Music

Thank you to my Baka, Maria for bestowing the gift of Music, our joint performances and forever associating it with transcendent joy and laughter. I’m eternally grateful.

Thank you to my first Guitar teacher, Albert Axiaq. For instilling the love of Music and allowing me to believe in myself. Thank you for being a light in this world.

Music- Art of the Muses

Muses- Godesses that inspire music, art, science, literature providing spiritual inspiration.

Academic Writing

University of Melbourne
2017, 2018

Choose a ‘Modernist/Post-Modernist-borderline’ composer (such as John Cage, Meredith Monk, Pauline Oliveros, Thomas Ades, or Eliane Radigue) and make a case for whether they are best described as postmodernist or modernist.

John Cage is one of the most renowned composers of the twentieth century.[1] In the Western world, this period was marked by the emergence and transition between two dominant philosophical movements, modernism and post modernism.[2] This essay will seek to examine whether John Cage and his compositional legacy could be delineated as modernist or Post-modernist. This will be accomplished by comparing key characteristics of his works and innovations with scholarly sources that have attempted to define the two movements, as well as an investigation into the influences that informed, and shaped his works and creative developments. Cage’s avant-garde invention of ‘Prepared Piano’ was aligned with foundational emphasises of modernism, and was contrived within most scholarly proposed modernist timeframes.[3][4][5][6] Cage continued to contribute to modernist developments, formulating original tone rows, a practice inspired by prominent modernist teachers. [7] However, according to Cage himself, the late 1940’s marked a revolutionary abolition of his compositional approach, and the succeeding music aligned with scholarly notions of Post-modernism.[8][9] From this philosophical shift, he composed his most controversial piece, 4’33’’, with post-modern elements, incorporating ‘low cultures’ philosophies. [10][11][12]However, this piece was not exclusively ‘post-modern’, as it was also inspired by, and sought to manifest, modernist elements, as well as a culturally homologous, Age of Exploration/Enlightenment Philosophers’ theory. [13][14]

Cage’s avant-garde invention of Prepared Piano is aligned with scholarly conceptions of modernist tendencies, and was conceived within most scholarly proposed timeframes.[15][16][17] An integral characteristic of the modernist period, was a strong commitment to musical development, and expansion.[18] “While belief in musical progress or in the principle of innovation is not new or unique to modernism, such values are particularly important within modernist aesthetic stances.”[19] Prepared Piano was an upgrade on the functional utility of the ordinary Piano, transmogrifying it into an all-in-one percussion and piano ensemble.[20] Speaking on Prepared Piano, one scholar wrote “The operative word most associated with it is “innovation”[21]. Prepared Piano modified the Piano by inserting nails and strategically sized pieces of rubber into the strings of the Piano.[22] The catalyst for this invention was one of spatial necessity. In 1937, Cage was commissioned to write a dance, and the scheduled venue was too small for a complete percussion ensemble.[23] While there is conflicting information as to the exact end date of the modernism period, with estimates ranging between 1930, to the 1980s, Prepared Piano was pioneered in 1937, well within many scholarly proposed timeframes. [24][25][26]

Cage further continued to innovate, expanding upon the foundations of the underlying structure of composition by formulating original tone rows, inspired by his famed modernist teacher, Arnold Schoenberg.[27] Between 1933-1935, Cage studied with the distinguished composer noted for his own innovative contributions in the modernist era.[28] Ten years prior to Cage’s studentship, Schoenberg invented the twelve tone technique. (See fig. 1) In fig. 1 one can see twelve specific tones, explicitly marked and designated. The structural principle underscoring this figure, was a conceptualisation crucial to modernist compositional structure- one of relinquishing traditional tonality in favour of unique, neoteric expansions. As such, the cardinal configuration inherent to modernism, was “The dissolution of the traditional tonality and transformation of the very foundations of tonal language, searching for new models in atonalism, polytonalism or other forms of altered tonality”[29]. Cage’s innovative tendencies continued, constructing his original 25-tone row technique, an expansion on Schoenberg’s twelve-tone row. (See fig. 2)[30] Cage’s ‘Composition for 3 voices’ was composed during Cage’s studentship with Schoenberg. The piece is a chromatically organised composition that seeks to elicit engagement from the audience, a challenge, as the 3 musicians are restricted to a twenty-five tone range. The 25-tone range was formulated through an essentially intuitive method, through extemporising, transcribing the results, and seeing what worked.[31]

Fig. 1 Arnold Schoenberg, Wind Quintet Op. 26, Bars 1-6.[32]

Fig 2. John Cage, Composition for 3 voices, Bars 1-6.[33]

According to Cage, the late 1940’s elicited a revolutionary metamorphosis in his compositional philosophy, which prompted a transmutation of his chronologically succeeding compositions from modernism, to post-modernism.[34] Cage transitioned from ‘making choices’ from unambiguous, modernist parameters, to a completely antithetical destination, namely, seeking to prompt deep existential thought within listeners. Cage stated in the notes to ‘Etudes Boreales’ “These pieces, like virtually all of my work since the late 40’s, early 50’s, are nonintentional. They were written by shifting my responsibility from making choices to asking questions.”[35]. The works that followed this shift, would form the clear majority of his total compositions. This revelation was inspired by his time spent studying Zen Buddhism, and Indian Philosophies. The net effect on his compositions, originating from this philosophical transfer, was distinctly dissimilar works no longer affiliated with modernist tendencies. (See fig. 4) In his Sonatas and Interludes, there is a manifest absence of tonal rows, and other modernist tendencies that were relatively consistent components in his previous works. Through this piece, he aims to convey the abstract ‘eight permanent emotions’ of the rasa Indian tradition. Thus, His new works questioned, and ultimately, rejected the substratum of these previously established compositional standards.

Fig. 4 John Cage, Sonatas and Interludes, 2^nd Movement, Bars 1-31.[36]

The aforementioned shift ran in direct bilinear relation to the establishment of the post-modern movement as it affected all facets of life. [37] The catalyst for the larger movement of post modernism, separate to post modernism in music, was a repudiation of modernism as it was the dominant establishment, and cultural ideology at that time.[38] Ideology whose reputation had been tarnished by it’s temporal, and cultural association with superpowers responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people. Indeed, perhaps Cage’s personal recoil, sparked by the momentous atrocity he was living through, is evident by the timeframe in which he searched to the Eastern World for answers, during, and after the Second World war.[39]

The work for which Cage is primarily recognised today,‘4’33’’, and ancillary ‘1 Ching’ are compositions principally informed by foreign, ‘low’ cultures, a decision inherently post-modernist.[40] According to Daniel Albright’s list of tendencies of musical post-modernism, Cage’s 4’33’’ aligns with a significant majority of them. Most notably as it “challenges barriers between ‘high’ and ‘low’ styles”, as well as “includes quotations of or references to music of many traditions and cultures”.[41] A central tenant to Zen Buddhism is that one acquires the pinnacle state of consciousness when one enters ‘zero mind’.[42][43] Thus, some scholars contend that “Cage wanted to raise the status of ‘zero mind’ as the ideal, denying all traditional conceptions of ‘ideals’”. [44][45] Cage also endevoured down the path of aleatoric music, inspired by an ancient classic Chinese text, ‘1 Ching’. Aletoric music was music with some elements left to chance. The book was a “…symbol system used to identify order in chance events”.[46] 1 Ching is a revolutionary piece structurally homogeneous to ‘indeterminate music’.

Fig. 5 John Cage, Music of Changes, Bars 1-4.[47]

Despite being predominately influenced by elements theorised to be ‘post modern’ in his composition 4’33’’, the renowned composition is also infused with modernist, and Age of Exploration/Enlightenment Philosophies. The defining essence of cage’s 4’33’’, a piece which tendentiously eliminated all sounds, could be interpreted to align with some scholars conceptions of modernism. Specifically the claim that modernist music was “a testing of the limits of aesthetic construction”.[48] Similiarly, Cage’s underlying basis for this composition to promote ‘zero mind’ as the ‘ideal’, is not purely an Eastern notion. Some scholars propose that Cage was also seeking to make manifest a Philosophical conceptualisation proposed by a notable Western Philosopher. John Locke hypothesised on the fundamental, subjectively experienced, neurological nature of life at birth through his theory ‘Tabula Rusa’.[49] ‘Tabula Rusa’ was the theory that at birth the mind is a ‘blank slate’.[50] Some sources propose that Cage was seeking to induce the ‘blank slate’ consciousness in his audience[51] and that the music was ‘purified’ in order to replicate the ‘blank slate’ all human beings start off with”.[52] Locke was also a Western philosopher, which meant Cage was incorporating culturally homogeneous, ‘High culture’ into his music, antithetical to scholarly conceptions of post modernism. [53]Locke was also born 320 years before 4’33’’ was composed, and was part of the ‘Enlightenment’ and ‘Age of Exploration’ era, far removed from post-modernism.[54] Thus, it is not precisely fact-based to describe 4’33’ as a piece encapsulating post modernism.

It is clear that John Cage was both modernist, and a post modernist Composer at independent periods. Therefore, in order to most accurately describe him, the fundamental premise this decision will be based on, will hold that a composers most renowned work, as well as the temporal, and cultural era to which the bulk of his total portfolio belong, will differentiate which is ‘more accurate’. Thus, Cage contributed personal innovations, such as ‘Prepared Piano’, and 25-tone rows, conceived in the modernist era, inspired by an illustrious modernist teacher.[55] However, these accomplishments do not constitute the majority of his works. Therefore, the fundamental transformation he chronicles undergoing in the late 1940’s, simultaneous to the official establishment and flourishment of post modernism as a whole, which inspired adoption of ‘low cultural’ elements, determines that he’s most accurately described as ‘post modern’. Despite 4’33’’ being a synthesis of varying cultural influences, from varying time frames, it is still predominantly aligned, and incorporated many post-modern elements, in the post-modern timeframe, following his Compositional revelation.

Bibliography

Cook, Nicholas & Pople, Anthony, ed. The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Music. Cambridge: CUP, 2004.

Kostka, Stefan. Materials and Techniques of Twentieth-century Music. Upper Saddle
River NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999.

Morgan, Robert P. Anthology of 20th Century Music. New York: Norton, 1992.

Morgan, Robert P. Twentieth-Century Music. New York: Norton, 1991

Nyman, Michael. Experimental Music: Cage and Beyond. 2nd ed. Cambridge ; New York: CUP, 1999.

Nicholls, David, ed. The Cambridge Companion to John Cage. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2002.

Rich, Alan. American Pioneers: Ives to Cage and Beyond. London: Phaidon Press, 1995.

Brindle, Reginald S. “Indeterminacy, Chance, and Aleatory Music”: 60-80; “Cage and Other Americans”: 121-132. The New Music: The Avant-Garde Since 1945. Oxford; NY: OUP, 1987. [780.904 BRIN]

Cage, J. Silence: Lectures and Writings. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan UP (1961).

Nyman, Michael. Experimental Music: Cage and Beyond. 2nd ed. Cambridge ; New York:
CUP, 1999.

Radice, Mark A. Concert Music of the Twentieth Century : Its Personalities, Institutions, and
Techniques. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003.

Whittall, Arnold. Exploring Twentieth-Century Music: Tradition and Innovation. New
York: CUP, 2003.

The New York Times, 13 August 1992.

Mura, Andrea. “The Symbolic Function of Transmodernity,” Open University, 1 (2012): 71.

Karolyi, Otto. Modern British Music: The Second British Musical Renaissance—From Elgar to P. Maxwell Davies. Rutherford, Madison, Teaneck: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, London, 1994.

Leonard B. Meyer. Music, the Arts, and Ideas: Patterns and Predictions in Twentieth-Century Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1994.

Beard, David, Gloag, Kenneth. Musicology: The Key Concepts. New York: Routledge, 2005.

Adorno, Theodor W. On The Fetish-Character in Music and the Regression of Listening. Los Angeles: University of California Press, Berkeley, 2002.

Anderson, Nicholas. Baroque Music: From Montiverdi to Handel. London: Thames & Hudson, 1994.

Kostelanetz, Richard. John Cage: Writer: Selected Texts, 17. Paris, Mass: Cooper Square Press, 2000.

Cage, John. Silence: Lectures and Writings. Cambridge: Wesleyan University Press, 1961.

Revill, David. The Roaring Silence: John Cage – a Life. London, Mass: Arcade Publishing, 1993.

Albright, Daniel. Modernism and Music: An Anthology of Sources. Canberra, Mass: University of Chicago Press, 2004.

Steinberg, Michael, Tradition and Responsibility: Perspectives of New Music, 1. London: Cambridge University Press, 1962.

“B. Post-WWII ‘Tabula Rusa’ (‘Blank Blackboard’)” https://app.lms.unimelb.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-6600656-dt-content-rid 35340564_2/courses/MUSI30249_2018_SM1/MH3%20lecture%2013%20outline%281%29.pdf, accessed 1 June 2018.

Oliver, W., Treitler, Leo, Morgan, P., Robert. John Cage, Experimental Music. New York: Norton, 1998.

Campbell, Edward. Music and Philosophy. Chicago, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2010.

Charles, Daniel. For the Birds: John Cage in Conversation with Daniel Charles. California: Harvard University Press, 1981.

Nicholls, David. The Cambridge Companion to John Cage. London: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Bunger, David. The Well-Prepared Piano Colorado Springs.: Colorado College Music Press, 1973.

Severine, Neff. “John Cage Studies with Arnold Schoenberg”. Contemporary Music Review. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07494467.2014.998414?scroll=top&needAccess=true,
accessed 29 May 2018.

Heartz, Daniel. “From Garrick to Gluck: The Reform of Theatre & Opera in the Mid-Eighteenth Century.” Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association 94 (1967–68): 111–127.

Hicks, Michael. “John Cage’s Studies with Schoenberg. American Music”, vol. 8, no. 2, 1990. www.jstor.org/stable/3051946, accessed 27 May 2018.

Tarasti, Eero. Myth and Music: A semiotic approach to the aesthetics of Myth in Music. Myth in the aesthetic of Modernism. London: Thames & Hudson, 1979.

Pritchett, James. The Music of John Cage. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Leonard, George J. Into the Light of Things: The Art of the Commonplace from Wordsworth to John Cage. London: University of Chicago Press, 1995.

Schoenberg, Arnold. The Cambridge Introduction to Serialism. Cambridge Introductions to Music. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Hensel, Fanny. “Allegro con Spirito.” In Songs for Pianoforte, 1836–1837, ed. Camilla Cui, 36–45. Madison, Wisc.: A-R Editions, 1994.

Cage, John. “Sonata for Clarinet.” London: University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Cage, John. “Composition for 3 voices.” Madison: Edition Peters, 2003.

Cage, John. “Etudes Boreales Notes.” London: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Groys, Boris Cf. The Total Art of Stalinism, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.

Cage, John. “Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano.”New York: New York University Press, 2004.

Larson, Kay. Where the Heart Beats – John Cage, Zen Buddhism, and the Inner Life of Artists. London: Penguin Publishing, 2012.

Suzuki, D. T. Zen and Japanese Culture, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.

Suzuki, D. T. Essays in Zen Buddhism, 2nd series. New York: Ney York University Press, 1976.

Cage, John. “Music of Changes Chicago.” Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951.

-Michael Rotondo, 696-426.

[1] Allan Kozinn,, “John Cage, 79, a Minimalist Enchanted With Sound, Dies,” The New York Times, 13 August 1992, 2.

[2] Andrea Mura, “The Symbolic Function of Transmodernity,” Open University 1 (2012): 71.

[3]Otto Karolyi, Modern British Music: The Second British Musical Renaissance—From Elgar to P. Maxwell Davies (Rutherford, Madison, Teaneck: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, London, 1994), 135.

[4] Leonard B. Meyer Music, the Arts, and Ideas: Patterns and Predictions in Twentieth-Century Culture, (Chicago and London.: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 331-332.

[5] David Beard, Kenneth Gloag, Musicology: The Key Concepts. (New York: Routledge), 2005.

[6] Theodor W. Adorno, On The Fetish-Character in Music and the Regression of Listening. (Los Angeles.: University of California Press,.Berkeley, 2002), 288–317.

[7] Richard Kostelanetz, John Cage: Writer: Selected Texts, 17 (Paris, Mass.: Cooper Square Press, 2000), 61.

[8] John Cage, Silence: Lectures and Writings (Cambridge, Wesleyan University Press, 1961), 61.

[9] David Revill, The Roaring Silence: John Cage – a Life (London, Mass.: Arcade Publishing, 1993), 108.

[10] Daniel Albright, Modernism and Music: An Anthology of Sources (Canberra, Mass.:: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 24

[11] Michael Steinberg, Tradition and Responsibility: Perspectives of New Music 1,(London.: Cambridge University Press, 1962), 154–159.

[12] Cage, “Silence”, 53

[13] “B. Post-WWII ‘Tabula Rusa’ (‘Blank Blackboard’) MUSI30249 Music History 3: Impressionism to Present (PDF), https://app.lms.unimelb.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-6600656-dt-content-rid 35340564_2/courses/MUSI30249_2018_SM1/MH3%20lecture%2013%20outline%281%29.pdf, accessed 1 June 2018.

[14] W. Oliver, Leo Treitler, Robert P. Morgan, John Cage, Experimental Music New York.: Norton, 1998), 30-35

[15] Karolyi, “Music”, 135.

[16] Meyer,“Ideas,”331-332

[17] Beard, Gloag,“Musicology”, 72.

[18] Adorno, “Fetish,” 288–317.

[19]Edward Campbell, Music and Philosophy (Chicago, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2010), 37

[20] Daniel Charles, For the Birds: John Cage in Conversation with Daniel Charles. (California: Harvard University Press, 1981).

[21] David Nicholls, The Cambridge Companion to John Cage (London: Cambridge University Press, 2002)

[22] Richard Bunger, The Well-Prepared Piano (Colorado Springs.: Colorado College Music Press, 1973).

[23] Charles, “Birds”.

[24]Karolyi, “Music”, 135.

[25] Meyer,“Ideas,”331-332

[26] Beard, Gloag,“Musicology”, 72.

[27] Neff Severine, “John Cage Studies with Arnold Schoenberg,” Contemporary Music Review, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07494467.2014.998414?scroll=top&needAccess=true,
accessed 29 May 2015.

[28]Michael Hicks, “John Cage’s Studies with Schoenberg. American Music, vol. 8, no. 2, 1990” www.jstor.org/stable/3051946, accessed 27 May 2018.

[29] Eero Tarasti Myth and Music: A semiotic approach to the aesthetics of Myth in Music. Myth in the aesthetic of Modernism (London: Thames & Hudson, 1979).

[30] Severine, “Cage”, 24

[31] Pritchett, “John”, 7.

[32] Arnold Schoenberg, The Cambridge Introduction to Serialism. Cambridge Introductions to Music. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 52.

[33] John Cage, Composition for 3 voices, (Madison.: Edition Peters, 2003), 3.

[34] Cage “Silence” 6.

[35] John Cage Etudes Boreales Notes, (London.: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 5.

[36] John Cage, Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano (New York: New York University Press, 2004), 4.

[37] Mura, “Transmodernity”, 68-87.

[38] Boris Cf. Groys, The Total Art of Stalinism, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 13.

[39] Cage, “Composition”, 3.

[40] Albright, “Modernism,” 24.

[41] Albright,“Modernism,” 24.

[42] D. T Suzuki, Zen and Japanese Culture, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010),

[43] D. T Suzuki, Essays in Zen Buddhism 2nd series (New York: Ney York University Press, 1976), 15.

[44] Cage “Silence” 3

[45] “Tabula”, 2.

[46] Lisa Raphals. Divination and Prediction in Early China and Ancient Greece. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 25.

[47] John Cage Music of Changes (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 6.

[48] Albright, “Modernism”, 39.

[49] “Tabula,”, 1.

[50] “Tabula,”, 1

[51] “Tabula,” 1

[52] Tabula”, 1.

[53] Albright,“Modernism, 12.

Detail the impact of politics on the composition of two works written between the two World Wars.

In the aftermath of the First World War, in the USSR, the art of music was utilised by Josef Stalin as a means of instilling propaganda that would ensure a smooth and sustainable transition from an agrarian society to an industrial one. To facilitate this, Stalin institutionalised an official governmental body that was immensely restrictive, known as the Russian Proletarian Association (RPAM).¹ The RAPM’s philosophy was that music should be simple, primitive, and packed with pro-communist propaganda.² As a result, abstract, and modernist influences typical of Western music was banned.³ This essay will seek to examine the impact political authorities, such as RAPM, and others, had on music composed at the time. This will be achieved by focusing on two works composed by Dmitri Shostakovich, ‘Symphony no. 2 in B Major’, and ‘Symphony no. 4 in C Minor’. Shostakovich initially adhered to these restrictive parameters, as he was a communist in his youth. From this political inclination, he composed Symphony no. 2, which was a dispassionate ‘Industrial Symphony’. Resenting the impact the RAPM had on this composition triggered a rebellion where Shostakovich refused to continue his adherence to the restrictions by authorities. This elicited fear from the authorities as it was perceived as an existential threat to the social stability of the USSR. There was a resulting systematic campaign launched against Shostakovich via official state owned newspaper ‘Pravda’. The impact of this political pressure forced Shostakovich to withdraw the last act of one of the Opera’s criticised by Pravda, but was not successful in stopping Shostakovich from completing Symphony no. 4, however authorities succeeded in strong arming Shostakovich into cancelling the premiere.

Shostakovich was initially supportive of the Communist ideology in his youth.⁴ His support of the ideology is highlighted by his performances for Red Army Soldiers, and Factory Workers in his youth.⁵ In addition, Shostakovich wrote a memoire detailing him and his family’s emotions toward the establishment of Communism in the USSR. He wrote “Events of the first world war, and the February and October Revolutions stirred vehement emotions in our family…..”⁶

The impact of the political, institutionalised body, RAPM, forced Shostakovich to conform to their demands in his composition Symphony no. 2, and resulted in a dispassionate final composition. Shostakovich allowed himself to be coerced into embedding pro-communist propaganda into his work. Shostakovich added pro-communist lyrics in the choral section of ‘Symphony no. 2 in B Major’. Shostakovich struggled with this, confiding in Boleslav Yavorsky, a prominent musicologist at the time, “I’m composing the chorus with great difficulty. The words!!!!”⁷ The words are adherent to the ideology and presence of the RAPM, who encouraged propagandistic compositions. (See-Fig. 1) The effects of the

RAPM’s impact in Shostakovich’s composition was further evident in the placating subtitle ‘To October’. ‘To October’ is a reference to the October revolution which resulted in the establishment of communism. Furthermore, Shostakovich injected menial, common place sounds, such as a blast from a factory whistle, in the choral section of his symphony.⁸ This was done to symbolise the divine honour inherent in facets of life strongly associated with Communism, and the U.S.S.R. This was intended to boost sentiments of nationalism, and societal, and individual pride, as U.S.S.R was transitioning into a predominantly industrial nation. Thus, this type of composition, was given the label of an “industrial

symphony”.⁹ Most strikingly to observers, the singers were noted for their dispassionate singing, described in variations of ‘aimlessly rambling’.¹⁰ It also lacked motivic direction,

forward movement, and overall conviction characteristic of his other compositions.¹¹ Thus, due to the nature of imposing conformity via a political body, the impacted work was described overall as ‘dispassionate’.

Fig 1. Dmitri Shostakovich, Symphony no. 2 in B Major, Chorus Section “To October”. ¹²

English translation

We marched, we asked for work and bread. Our hearts were gripped in a vice of anguish. Factory chimneys towered up towards the sky Like hands, powerless to clench a fist.

Terrible were the names of our shackles: Silence, suffering, oppression.

But louder than gunfire there burst into the silence Words of our torment, words of our suffering.

Oh, Lenin! You forged freedom through suffering, You forged freedom from our toil-hardened hands. We knew, Lenin, that our fate

Bears a name: Struggle.

Struggle! You led us to the final battle. Struggle! You gave us the victory of Labour. And this victory over oppression and darkness None can ever take away from us!

Let all in the struggle be young and bold: The name of this victory is October!

October! The messenger of the awaited dawn.

October! The freedom of rebellious ages. October! Labour, joy and song.

October! Happiness in the fields and at the work benches, This is the slogan and this is the name of living generations:

October, the Commune and Lenin.

Shostakovich instilled fear into the authorities by implying a refusal to conform to authority’s demands on composers, which resulted in a systematic campaign launched against him from U.S.S.R authorities. Between September 1935 and May 1936, Shostakovich gave an interview where he proclaims “I am not afraid of difficulties. It is perhaps easier, and certainly safer, to follow a beaten path, but it is also dull, uninteresting and futile.”¹³ This statement was taken as an existential threat to the societal cohesiveness, and supreme power of the political regime in the USSR at that time. Very shortly after, In January 1936, the official communist newspaper ‘Pravda’ published an unsigned (implying unanimous governmental agreement, as well as the presentation of the title as objective fact, as opposed to subjective impression) editorial entitled “Muddle Instead of Music”.¹⁴ The article was present with immensely critical commentary on Shostakovich’s internationally and domestically successful Opera ‘Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk. Most Historians acknowledge this this was done as a direct response to his interview, as the criticised Opera premiered 2 years earlier, and had been uncriticised by Pravda up until two months after his stated refusal to follow ‘the beaten path’.¹⁵ Pravda continued its campaign, publishing two succeeding articles, along the same vein. On 3 February, they published an article entitled “Ballet Falsehood” criticising his ballet The Limpid Stream.¹⁶ The final article entitled “Clear and

Simple Language in Art” appeared on 13 February, which accused Shostakovich of “formalism”.¹⁷ The insult inherent to this statement, is that Shostakovich was a composer who stayed confined to the parameters of whatever compositional style he was composing in. The irony of this, is had he done just that, by conforming to the ‘industrial symphony’ format, none of these articles would have been written in the first place.

The impact of political authorities’ governance and expectations, built resentment and resulted in Shostakovich not incorporating placatory pro-communist propaganda in Symphony no. 4. As a result of feelings of boredom, and uninterest, Shostakovich chose to rebel against the governmentally imposed ‘beaten path’. So, contrary to Symphony no. 2, and other Symphonies of the period, there were no patriotic, pro-communist lyrics, or industrial sounds. Most controversially, Shostakovich incorporated Western musical influences that were labelled ‘degenerate’ by authorities.¹⁸ Western musical styles of the time, such as modernism, were labelled as such due to the association with antithetical, adversarial political system of Capitalism, and cultural and genre associations of promiscuity, sexual liberation, female empowerment, exoticism, and the belief that it furthered the notion of western superiority.

The systematic campaign launched against Shostakovich by Pravda had a minor impact on Shostakovich’s compositions, but a major impact on Symphony no.4. As a result of the systematic campaign launched against Shostakovich by Pravda, Shostakovich decided to pull the final act of Lady Macbeth.¹⁹ He justified this decision to a friend, “The audience, of course, will applaud—it’s considered bon ton to be in the opposition, and then there’ll be another article with a headline like ‘Incorrigible Formalist.’”²⁰ While relatively light, this quote does show that the articles and resulting reputational tarnishment did have a minor impact to coerce Shostakovich personally. The systematic campaign launched by Pravda also had a fundamentally minor impact, in that the articles did not have any effect whatsoever on Shostakovich’s continuation of composing Symphony no. 4 without any Propagandistic

elements. Shostakovich fully completed composing this Symphony and even booked a premiere for December 1936. There was also rehearsals, with a full orchestra, and a Philharmonic director booked. However, while there is conflicting reports as to whether it was the orchestral company who cancelled the performance as a result of political pressure, or whether Shostakovich himself did for the same reasons, the end result was cancellation, with the Symphony not being premiered until 1961.²¹

Shostakich being initially supportive of Communism, he grew to resent the talons of political bodies coercing him into injecting propagandistic elements into his works. By confirming to the RPMA, composing ‘Industrial symphonies’, he produced dispassionate compositions, that he struggled to write, much less instill with the same passion, and conviction as many of his other compositions. Shostakovich rebelled and composed Symphony no. 4 without conformance to the political demands. Authorities fearing public

exposure to ‘degenerate’, western themes, punished this rebellion and sought to coerce him back into conformance via the launch of a systematic campaign. The pressure applied resulted in the pulling the last act of Lady McBeth, and the premiere of Symphony no. 4 in C Minor.

-Michael Rotondo 696-426

Bibliography

Taruskin, Richard. Mass Politics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Taruskin, Richard. Socialist Realism and the Soviet Avant-Garde. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Roseberry, Eric. Personal Integrity and Public Service: The Voice of the Symphonist. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Morrison, Simon. The People’s Artist: Prokofiev’s Soviet Years. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

“Dmitrij Dmitrievič Š ostakovič ” Symphonies nos 2 & 11. 5 November 1927. Freed, Richard “Notes for RCA/BMG 60887”: Shostakovich: Symphony No. 4.

Taruskin, Richard. Socialist Realism and the Soviet Avant-Garde. Oxford History of Western Music. Vol. Music in the Early Twentieth Century,. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Schwarz, Boris. Music and the Musical Life in Soviet Russia. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983.

Fay, Laurel E. Shostakovich A Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Lukyanova, N.V. Shostakovich. Neptune City, N.J: Paganiniana Publications Inc. 1984. Barsam, Richard Meran. Nonfiction Film. Bloomington, Indiana University Press.

Choose a ‘Modernist/Post-Modernist-borderline’ composer (such as John Cage, Meredith Monk, Pauline Oliveros, Thomas Ades, or Eliane Radigue) and make a case for whether they are best described as postmodernist or modernist.

John Cage was one of the most renowned composers of the twentieth century.[1] In the Western world, this period was marked by the emergence and transition between two dominant philosophical movements, modernism and post modernism.[2] This essay will seek to examine whether John Cage and his compositional legacy could be delineated as modernist or Post-modernist. This will be accomplished by comparing key characteristics of his works and innovations with scholarly sources that have attempted to define the two movements, as well as an investigation into the influences that informed, and shaped his works and creative developments. Cage’s avant-garde invention of ‘Prepared Piano’ was aligned with foundational emphasises of modernism, and was contrived within most scholarly proposed modernist timeframes.[3][4][5][6] Cage continued to contribute to modernist developments, formulating original tone rows, a practice inspired by prominent modernist teachers. [7] However, according to Cage himself, the late 1940’s marked a revolutionary abolition of his compositional approach, and the succeeding music aligned with scholarly notions of Post-modernism.[8][9] From this philosophical shift, he composed his most controversial piece, 4’33’’, with post-modern elements, incorporating ‘low cultures’ philosophies. [10][11][12]However, this piece was not exclusively ‘post-modern’, as it was also inspired by, and sought to manifest, modernist elements, as well as a culturally homologous, Age of Exploration/Enlightenment Philosophers’ theory. [13][14]