Download Name: Bene Colenbrander Academic Writing, group: [C] Essay: [3

Name:
Bene Colenbrander
Academic Writing, group:
Essay:
[C]
[3]
Date:
12/20/2013
Extended deadline:
N/A
Title of your essay:
An essay with a soundtrack: Cage’s 4’33” and the nature of
music
Essay:
This is an essay with a soundtrack 1. In this essay, I will explore American composer
John Cage’s musical composition 4’33”, and examine what it tells us about music. 4’33”
consists of three ‘tacet’ or silent movements (being 30", 2'23”, and 1'40" long), which means
that no single note is ever played (Davies, 1997). In a concert setting, this composition yields
situations that may look strange to the average listener. An orchestra of skilled musicians,
ready to play, waits for the conductor to start the piece and when the conductor starts, the
orchestra does nothing. How does 4’33” cross the borders of the Western paradigm of music?
What theoretical consequences does 4’33” have for music? This essay will make an attempt
to illustrate that 4’33” shows us that music is an open system.
To do so, and to understand the significance of 4’33”, it needs to be clear what the
difference is between a closed and an open system. Open systems are, as Austrian thinker
Von Bertalanffy defines them, “systems exchanging matter with environment as every
"living" system does” (1972, 412). They are the opposite of closed systems, which hold that
the world can be explained teleologically (Von Bertalanffy 1972, 411). In general, open and
1
I would suggest playing John Cage’s composition 4’33”. See: “John Cage - 4'33",” [n.d.],
video clip, accessed December 20, 2013, YouTube,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY7UK-6aaNA.
closed systems are ideas that are used in scientific discussions. Therefore, in its attempt to
show that music is an open system, this essay will make us of theorists from the field of
philosophy of science, such as Michel Foucault and John Locke. But first, let us explore the
boundaries of paradigms in music.
The Western paradigm of music
I am aware of the fact that it is hard to make sharp distinctions between different
paradigms of music. Yet, there is one aspect in Western music that appears to be typical for
the Western paradigm of music, and that aspect is control. Control is the one thing that does
not seem to play such an important role in non-Western musical styles. Take, for example, a
look at Balinese Gamelan music, which displays fundamental differences from the Western
musical paradigm (Scortt-Maxwell 2013). Steptoe (2008) described Gamelan music as “built
around a single layer that dictates the overall flow and direction of each piece and is the basis
for all ornamentation” (30) 2. Very often Gamelan music goes together with spirituality, so it
can be described as a ritual music style (Walton 2007). This spiritual, ritual aspect bears some
similarities to Western minimal music, such as the work of Philip Glass (Quinn 2006), but the
subjectivity and the authoritative control of the composer within Gamelan music do not play
the same crucial role as they do in Western music 3. Western music is always the result of a
composition, and thus never goes without the controlling power of the composer. Therefore,
my argument is that control defines the Western paradigm of music – something that I will
elaborate upon in the following paragraphs.
2
For an example, take a look at the following video. See: “Balinese Gamelan Music,” [n.d.],
video clip, accessed March 5, 2014, YouTube,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRS13e5R8GI
3
Although I would agree that Western music as well can serve a ritual purpose. Consider for
example the study by Webster (2012), who argued that the encore at live performances has
become an expected and ritualised part of the performance.
John Cage was educated within the Western musical paradigm, and thus can be
considered as part of that paradigm (Nicholls 2012). Piekut (2012) illustrates that Cage had
problems with the aspect of control in the Western paradigm of music and that he therefore
wanted to introduce the element of chance in his musical compositions, as “the principle of
law involves that the progression, the interconnection of notes (or at least, sounds) are not
teleological anymore: rather, they become natural. The interconnection between notes
becomes complex” (14). Cage started to use the aspect of chance in his music to remove
himself from the almighty position of composer. The problem Cage had with the powerful,
subjective position of the composer corresponds with the problem illustrated by Bruno
Latour, who is known for his theories on how social and political standards affect science, in
connection to subjectivity. Latour argues that in science, the personal aspect of an inquiry
tinges the outcome of experiments through its subjectivity, as “we recognise that it is
inappropriate merely to take for granted the concepts with which scientists work” (Latour and
Woolgar, 1986: 35). Just as Latour finds it problematic to take the concepts scientists work
with for granted, Cage finds it problematic to take the concepts composers work with for
granted. To solve this problem, Cage created 4’33”, a composition where he could not apply
the control he, as a composer, has over his composition. Davies (1997) summarises the
intention Cage had with 4’33” accurately as: “[Cage] hopes to banish the personality and
intentions of the composer from his work” (450). In other words, Cage’s attempt with 4’33”
was to create a composition without the notable influence of the composer.
Michael Foucault also analyses the dynamics of control. According to Foucault, “we
are subjected to the production of truth through control and we cannot exercise control except
through the production of truth” (1980). An objective result through science is impossible
because scientists are always being subject to control. For music, this would mean that a true
musical composition cannot exist if the influence of the composer is noticeable – and without
compositions a composer can never become noticeable. Cage shared this idea about music: he
took issue with the fact that his compositions could never be objective for the same reasons
that Foucault and Latour mentioned in their analysis of control in relation to science.
Centrality
Nicholls, who elaborates on the Cagean perception of music, argues that Cage’s idea
of centrality clarifies his aim for an objective, natural composition. John Cage did not see
music as a closed system. The Cagean perception of music focuses on interrelations, rather
than causal chains of influence (Nicholls 2012). An interrelation can be defined as an indirect
interconnection that is the result of two other things connecting. For example: a + b could
cause c to change, although there may not be a direct connection between a, b, and c. Or, in
practical terms: the fact that composer a starts collaborating with composer b may result in
composition x that influences composer c. The indirect interconnection x between a, b and c
would be an interrelation as I interpret it.
Focusing on interrelations should not to be understood as improvised (and therefore
unpredictable) notes that influence each other, as is the case with jazz music. Rather, focusing
on interrelations refers to Cage’s belief in centrality, “[which] emphasizes the importance of
each person or thing solely in its own terms, rather than by teleological or causal reference to
other persons or things … an infinite number of interconnections exist between each person or
thing so identified” (Nicholls, 2012: 101). Cagean centrality can be explained as follows: it is
uncertain how influential a thing or a person (for example, a composer) is, but it is certain that
it has interrelations with other things or persons (for example, another composer) (Nicholls,
2012). It is not possible to know the exact value of a thing, but it is possible to discover
interrelations between unknown values. Therefore, studying the interrelations between two
composers is more valuable than studying the value of one single composer (ibid). In practice,
this means that one, for example, should study the interrelations between persons; the
movements a composer associated him or herself with; similarities in the use of instruments
and an infinite amount of other interrelations one could think of.
Cage’s interpretation of centrality as described above bears similarities to Von
Bertalanffy’s General Systems Theory. Von Bertalanffy argues that a physical quantity is
unknown, and that therefore looking at the sum of different quantities cannot lead to the exact
definition of a whole. It is therefore better to study the interconnections of different parts and
how they influence each other (Von Bertalanffy, 1972). This is remarkably similar to Cage’s
idea that one should study the interrelations between things rather than the things itself. If we,
in von Bertalanffy’s theory, replace the physical quantities by composers or other
interrelations that I have mentioned above, we get the same result as the Cagean idea of
centrality. Just like von Bertalanffy, Cage believed in an unpredictable, open system of
interrelations, rather than in a closed teleological system.
The parallel between von Bertalanffy and Cage becomes clearer if one takes
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle into account, the theory that von Bertalanffy’s General
Systems Theory builds further on. The Uncertainty Principle holds “that all physical
quantities that can be observed are subject to unpredictable fluctuations, so that their values
are not precisely defined” (Davies 1989, ix). Cage’s 4’33” serves as a metaphor for
Heisenberg’s physical quantities. As Heisenberg’s particles act unpredictably, so does 4’33”.
Although the composition carries the same name each time it is performed, the outcome of the
composition is always different. The unpredictable surrounding sounds define the piece, and
therefore it is impossible to state that 4’33” is just the sum of its three parts. One might argue
at this point that, although the outcome is different each time it is performed, it still is just the
sum of its parts; that 4’33” is the sum of all the surrounding sounds. But 4’33” is more than
that. The sound of 4’33” captures the unpredictability of nature.
Experiencing 4’33”
The fact that 4’33” consists of unpredictable sounds makes it not only different each
time it is being performed, but also different for each listener. The way a listener perceives the
composition defines what it sounds like for that individual. For example: a cough in the music
hall will sound differently for someone who sits next to the person that coughs than for
someone who sits at the other side of the music hall. There is a relationship between the piece
and the listener that cannot be explained by teleological theory, as the behaviour of the each
audience is unpredictable and will never sound exactly the same. There is an indefinable
relationship between the composition and the audience that determines the way the
composition sounds to the listener. The audience member now is an active contributor to the
sound of the composition, which removes the composer from the all-powerful position where
he controls how the composition sounds. This interrelation between the composition and the
perceiver brings us to another part of 4’33”: experience.
John Locke (1690) argues that it is experience that forms human beings. The tabula
rasa (a blank paper) of the mind is being engraved by experience of the individual to whom
the mind belongs. 4’33” is a perfect metaphor for the tabula rasa. Firstly, because all the
three movements out of which 4’33” exist simply are blank slates. But besides this obvious
similarity, the aspect of experience (the interrelation between the composition and the
perceiver) is fundamental for both the tabula rasa and 4’33”. The surrounding sounds that
make 4’33” unique each time it is performed leads us to conclude two things. First, that the
surrounding sounds fill up the tabula rasa that 4’33” is. Second, that for each listener, the
tabula rasa of 4’33” is being filled out differently.
Besides the element of chance (being the unpredictable nature that constitutes 4’33”)
that makes 4’33” unique each time it is being performed, the different perception every
listener has of 4’33” makes it unique for every listener. This corresponds with Locke’s
argument for the tabula rasa: it is experience that defines how the mind of a human being is
formed (1690). The interrelation between the perceiver and the composition is an essential
part of 4’33”. Not only the fact that the composition is unpredictable plays a role, but also the
fact that each listener perceives the composition differently.
Nuancing the parallels
Now, one might argue at this point that it is too easy to conclude that the Cagean idea
of music is exactly the same as von Bertalanffy and Heisenberg’s idea of systems structure
and the behaviour of physical matter, or that 4’33” is exactly the same as Locke’s tabula rasa.
One could, for example, plainly state that science and philosophy are just too different from
music to be compared. I should therefore point out that I am not attempting to prove that
Locke’s tabula rasa is exactly the same concept as Cage’s 4’33”. Neither am I attempting to
prove that the physical quantities of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle are exactly what
4’33” defines each time it is being performed, or that von Bertalanffy’s General Systems
Theory is exactly the same theory as Cage’s centrality. I am only arguing that the theories I
have mentioned above can help us understand the significance of Cage’s composition 4’33”. I
suggest to interpret these overarching ideas – being the unpredictability of 4’33” and
Heisenberg’s physical quantities; the similarity between Cage’s centrality and von
Bertalanffy’s General Systems Theory – the same way as Fritjof Capra interprets the parallel
between Western science and Eastern mysticism.
In The Tao of Physics (1975), Capra draws a parallel between Western science (in
particular the theory of quantum mechanics) and Eastern mysticism. Capra argued that
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle shares some remarkable similarities with ideas from the
East:
“[A particle] is not present at a definite place, nor is it absent. It does not change its
position, nor does it remain at rest. What changes is the probability pattern, and thus
the tendencies of the particle to exist in certain places … the reality of the atomic
physicist, like the reality of the Eastern mystic, transcends the narrow framework of
opposite concepts” (1975: 154).
Although it might be tempting to conclude at this point that Capra argued that Eastern
mysticism and quantum mechanics are based on the same ideas, I would argue that this is not
what Capra tries to argue. Capra only pointed out that there are some universal ideas that
transcend paradigms. I attempt to indicate a similar thought. When drawing parallels between
John Cage and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, Von Bertalanffy’s General System Theory
or Locke’s tabula rasa, I merely attempt to indicate that there are ideas that return in the
theories of everyone mentioned above. The theorists, although they are from a different field
than music, can help us understand why 4’33” is significant.
What, then, makes 4’33” significant? The significance of 4’33” is that by removing
the aspect of control from his composition, and allowing the audience to become a part of the
sound, Cage created such a remarkable composition that he established a new paradigm. I
realise that this is a controversial statement; establishing a new paradigm implies that the
whole field (in this case composers from within the Western paradigm of music) changes its
beliefs and methods (Kuhn, 1970: 85). Cage did not cause such a major change. However, I
cannot find another way to define 4’33” than as a completely unique piece that cannot be
placed in a paradigm that existed before Cage composed 4’33”. Let me therefore state that
Cage created his own paradigm, and composed within this paradigm.
The fact that Cage created outside the Western paradigm of music led some to argue
that 4’33” is not music (Davies, 1997: 460). However, I would argue that one who argues that
4’33” is not music is missing the point. I do not pursue the question whether 4’33” is music
or not in this essay, but let me state that such reactions to a composition such as 4’33” can be
considered normal, as strong reactions are normal when someone crosses the border of a
paradigm (Kuhn, 1970: 79). Perhaps what also could have caused the strong reactions to
4’33” is the fact that Cage, essentially, put into practice what Feyerabend (1975) preached:
“anything goes”. Cage allowed anarchy to enter a composition, and with that established a
Cagean paradigm.
Conclusions
I have argued in this essay that control defines the Western paradigm of music. John
Cage found this control problematic, and strived for a composition where control (being the
subjectivity of the composer and the composer’s all-powerful position) was absent. This
composition became 4’33”: a composition, consisting of three movements of complete
silence. I have argued that 4’33” is an example of how Cage implemented his idea of
centrality, which holds that music is an open system 4, in a composition. The silence of 4’33”
removed the powerful and subjective aspect of the composer, which Cage found problematic,
by making the audience essential to the sound of the composition. 4’33” crossed the borders
of one aspect of the Western paradigm of music – control – by removing the powerful aspect
of the composer. With this Cage established a new, or his own, paradigm. Doing so, Cage
implemented ideas in music that bear similarities to the theories of Heisenberg, Von
Bertalanffy and Locke.
4
Cage’s 4’33” emphasises that no one has the same perception of a composition, and
therefore what is covert in every musical composition: the fact that music is different for
every listener. Besides that, 4’33” revealed that music contains a dimension that is generally
being overlooked: the interrelationship the audience has with the composition. The audience
plays a role in how a composition sounds. While music is seen as a closed system, 4’33”
demonstrates the opposite – 4’33” demonstrates that music is an open system. There is no
truth in music, because of the different perception each listener has of the composition. 4’33”
emphasises that the perception of music, the idea that everyone experiences music similarly,
is a social construction.
Sources:
Von Bertalanffy, Ludwig. 1972. “The History and Status of General Systems Theory.” The
Academy of Management Journal Vol. 15, No. 4:407-26.
Capra, Fritjof. 1975. The Tao of Physics. Boulder: Shambhala Publications.
Davies, Stephen. 1997. “John Cage’s 4’33”: Is It Music?” Australasian Journal of Philosophy
Vol. 75, No. 4:448-62.
Feyerabend, Paul. 1975. Against Method. London: Humanities Press.
Foucault, Michel. 1980. Control/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 19721977. New York: Pantheon.
Locke, John. 1690. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.
Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Nicholls, David. 2012. “‘Each . . . is at the Center’: Thoughts on a Cagean View of (Music)
History.” Contemporary Music Review Vol. 31, No. 1:91-109.
Piekut, Benjamin. 2012. “Sound’s Modest Witness: Notes on Cage and Modernism.”
Contemporary Music Review Vol. 31, No. 1:3-18
Quinn, Ian. 2006. “Minimal Challenges: Process Music and the Uses of Formalist Analysis.”
Contemporary
Music
Review
Vol. 25, No. 3:283-94.
Scott-Maxwell, Aline. 2013. “Creating Indonesia in Australia: Bridges, Communities and
Identities through Music.” Musicology Australia Vol. 35, No. 1:3-19
Steptoe, Simon. 2001. “Gamelan music in Britain.” Contemporary Theatre Review 11:25-35.
Walton, Susan Pratt. 2007. “Aesthetic and Spiritual Correlations in Javanese Gamelan
Music.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 65:31-41.
Webster, Emma. 2012. “‘One More Tune!” The Encore Ritual in Live Music Events.”
Popular Music and Society Vol. 35, No. 1:93-111.
Reflection on the writing process:
I found writing this essay very challenging and I think I learned a lot from it. It started with
just an idea about concept albums, an idea that I extended to minimal music and ultimately to
John Cage. It is fun to see how I fully dismissed the original plan and wrote an essay that did
not meet the expectations that I had before. I do not think this is a bad thing. Rather, I think
this essay is better than the essay that was the result of my original idea.
I tried to implement many things in the first draft, which was not a very good idea. It did not
really go anywhere. The first draft showed me not to be too ambitious and that I need to be
specific. Realising that I could write a whole essay about what was just a paragraph in my
first draft made me realise that you can never be specific enough.
Now I’ve written the third and final draft. I am satisfied with the result and I am proud in a
weird way because I think I really have improved the first draft (and original idea).