[silence] Fwd: Petr Kotik's Umbilical Cord

[Glenn Freeman]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glenn Freeman <glenn@ogreogress.com>
> Date: December 12, 2008 2:26:45pm GMT+01:00
> To: "Joseph Zitt" <jzitt@josephzitt.com>
> Subject: Re: [silence] Petr Kotik's Umbilical Cord
>
> Joseph Zitt wrote:
>
>> In this discussion, one might compare the Written Law to Cage's
>> written scores, and the Oral Law to the information and experience
>> gained, though not necessarily documented yet, by people such as Petr
>> and others on this list who did get to work with him.
>>
>> For example, my own sole interaction with Cage involved his saying a
>> single word, but it cleared up a question for me: when, after one of
>> his last performances in New York, I asked him whether the pitches
>> that he used in his performance of a section of Empty Words were
>> following a system or improvised, he said "Improvised." (And, come to
>> think of it, I don't think I'd ever logged that here.)
>
> So now you've logged it, great! Would Cage's answer have mattered or  
> not if you simply took the time to closely study the score and  
> decide for yourself?
>
>>> In terms of history, power, greed, fiction and 'oral traditions' I
>>> suggest a film called "Joe Gould's Secret (2000)".
>>> For Petr Kotik to suggest that because we did not know Cage  
>>> personally
>>> we are somehow different is true. But to also suggest Cage was  
>>> unable
>>> to write his ideas down on paper for future performers (with no  
>>> prior
>>> knowledge of any 'oral tradition') to ponder and come to their own
>>> equally valid conclusions and interpretations is untrue. I doubt  
>>> Cage
>>> would much enjoy a single approach to his work passed down in such a
>>> fanatical, even religious, fashion ... and with references to an  
>>> 'oral
>>> tradition'.
>>
>> Such doubt is understandable. But I wonder how it relates to Cage's
>> involvement in Zen Buddhism, which, as I understand it, has a
>> tradition of oral transmission of teachings.
>
> What doubt are you referring to? One purpose of the above mentioned  
> tradition is to provide a method to see it for what it is, over time.
>
>>> I hope someday to hear the Berlin Philharmonic, Chicago Symphony,  
>>> etc.
>>> perform 103, 108 or Twenty-Six, Twenty-Eight and Twenty-Nine  
>>> [Eighty-
>>> Three], etc., without a conductor AND/THUS as written. It would be
>>> another equally valid approach, in addition to Kotik's 103.
>>> Understand? Recordings are a different matter.
>>
>> On this we differ.
>
> Perhaps we do. No problem.
>
>>> To repeat the only commentary in the first email:
>>> "I was born the year Kotik met Cage. According to Kotik it is  
>>> unlikely
>>> I will find an approach to Cage's music and he is correct. It is
>>> highly unlikely we will ever find ONE (an) approach to Cage's  
>>> music."
>>
>> Yes. Which would not be the case were perfect information encoded  
>> in the scores.
>
> I see it exactly the opposite. We will never find one approach  
> precisely because we have everything we need (including the fog if  
> you choose to see fog) in the scores themselves. Such clearly  
> written notes can not acquire a static or fixed character. The  
> 'perfection' you describe is actually the music's ability to change  
> its very nature over time, with different performers and styles,  
> etc. "earthquake-proof" in Cage's own words. Therefore, such works  
> can survive and adapt over very long periods of time (avoiding the  
> marketing term 'classical' here).
>
> Such information (you labelled it 'perfect') allows the very  
> interpretations you view as 'imperfect' to occur over time ... to  
> not rely on an oral tradition which I've suggested can never be  
> accurate and in many cases may actually cause the premature death or  
> corruption of a tradition.
>
> Glenn Freeman
> OgreOgress productions
> http://ogreogress.com