Great discussion Friday about fan values of Rupi Kaur poems. One thing we might didn't get to fully discuss was “How would we look at these poems through the traditional, “Professor of Poetry” criteria? Are all evaluations good/relevant for all audiences? Does this place these poems or those criteria in a different light? And what if the author knows this and may even be doing it on purposely?” This last question might be the best possible transition to consideration of John Cage, a composer and writer who knew perfectly well what the expected criteria were but then made works which challenged fans, listeners and critics.

“Experimental Music”

Orienting questions and key annotations link via Perusall

1. What is experimental? (See Cage in Perusall). But also what is our definition? Merriam Webster
2. Does “experimentalism” complicate evaluation? And how?
3. Expanding the definition of music to include “non-musical” and non-intentional sounds is provocative. Can we then still talk about Good and Bad music? link?
4. Is “Water Walk” experimental? If so, how?
5. Anyone can make (good) music ….
6. Why does Cage seem committed to experimentalism?

Discussion Experimentalism can involve a challenge to the way art (poetry, music, theater, painting, etc.) is made. Often it presses two questions : whether the new work qualifies as music (poetry, art, etc.) AND then how it is to be valued. This second part – how it is to be valued – has a double sense, both whether it is any good AND how would we tell. For instance, if you approach poetry with the notion that rhyme is essential, then all unrhymed texts would either be disqualified (i.e. NOT poetry) or valued poorly (i.e. BAD poetry). Does music require proper instruments? Melody? Rhythm? How would we know if music made according to Cage's experimental framework were Good? or Bad? Does experimental composition necessarily lead to experimental (changed) evaluation? Or should the “standards” remain the same, and the new work must meet the established standards? (And who is qualified or authorized to answer these questions? !) Could we also change the rules for how music is evaluated, to make this fit (if we wanted to do so)? Or is there something about this experimentalism that would make that impossible?

• Response (subjective, emotional, gut)
  • What makes 4'33“ such a challenge - External Link?
  • How did you respond?
  • And what do yo think of the audience reaction?

(Sherwood premise: it's hard to tell if something is good before you know what it is …)

1. Julian Dodd makes an argument as to whether Cage should be included or excluded from “music.” Let's say we are persuaded it's better to call it “art” than music, would we go through a similar process to decide on its value as conceptual art (i.e. if it is good/bad)?)
2. Does it make a difference if we consider that Cage might have been aware of the concerns / criteria Dodd offers … and that he composed this piece of music in this fashion anyways? (i.e. would Cage make a counter-argument)
3. If we take the audience responses in the video of the California performance of 4'33” by Bill Marx as representative, does that “evidence” complicate Dodd's argument in any way? (What would Barbara Herrnstein Smith say?)
4. What are some other ways that questions of value and evaluation (or good and bad) could be approached for this piece?

See final groups from Thursday