The Revenge of the Dead Indians: In Memoriam, John Cage (1993)
The
Revenge of the Dead Indians
Directed by Henning Lohner
Reflections on Beethoven, John Cage, Music, and Human Connection
On
the first page of his manuscript to Missa Solemnis, Beethoven wrote:
"Music is communication, from the heart to the heart." By extension we might say in general that art is communication from the heart to
the heart. It is a very deep seated assumption
of western cultures for millennia.
The
Revenge of the Dead Indians
(1993) is an excellent documentary introduction to the music and ideas of John
Cage. At the very end of the film John
Cage was asked three simple questions interspersed among the credits as they rolled
by. The first was, "What is
music?" To which he responded,
"Music is paying attention to sound." The second, "What is art?" His reply, "Art is being attentive to
everything that is there." And
finally, "What is love?" To
this he answered, "We don't know."
These three answers to these simple questions are very telling and key
to understanding John Cage's music and what sets it apart from more traditional
western music, represented par excellence, by Beethoven. The film delivers a sympathetic and
enjoyable presentation of his music and his ideas. He was a charming, interesting, thoughtful
man. The crux of it, interestingly, came
at the very end during the credits when these three basic questions about the
philosophical foundations of his art were put to him.
The
contrast between Beethoven's concept of music as communication and Cage's
concept of music as attention to sound represents two different continents upon
which music and art find themselves.
Beethoven's view that music is communication, music is a
language, means that music is a way to connect people to one another at the
deep level of the heart, the emotional and personal center of each person. There is one who creates the music in order
to convey something of his inner self to an assumed audience who is receptive
and capable of receiving its message. By
immersing oneself in a musical experience one merges one's consciousness
through sound and emotive resonance with that of others sharing the same
experience. Music is a social
experience which creates positive bonds between people, inner resonances of
emotion and psychic orientation.
Cage's concept is entirely asocial, or I would
say, narcissistic, in that music is the private experience, or we might say,
the condition, of being attentive to all of the sound in one's
environment. It is an attitude of
openness and acceptance to all the experiences of sound that are available in
the world rather than a communicative relationship to other people. We might say that music is an attitude of the
self as subject, rather than a bridge between the self and other selves. Therefore music has nothing to do with the
meaning of the sound or whether the sound originates in some human
intention.
Not
all sound communicates. There are huge
telescopes scanning the heavens right now listening for communications from
other civilizations in far off depths of space. These telescopes are picking up all manner of
radio signals. But they are not
communication, at least not yet. John
Cage may call this music because it is attentive listening, but there is no
meaningful connection being made to the origins of the sounds and therefore it
is not music as far as Beethoven is concerned.
It is just sound.
Sound
may have a meaning or it may not, but that is not important for John Cage. Music is not about meaning or interpretation
or connection. Music is a way of being,
that is, a way of experiencing the world of sound. To try to "understand" it is
already mistaken.
"Understanding" implies that there is some intention behind
the sound. In traditional classical
music one attempts to grasp the composer's intentions as conveyed by the
printed score and then render those intentions to an audience in a musical
performance. This is how classical
musicians are brought up and how they approach their art all their lives. John Cage is a radical departure from
this. The composer's intentions become
irrelevant. The sound created can be
completely random.
He
talks a lot in the film about chance and how important it is to be open to
chance and to allow chance sounds to become music. How do chance sounds become music? Through our being attentive to them and
accepting them, as opposed to filtering them out in order to hear something
else. It implies a calm acceptance of
whatever is. The sound of rain tapping
on a window may create a feeling of warmth, soothing, calmness, anxiety,
distress, or somnolence. But it is not communication
because there is no communicator originating the sound we perceive. If a sound should give rise to an emotional
response in us, it will be due to unconscious associations we make based on our
past experience. If someone recorded
such a sound and played it for someone else hoping to signify something or
elicit a response in them, then it would be music in Beethoven's sense: a chance sound could become music through
selection and presentation by a human subject.
For
John Cage the sound of the rain is a musical experience just by virtue of our
listening to it, allowing it to occupy our attention. Such openness and calm acceptance can be very
liberating. It disposes of the need to
filter sounds in accordance with our likes and dislikes. Being disposed to accept whatever may come
does indeed reduce stress. But it
substitutes juxtaposition for meaningful connection. It is very much a Zen Buddhist idea. Yoko Ono immediately grasped the relationship
between John Cage's approach to music and Zen Buddhism as she stated during her
interview in the film.
Beethoven,
on the other hand, is nobody's Buddhist.
Beethoven is about connection, striving, and struggle. In the music of Beethoven we see life in all
of its many incarnations of passion and struggle: the turmoil, the suffering,
the longing, the triumphs, the moments of profound peace. Music has intentionality. Music can and must be understood, or it can
be misunderstood. In any case it must always
be "interpreted." There can be
disagreements over meanings and interpretations.
In
John Cage's music there can be no such thing.
There is no "interpretaton."
There is only one's openness to sound and to chance. It can never be the same twice. Whatever is, is 'right,' but the concept of
right and wrong do not really apply here.
It is the state of being open that is paramount. The act of selecting is already mistaken.
On
a deeper level it is a repudiation of human intention and even of the human
self. By selecting some sounds over others and imbuing them with meaning we
assert ourselves and our personal needs and desires. This is contrary to the Buddhist philosophy
of simply being, without intention, without desire, without asserting oneself
in the world, or toward other people.
This is really what John Cage's music reflects. It invites you to just be, to simply receive,
to expand your awareness and acceptance of all ambient sound. With John Cage each listener becomes a
receptacle rather than an active interpreter.
The consequence of this is that one loses one's grasp of music as a
communicative language.
It
is not an accident that John Cage answered "We don't know" to the
question "What is love?" He
doesn't have a clue what love is, because love is about connecting with other
people through need and desire. But Zen
Buddhism repudiates need and desire. It
embraces only being. Love is a different
world, a world of intensity, of need and hunger and longing and dreaming and
desiring. For Buddhism love is a world
of futility and ultimate disappointment.
Most music in the western tradition is about expressing the nuances and
varieties of this world of experience as an attempt to connect and resonate
with others. This was Beethoven's understanding,
which he took for granted. Beethoven
lived in a world of human connection intensely felt. John Cage lived in a world of random sounds
acutely observed but devoid of "meaning," and indifferent to human
connection.
Beethoven's
definition is the greater, I think, because it encompasses the human experience
of connectedness, which has been crucial to our survival since humanity emerged
as a species hundreds of thousands of years ago. Cage's music is severely limited by its indifference
to the needs of human beings who create sound for their own purposes. This is why Cage's music will never be as
popular or as great as Beethoven's, because ultimately human beings need and
seek connection. It is our destiny from
birth and throughout our lives.
Buddhism
cannot be refuted in the sense that there is nothing to tell us a priori
whether life is a good thing or it isn't.
There was a time when we did not exist, but we came into existence, more
or less by chance. But how should we
regard this condition? Is it better to
exist or not to exist? This question
cannot be answered except to say that everything that is alive strives to grow,
increase itself, continue its life, and reproduce. This seems to be hard wired into all living
things. We are thus accustomed to making
the assumption that life is "good," because we all struggle to
maintain ourselves and continue living.
Buddhism calls this assumption into question. It does not assert that life is a bad thing,
that we should not exist, but it tells us that life is problematic and that the
fundamental problems of life cannot be solved -- in principle. Therefore all the struggle and tumult of
striving to improve our lives and create more of ourselves is fundamentally
futile and will actually increase the suffering that is inherent in all of
life. John Cage made a series of oral
recordings called, "Diary: How to
improve the world ( you will only make matters worse)," which is very consistent
with this Buddhist idea of futility and passivity.
Buddhism
is based on several observations that I believe are distortions and profoundly mistaken: that all life is suffering, that suffering
stems from desire, and that all of our striving to reduce or eliminate
suffering only increases it. These are some
of the basic falsehoods that are the foundation of the Buddhist outlook. While it is true that all things are
transitory, this is not a reason to disengage oneself from life or relinquish
all desire for things that must ultimately pass. Transitoriness does not imply futility. What Buddhism fails to recognize is that
there is profound satisfaction in the transitory pleasures of life that give us
a deep sense of fulfillment within ourselves as well as a sense of meaningful
connection to our fellow human beings.
This enhances our sense of wellness in life and enables us to impart
that sense of well being to others to whom we are connected. We are naturally predisposed to experience
life in this way. And while it is true
that all such satisfactions are transitory, it is also true that a life filled
with those small satisfactions is better than one lived in deficiency and
deprivation. One must learn the
indifference of Buddhism through long years of self discipline. It does not come naturally. Buddhism is contrary to everything that is
natural in life, and it is very hard to learn this mode of experiencing
oneself.
Throughout
the film we can see the very powerful impact of Buddhism on John Cage and his music. His use of chance elements in his musical
compositions "to free his music from his likes and dislikes," is
totally contrary to Beethoven's approach to music, which is echoes Nietsche’s maxim
in Twilight of the Idols : "the
formula for my happiness: a Yes, a No, a straight line, a goal." Yoko Ono saw John Cage as a bridge between
western and oriental cultures. But how
can there be a bridge between engagement in life and the repudiation of life as
a fundamental value, which is what Buddhism does? It is existence without
"living." And the art that it
gives rise to is limited and minimalistic and repudiates of all the reasons
people create music with their voices, with instruments, and through the
incorporation of random sounds. Most
people who embrace Cage's music as a curiosity do not grasp its radical and
profound rejection of the very foundations of human existence. This is why it will never have more than a limited
following and why Beethoven will continue to inspire and be embraced by people
as long as they are able to play and hear him.