcki_YWbbWd]kW][$J^_if[h_eZ Åhek]^bo'/)/Å+(Å_i[njhWehZ_dWh_bo\hk_j\kbdejedbo_d9W][Êi emdmeha"Xkj_dj^[ceZ[bij^Wj_jfhel_Z[i\ehfkbb_d]WfWhjWi[j e\Yedl[dj_ediWdZ"_dieZe_d]"][d[hWj_d]Wm^eb[i[je\cWj[h_# Wbi"ijhkYjkh[iWdZfhWYj_Y[i$?j_iWbieYhkY_Wb\ehki"Wjj^_icec[dj" jeh[ikiY_jWj[j^[[Whbo
5. Branden W. Joseph, “The Tower :[if_j[9W][Êiemd[\\ehjije_dij_bbWc[Wikh[e\f^_beief^_Y and the Line: Toward a Genealogy of Ye^[h[dY["j^[hkfjkh[i"Xh[Waj^hek]^iWdZYekdjb[ii\W_bkh[ie\ Minimalism,” Grey Room No. 27, Spring 2007, p. 60. While I may not agree with ^_iYWh[[hWh[^WhZjeYedjW_dm_j^_dWYedi_ij[djdWhhWj_l[$>_i his diagnosis of Cage’s development, YedijWdjboY^Wd]_d]Yecfei_j_edWbfhWYj_Y[_idejWioij[c"WdZ Joseph’s work is among the most acute recent efforts to theorize Cage’s [\\ehjijeh[dZ[h_j_djeWdoj^_d]b_a[Wioij[cWj_YXeZoe\_Z[Wieh practice and its implication for wider ijhWj[]_[i"?\[Wh"h_iaibei_d]_jihWZ_YWbbo[nfbehWjeho"Wdj_#ioij[# arts practice. cWj_Yfej[dj_Wb"WiWi[h_[ie\\hW]c[dji"ehWi[je\cel[i"j^Wj
''/ Yedj_dkWbboi^_\jZ[f[dZ_d]edj^[fhe`[Yj$?dij[WZ"_d9W][Êi[Whbo meha"m[YWdbeYWj[Wi[h_[ie\YhkY_WbYecfei_j_edWbijhWj[]_[i WdZef[hWj_edi"ceZ[bij^Wjm_bbX[jWa[dkf_dZ_\\[h[djWdZYed# Ô_Yj_d]mWoi_d^_iemdmeha"WdZÅ\hecj^['/+&iedÅ_dj^[meha e\ej^[hWhj_iji$J^[i[cel[iWh[fej[dj_Wbboel[hbWff_d]"WdZfe# j[dj_WbboYedjhWZ_Yjeho"WdZ_dcWdoh[if[Yji9W][_iXodec[Wdi j^[Çeh_]_dWjehÈe\j^[cXkjWl_jWbYebb[Yjeh"ki[h"WdZZ_ii[c_dW# jeh"m^ei[h[b[djb[ii[\\ehji^[bf[Zf[hc_jfh[l_ekibocWh]_dWb_p[Z _Z[WiWdZfeii_X_b_j_[ijeX[h[#Y_hYkbWj[ZWdZh[ceX_b_p[ZWc_Zij j^[YhkY_WbjhWdi\ehcWj_ediWdZXh[WaZemdie\c_Z#jm[dj_[j^# Y[djkhoceZ[hd_ici$
CoemdWdWboi_i^Wie\j[dZ[fWhj[Z\hec*’))”WiWYhkY_Wbfh[Y[# Z[dj\ehWdkcX[he\ijhWj[]_[ij^Wj^Wl[X[[dh[#Y_hYkbWj[Z"_d l[hoZ_\\[h[dj\ehci"_dZ_l[hi[fhe`[Yji_dj^[l_ikWbWhji"mh_j_d]" iekdZ"ÓbcWdZl_Z[e"i_dY[j^[bWj['/+&i$7im[adem"Xoj^[[Whbo '/,&i"9W][^_ci[b\mekbZfheckb]Wj[W\h[[#\ehcl[hi_ede\*’))” j^Wj^[YekbZÇf[h\ehcÈ_dj^[meeZim^_b[i[WhY^_d]\ehcki^# heeci"m^_Y^YekbZbWijWdoWcekdje\j_c[WdZYedi_ijii_cfbo e\Wjj[dj_l[bob_ij[d_d]jej^[mehbZWhekdZed[ÅWi_\j^[iYeh[ i_cfboh[WZÇB_ij[d$È=_l[d9W][Êi]hem_d]Z_iYec\ehjm_j^Wdo _cfei[ZijhkYjkh["cWdoe\^_ibWj[hh[cWhai[\\[Yj_l[boZ[doj^[ \ehcWbif[Y_ÓY_joe\*’))”WiWYecfei[Zmeham_j^j^h[[cel[# c[djiYedi_ij_d]e\[nj[hdWbbo][d[hWj[ZZkhWj_edi$
M^WjWh[iec[e\j^[a[oWif[Yjie\j^_if_[Y[Å\ehbWj[hWhjfhWY# j_Y[iWdZ\ehfhWYj_Y[ij^WjcWoo[j[c[h][5
' J^[YedY[fjkWb_pWj_ede\j^[mehae\WhjWiWZkhWj_edWb[nf[h_# [dY["WdZWiWa_dZe\j[cfehWbYedjW_d[h"XWi[Zed[nj[hdWbboeh WhX_jhWh_bo[ijWXb_i^[Zj_c[XhWYa[jij^WjZ[j[hc_d[^embed]Wd WYj_edeh[l[djm_bbX[YWhh_[ZekjÅWcel[jWa[dkfWdZh[_dj[h# fh[j[Z"\eh_dijWdY["_dj^[[WhboYWc[hWhebbÓbcie\7dZoMWh^eb ehj^[dkc[heki[Whbol_Z[eij^Wjki[j^[[nj[hdWb\hWc[e\j^[ ijWdZWhZb[d]j^ie\jWf[ijeYajeZ[j[hc_d[j^[ZkhWj_ede\Wmeha
( 8o[cfjo_d]ekjWdoel[hjYedj[dj"j^[_cfb_Y_j\eYkiedj^[ i_jkWj_ed_ji[b\"Xej^_dWf[hY[fjkWbi[di[Åj^[mWoWf[h\ehcWdY[ e\*’))”_dl_j[ikijeb_ij[djeWcX_[djiekdZiWdZ[nf[h_[dY[ j^[[n_ij_d]iekdZmehbZWiWa_dZe\cki_YÅWdZWbieWh]kWXbo_d Wceh[YedY[fjkWbi[di["_dj^[mWoj^Wjj^_iWXi[dY[e\Çcki_Y"È _dj^[Yedl[dj_edWbi[di["Wbiec_]^j_dl_j[kije\eYkiedj^[
'(' \hWc_d]Yedl[dj_edie\j^[cki_YYedY[hjWdZjeh[Ô[Yjed_jWi Wd_dij_jkj_ed$
) 8[YWki[e\_ji[lWYkWj_ede\Yedl[dj_edWbcki_YWbcWj[h_Wbi" j^[\kdYj_ede\dejWj_edY^Wd][iWdZX[Yec[iWdef[hWj_edWb ceZ[b"ed[e\Z[iYh_X_d]j^_d]ijeZe"fbWY[Zm_j^_dWj_c[ijhkY# jkh[ WdZ_dj^_ih[YedÓ]khWj_ed"bWd]kW][fbWoiWd_dYh[Wi_d]bo , 6. As I have argued elsewhere, in its use Y[djhWbheb[ $ of language, the linguistically-notated typewritten version of the piece inaugu- rates a practice of the text as score – a * J^[_iebWj_ede\j^[iYeh[WiWi[fWhWj[]hWf^_Y%j[njkWbeX`[Yj" practice that places language in the am- bivalent temporality of musical notation, debed][hZ[f[dZ[djkfedf[h\ehcWdY["\ehm^_Y^h[WZ_d]_ji[b\ where it functions as both prescription cWoYedij_jkj[Çh[Wb_pWj_edÈÅWcel[j^Wj^[bf[Zfhef[bj^[_dj[h# and record – while simultaneously crys- tallising a practice of pure durational [ij_dÇbWd]kW][f_[Y[iÈ_dj^['/,&i"_dYbkZ_d]j^[[l[djiYeh[i structure. Written, it would seem, per- WiieY_Wj[Zm_j^ JejhWY[iec[e\9W][Êi[Whb_[hfhe`[Yjij^WjYekbZX[i[[dWifh[# fWh_d]j^[mWo\eh*’))“"m[c_]^jijWhjm_j^jmea[omehai\hec '/)/"j^[<_hij9edijhkYj_ed _dc[jWb WdZ?cW]_dWhoBWdZiYWf[ De$'$J^[i[[WhboYecfei_j_ediZhefYbkij[hie\f[hYkii_ediekdZi _djefh[#Z[j[hc_d[Zj[cfehWb]h_Zi"eh]Wd_p[ZXoWcWYheYeic_Y% c_YheYeic_YijhkYjkh[$?j_iX[]_dd_d]m_j^j^[i[mehai"Wi@Wc[i Fh_jY^[jjWh]k[i"j^WjÇcki_YWbijhkYjkh[iXWi[Zedb[d]j^ie\ j_c[¾X[YWc[j^[XWi_ie\Wbb9W][Êif[hYkii_edcki_Y\hec'/)/ edmWhZi"ÈWfhWYj_Y[j^Wjh[b_[ZedÇj^[YedY[fj_ede\Yecfei_# 8. James Pritchett, The Music of j_ediehf[h\ehcWdY[iWij_c[ijhkYjkh[i$È.7dZ"WiFWkb=h_\Ój^i John Cage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 13. fhefei[i0Ǿj^[WZlWdjW][e\ijhkYjkh_d]cki_YXob[d]j^ie\ j_c[hWj^[hj^Wd^Whced_Yioij[c¾_idejedboj^Wji_b[dY[YWdX[ '(( jh[Wj[ZWYYehZ_d]jej^[iWc[hkb[iWiiekdZXkjWbiej^Wjj^ei[ hkb[iYWdX[Wffb_[Z_dZ_\\[h[djbojef_jY^[ZiekdZiWdZjede_i[i" / 9. Paul Griffiths, John Cage, London: Wij^[oWh[_dj^[<_hij9edijhkYj_ed$È Oxford University Press, 1981, p. 11. 7i9W][cel[ZjemWhZkdehj^eZended#jedWb_dijhkc[dji"Ybki# j[hie\kdYeZ_ÓWXb[WdZ\kdZWc[djWbbokdijhkYjkh[ZÇiekdZ [l[djiÈZ_ifbWY[Zj^[f_jY^[Z"j_c[ZWdZYedl[dj_edWbboZ[Ód[Z cki_YWbdej[$<_hij9edijhkYj_ediWmj^[Yecfb[j[\hW]c[djWj_ed WdZZ_if[hi_ede\iekdZ[l[dji_djeWYecfb[n"cWj^[cWj_YWbbo Z[h_l[ZijhkYjkh["h[bo_d][nYbki_l[boedf[hYkii_ed_dijhkc[dji$ Fh_jY^[jjÊih[YedijhkYj[ZZ_W]hWci^emi^emj^[<_hij9edijhkYj_ed _iXhea[dZemd_djeWi[h_[ie\WhX_jhWhoo[jioij[cWj_Yf^hWi[ b[d]j^i0_d9W][Êi[Whbo[\\ehjijefheZkY[\ehcm_j^ikY^Z_ifWhWj[ cWj[h_Wbi"WcWYheYeic_Y%c_YheYeic_YfWjj[hd_d]h[gk_h[ij^Wj [WY^XWheX[oij^[iWc[*#)#(#)#*ijhkYjkh[ki[Zjeeh]Wd_p[j^[ f_[Y[WiWm^eb[$7iFh_jY^[jjdej[i0Ǿj^[f_[Y[Yedi_ijie\',kd_ji" 10. Pritchett, p. 16. [WY^m_j^WZkhWj_ede\',c[Wikh[i"\ehWjejWbe\(+,c[Wikh[i$È'& J^_i]h_Z#b_a[\ehcWbijhkYjkh["_d_j_Wbbo_cfei[ZedXej^el[hWbb ÇcWYheYeic_YÈ WdZdej[#je#dej[ Çc_YheYeic_YÈ b[l[bi"_iW ioij[cj^Wjmehai_dZ[f[dZ[djboe\WdZ_dZ_\\[h[djbojeiekdZ_d] cWj[h_Wb$M_j^_dj^_iioij[c"WdoWkZ_Xb[cWj[h_WbcWo\kdYj_ed WiWÇiekdZ[l[dj"È[l[dj[ijjed[h[YehZiehid_ff[jie\fh[\WXh_YWj# [Zcki_YWbcWj[h_Wb"Wi_dj^[?cW]_dWhoBWdZiYWf[i$J^ki"_j_ij^[ l[hoh_]_Z_joe\j^[fh[#Z[j[hc_d[Z"ZkhWj_edWbboXWi[ZijhkYjkh[i e\j^[[Whb_[hmehaij^Wjf[hc_jij^[WffWh[djÇ\h[[ZecÈe\ckY^ e\9W][ÊiikXi[gk[dj[\\ehji$7i=h_\Ój^i[bkY_ZWj[i"h[]WhZ_d] j^[f[Ykb_WhYe[n_ij[dY[e\h_]_ZgkWdj_ÓYWj_edWdZWffWh[djÇ\h[[ fbWoÈ_d9W][ÊiYecfei_j_edie\j^['/*&i0ÇM_j^WÓn[Z\hWc[# meha"Ón[ZcWj[h_Wbi"WdZÓn[ZmWoie\meha_d]"9W][Wbbem[Z ^_ci[b\\h[[Zec_d^em^[fbWY[Z[l[djim_j^_dj^[ZkhWj_edWb ]h_Z$È7i[WhboWi'/*'"_dJ^_hZ9edijhkYj_ed"j^[Ç_dj[hdWbZ_l_i_ed e\j^[i[Yj_edii^emdeh[]kbWh_jo¾QWdZj^_iSmWijeX[j^[fWj# 11. Ibid., p. 12. j[hde\j^[\kjkh[$È'' J^kiWbh[WZo_dj^[i[[Whbof_[Y[i"m[^Wl[WbWj[djceZ[bdej edbo\ehWfhWYj_Y[e\fkh[ZkhWj_edWbijhkYjkh["Xkje\j^[_cfb_Y_j [gk_lWb[dY[e\cWj[h_Wbim_j^_dj^WjijhkYjkh[$?dWZZ_j_ed"j^_i h[YedY[fjkWb_pWj_ede\j^[cki_YWbYecfei_j_edWiWfh[Z[j[hc_d[Z j_c[ijhkYjkh["WlW_bWXb[jeX[Óbb[ZXoWdoYedj[dj"_d[l_jWXbo h[YWbbij^[ef[hWj_edie\WiekdZh[YehZ_d]c[Y^Wd_ic"_dj^[ mWoj^WjWZ_iYehjWf[cWa[iWlW_bWXb[Wfh[#i[j"fh[Z[j[hc_d[Z gkWdj_joe\j_c[jeX[Óbb[Zm_j^m^Wj[l[h^Wff[dijeeYYkhZkh_d] '(, j^Wjj_c[$7dZ"Wij^[i[Çd[miekdZiÈcel[jej^[\eh["_dWbbj^[_h i_d]kbWh_joWdZZ_if[hi_ed"j^[heb[e\j^[Yecfei[h_ijeiec[ Z[]h[[XWYa]hekdZ[Z"WiWdeh]Wd_p[he\iekdZi"m_j^WY[hjW_d fhW]cWj_icj^Wj[Y^e[iLWhi[$9W][]hWZkWbboh[YedY_b[ij^[heb[ e\j^[Yecfei[hWiioij[c#Xk_bZ[hm_j^j^[h[Wb_joWdZi_d]kbWh_joe\ j^[i[iekdZi"b[WZ_d]jej^[hWZ_YWbYedi[gk[dY[j^WjijhkYjkh[_i Z[jWY^[Z\heciekdZ$ <_hij9edijhkYj_edmekbZieedX[\ebbem[ZXoj^[ceh[W]]h[ii_l[bo 14. Luigi Russolo, The Art of Noises F[h^WfiZk[je^_if[hi_ij[djbWYae\WYY[iije[gk_fc[djWdZijk# (1913–16), translated and with an introduction by Barclay Brown. New Z_ei"h[bWj_l[bo\[me\9W][Êi[WhboYecfei_j_ediki[ikY^_Z[dj_Ó# York: Pendragon Press, 1986; Henry WXboÇ^_]^j[Y^Èc[Wdi$8kj_j_i_cfehjWdjjeh[YWbbjem^Wj[nj[dj Cowell, New Musical Resources, New York-London: Knopf, 1930; and Carlos ^_i[WhboYecfei_j_ediÅWdZ^_ikdZ[hijWdZ_d]e\cki_YÅ[c[h][Z Chávez, Toward a New Music: Music _dh[bWj_edjed[mj[Y^debe]_[ie\iekdZfheZkYj_ed"jhWdic_ii_ed and Electricity, New York: W. W. Norton, 1937. WdZh[YehZ_d]$7i:Wl_ZD_Y^ebbiWdZej^[hi^Wl[dej[Z"9W][Êi[Whbo cWd_\[ijeih[l[Wb^_c_dWdWlem[Zbo '(- \h[gk[dYo"Wcfb_jkZ[WdZZkhWj_ed"WdZd[mÓbc#XWi[Zh[YehZ_d] YWfWY_j_[ij^WjcWa[_jfeii_Xb[jec[Wikh[c_dkj[j_c[XhWYa[ji ÅWdZYWbb[Z\ehY[dj[hie\[nf[h_c[djWbcki_Yj^WjmekbZfhel_Z[ Çj^[d[mcWj[h_Wbi"eiY_bbWjehi"jkhdjWXb[i"][d[hWjehi"c[Wdie\ Wcfb_\o_d]icWbbiekdZi"Óbcf^ede]hWf^i"[jY"WlW_bWXb[\ehki["È Wbbem_d]ceZ[hdYecfei[hiÇjeYWfjkh[WdZYedjhebj^[i[iekdZi" 17. Cage, “The Future of Music: Credo” jeki[j^[cdejWiiekdZ[\\[YjiXkjWicki_YWb_dijhkc[dji$È'- (1937/1940), Silence, Middeltown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1961, pp. 6, I[[_d]f[hYkii_edcki_YWiÇWYedj[cfehWhojhWdi_j_ed\heca[o# 3. While this essay has long been dated XeWhZ_dÔk[dY[Zcki_Yjej^[Wbb#iekdZcki_Ye\j^[\kjkh["È9W][ to 1937, Leta E. Miller has persuasively argued that Cage could not have given fh[Z_Yjij^Wj_dj^[\kjkh["j^[Yecfei[hm_bbX[\WY[ZÇdejedbom_j^ the Seattle talk until 1940; see Miller, j^[[dj_h[Ó[bZe\iekdZXkjWbiem_j^j^[[dj_h[Ó[bZe\j_c[$È'. “Cultural Intersections: John Cage in Seattle (1938–1940),” in David W. Patterson, (ed.); and “Cage’s Collabo- 7iD_Y^ebbiÊiZ[jW_b[ZYecfWh_iede\9W][ÊicWd_\[ijejej^[mh_j# rations,” in David Nicholls, (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to John Cage, _d]ie\HkiiebeWdZ9^|l[pcWa[iYb[Wh"9W][Wjj^_icec[dj Cambridge: Cambridge University mWidejieckY^WfWj^#Xh[Wa[hWiWd[dj^ki_Wij_YY^Wcf_ede\ Press, 2002. j^[ceh[kdehj^eZencki_YWbYkhh[djie\Wd_dYh[Wi_d]bo_dj[hdW# 18. Cage, “The Future of Music: Credo,” j_edWbceZ[hd_ic$O[j9W][Êiki[e\f[hYkii_edjecel[\hecj^[ p. 5. Ça[oXeWhZ_dÔk[dY[Zcki_YÈe\j^[fWijjej^[ÇWbb#iekdZcki_Y e\j^[\kjkh[ÈmekbZ[l[djkWbbofhef[bWYecfb[j[h[j^_da_d]e\ j^[dWjkh[e\iekdZ"WXWdZed_d]m^Wj9W][j[hcij^[ÇYWkj_eki ij[ff_d]Èe\Z_iYh[j[dej[i\ehj^[Yedj_dkekiÇÓ[bZÈcWZ[fei# i_Xb[Xoj^[d[mj[Y^debe]_[ie\Wcfb_ÓYWj_ed"c_Yhef^edo"hWZ_e WdZcW]d[j_YjWf[$?dj^_ibWd]kW][e\Z_iYh[j[ij[fiWdZYedj_dk# ekifhef[hj_[i"m[YWddej\W_bjeh[Ye]d_p[j^[jhWdi_j_ed\hec WYedl[dj_edWbbo#XWi[Z"b_d]k_ij_Yioij[cjej^[ef[hWj_edie\ j^[c[Y^Wd_YWbbo h[ fheZkY[Z_dZ[nÅm_j^Wbbj^[[dehcekiY^Wb# b[d][ijej^[fheZkYj_ede\c[Wd_d]j^Wjj^_ibWjj[h_djheZkY[i$ ?dWZZ_j_edjeh[bo_d]edWd[c[h]_d]ceZ[be\j^[Yecfei_j_ed WiWd[kjhWbj[cfehWbYedjW_d[h"m[c_]^jdej[^em"_dmehaib_a[ j^[?cW]_dWhoBWdZiYWf[i"j^[kdehj^eZen_dijhkc[djWj_edcWa[i 9W][ÊiiYeh[i_dYh[Wi_d]boZ[f[dZ[djedl[hXWbWddejWj_ed$Ed[ _cfehjWdj[\\[Yje\9W][Êi[cXhWY[e\d[mj[Y^debe]_[imWij^[ mWoj^Wjj^_iY^Wd][ij^[\kdYj_ede\dejWj_ed$?d?cW]_dWhoBWdZ# iYWf[De$'"m[YWdi[[j^_i_d[cXhoed_Y\ehc0Wbj^ek]^j^[Óhij fW][e\j^[iYeh[e\beeaib_a[\W_hboYedl[dj_edWbcki_YWbdejWj_ed" j^[_dijhkc[djWj_ed_iZ[Y_Z[Zbokdehj^eZen$7iWh[ikbj"m^Wj dejWj_edZe[iijWhjijeY^Wd][0Wdej[edWfW]["hWj^[hj^WdX[_d] Wh[fh[i[djWj_ede\Wd_Z[Wbdej["_dij[WZijWhjijeX[Yec[iec[# j^_d]ceh[b_a[WZ_h[Yj_ed\ehWdWYj_ed$ J^_iÇef[hWj_edWbÈceZ[be\cki_YWbdejWj_edYec[ijej^[\eh[ Wi9W][Êicki_YWbcWj[h_WbiX[Yec[_dYh[Wi_d]bokdehj^eZen$ '(. 7bj^ek]^9W][ÊiiYeh[\ehj^[IedWjWiWdZ?dj[hbkZ[iij_bbbeeai Yedl[dj_edWb"j^[\kdYj_ede\dejWj_ed^Wi_dYh[Wi_d]bocel[ZWmWo \hech[fh[i[dj_d]iekdZijemWhZij^_ief[hWj_edWbceZ[b"_dZ_YWj# _d]WYj_edi$J^[Ykbc_dWj_ede\d[WhboWZ[YWZ[e\meham_j^j^[ fh[fWh[Zf_Wde"j^[IedWjWiWdZ?dj[hbkZ[iiWm9W][WXWdZedj^[ cWj^[cWj_YWbbo#][d[hWj[Zh[bWj_edie\m^eb[jefWhjiki[Z_d[Whb_# [hYecfei_j_edib_a[j^[9edijhkYj_ediWdZ?cW]_dWhoBWdZiYWf[i"je WZefjfheY[Zkh[ih[fh[i[dj_d]m^Wj^[mekbZbWj[hZ[iYh_X[WiÇj^[ '/ 19. “Interview with Richard Kostelanetz” i^_\j\heccki_YWiijhkYjkh[jecki_YWifheY[ii$È ?dÇ 7im[adem"j^[IedWjWiÇfh[fWhWj_edÈ[djW_b[ZWd[njhWehZ_dWh_bo Z[jW_b[Zikffb[c[djWhodejWj_edj^Wji_]d_ÓYWdjboh[YWijij^[i[ Ó]kh[i"jWa_d]j^[\ehce\WYWh[\kbboZ_W]hWcc[ZWdZc[Wikh[Z '(/ ÇjWXb[e\fh[fWhWj_edi$ÈDejikhfh_i_d]bo"_j_ij^_ii[YedZÇiYeh["È j^[]hWf^_Y"]h_Z#b_a[jWXb[e\fh[fWhWj_edi"j^Wj_iceh[e\j[dh[# fheZkY[ZWiWd_bbkijhWj_ede\j^[meha"Wij^[[nfb_YWjeho\kdYj_edi e\WddejWj_edÅ^_ijeh_YWbbo"j^[fhel_dY[e\fWh[dj^[j_YWbb_d]k_ij_Y WdZcWj^[cWj_YWb_dijhkYj_edied^emWiYeh[_ijeX[f[h\ehc[Z Å_dYh[Wi_d]boel[hjWa[j^[h[fh[i[djWj_edWb\kdYj_edie\cki_YWb dejWj_edfhef[h$?d_jifh[Y_i[jWXkbWj_ede\c[Wikh[c[dji" cWj[h_WbiWdZc[j^eZie\fbWY[c[dj"j^[ÇjWXb[e\fh[fWhWj_ediÈ [n[cfb_Ó[ij^[i^_\jjemWhZdejWj_edWij^[if[Y_ÓYWj_ede\WY# 23. This new function of notation, and j_edi"eX`[YjiWdZfheY[Zkh[i$() the relative unpredictability of the prepared piano as an instrument, can be seen as the forerunners of more pro- 9W][WdÇ_dZ[j[hc_dWYoÈh[fh[i[djied[ekjYec[e\j^_ih[YedÓ]# grammatic “indeterminacy” in Cage’s work. Griffiths proposes that Cage’s first kh_d]e\dejWj_ed"\hecWd_Z[Wb_p[Zh[fh[i[djWj_edjeiec[j^_d] solo for prepared piano, Bacchanale h[i[cXb_d]WdÇef[hWj_edWbÈceZ[b"b_a[Wb_ije\_dijhkYj_ediehW (1940), inaugurates a newly “oblique relationship between sound and scores“; i[je\fheY[Zkh[i$7dZWbj^ek]^ikXi[gk[djWhj_ij_Yfhe`[Yjie\j^[ for while “on the printed page such a '/,&i"ikY^Wij^[fheje# Iec[e\j^[[\\[Yjie\j^[i[i^_\ji_dj^[\kdYj_ede\dejWj_edWdZ j^[heb[e\j^[f[h\ehc[hYWdX[i[[d_d9W][ÊiYecfei_j_edMWj[h Cki_Y"mh_jj[d_d'/+(i[l[hWbcedj^iX[\eh[*’))“$9ecfei[Z Ç\ehWf_Wd_ij"ki_d]WbieWhWZ_e"m^_ijb[i"mWj[hYedjW_d[hi"WZ[Ya e\YWhZi"WmeeZ[dij_Ya"WdZeX`[Yji\ehfh[fWh_d]Wf_Wde"ÈMWj[h Cki_YmWiWh]kWXboj^[Óhije\9W][ÊiÇj^[Wj[hf_[Y[i"Èfh[ZWj_d] j^[kdj_jb[ZÇJ^[Wj[h;l[djÈWj8bWYaCekdjW_d9ebb[][Xoj^h[[ (* 24. See William Fetterman, John cedj^i"WiM_bb_Wc<[jj[hcWd^Wife_dj[Zekj$ J^[f_[Y[Z[Xkj[Z Cage’s Theatre Pieces: Notations and Wjj^[D[mIY^eeb_dCWo'/+("WdZ_d_j_WbboYWhh_[Zj^[j_jb[e\j^[ Performances, Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1996. ZWj[ehfbWY[e\_jif[h\ehcWdY[Å[$]$Ç,,M$'(ÈehbWj[h"Ç7k]$'(" '/+(È(+ÅWYedijWdjh[#j_jb_d] bWj[hikif[dZ[Z j^WjmWifh[ikc# 25. In Robert Dunn, (ed.), John Cage, New York: C. F. Peters, 1962, p. 43. WXboZ[i_]d[ZjedWc[[WY^f[h\ehcWdY[WZ_ij_dYjÇmeha$ÈFh_jY^[jj dej[ij^Wj9W][_dYehfehWj[ZZ[b_X[hWj[boj^[Wjh_YWbWYj_edi_dje j^[Y^Whjiki[ZjeYecfei[j^[f_[Y[0\eh[nWcfb["Wjed[fe_dj j^[f_Wd_ijZ[WbifbWo_d]YWhZi_djej^[ijh_d]ie\j^[f_Wde1_d WZZ_j_ed"MWj[hCki_YmWiÇj^[Óhijf_[Y[_dm^_Y^9W][ki[ZYbeYa 26. Pritchett, p. 89. j_c[hWj^[hj^Wdc[jh_YWbj_c[_d^_iZkhWj_edi$È(,Cekdj[ZWiW feij[h"jeX[l_[m[ZXoj^[WkZ_[dY[Zkh_d]j^[f[h\ehcWdY["j^[ ')& _Z_eiodYhWj_Y\ehcWjYhoijWbb_p[Z9W][Êiki[e\j^[cki_YWbiYeh[ WiWkd_gk[l_ikWbeX`[Yjj^Wjh[i_ijijhWdibWj_ed_djeYedl[dj_edWb dejWj_ed$7dZj^[\kdYj_edWbWkjedecoe\j^_idejWj_ed"WiW l_ikWbeX`[Yj"f[h^Wfii[hl[iWiWcWha[h\ehj^_iY^Wd]_d]ijWjki e\j^[meha"m^_Y^YWddebed][hX[_bbkijhWj[Zehh[fh[i[dj[Z Xo_jiiYeh[$ 9kbc_dWj_d]Wbed]i[h_[ie\[\\ehjijeki[d[mboWlW_bWXb[j[Y^debe# ]_[ie\iekdZ][d[hWj_ed"_jmekbZX[m_j^j^[M_bb_WciC_n '/+( " ÇWiYeh[¾\ehcWa_d]cki_YedcW]d[j_YjWf["Èj^Wj9W][^WZ ^_iceijikijW_d[Z[dYekdj[hm_j^WkZ_ejWf[j[Y^debe]o$7i^Wi X[Yec[Wbceijb[][dZ"9W][Êimeham_j^jWf[Wbj[h[Z^_ikdZ[hijWdZ# _d]e\j^[dWjkh[e\iekdZWdZj_c["WdZZ[Y_i_l[bojhWdi\ehc[Z^_i ki[e\dejWj_ed$8o_jicWj[h_WbijhkYjkh["WkZ_ejWf[cWd_\[ijij_c[ WiWifWj_WbYedj_dkkc"WdZh[dZ[hi_jikX`[Yjje_dj[di[cWd_fkbW# j_ed$O[j\hkijhWj[ZXo^_i\W_bkh[jeWY^_[l[Yedjhebj^hek]^jWf[ ifb_Y_d]WdZiodY^_d]"9W][fWhWZen_YWbbomekbZÓdZ_dWkZ_ejWf[ ÇWdec[dje]ekdÓn[Z"È]_l[kfYedjheb"WdZcel[jemWhZceh[ fheY[ii#XWi[ZfheY[Zkh[i$?d_jiWXikhZYecfb[n_joWdZfh[Y_i_ed" M_bb_WciC_nh[fh[i[djij^[Ykbc_dWj_ede\Wi[h_[ie\Yh_i[ij^Wj 27. Interview with Richard Kostelanetz, (ed.), Conversing with Cage, p. 162. m_bbX[Wdim[h[ZXo*’))“$ The version played at Cage’s 25-Year Retrospective was 5'43''.” 8oWbbWYYekdji"j^[fheY[iie\Yebb[Yj_d]WdZ^WdZ#ifb_Y_d]j^[ 28. Christian Wolff recalls that Cage h[YehZ[ZiekdZij^WjcWa[kfj^[mehamWiWhZkeki0Ç?jjeeaWXekj was familiar with the tape music of Oscar Luening and Vladimir Ussachevsky Wo[Wh"m_j^^[bf"jeifb_Y[j^[M_bb_WciC_n"m^_Y^mWi_ji[b\Wb_jjb[ at Columbia, but found it wanting: “It el[h\ekhc_dkj[ie\cki_Y$È(-9W][Êi_dj[di_l[\hW]c[djWj_ede\ may have been interesting because of using the tape, but musically they were iekdZcWj[h_WbiWffWh[djboWhei[\hec^_iZ[i_h[je_dj[]hWj[j^[ using tape in ways that seemed too d[mj[Y^d_YWbc[Wdie\cW]d[j_YjWf[_djej^[fheY[iie\Yecfe# much like other kinds of music. This was the whole problem with the earlier i_j_ed"hWj^[hj^Wdki[ikY^c[WdijecWa[Wdoj^_d]h[i[cXb_d] tape music; one really had to rethink the Yedl[dj_edWbcki_Y$(.Meha_d]_dj^[ijkZ_ee\h[YehZ_d][d]_d[[hi whole process because of the technol- ogy.” In David W. Patterson, “Cage and Bek_iWdZ8[X[8Whhed"WdZm_j^j^[Wii_ijWdY[e\Yecfei[h;Whb[ Beyond: An Annotated Interview with 8hemd"9W][_di_ij[ZdejedboedikX`[Yj_d][WY^iekdZfWhWc[j[h Christian Wolff,” Perspectives of New Music 32/2, Summer 1994, p. 64. jebWXeh_ekibo#YedZkYj[ZY^WdY[Z[j[hc_dWj_edi"Xkjedmeha_d] f^oi_YWbbo"Xo^WdZ"m_j^j^[WkZ_ejWf["[nfbeh_d]ÇmWoie\Y^Wd]# 29. Kostelanetz, (ed.), Conversing with Cage, p. 162. Wolff confirms that: “In _d]j^[iekdZdejm_j^Z_WbiXkj"hWj^[h"Xof^oi_YWbboYkjj_d] Cage’s work, he wanted sounds that j^[jWf[$È(/M^_b[_ji[[cX[Wjhk_icj^Wjd[miekdZj[Y^debe]_[i could not be done on a recording, and, for example, he discovered that if you fej[dj_WbboZ[Yecfei[j^[Z_iYh[j[dej[ehkd_je\j_c["9W][Êi cut the tape at an angle, it would affect h[Yebb[Yj_ede\meha_d]edM_bb_WciC_n_bbkijhWj[ij^_i]hWf^_YWbbo0 the decay envelope of the sound. So when he composed Williams Mix, the ÇM^WjmWiie\WiY_dWj_d]WXekjjWf[feii_X_b_jomWij^WjWi[YedZ" angle of the cut at which the splice was m^_Y^m[^WZWbmWoij^ek]^jmWiWh[bWj_l[boi^ehjifWY[e\j_c[" made became part of the composition.” (Patterson, “Cage and Beyond,” p. 65). X[YWc[Ó\j[[d_dY^[i$?jX[YWc[iec[j^_d]gk_j[bed]j^WjYekbZ X[Ykjkf$Cehjo<[bZcWd¾jeeaWgkWhj[he\Wd_dY^WdZWia[Zki 30. Kostelanetz, (ed.), Conversing with )& Cage, p. 164. jefkj'"&/-iekdZi_d_j"WdZm[Z_Z_jÅm[WYjkWbboZ_Z_j$È ')' The score, which came to nearly 500 pages, was never published. Cage famously described it as “like a dressmaker’s pattern – it liter- ally shows where the tape shall be cut, and you lay the tape on the 31 31. “Interview with Michael Kirby score itself.” Yet the extremely detailed composition, rather than and Richard Schechner” (1965), in ibid., working as an exercise in control, instead produced the opposite: p. 163. sounds became distorted, measurements were never quite the same twice, sections that were supposed to sync up would be off by small but perceptible increments. While this was no doubt partly due to the arcane procedures and primitive technologies employed, Cage evidently came to understand such discrepancies as intrinsic to the apparatus. He would later declare that, during the Williams Mix: “I began to move away from the whole idea of control, even control by chance operations. It was a cross-roads for me. I took our failure to achieve synchronization as an omen to go to the unfixed, rather than change my methods so as to make it more fixed. Now of course they have equipment that makes possible much more precise control, and a lot of people are using 32. Cited in Calvin Tomkins, The Bride it to go in that direction.”32 and the Bachelors, New York: Penguin, 1976, p. 116. Thus, over a decade before the first sustained experiments with tape-phasing would be carried out by Tony Conrad, Steve Reich, Terry Riley and others, Cage would interpret this failure to achieve perfect synchronization, even with complex, multi-tracked tapes, as a license to free-up the relationships between simultaneous elements in order to permit unplanned superimposition and chance encounters, proclaiming in a 1957 text: “Those who have accepted the sounds they do not intend – now realize that the score, the requiring that many parts be played in a particular togetherness, is not an accurate representation of how things are. 33. Cage, “Experimental Music” (1957), These now compose parts but not scores, and the parts may be Silence, p. 11. As Griffiths suggests: “…the composer becomes a proposer, combined in any unthought ways. This means that each perfor- one who creates ‘opportunities for mance of such a piece of music is unique.”33 experience’ while denying himself those intentions of expressing, limiting and shaping which Cage had willingly claim- Uniqueness, non-interference, non-selectivity, perceptual open- ed in his works up to 1951. No less radically altered are the functions of ness to whatever occurs: these would become the hallmarks of a the performer and listener… His major distinctly “Cagean” aesthetics. Yet, however unified this project undertakings of the 1950s… [were] invitations to Tudor to exploit the may sometimes appear in retrospect, the practices it authorized furthest limits of a formidable virtuoso technique, to discover the unpredicted within Cage’s work alone would proceed down a number of diverg- and unpredictable. The listener, too, ing tracks. One, perhaps the most-commonly-emphasized, led is challenged to attend with minute concentration, not relating what he “toward theater,” as even the provisional perceptual unity of hears to any previous experience sound or audibility gave way to hybrid activities that would “en- but maintaining a state of unfettered receptiveness in which events may be gage the eye as well as the ear.” By the 1960s, Cage’s theatrically tranquilly accepted.” Griffiths, p. 37. oriented projects would erode distinctions between composer, 132 performer and audience in series of participatory and multimedia spectacles. Another, less acknowledged track, was the rise within new music of a new virtuosity in performance, as Cage’s emphatic deskilling of compositional procedures paradoxically placed unforeseen demands of physical dexterity, technical rigor and conceptual innovation on performers – perhaps revealing the disciplinary underside of the utopian, liberatory project of inde- terminacy. And, for minimal and post-minimal artists, Cage’s explicit activation of the recipient, in all its ambivalently participa- tory and disciplinary dimensions, would shift attention from the internal organization of the object toward what Rosalind Krauss has termed the “phenomenological vector,” engaging the “activity of organization and connection through which a subject engages 34 34. Rosalind Krauss, “A Voyage on the with a world as meaningful.” North Sea“: Art in the Age of the Post-Medium Condition, London and New York: Thames & Hudson, 1999, Cage’s own compositions of the 1950s and 1960s elicited this newly p. 59. activated receptiveness through multiplication and dispersion of phenomena: “…attention moves towards the observation and audi- tion of many things at once, including those that are environmen- tal – becomes, that is, inclusive rather than exclusive – no question of making, in the sense of forming understandable structures, can 35. Cage, “Experimental Music: arise.”35 Yet the compression and radicalization of these strategies Doctrine” (1955), Silence, p. 13. in 4’33“, the work which most clearly crystallize the new role of the listener, offers other possibilities: one which produces both a perceptual focusing – on the vicissitudes of sound in its most subtle and dramatic variations, and all the other things that might be going on at the same time – and also a conceptual reframing – as the withdrawal of overt musical “content” potentially directs attention to underlying structures and conventions of performance 36. It was apparently during his 1949 and enactment. In the interdisciplinary practices that emerge in trip to Europe that Cage found the score for Satie’s Vexations, which proposes the late 1950s and 1960s, artists will increasingly explore duration, 840 repetitions of a short musical repetition, serial structures, and process, moves echoed in Cage’s phrase; according to Calvin Tomkins, Cage had wanted to have it performed longstanding efforts to present the first public performance of Erik since 1950, but was only able to arrange Satie’s infamous Vexations, resulting in the now legendary nearly for its world premiere in 1963 in New 36 York, in an eighteen-hour-and-forty- nineteen-hour concert. minute performance undertaken by ten pianists including dancer Viola Farber, and musicians John Cale, Christian Wolff, Phillip Corner, and James Tenney, Looking back on Cage’s formative early period, there is something as well as Cage; Tomkins, pp. 138–39. According to George Plimpton’s about this series of moves that feels very relevant for our own pres- account, Warhol apparently attended ent – in the interplay between advanced technologies and low-tech the concert and claimed to have “sat through the whole thing“; in Jean Stein, means, and between structure and indeterminacy, finding free-play Edie: An American Biography, edited and “the permission to go unfixed” amidst the most rigidly deter- with George Plimpton, New York: Dell, 1982, p. 191. mined structures. One moment Cage (or David Tudor) is blowing 133 bubbles in a bowl of water, the next he is spending months hand- splicing audiotape. Part of what continues to intrigue us about Cage is that these are not discrete or opposed projects, but impulses that occur at the same moment, in a complex relation – so that the spare operational notation of 4’33” (in its various versions) emerges more or less at the same moment as the baroque hand-drawn figures of Water Music. Placed in this trajectory, 4’33” is a kind of hinge, both a logical culmination of the compositional experiments leading up to it and a genuine breakthrough making way for completely new ways of thinking of practice and work. By the time he arrives at 4’33“, the very status of “the work” is in question, notation no longer defines the work but is a device that gets the piece going, produc- ing realizations. Perhaps one of the lessons of Cage’s own progres- 37. An earlier version of this essay was presented on the panel “John Cage: sion by fits and starts and continued crises is that a living artistic Repercussions” in Los Angeles in project cannot be boiled down to a set of rules or concepts, or even February 2009; I thank Sandra Skurvida for inviting me. It draws on ideas and the seductive toolkit that Rainer lays out, of “repetition, indeter- materials originally developed in Words minate sequencing, sequence arrived at by aleatoric methods, and on Paper Not Necessarily Meant to Be Read as “Art“: Postwar Media Poetics ordinary/untransformed movement,” that was so productive for from Cage to Warhol, PhD dissertation, her work, and so many others, during the early 1960s. Instead, Columbia University, 2002, and my book Words to Be Looked At: Language in perhaps we can understand Cage’s project as fragmentary and 1960s Art, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2007. I thank Mark So for his insights open-ended, offering a set of tools for taking languages and struc- and challenges over many years. tures apart, and making new structures and new realizations.37 John Cage, Music of Changes, 1951. Cover, prefatory notes, and pages 15 and 17 135