I don't mind whether you are Baz or anyone else likes it or not, Stuart. I was just amused - in an irritable kind of way - by Baz's claim to be putting forward an objective description of what the piece is up to aesthetically (or even phenomenologically).
It's surprising how much passion can be aroused by the overriding instruction
Tacet. That is, as far as I can see, the
only possible 'objective' description of the piece possible - and to Cage's credit he at least gave that if nothing else.
Apparently, 'it contains (deliberately so) nothing' - well, that's already incorrect. The instruction given to the performer is 'tacet', which indicates that whatever sounds occur in the piece will not come from the expected source (i.e. the instrument on stage). Does Baz not understand that the piece is intended to be composed from the other sounds audible in the concert hall, or does he understand very well but find this such a distasteful prospect that he feels compelled to lie about it?
By "it", I meant the product Cage delivered through the score. However, by "it" you do not mean this - instead what you seem to mean is merely "what is left to be heard in the concert hall as a result of the complete lack of anything Cage himself generated". It is clear (as you state below) that these "other audible sounds in the concert hall" cannot
in themselves stem from any tangible artistic and structural idea the composer may have had
unless that idea was
totally aleatoric in concept,and in a manner ultimately outside the control of the composer. Furthermore, the only ways in which the actual "performers" could have any influence upon these ambient sounds is by expressing through their innate humanity (indeed their
humour) responses to the
circumstances of the performance to which the audience spontaneously responds (as can be witnessed in the video link I offered). No such expressions are implied directly in anything Cage himself specified (as far as I am aware).
Next, we are told that it 'merely represents a bizarre experiment in uncontrolled total aleatoricism', which, even if you leave out the value judgments ('merely' and 'bizarre') is an inaccurate and unhelpful statement. Given that the only variables are the sounds around the concert hall, which are no more variable in this piece than in any other, it would be more accurate to say the piece draws our attention to a degree of chance or variability in all listening experiences. To me, calling it 'an experiment in uncontrolled total aleatoricism' suggests that it means to have an effect which less 'totally aleatoric' pieces don't have.
Your final sentence is illogical. The whole point in an experiment in "uncontrolled total aleatoricism" (as I believe the piece demonstrates decisively) is that whatever effect it has is a) not necessarily "meant", and b) the outcome only of circumstances that are neither explicitly planned by the composer, nor even affected by the presence of silent performers (whether just a soloist, or a large orchestra).
The final suggestion that Cage 'left it to poor old John [recte David] Tudor to "carry the can"' is somewhat bewildering, not only because it doesn't have to be a pianist, still less David Tudor, but also because if, as Baz insists, the piece 'contains nothing', then how can the performer's actions be considered to shape the piece any more than the composer's can?
David Tudor gave the first performance (so introducing it to the world). You have perpetrated a
non sequitur: it is clear to anybody of even modest intelligence that the piece does, indeed, contain
nothing; and that even if the performers are alarmed to find that there is nothing for them in the score, the composer has at least had the honesty to reassure them in their anxiety by the marking "tacet". It does not, therefore, follow that any of the actions on the part of the performers "shape the piece" in any way at all - since there is in fact nothing at all there to be shaped in any way whatsoever. The only thing that can be in any way "shaped" is what would otherwise be a completely fallow period of 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence (which is all the composer himself has deigned to provide).
Anyway, as you say, we don't really have to discuss this again, so that's probably my last word on the subject.
Well at least you managed to say a good deal more than did John Cage, and I'm certain that it must have taken you longer to frame than 4 minutes and 33 seconds.
Baz
