THE COMPOSER DOESN’T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING!

I mean, you conceptualize something, a chorus of recorders tooting the same note randomly while doing hand stands… let’s call that Tim Lake’s Suite for Recorders No. 1, and guess what, I’ve just completed a very interesting piece of experimental music! Didn’t have to study my counterpoint or orchestration or anything. I didn’t even need my expensive Finale Software. Didn’t touch the piano. Voila! Think anyone will publish it? Scary thing is that someone might!

If on the other hand you mean that the structure of the I Ching (from a purely physicalist perspective) is such that outcomes are not equally probable — that it functions as a sort of black-box — then using the I Ching would indeed produce statistically different results from some other method of generating random numbers, and the end result of the music would be different. Cage would be making more decision himself (by assigning particular musical outcomes to more or less probable I Ching answers) but he is still relying on chance procedures to generate material.

If you’re arguing that we live in a purely physical and thus deterministic universe (but deterministic without being driven by intent) — that we don’t have free will and that the flipping of a coin is predetermined but appears random because we don’t have access to all of the billions of causal factors, then we agree. But I don’t see that as particularly relevant, since in order to talk about art and decision making and so on we have to pretend we live in a universe where we have free will.

If all that you’re saying is that the beliefs about the nature of the I Ching that are held by the audience affect their aesthetic reception of the piece, then we agree entirely (and have agreed all along). Hearing a piece that you think was composed through consultation with a magical oracle is a totally different experience from hearing a piece you think was composed with chance procedures. And while Cage may or may not have been deliberately trading on this fact, it remains true for the audience.

“(and I repeat that I have no knowledge of whether or not Cage believed it to be true)“

With respect, you are still mis-understanding the I Ching. If the I Ching is true (and I repeat that I have knowledge of whether or not Cage believed it to be true), then the mere fact that the numbers generated are produced by the I Ching means they are generated by some process which is not random. This is the case regardless of whether Cage did anything subsequently with the numbers produced, or read the standard hexagram commentary, etc. The theory behind the I Ching asserts that it is a deterministic process, not a random process, which generates numbers. The process is deterministic because the result of the process is a manifestation of the underlying patterns & relationships which the I Ching supposes to exist (and which we cannot otherwise ascertain).

As I said, this idea seems hard for us westerners to understand, steeped as we are in ideas of probability and possibility, and not generally being believers in some underlying forces working unseen. If it is any consolation, I have found people in East Asia typically find ideas of randomness equally hard to comprehend.

My comments are intended to challenge the conventional western interpretation of Cage’s use of so-called random processes. A believer in the I Ching would not consider these processes to be random, so any interpretation of his music or its aesthetics which relies on that assumption will be culturally contingent.

I’m not so sure jazz then has influenced the composers you’re talking about similarly – what Steve Reich got from Charlie Parker might be very different than what Cage did (Cage was very reactionary toward “improvisation” – but a reaction – even a negative one – is another kind of influence, right?). Part of my issue is I think unhealthy (or at historically inaccurate) divisions are created when we try to explain the differences between different named musics (I don’t want to use the word “styles”). I know that’s not what you’re intention…but this sort of critical discourse can, without some care, end up somewhat revisionist. That said, I think you’re doing a good job handling the tangents from the comments to your writing!

And you’re right, maybe I should write my own paper if I feel so strongly about this issue! Good point.

It’s still not clear to me whether you’re saying that the I Ching has oracular/mystical/supernatural/magical/divine/whatever-else powers or that Cage’s beliefs about the situation effected his psychology which in turn effected his work. Forgive me if you’ve been clear and I’m simply being obtuse.

Chris — You’re obviously right about the relationship to Jazz — and certainly almost any time Steve Reich talks about his influences he talks about Charlie Parker. I personally probably won’t be dealing with the issue in much depth in these essays in part because I’m trying to disect the differences between Minimalism and Postminimalism and the influence of Jazz is more of a similarity, and in part because I just don’t know much about the subject. If you or somebody wants to write the paper, I’d love to read it. As you say, there’s clearly some important stuff going on.

This could be a description of jazz as far back as the beginning of the 20th century…jazz and its influence on the minimalists and post minimalists might be a fascinating essay since composers (and critics) have such wildly divergent opinions on the topic. How can you talk about the cultural and sociological roots of minimalism and not mention Charlie Parker?

But all this is assuming that Cage “used the I Ching” in any meaningful sense. Aside from the idea of mobile vs. immobile hexagram components I mentioned above (which becomes a structural distinction in Imaginary Landscape #5 among others) I don’t see any evidence that he “used” the book at all. Seems to me what he did would be equivalent to opening the Bible, pointing at a random verse, and using only the number of the chapter.

I am not skeptical of the results, by any means, nor do I doubt that Cage had a genuine and productive interest in Eastern philosophical traditions; I do doubt that his claims to be “using the I Ching” revealed any particular similarity in technique or intention to people (whoever they may be) who actually use it for divination, or insight – its actual purpose.