Was John Cage a Musician?

John Cage was called a great many things in his lifetime and continues, posthumously, to elicit in many members of the arts community the urge to label-make . He is hailed as almost everything from genius to charlatan and those who seek most fervently to define him regularly fail to agree in their endeavor. It seems unlikely any conclusive description of Cage will ever achieve a broad consensus. Perspectives are too disparate, opinions too passionately held. This is not to say Cage was a wholly controversial figure. In fact, controversy is rarely focused directly on Cage’s character, though it may be referenced or alluded to in the names assigned him. And because he was so recent a presence on the musical scene, there is little to no debate about the details of his biography. Even his philosophies , which certainly provide much more fuel for conflict, fail to strike at the heart of inter-musician discord. Many individuals who offered up ideas more inflammatory than his have long been forgotten in conversation. No, the root of all tensions in the grand scheme of this John Cage debate is the matter of how much musicality one is willing to assign him and his work. Every other topic exists within or springs from the sharp disagreements over these issues: Was it music John Cage created? Can he himself really be considered a musician? Answers to either dilemma require a firm definition of the qualities in question. Because defining “music” is a thornier path to tread (and material for a much longer essay) consider the second question. John Cage is notoriously difficult to pin down with any finality, and he himself relished the very idea of confounding labels and conventional perceptions of reality . It is nevertheless worthwhile to endeavor after a definition of “musician,” if only to provide, by peering at Cage through such a lens, another means of understanding him.


The simplest place to seek any definition is usually a dictionary. Under “musician” in the Random House Dictionary the following description is provided:

noun
1. a person who makes music a profession, esp. as a performer of music.
2. any person, whether professional or not, skilled in music.

Other dictionaries, Webster’s for instance, limit the definition to include only those who perform music, have musical talent, or compose music. Again, this necessitates a definition of the word “music” beyond conventional wisdom. It also fails to consider the fact that a musician could be one (as listed above) who makes music a profession, much in the same way a mathematician forges a profession in the study, exploration, and challenging of ideas pertaining directly to mathematics. By this standard, Cage could most certainly be considered a musician. His entire career was devoted to the study, exploration, testing, and challenging of ideas pertaining to music . His whole adult life was music-centric. It was full of many other things, to be sure: visual art, poetry, philosophy, and an overarching spirit of invention . Still, the subject that most consumed his attention and drove his creativity was music. Consequently, whether or not one agrees the product of Cage’s creativity is truly music and enjoyable as such, it is obvious John Cage made the topic of music the chief focus of his career. In this he meets a reasonable requirement of the definition.


Of course, this line of reasoning relies on technicalities of language. Often Cage’s critics, many of them traditionalists, dismissed him and his work out of hand. They viewed his contributions to repertoire, performance practice, and the musical community at large, to be less than valid . Being less than valid, the contributions were rejected as somehow outside the realm in which music was created; the realm in which real music and real musicians existed. In turn, Cage, many of his colleagues, and their supporters often dismissed traditional music as worthless . Neither extreme perspective is particularly helpful in assembling a definition, and both tend to overlook crucial details that undermine their argument. For instance, it is sometimes asserted that Cage was incapable of performing or producing traditional music, but Cage worked as accompanist and composer for the dancers at Cornish in Seattle. It is a position to which he would not likely have been hired if he were unable to (at the very least) play the piano in a traditional sense. There is also the matter of Cage’s mentors. Schoenberg, in his widely known quote, declined to call Cage a composer, but nevertheless agreed to teach him free of charge. Before Schoenberg were Henry Cowell and Adolph Weiss. If John Cage was sufficiently lacking in musicality that he could be denied the title “musician,” how was it possible he easily secured positions with any of these prominent composers? There are few classically trained performers, whatever their level of giftedness, that traditionalists would begrudge the label “musician.” They may be hailed as good or not in this capacity, but their title remains unchallenged. Cage was trained in classical methodologies during his time with Schoenberg. He studied rhythm, harmony, and counterpoint. It is reasonable then, within the parameters of conventional definitions as well, to call John Cage a musician.


Still the question of validity remains, was John Cage a legitimate member of the musical community? Consider the following perspectives, presented in both macro and micro form (this is a paper about Cage, after all):
Within any functioning society, there is a skill-set spectrum of sorts. On one side of the spectrum is pure creativity and invention, without the benefit of implementation or analysis. On the other side, lies pure analysis and execution. Each contributing member of society, by virtue of his or her inherent skills/interests, falls into a necessary role somewhere on the spectrum. All degrees of the spectrum are necessary to the others. This is not to say an individual never possesses both extreme creativity and extreme facility. Speaking in a very loose generalization, however, it is true that creativity and the skills of analysis tend to exist in proportions relative to one another. If an individual tends to function most effectively in an analytical role, his or her ability to invent tends to be diminished. Likewise, if an individual has a strong bent toward the creation of new ideas, in any field, it is likely he or she may need to work in conjunction with a more function oriented or analytically minded member of this same field. Again, there are notable exceptions, and there are many combinations of any number of skills within the spectrum, but the question of validity is effectively addressed here. A certain member of the society may differ so dramatically in skill and interest from another, he or she may not be able to relate to the other, and may even perceive the other to inhabit a role that is somehow lesser. But, both members are equally necessary to the spectrum as whole, and therefore to one another. This could be described as the macro view of validity and functionality.


The micro view deals specifically with music. Like society as a whole, the music world functions in the context of a spectrum. There are musicians whose value to the community lies wholly in their creation of new music. There are musicians (interpreters) who must engage in varying degrees of creation in their performances, but must also function analytically. There are critics and conductors and musicologists, all operating with unique (and in many cases) relative combinations of creativity and capacity for implementation. Each plays a necessary role in the musical community. John Cage inhabited a unique place on the musical spectrum. He was enormously inventive, but regularly contributed to theoretical discussion. In these areas, and more, he played the role of questioner, experimenter, and explorer. The results of these ventures may or may not be considered “music” by standards of musical orthodoxy. Regardless, he existed as a contributing and necessary member of the spectrum of musical society during his lifetime. His philosophies challenged and clarified the musical objectives of his era. He was a significant force propelling the work of both those who adhered to his ideas and those who did not. In this sense, as in those already addressed, Cage qualifies for “musician status” as it were. His interactions with the idea of music may have been in a spirit of irreverence that irks other members of the music world, but his contribution is no less legitimate for its playfulness or forays into the musically ambiguous.


There are those who suggest Cage is just another composer of the many throughout history whose music fails to be popularly received until long after he dies. This may be an impossible premise to prove or disprove for the time being. The music of John Cage has not yet gained widespread popularity or acceptance the way forerunners of the baroque, classical, and romantic eras eventually did. What can be asserted, is the notion that John Cage could be considered a musician in the face of either outcome. That is, of course, if John Cage truly wished to be considered a musician in the first place. It is said that Schoenberg’s assessment (…not a composer, but an inventor of genius.) always pleased him. In the end it seems fair to say, he was enough a musician that, were it his specific request to be considered one, another thoughtful individual could agree. Likewise, he is enough not a musician that, if he wished, the same individual could be equally happy to call him something else.