John Cage and David Tudor

more information www.cambridge.
org/9781107014329
John Cage and David Tudor
John Cage is best known for his indeterminate music, which leaves a signicant level
of creative decision-making in the hands of the performer. But how much license
did Cage allow? Martin Iddons book is the rst volume to collect the complete
extant correspondence between the composer and the pianist David Tudor, one of
Cages most provocative and signicant musical collaborators. The book presents
their partnership from working together in New York in the early 1950s, through
periods on tour in Europe, until the late stages of their work from the 1960s
onwards, carried out almost exclusively within the frame of the Merce Cunningham
Dance Company. Tackling the question of how much creative exibility Tudor was
granted, Iddon includes detailed examples of the ways in which Tudor realized
Cages work, especially focusing on Music of Changes to Variations II, to show how
composer and pianist inuenced one anothers methods and styles.
M A R T I N I D D O N is Associate Professor of Music at the University of Leeds. He

previously lectured at University College Cork and Lancaster University, and
studied composition and musicology at the universities of Durham and Cambridge.
His musicological research largely focuses on post-war music in Germany and the
United States of America, and has been published in numerous leading journals,
including Musical Quarterly, twentieth-century music, and Contemporary Music
Review. His music has been performed in Europe, North America, and Australasia,
and has been featured on BBC Radio 3, Radio New Zealand, and the
sterreichischer Rundfunk.
Music Since 1900
general editor Arnold Whittall
This series formerly Music in the Twentieth Century oers a wide perspective on
music and musical life since the end of the nineteenth century. Books included
range from historical and biographical studies concentrating particularly on the
context and circumstances in which composers were writing, to analytical and
critical studies concerned with the nature of musical language and questions of
compositional process. The importance given to context is also reected in studies
dealing with, for example, the patronage, publishing, and promotion of new music,
and in accounts of the musical life of particular countries.
Titles in the series

Jonathan Cross
The Stravinsky Legacy
Michael Nyman
Experimental Music: Cage and Beyond
Jennifer Doctor
The BBC and Ultra-Modern Music, 19221936
Robert Adlington
The Music of Harrison Birtwistle
Keith Potter
Four Musical Minimalists: La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Steve Reich, Philip Glass
Carlo Caballero
Faur and French Musical Aesthetics
Peter Burt
The Music of Toru Takemitsu
David Clarke
The Music and Thought of Michael Tippett: Modern Times and Metaphysics
M. J. Grant
Serial Music, Serial Aesthetics: Compositional Theory in Post-War Europe
Philip Rupprecht
Brittens Musical Language
Mark Carroll
Music and Ideology in Cold War Europe
Adrian Thomas
Polish Music since Szymanowski
J. P. E. Harper-Scott
Edward Elgar, Modernist
Yayoi Uno Everett
The Music of Louis Andriessen
Ethan Haimo
Schoenbergs Transformation of Musical Language
Rachel Beckles Willson
Ligeti, Kurtg, and Hungarian Music during the Cold War
Michael Cherlin
Schoenbergs Musical Imagination
Joseph N. Straus
Twelve-Tone Music in America
David Metzer
Musical Modernism at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century
Edward Campbell
Boulez, Music and Philosophy
Jonathan Goldman
The Musical Language of Pierre Boulez: Writings and Compositions
Pieter C. van den Toorn and John McGinness
Stravinsky and the Russian Period: Sound and Legacy of a Musical Idiom
David Beard
Harrison Birtwistles Operas and Music Theatre
Heather Wiebe
Brittens Unquiet Pasts: Sound and Memory in Postwar Reconstruction
Beate Kutschke and Barley Norton
Music and Protest in 1968
Graham Griths
Stravinskys Piano: Genesis of a Musical Language
Martin Iddon
John Cage and David Tudor: Correspondence on Interpretation and Performance
John Cage and David Tudor
Correspondence on Interpretation
and Performance
Martin Iddon
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town,
Singapore, So Paulo, Delhi, Mexico City
Cambridge University Press

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107014329
Martin Iddon 2013
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2013
Printed and bound in the United Kingdom by the MPG Books Group
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data

Iddon, Martin, 1975
John Cage and David Tudor : correspondence on interpretation and performance / Martin Iddon.
pages cm. (Music since 1900)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-107-01432-9 (alk. paper)
1. Cage, John Criticism and interpretation. 2. Tudor, David, 19261996. 3. Cage, John
Performances. 4. Cage, John Correspondence. 5. Tudor, David, 19261996
Correspondence. 6. Composers Correspondence. 7. Pianists Correspondence.
I. Cage, John. II. Tudor, David, 19261996. III. Title.
ML410.C24I33 2013
780.920 2dc23
2013000576
ISBN 978-1-107-01432-9 Hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or

accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to
in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such
websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
Contents
List of gures and table page viii

Preface ix
1 The music of chance 1

2 Correspondence, 19511953 6
3 Determining the determinate 36
4 Determining the indeterminate 56
6 (In)determining the indeterminate 138
8 Late realizations 196
9 Praxis and poiesis in indeterminate music 213
Bibliography 216
Index 221
[vii]
Figures and table
Fig. 3.1 Tudors realization of Music for Piano 18 page 52

Fig. 3.2 Tudors renotation of Music for Piano 4, 13, and 7 54
Fig. 4.1 Tudors reading of Cages I notation from page 29 of the
Solo for Piano 68
Fig. 4.2 Tudors reading of Cages BO notation from pages 5253 of the
Solo for Piano 69
Fig. 4.3 Tudors reading of Cages T notation from page 12 of the
Solo for Piano 70
Fig. 6.1 One of Tudors grid notations for Music for Amplied Toy Pianos 163
Fig. 6.2 A page from Tudors realization of Cartridge Music 172
Fig. 6.3 A strip of Tudors realization of Variations II 182
Fig. 8.1 Tudors realization sheet for Telephones and Birds, Forth Worth, TX,
February 19, 1977 201
Table 4.1 Tudors table of point types in Variations I 86
[viii]
Preface
In one of John Cages nal letters to David Tudor, he discusses the

possibility of preparing a volume devoted to Tudors work. What Cage
proposes is not a conventional biography but a togetherness of a variety
of materials. In a sense, the current volume follows Cages lead, though
certainly not in the format that he himself might have envisaged.
Through the presentation of the correspondence between Cage and
Tudor and a critical examination of Tudors working practices in reali-
zing Cages scores, using many of the archival sources Tudor left behind
in the form of his working materials, the present volume represents a
biography, of sorts, of the life of Cage and Tudors creative partnership,
created by placing these disparate materials together. Inevitably, such a
biography is partial: though Tudor was certainly rigorous in his preser-
vation of materials, doubtless not everything has survived; similarly, as
noted below, the correspondence itself is certainly incomplete (not to
mention being empty of the matter of the many conversations that must
have passed between the two); third, Cage and Tudor performed together
more often as accompanists for the Merce Cunningham Dance Company
than in concert as a piano duo. It may be hoped that a future scholar will
nd the materials presented here helpful in explicating the additional
complex of relationships formed when Cages music, especially in
Tudors hands, encountered Cunninghams choreography. Finally, what
is presented here does not engage with Tudors work as a composer,
beginning with the one-o performance of Fluorescent Sound (1964) in
Stockholm on 13 September 1964, and becoming increasingly central to
Tudors work, especially after the composition of Rainforest (1968).
Although Cage and Tudor continued to work together within the context
of the Merce Cunningham Dance Company throughout their creative
lives, after this point Tudor brought nothing new by Cage into his solo
repertoire, rarely performed as a solo pianist, and, as noted below, only
worked on a small number of new Cage pieces in ensemble, in ways
which it is sometimes extremely dicult, and sometimes impossible,
accurately to trace through archival sources. Nevertheless, John
Holzaepfels biography of Tudor, which is currently under development,
may be expected to provide much new information regarding this aspect
[ix] of Tudors work.
x Preface
Reading the correspondence between John Cage and David Tudor can be
a frustrating experience. This is, not least, because it is clearly tantalizingly
incomplete. Tudor was, with the exception of a beautifully personal and
intimate sequence of correspondence with his partner, the poet and potter
M. C. Richards, not a great correspondent, at least not when compared with
the much more prolic Cage. Similarly, the amount of correspondence
written to John Cage in his lifetime was vast, but only a comparatively
small fraction of that correspondence survives in the papers held at
Northwestern University.1 Not only that, but until August 1954, Cages
home in the so-called Bozza Mansion on East Seventeenth Street and,
between 1953 and 1954, Cunninghams (Nicholls 2007, 62) was near
enough to Tudors home in New York City that face-to-face meetings
were more common than correspondence.2 Moreover, in August 1954,
Cage, along with Tudor and M. C. Richards, departed New York City for
rural Stony Point, on the banks of the Hudson River, near to Albany in
upstate New York, some 150 miles from New York City itself.3 Again,
because they lived in such close proximity to one another, the correspond-
ence in this period is patchy, occurring most often when Tudor or Cage was
away from Stony Point on tour. In later years, after Cages return to New
York City in 1970, having in any case been increasingly away from Stony
Point during the 1960s (Nicholls 2007, 86), Cage and Tudor spent a great
deal of their time on tour together, most often with the Merce Cunningham
Dance Company, with the result again that much of their communication
was undertaken in person. The experience of reading their correspondence
is thus often most akin to nding oneself only hearing snatches of a much
larger conversation.
It is, in part, from a belief that, to have a better understanding of what is
doubtless one of the most signicant, and enduring, musical collaborations
of the twentieth century, it is necessary to expand upon the information
presented by this correspondence, that the current volume takes its shape.
The chapters of the volume are divided between not only the presentation of
1
Jeanette L. Casey, then Public Service Librarian at Northwesterns Music Library, now Head
of the Music Library at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, informed me that much of
Cages correspondence had been destroyed in a re. This occurred in 1953, meaning that
many materials dating from earlier than this point are missing.
2
The Bozza Mansion was named after its landlord (Nicholls 2007, 49). The composer
Morton Feldman (b. January 12, 1926, New York City, NY; d. September 3, 1987,
Bualo, NY) also lived in the same block of apartments between 1950 and 1952.
3
The town of Stony Point itself was founded in 1865. The attraction for Cage, however, was
the foundation of a new artistic community there by the architect Paul Williams, perhaps
inspired by Black Mountain College, at which he had taught, and for which he designed the
Science Building and Pottery Shop.
Preface xi
Cage and Tudors correspondence but also text which examines Tudors
working practices in realizing Cages scores (most especially, but not exclu-
sively, his indeterminate scores), building on seminal work by, amongst
others, John Holzaepfel, James Pritchett, and William Fetterman. While
developing the techniques used by these scholars to explain the relation-
ships between score and performance in Tudors realizations, these portions
of the volume suggest that the realizations themselves can be viewed as
representing three dierent and distinct types: rst, the more-or-less deter-
minate realizations of more-or-less determinate scores; second, the more-
or-less determinate realizations of more-or-less indeterminate scores; and,
third, the more-or-less indeterminate realization of more-or-less indeter-
minate scores. These categories also have a broad temporal dimension,
although there is a degree to which such periodization results in cases of
overlap. The rst category includes Cages scores from 1951 until 1956,
most particularly Music of Changes (1951) and the Music for Piano series
(195256). The second category includes those pieces where, although the
scores relationship to the sounding image overtly avoids the impression of
one-to-one correspondence (which is to say those scores where a musically
trained reader would be incapable of imagining an approximation of the
nal result), Tudors realizations reimagine the pieces indeterminate nota-
tions on ve-line staves, even if using additional sound-producing resources
not present within the piano (including piano preparation, squeakers, radio
receivers, rulers, and so on). This period is brief, though hugely signicant,
given the pieces it encompasses: three pieces which are central to Cages
output fall into this category, Winter Music (1957), the Concert for Piano
and Orchestra (195758), and Variations I (1958). The Haiku of 1958 are
also a part of this grouping, as is Fontana Mix (1958). Since the former is, in
many respects, simply a variant of Variations I and not, in and of itself, a
development of Cages ideas beyond this point, it is not considered within
this grouping, but I return to it in the examination of Tudors late realiza-
tions, since it was probably only in 1987 that Tudor rst performed it.
Similarly, Fontana Mix is ignored, not because it is insignicant from a
Cageian perspective, but because its realization has little relevance to Tudor.
Finally, from the end of 1958 onwards, Tudor developed ways of realizing
scores where his realization would include increasingly large degrees of
indeterminacy. This last category may also be conveniently subdivided.
First, Music Walk (1958), Cartridge Music (1960), and Theatre Piece
(1960) all translate Cages notation into text. Arguably, this really represents
a liminal stage between determinate and indeterminate realization; the texts
continue to provide relatively accurate instructions for the activities to be
carried out. However, I will suggest that these realizations are indeterminate
xii Preface
in numerous respects, most especially in terms of pitch content. Second,

Tudors realization of Variations II (1961) represents the culmination, in
many respects, of his work on Cages materials. Here, it is perfectly possible
to perform directly from a realization which is itself indeterminate, where it
would be impossible in using Cages materials (or at least impossible with-
out a healthy, or unhealthy, dose of improvisation). Although parametric
characteristics are largely determined, actual events the results of these
characteristics remain indeterminate.
As should be clear from the above, this periodization is not unproble-
matic. Though the three categories are helpful in terms of delineating
certain aspects of Tudors practice and demonstrate the way in which this
changes over time, they disguise certain aspects of continuity, which I hope
will become clear in what follows. Not least amongst these continuities is the
fastidiousness with which Tudor approached Cages scores, and the manner
in which meticulous measuring of the dimensions of properties suggested
within the score informs Tudors readings from Music of Changes onward.
Moreover, the way in which the trajectory proposed appears to reach its
apotheosis in Tudors realization of Variations II suggests that it is here that
Tudors work with Cage ends. There is some truth in this. As noted above,
Tudor added nothing further by Cage to his solo repertoire after this point
and, when he returned to performance in the 1980s, after he was rmly
established as a composer of electronic music, it was pieces such as Solo for
Piano (195758) from the Concert for Piano and Orchestra and Variations
II that were the mainstay of his performances. Nevertheless, those new
pieces which Tudor performed as a member of the Merce Cunningham
Dance Company after Variations II utilized techniques that Tudor had
already applied elsewhere: Telephones and Birds (1977) is extremely closely
related in its realization to the material of Theatre Piece, Cartridge Music,
and Music Walk, though it contains a lower degree of specicity than those
pieces; Five Stone Wind (1988), too, although it is more greatly focused
on Tudors electronic processing of recordings of earth-vibrations, uses a
similar time-bracketed set of textual instructions to those pieces. Moreover,
Tudor also performed Cages Four3 (1991) to Cunninghams Beach Birds,
but no materials in the David Tudor Papers indicate what methods Tudor
may have used in realizing his part. Finally, what follows seeks to oer at
least provisional answers to questions posed by Holzaepfel by engaging with
the complex questions of authorship and ontology in pieces which are, as a
result of realizations simultaneously determinate and indeterminate, at
one and the same time the output of both composer and performer,
through a consideration of whether Cages and Tudors activities can be
considered two distinct types of artistic activity, here termed praxis and
Preface xiii
poiesis, following a model proposed by Agamben (Holzaepfel 1994, 6566).

Interleaved with this text, I present the complete extant correspondence
between Cage and Tudor, the various parts of which are preserved in the
Music Library of Northwestern University Library in Evanston, Illinois, and
in the Getty Research Institute in Los Angeles, California. All letters are
reproduced verbatim. In letters that are largely typewritten, square brackets
are used to distinguish handwritten portions.
Naturally, this volume relies on the help, support, and advice of many
others. I would particularly like to thank Jeanette Casey, Mark Zelesky,
and D. J. Hoek, who made my research visit to Northwestern University in
July 2007 extremely protable; similarly, Nancy Perlo and the sta of the
Special Collections department at the Getty Research Institute could not
have been more helpful during visits there in March 2007 and January
February 2009. I am grateful also to the British Academy and to Lancaster
University for grants which enabled me to carry out the archival work which
lies at the heart of this volume.
Many conversations have also informed the work. It would not have been
completed without the input of, amongst others, Trevor Baa, Jason Cady,
Fabrice Fitch, Mary Harris, Robin Maconie, David Nicholls, Michael Pisaro,
Ian Power, Antti Sakari Saario, John Schneider, and Mic Spencer. Particularly,
I would like to thank John Holzaepfel, without whose advice the corres-
pondence would have been both less accurate in its dating, and less rich in
the commentary which runs alongside it. Nevertheless, any mistakes which
remain are entirely my own.
1 The music of chance
It is striking with what regularity seemingly random chains of events, perhaps

unlikely, yet inconsequential in and of themselves, come together to acquire a
greater signicance. Perhaps inadvertently paraphrasing Mark Twains obser-
vation that the reason why truth is stranger than ction is because truth isnt
obliged to stick to the possible, Paul Auster surely not entirely coincidentally
also the author of The Music of Chance (1991) observed that
[c]hance is part of reality: we are continually shaped by the forces of

coincidence, the unexpected occurs with almost numbing regularity in all our
lives. And yet theres a widely held notion that novels shouldnt stretch the
imagination too far. Anything that appears implausible is necessarily taken to
be forced, articial, unrealistic. I dont know what reality these people have
been living in, but it certainly isnt my reality. (Auster 1995 [198990], 11617)
Without just such a sequence of coincidences, contingencies, and chance

meetings, potentially John Cage would always have remained not yet Cage,
in the title of Hiness article on Cages early years (Hines 1994) an interest-
ing, if eccentric and erratic, West Coast composer, whose prepared piano was
little more than an abstruse cul-de-sac along the routes taken by twentieth-
century music David Tudor might have continued accompanying dance
program and playing the occasional solo recital, and Morton Feldman
perhaps could have found himself unable to break the compositional impasse
he had reached at the end of the 1940s. Put simply, without the succession of
events that drew John Cage and David Tudor together, it would probably
have been impossible to speak of the New York School of composers brief
though the reality of that union may have been and the history of post-war
music would surely have been radically, almost unimaginably, dierent.
In any case, the contingencies of Cage and Tudors meeting in New York are
not simple to unravel. Following many years of being, after his return from
Europe in 1931, at least comparatively, settled in Los Angeles and Santa
Monica, between 1938 and 1942 Cage lived successively in Seattle, San
Francisco, Chicago, and, ultimately, New York. The fast friendship that
Henry Cowell had anticipated in encouraging Cage and Lou Harrison to
meet led to Harrison assisting Cage in becoming an accompanist at the
[1] Cornish School in Seattle. During his two years there, Cage worked with, and
composed for, the dancer and choreographer Bonnie Bird, formerly of the
Martha Graham Company, and, more important, Merce Cunningham, who
would soon become Cages lifelong partner, both personal and professional.
After failure in San Francisco to found his long-desired Center for
Experimental Music and success in Chicago (where he also taught at
the Chicago School of Design; Fetterman 1996, xv) with the acclaimed broad-
cast of The City Wears a Slouch Hat (1942), Cage, and his then wife
Xenia, moved to the heart of Americas musical scene, New York (Nicholls
2007, 2128).
Cage had an unfortunate start to his time in New York. He rapidly
alienated Peggy Guggenheim, with whom he and Xenia were lodging, by
organizing a percussion concert at the Museum of Modern Art, which was in
direct competition with the one which Guggenheim had arranged for him at
her Art of This Century gallery. His personal life seemed to fare little better: by
1945, he and Xenia were separated, soon to be divorced. Yet the reasons for
Cages estrangement from Xenia were also, in some senses, the seeds from
which his success in New York would nally grow. Cages links with dance
made it possible for him to nd accommodation with another dancer and
choreographer, Jean Erdman. Through Erdman, Cage became reacquainted
with Cunningham (Nicholls 2007, 2930).1 It was precisely this deve-
loping personal and professional relationship with Cunningham which led
not only, in part, to the break-up of Cages marriage, but also to a string of
commissions for music to accompany dance, including Credo in Us (1942), co-
choreographed by Cunningham with Erdman, and rst performed in
Bennington, Vermont, on August 1, 1942, which represented Cunninghams
rst collaboration with Cage. This collaboration was to become central to
Cages relationship, too, with David Tudor.
While Cage was beginning his work at the Cornish School, David Tudor,
fourteen years Cages junior, was still studying the organ, alongside theory,
harmony, and composition, with H. William Hawke at St. Marks Church in
his home town of Philadelphia (Holzaepfel 1994, 2). By 1943, Tudor had
become organist at Trinity Church in the Philadelphia suburb of Swarthmore;
it was in Swarthmore that he made the acquaintance of Irma Wolpe, then
teaching at Swarthmore College, whose performance of her husband Stefans
Toccata (1941) impressed Tudor and led to his beginning piano studies with
her (Holzaepfel 1994, 45). Stefan Wolpe, too, was teaching in Philadelphia,
at the Settlement School, and, alongside his piano studies with Irma, Tudor
1
Both Erdman and Cunningham were part of the Martha Graham Company at this time.
Erdman left to found her own company in 1944, Cunningham left to work as a freelance
dancer and choreographer in 1945.
The music of chance 3
worked on composition and analysis with Stefan; later, Tudor recalled nding
analysis a signicantly more fruitful eld than composition (Clarkson 2004,
7). It was with the Wolpes support that Tudor made his way to New York,
staying in the Wolpes apartment there during his regular forays to the
metropolis from the mid 1940s, ultimately moving there in 1947 (Clarkson
2004, 7; Holzaepfel 1994, 7). Although he did give performances in his own
right and, more prominently, as the saxophonist Sigurd Raschers accom-
panist, Tudor, like Cage, found it necessary to supplement his income
through accompanying dance, working particularly with Jean Erdman, to
whom he was probably given an introduction by another dancer, Doris
Halpern, and in whose apartment, as mentioned above, Cage had been a
regular lodger (Holzaepfel 1994, 9).2 Though solo recitals proper were hard to
come by for Tudor at this early stage in his New York career, he performed
regularly at the Wolpes apartment, playing, alongside other students of
Irmas, the music of Stefans composition students (Clarkson 2004, 7). Not
least of these students was Morton Feldman, who had begun studies with
Stefan Wolpe in New York at roughly the same time that Tudor had begun to
work with Irma Wolpe (Holzaepfel 1994, 9). Given the number of acquain-
tances that Cage and Tudor had in common by this stage, their meeting was
becoming increasingly inevitable.
By the end of 1949, though, Cage and Feldman had not yet met. Indeed,
Cage had spent much of 1949 in Paris (certainly returning after October 15, the
date of his last European letter home to his parents), after receiving a thousand-
dollar grant from the National Institute of Arts and Letters; during his stay,
amongst others, Cage had come to know Pierre Boulez. Cage and Feldmans
famous encounter outside Carnegie Hall, both having departed immediately
following the performance of Weberns Symphony, Op. 21, took place on
January 26, 1950. Cage himself suggested that, although his initial plan was
to arrange for William Masselos to give the premiere of Boulezs Second
Sonata, after he discovered from Masselos that he was failing to make any
headway with the piece, Feldman suggested that Tudor might be able to take
over Masseloss duties especially since Tudor had already been working
independently on the second copy of the score, which, Cage having lent to
Feldman, Feldman had lent to Tudor (Holzaepfel 1994, 28).3 According to
Cage, then, it was that premiere of the Second Sonata that was the initial
2
Halpen would later, in 1950, take part with Cage and Cunningham in a recording of Lou
Harrisons Tributes to Charon: Counterdance in the Spring (1939), choreographed by
Erdman as Creature on a Journey (1942) (Kisselgo 1985).
3
In the event, Tudors performance of the Second Piano Sonata at the Carnegie Recital Hall
on December 17, 1950 was not the premiere, but only the US premiere.
link between him and Tudor (Cage and Charles 1981, 124). The lateness of
this association with Feldman, though, draws into question, as Holzaepfel
observes, the idea that it was through Feldman that Cage and Tudor became
part of the same sphere (Holzaepfel 1994, 2223).
In fact, none of the tales of a rst encounter between Cage and Tudor is
without its ambiguities. Certainly, Tudor had performed Cages music before
the end of 1949. In a program of student dance recitals on October 22, 1949, at
the Central High School of Needle Trades in Gramercy, Louisiana, Tudor
played Cages Ophelia (1946) for the Jean Erdman Dance Group,4 but there is
no indication either that Tudor had sought Cage out to ask for any further
information regarding his performance of Cages music, or that he regarded
Ophelia any dierently from the other pieces that he was called upon to play
in his role as accompanist.5 It is reasonably sure, too, that Cage had heard
Tudor perform, since he briey describes Tudors performance (with the
violinist Frances Magnes) of Wolpes Sonata for Violin and Piano (1949),
alongside music by Ben Weber, at Carnegie Hall on November 16, 1949 to
Boulez in his letter of January 17, 1950 (Nattiez 1993, 48; Holzaepfel 1994,
2223). Yet Tudor is not mentioned by name; there is nothing to indicate that
Cage had taken any particular interest in the performers themselves.6
It was, in fact, Ben Webers music that occasioned the next potential
meeting of Cage and Tudor, and this time they certainly did meet. Webers
Ballet, Op. 26, had been completed and delivered to Cunningham for
choreography.7 However, its demands went beyond the limits of Cages
piano technique and Cunningham was in need of a rehearsal recording of
4
The costumes for Ophelia were designed by Xenia Cage. The cellist Seymour Barab, who
would also perform a number of Cages pieces in the early 1950s, was involved in the same
performance. Cage and Tudor would not appear on the same program until November 26,
1950, at the Theresa L. Kaufmann Auditorium of the Young Mens and Young Womens
Hebrew Association in New York City, when Cage accompanied the Merce Cunningham
Dance Company (under its earlier name of Merce Cunningham and Company), and Tudor
accompanied Katherine Litz and the Jean Erdman Dance Group, performing on this occasion
both Cages Ophelia and Daughters of the Lonesome Isle (1945).
5
In the October 22 performance, these included pieces by Scarlatti (which Scarlatti is unclear;
no pieces by either Scarlatti appear in the David Tudor Papers held at the Getty Research
Institute), Debussy, Bernardo Sgall, Louis Horst, and Lou Harrison.
6
Nor, for that matter, does Cage appear to have been especially impressed with the program,
suggesting that both Wolpe and Weber tended toward Berg rather than Webern, in
distinction to Boulezs Webernian interests which led Cage to advise him that [i]n truth, it
is only you who interests me. Nevertheless, it is equally clear that Cage regarded Wolpes and
Webers compositional work as being rather better than that of the majority of the composers
whose music he had encountered in New York (Nattiez 1993, 48).
7
The dance Cunningham set to Ballet would take as its title the subtitle of Webers piece: The
Pool of Darkness.
The music of chance 5
the piece in order to complete his choreography.8 Enquiring of Jean Erdman

whether she might know anyone appropriate, Cage was introduced to her
regular accompanist, David Tudor. Tudors recollection was that Cage
knocked on [his] apartment door (quoted in Holzaepfel 1994, 25) in
order to ask him to make the recording. Despite having little interest in
the Weber piece itself, Tudor provided a copy of the piece for Cunningham;
it would fall to Maro Ajemian to perform the piece in its premiere on
January 15, 1950 (Holzaepfel 1994, 2526). This is evidence enough to
lead Holzaepfel to be sure that Cage and Tudors professional association
had already begun long before Feldman recommended Tudor as a potential
performer for Boulezs Second Piano Sonata, and makes it possible to square
Tudors recollection that he had invited Cage to one of the Wolpes weekly
musical evenings in late 1949 (Clarkson 2004, 7). The correspondence
between Cage and Tudor is unhelpful in establishing the course of events
any more precisely. The note which might be expected to signal Cages
initial approach to Tudor, which reads
Composer, 39 yrs. of age, on point of completing 2nd mvt. of an extensive work
(also recipient of letters from Boulez + Wol ) wishes to correspond with
pianist by name of David Tudor. Please Reply 326 Monroe St. N.Y.2.
was almost certainly, in fact, written in jest by Cage much later in an attempt to
elicit a response from Tudor in respect of Cages several letters to him,
especially given that the extensive work to which Cage refers is doubtless
Music of Changes, only begun in 1951.9 Ultimately, it seems best to mirror
Nichollss opinion that, although Cage and Tudor may well have worked
together in some regard in 1949, it was Feldmans reintroduction in 1950
that signaled the real beginning of their friendship (Nicholls 2007, 49).
Nevertheless, it would not be until 1951, when Cages work on Music of
Changes began in earnest, that their artistic collaboration began to take shape.
8
Later, Cunningham would choreograph entirely independently of musical accompaniment,
obviating such diculties.
9
Nevertheless, even this note is not without its ambiguities. Given the information in this
brief note (that Cage was on the point of completing the second movement of Music of
Changes, which was completed on August 2, 1951; that Cage had received letters from
Christian Wol and Boulez, suggesting a date after Wol had left for Europe after
graduating from high school in spring 1951), it is necessary to date this letter in between
Wolss departure and the completion of Music of Changes second movement. Yet Cage
was certainly only 38 at the time.
2 Correspondence, 19511953
In reading Cages recollections of his compositional life, one might often

receive the impression that he knew more or less everybody who was anybody
in the worlds of contemporary music, art, and culture in the second half of
the twentieth century. His correspondence with David Tudor does little to
take away from that view, indeed if anything it bolsters it. As well as the sense
of the relationship between Cage and Tudor, the correspondence is also
profoundly revealing regarding the extent of Cages network of contacts,
and also sheds some light on the range and impact of inuences from such
people. The correspondence specically shows what one might conceive of as
Cages American network, a network which, whether it meant to or not,
supported his output and his life in numerous ways. It is not for nothing
that the rst three names, other than Cages and Tudors own, in the run of
correspondence here are Morton Feldman, Merce Cunningham, and
Christian Wol. The importance of each is well documented in the scholar-
ship surrounding Cage. The correspondence also shows, however, just how
tightly interwoven Cage already was by the beginning of the 1950s with the
art worlds of New York City: as well as a string of composers some of whom
have retained their status as major gures and others who have been more
or less forgotten Cages close relationships with a wide range of the
performers of his music in his early years in New York are evident, such as
Seymour Barab, and Maro and Anahid Ajemian. Even though Cage obviously
knew a very wide range of people within New York, the correspondence here
also gently suggests that his circle of acquaintances widened very greatly
between 1951 and 1953; by the close of this part of the correspondence, far
more names begin to appear and form a wider range of dierent interests.
By contrast, particularly in recommending people Tudor might visit in
California, it is clear that Cages knowledge of the various art scenes in and
around Los Angeles remained signicantly greater or, at any rate, more
diverse.
Probably more immediately important, the correspondence is profoundly
revealing regarding Cage and Tudors relationship, both professionally and
privately. It is dicult to avoid the sense that Cages feelings for Tudor, both
as a pianist and a human being, were more profound than Tudors for Cage,
especially in the early days of their acquaintance. Yet such an appearance
[6] may be, at least in part, misleading. What is revealed here is also something
John Cage to David Tudor c. January 1951 7
about the characters of the two, with Cage demonstrating his enthusiasm and
excitement about a very wide range of topics, interests, and people as well as
his very specic passion for Tudors contribution to his life and music.
Tudors correspondence, at least in these early years of their professional
life, seems more distant and more obviously professional. Yet the sole letter
Tudor wrote to Cage in this period which survives remember too that other
letters may have been destroyed in the re at the Bozza Mansion quietly
implies the vital importance Tudor accorded to Cages work. Tudor, it is clear
from this text alone, regarded Cages work as of vital importance, such that he
was entirely unwilling to allow chance operations to determine the items in a
program, specically because that left the possibility that Cages music would
not turn up. The methodical attitude of both composer and performer, too, is
evident in this stretch of composition, particularly in the letters related to the
Music of Changes. It is worth noting that, in their later career, Cage and
Tudor wrote to one another little about what they actually did in the process
of composing or realizing a piece. Indeed, as I will suggest below, only at
points does one necessarily even think that it is likely they discussed their
respective strategies for realization, even in pieces which they played together
as a piano duo. Yet even here Tudors instinct to x and determine a wholly
accurate version of the text of a piece is already in evidence. Some of the
future nature of Cages music can be seen too, as in his statement in his letter
of August 5, 1951, regarding the Music of Changes, that [i]t also includes a
half-minute of silence (about 23 of the way through) which brings me to the
idea that the approximate time-length of each part should be included on a
program (instead of allegro con brio or in C), an idea which would be
realized, of course, in 433 not least.
1
John Cage to David Tudor, handwritten
[c. January 1951]
Dear David:
Your note came this morning and I am quite lost.1 It may be the utter gap
between us which has for me (and you have told me) (for you also) drawn
us together. Loving you from this side with you so close and so far is what
loses me.
1
This note is not extant. A re in Cages apartment in 1953 destroyed many of his early
papers.
The note you wrote represents precisely the face and life accepting spirit
which I feel and love and would like to hold, but which cannot be held, and so
makes me miserable. That you write do not want to see you and the next day
do is like it will not rain, then does. You are for me really like a brightness but
my feeling makes me blind and tremble, not understanding but only loving.
Now I am frightened. I recognize your freedom as the only freeing way of being
and which I cannot go on loving but must be îndependently + in my own life living. It
is as though there were an absolute amount of wanting which since it did
not ow into you lled me up to overowing and it is this inequality ôf desire
which is so shaking me. This is actually a Christian feeling and so I send you
my love which you understand and support but neither need nor ask. I do not
demand anything since you give me all this that Im now living2
2
[between January 21 and 27, 1951]
Dear David
Morty just left and you can see from this paper something of what we were
doing this evening.3 It was a question of nding a way of writing the graph
music on transparent paper so that it can be reproduced cheaply, and what you
see here was a transitional stage; the nal outcome is stunning and perfectly
clear but only the utterly essential lines remain. Vertical lines (indicating the
measures) are dotted (which makes the solid thick lines of the sounds clear).
The horizontal lines are thin but only present when needed. The result is a
space design very beautiful to look at and easy to read. You will see it later of
course when you come back.
Merces concert was sensational and very controversial.4 People either loved or
hated it. I myself had a ne time. And all those directly concerned did too.
2
The extant portion of this letter ends here.
3
Morton Feldman was a member, along with Cage, Tudor, Earle Brown, and Christian
Wol, of the so-called New York School of composers. The third page of Cages letter was
written over the top of an incomplete example of Feldmans graph notation, which he used
for, for instance, his Intersection and Projection series.
4
Merce Cunningham (b. April 16, 1919, Centralia, WA; d. June 26, 2009, New York City,
NY). Dancer, choreographer, and Cages partner, both professionally and personally. This
seems likely to refer to the second performance of Cages Sixteen Dances (1951) at the
Hunter Playhouse in New York City on January 21, 1951, which also included the premieres
of Feldmans Projection #2 and Wols Trio. The performers were: Martin Ornstein, ute;
Carmine Fonaratoo, trumpet; George Barber, Carroll C. Bratman, Arthur Press, Ronald
Gould, percussion; Maro Ajemian, piano; Anahid Ajemian, violin; Seymour Barab, cello.
John Cage to David Tudor between January 21 and 27, 1951 9
Mortys and Christians pieces were both hissed and bravoed.5 Some people left
in the middle of the evening. I was delighted with all the music including my
own. Now of course it is dicult for me to write about it because I have begun
work on the Concerto again, and my feeling is displaced from the ballet.6 But
the sounds were such that I have no fears (if I had them before) about the work
I am doing. And Morty and Xian liked it too, so what is necessary more? I failed
in making a recording (for lack of microphone and wire at last minute and
rehearsal exigencies). Morty Seymour Barab and Maro helped me nish the
copying,7 And Maro worked very hard on the piano part which she said was
dicult and which she never played acceptably until the performance + even
then left out or muddled up whole sections. However it went as a whole fairly
well and we managed to stay with the dancers. There was a party here
afterwards and we all drank toasts to you and to Boulez.8
Virgil tells me that hes not convinced about Morty,9 that he is too much the
anointed one (oil dripping o his shoulders). However, Im more or less
generally broadcasting my faith in his work and to the point of fanaticism.
I spent a troublesome hr. + arguing with Arthur Berger re Morty and Xians
Music because Arthur has to review the concert next Sunday.10 And then
another hr with Minna Lederman who began to take the music more seriously
when I explained Suzukis identication of subject and object vs. the usual
cause and eect thought.11 She even invited me to dinner to talk further. And
then we will hear Vareses Ionisation up at Julliard with Dallapiccola, Krenek
and Stravinsky.
As I go on with Concerto, I think only of you playing it and hope ^your

circumstances will permit that. I miss you very deeply, and will be very
happy when you come back.
5
Christian Wol (b. March 8, 1934, Nice, France), New York School composer, and Cages
best-known composition student. Wol s name is often abbreviated Xian in Cages
correspondence.
6
The concerto mentioned here is the Concerto for Prepared Piano and Orchestra (1951).
Cages reference to the ballet is likely to refer specically to his piece Sixteen Dances, on
which he was working at the same time as Music of Changes, rather than to Merce
Cunninghams dance company more generally.
7
Seymour Barab (b. January 9, 1921, Chicago, IL), cellist and composer; Maro Ajemian
(b. July 9, 1921, Lausanne, Switzerland; d. September 18, 1978, Houston, TX), pianist.
8
Pierre Boulez (b. March 26, 1925, Montbrison, France).
9
Virgil Thomson (b. November 25, 1896, Kansas City, MO; d. September 30, 1989, New
York City, NY).
10
Arthur Berger (b. May 15, 1912, New York City, NY; d. October 7, 2003, Boston, MA),
composer.
11
Minna Daniel, ne Lederman (b. March 17, 1896, New York City, NY; d. October 29, 1995,
New York City, NY), founding editor of the magazine Modern Music, 192446. Wife of the
painter Mell Daniel.
I am going to apply for a renewal of the Guggenheim; I phoned them and still
have time. I wrote a funny article for Musical America which I am enclosing for
your amusement.12 I envy the travelling through the country you are enjoying
because I know what a pleasure it is to see how nature operates, and then to
imitate that manner of operation in ones work and life. Magical clues by
trees, and the at continuous land.
It is late and quiet here and I trust you pardon my rambling on like this as
though I had nothing to say.
Life continues to be incredibly beautiful, each moment, and now I hear your
voice over the phone and see the shape of your hands.
How marvelous of you to have given me re! Every time it works infallibly. It is
like knowing a secret.
My pleasure in returning to the concerto is the pleasure of not being

responsible to another imagination. And so I work directly and am silly
enough to think the quality of work better. I am at least in a more direct
(because private) situation.
Berger thought the ending piece of the ballet would have made a lovely
accompaniment for a melodic tune. Shows you what were up against. Virgil
however says I think youve got something there! Isaac came to rehearsals and
performance and was very interested.13 Hirsch told Morty and me hes one of
us.14 My mother said the concert made her think of how Marie Antoinette
must have felt after the French Revolution! It is curious how anxious people are
to tell what they thought. Lou said he thought my music was lovely;15 since he
said this before the concert, I was somewhat disturbed, so I tossed some coins
and got the hexagram The Power of the Great the Creative and the Arousing,
and the advice not to be stubborn, proud or belligerent.
12
This article is not extant with the David Tudor Papers, but presumably refers to the rst of
two letters from Cage to Musical America in defense of Satie, responding to an article by
Abraham Skulsky. This letter was published as Satie Controversy, Musical America, 70
(December 15, 1950), 12; reprinted in Kostelanetz (1970, 89).
13
Isaac Nemiro (b. February 16, 1912, Cincinnati, OH; d. 1977). Tudors brother-in-law.
His Sonata No. 1 for violin and piano was performed by Tudor and Broadus Erle in 1948,
under the auspices of the International Society for Contemporary Music. Taught at the
Contemporary Music School in New York, 194852. Founder of the State University of
New York at Stony Brooks music department.
14
It has proved impossible to identify Hirsch.
15
Lou Harrison (b. May 14, 1917, Portland, OR; d. February 2, 2003, Lafayette, IN).
John Cage to David Tudor c. early June 1951 11
We had some diculty with Mortys piece in rehearsal because the parts were
not correct which didnt disturb him but did me. Xians nally proofed them,
and the performance was beautiful. I was surprised that Morty had made
mistakes because in copying my music he made none at all.
I am going quietly into the Concerto, trying to pretend that I had not left it, so
as not to be noticed.
What shall I do about my age perplexing you? Shall I grow a beard?
And how fat are you now?
Miss you, David, very much,
As ever,
John
I do not tell you about loving you because you said you were afraid it would kill
you. I do love you but it will always be so that you need not be afraid.
3
[c. early June 1951]
Dear David:
To tell you the news and that I miss you. Am often making the lowest form of
prayer (petitionary) that you are having a ne time.
Mostly the news regards the music Im writing, but that is so detailed that only
it will tell you about it. I now have a kind of schedule whereby I toss 80 to a 100
hexagrams before going to bed, so that my days work is laid out for me when I
arise. It is interesting to note that the coins seem to know that they are involved
in producing a long movement, for after 3 pages (most of which you saw) of
tempo changes the next 3 settle to one tempo, accelerate to another which
holds through the next 3, ritard then to another which again holds! And all
slow tempi (80, 88, 72 (hommage (no doubt) to M.F.), so that the coins are
aware, clearly, that this is not only a long piece but a 2nd mvt.16 However there
are frequent changes of the mobilityimmobility relation (which never took
place in the part you have.
16
M.F. = Morton Feldman.
I have also begun removing the armored scales from the plants, an activity that
wonderfully resembles composition (note by note).
And I wrote 2 more Haiku for Maro, who commissioned them; (pays for 1
month rent on the piano).17 Anahid + I played the vn + pn. pieces at a party
and practically no one liked them;18 even that music estranges my former
friends what will they feel next year?
Christian wrote the pieces for you which you probably already have.19 Morty
and I heard them here one afternoon and Morty said they were absolutely.
When Xian began to play I made a move to close the window so that we
wouldnt hear the trac, but Xian said no, leave it open; thats the point. His
new ideas are amazing and involve the mosaic ideas in your pieces but with
assymetrical superpositions made clear by the special timbre situations for
each mosaic (ensembles, necessarily).
I saw Alan Watts twice,20 and you and Jean + Jo will probably see him in
Boulder when he passes through.21 He says we are not writing music but doing
ear-cleaning. I said whatever you call it makes little dierence.
My classes at Columbia are almost over. People were all writing and performing
after one lesson. A music supervisor from Minnesota who visited incognito
was amazed at results. I also gave a lecture on how to become uncultured.
One day, concerned over my livelihood problem, I reected that I was indeed
working, but not being paid for it. So I composed a letter which I have sent o
17
The second paragraph of Cages letter suggests that he had already begun work on the
second movement of Music of Changes, having completed the rst on May 16, 1951. The
second was not complete until August 2, 1951, though Cage seems not to have advanced
especially far with work on it, suggested a date early in the intervening period. Thus, having
been completed much earlier in the year, with the nal piece being nished on March 16,
1951, the pieces mentioned here are unlikely to refer to Cages earlier Haiku set (195051).
Of the second set, the Seven Haiku (195152), pages 1 and 3 had certainly been completed
by the end of July 1951. Pages 57 are undated but, since page 5 is specically dedicated to
Maro Ajemian, it seems most likely that this, at least, is one of the parts of the score referred
to by Cage here.
18
Anahid Ajemian (b. January 26, 1924), violinist, and Maro Ajemians sister.
19
The pieces referred to are almost certainly the four pieces of For Prepared Piano (1951).
20
Alan Watts (b. January 6, 1915, Chislehurst, UK; d. November 16, 1973, Mount Tamalpais,
CA). British-born writer on Zen Buddhism and Taoism acquainted with Cage in New
York, 195051.
21
Jean Erdman (b. February 20, 1916, Honolulu, Hawaii), dancer and choreographer,
working initially with Martha Graham, but founding her own company in 1944. Joseph
Campbell (b. March 26, 1904, White Plains, NY; d. October 30, 1987, Honolulu, Hawaii),
writer on comparative mythology and religion, and Jean Erdmans husband.
John Cage to David Tudor c. early June 1951 13
to 4 people (so far) oering shares in the Music of Changes at $15.00 a share. It
looks like Louise Crane (whose family makes the paper money is printed on,
will invest (although I make it clear in the letters that it is a very poor
investment). The cost of the shares is estimated at 30 wks work at $50. a
week ($1500.) (100 shares). I am keeping 20 for my own personal use. Perhaps
you cd. get Jean + Jo to invest. I understand Schoenberg called o his
Colorado visit.
I wd like to ask you many questions, but I am afraid I wd get no answer. Id love
to know whether your concerts are already given or about to be given and
how your work is going. Whether you played or will play the Changes, + how
you feel about them. And whether you miss me and whether you will pass
through NY on your way to Black Mtn.22
Ive not heard from Boulez yet; Morty + I get along very well (hes not yet
nished the Intersection he got involved in a new Marginal Intersection:
that is, sounds heard between 2 limits: inaudible high + inaudible low! which
are notated but will not be heard. Also he nished Jeans music which you
probably already have.
Sybil Shearer gave a concert, very well attended, but for me quite uninteresting.23
She makes everything point to the same point + so eradicates the natural
penetrative power of her movements, etc. However, she moves magnicently,
and Morty is writing an uninvited piece for her which hell send her, something
like the Cummings Songs, but for piano.
22
Black Mtn. = Black Mountain College. In early summer 1951, Tudor was working with
Jean Erdman for her residency at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He spent a few
weeks in Denver with Earle and Carolyn Brown en route to Black Mountain College.
Tudor performed there on the evening of August 18 and the afternoon of August 19, 1951,
according to the diary of the dancer Katherine Litz (b. July 26, 1912, Denver, CO; d.
December 19, 1978, New York City, NY), who had brought Tudor to Black Mountain
College as her accompanist. I am grateful to John Holzaepfel for drawing Litzs diary to my
attention, since the other evidence largely suggests that Tudor performed only on August
19. In any case, the program appears to have been the same for both concerts. It was also at
Black Mountain College that Tudor met his future partner, M. C. Richards (b. July 13,
1928, Weiser, ID; d. September 10, 1999, Kimberton Hills, PA). After the 1951 summer
session at Black Mountain College, Richards returned to New York City with Tudor. She
did not return to Black Mountain College as a faculty member, but was ocially regarded
as being on leave as late as April 1952. She was a part of the rst happening at Black
Mountain College the following summer, and was also the translator of Grove Presss
celebrated edition of Antonin Artauds The Theater and Its Double.
23
Sybil Shearer (b. February 23, 1912, Toronto, Canada; d. November 17, 2005, Evanston,
IL), dancer and choreographer, often compared to Merce Cunningham in their respective
early careers.
One evening walking along the river, I found a pier, between here and the
Manhattan Bridge where [illegible word] out on the river; its very pleasant
and the colors on the buildings and wharves are marvelous. And the folk-
dancing began last night. And the weather is cool. So all in all a good Summer,
except that not being with you is very sad, especially because of writing this
music for you which I am always wanting to show you and because I am anxious
to hear it and know what your adventures with it are.
My love to you and wishes that you are enjoying (as you say) yourself.
4
[c. June 1951]
Dear David:
Last meeting ^(for me) of New Music coming up + I got Isaacs vn sonata from
Broadus since Isaac seems out of town.24 Also wish to submit Xians piano
piece you have; if your concerts come at such a time that you could get the
music to me by July 9 then he wont have to make another copy. Also I have lost
track of the Socrate (Satie) which I must return to Virgil; did I loan it to you?
Miss you. Am approaching mark of 2nd pt. of Changes.
Hope alls well with thee. J.
5
John Cage to David Tudor, undated, handwritten
[c. early July 1951]
Dear David:
Ive found a number of things in the rst pt. of the music that are wrong; in the
rst place, I am fairly sure that the transparencies had measures which were
10 cm. long, but in the process of being reproduced they seem, most of them to
be a millimeter o. However the c h. (pg. 1, 2nd system, 1st measure) is
obviously not the right length. On pg. 2, 2nd system the B doesnt sound + so
24
Broadus Erle (b. March 21, 1918, Chicago, IL; d. April 6, 1977), founding member and rst
violinist of the New Music Quartet, later Professor of Violin at Yale University.
John Cage to David Tudor c. early July 1951 15
one may barely sound it (as though it were a ). On pg. 5, 2nd system, 2nd
measure, omit G in the right hand aggregate, D, F, G (since it occurs in the
sound being sustained). (On the other hand, I do not mind on pg. 2 the similar
resonating of F (G) (in the45 group, beginning 3rd measure,) although, if you
prefer, omit the Gs).
On pg. 7, 5th system, 1st measure, the cluster in the L.H. is unclear: it should be
E, F, G, A, B. In the same measure, omit the short, 2nd, pedal (following
the B). The pedal in the last measure of pg. 8 (, following the aggregate
A B B, B, is also irrational, but leave it; I nd that if it is say or even17 of a
pedal it works; that is to say the harmonics are sustained and the following
gliss. does not produce a muddy situation. God knows what to do in the very
rst measures (pedals also irrational); no doubt you have fd. a solution.
I continue and it is a marvelous adventure; Have an evening coming up with

Isaac + Joy.25 Lou is going to Bl. Mtn. Morty has nished your Intersection,
but not yet copied it.26 I havent seen the end of it yet.
Oh, David, I miss you
Theres thunder + lightening;
I visited Stefan who is ill (infected gall bladder);27 he stays at Cherney Bergs.28
No sooner got to Catskills than boomerang.29 He convalesces, and in Dec.
an operation. He was reading about the expanding universe.
Morty feels I should reconsider resigning. Xian left the next morning for Paris
where he will see Boulez. Morty is now in a period of not writing. He
nished his marginal intersection, but rather as though he was dropping it; he
gave it a real cadence (dim poco a poco); I think his life has been
25
Joy Nemiro (b. 1923), Tudors sister.
26
Feldmans Marginal Intersection is dated July 7, 1951, suggesting that this letter was
written after that date. Nevertheless, this may be the date on which the fair copy was
completed, which would imply a slightly earlier date, and account for the fact that, as
Judith Malinas diary entry of July 6, 1951, suggests, Lou Harrison had already left for Black
Mountain by this date (Malina 1984, 176). In any case, a date in early July seems likely.
27
Stefan Wolpe (b. August 25, 1902, Berlin, Germany; d. April 4, 1972, New York City, NY).
German-born composer, based in Palestine 193338, then emigrated to the United States.
Taught, amongst others, Tudor and Feldman, and was Director of Music at Black
Mountain College from 1952 to 1956.
28
Cherney Berg, a student of Wolpes, who also taught occasionally at Black Mountain
College.
29
The Catskill Mountains lie between New York City and Albany, in New York State.
JESPERE QUE TOUT VA BIEN POUR TOI30
taking his attention so that as he says he has lost contact with sound. Im
working along on 2nd part; it might be nished in a few weeks. Folk dancing in
the park each Weds. + Fri which gives much pleasure. Give my love to Jean +
Joe + tell Joe I miss our conversations.
Always yours, John
(another note wk. or so later)
Thanks for sending Xians piece; he had however already made a copy on
transparencies and that meeting with New music was very successful since
both Xians and Isaacs music were accepted to be published. Xians with
Wilkinsons cello + pn. piece.31 Isaacs alone. Morty + Isaac were very
impressed by this event and the fact that Al Bauman resigned from NM.32
6
John Cage to David Tudor, handwritten note
[mid-July 1951]
Composer, 39 yrs. of age, on point of completing 2nd mvt. of an extensive work
(also recipient of letters from Boulez + Wol ) wishes to correspond with
pianist by name of David Tudor. Please Reply 326 Monroe St. N.Y.2.33
30
I hope all goes well for you. This note is written at the top of a fresh sheet in Cages
original, presumably later than the sentence which continues from the previous sheet,
hence the seeming break in sense between the two parts of the sentence.
31
Marc Wilkinson (b. July 27, 1929, Paris, France), Australian composer who studied with
Varse in New York City, but later was much better known for scores for lm and theatre.
32
Alvin Bauman, pianist and faculty member at Columbia University, premiered Milton
Babbitts Composition for Viola and Piano with Abram Loft. Resigned from Columbia
during 1951. NM is an abbreviation for New Music, and refers to Columbia Universitys
New Music Society. Otto Luening reports that Cage resigned from the same society on May
3, 1951, following diculties with the organization and programming of a concert
including Imaginary Landscape No. 4 (1951) on May 2, 1951 (Luening and Dickinson
2006 [1987], 126).
33
This note was presumably intended as a light-hearted nudge to induce Tudor to provide
his life-giving attention to the now-nearly copied second movement of Music of Changes.
The autograph was ultimately complete, by Cages own account, on August 2, 1951.
Though the receipt of letters from Wol and Boulez suggests very strongly that the letter
must date from the middle of July, this does leave the curious matter of Cages age, given
here as 39, an age he would not reach until September 5. This is perhaps, at least to some
extent, explained by Cages earlier remark, What shall I do about my age perplexing you?
David Tudor to John Cage late July 1951 17
7
David Tudor to John Cage, handwritten
[late July 1951]
Dearest lonely heart,34
congratulations, at last I am shamed into replying to your lovely letters. Ever
since the rst week there has been a lot to tell, so I will sum it all up by relating
that at high altitudes Zen meets you at every corner; and just give you a few
tidbits now; this will make ^the homecoming much more business-like the
business at hand being Zen, anyway.
The concerts were very interesting, even tho I was rushed + didnt couldnt
prepare the things satisfactorily well.35 Phase A, hommage to music, was well
appreciated by an audience of 160 souls, while Phase B, ear-cleaning, seemed
to be pretty much a of a shock all round to the however was received by only 70,
well-stunned. It is curious that this second program seemed such a shock, you
can see that it is compounded of the most innocent stu, everything instantly
perceptible, not requiring the art of nding the meat underbeneath the gravy.
Both programs elicited most contradictory reactions, which I would like to
attribute to my prowess as a program-maker, but these little contradictions are
just parts of the truth I could give some examples,by way of pedantic digressions A
the Webern is expressionistic B the Webern negates the rest of the program(A+B)
A the Wolpe is very striking B I have to hear the Wolpe again (A-B) A The
Boulez is too long B I wanted the Boulez to go on and on (A+B = 31 min.) A the
Cowell is eerie B I couldnt hear the Cowell (A=B) A The Feldman + Wol
seemed less rich than the Boulez B dont you think there were too many sounds
in the Feldman + Wol (A-B= T.S.!) A you play without nostalgia B you have
given us a lot to think about (A+B-) A the Cage passed by so fast I couldnt
apprehend it B the Cage reminded me of the Boulez (AB = !x?+!!)36
To me a few things seem clear: the concentration of the rst program is
very good, but is toobeautiful, which means too exclusive, lacking ^the suggestive
perhaps the substitution of Satie with for the Stravinsky and/orboth with
omission of Schoenberg op. 11, (altho the last piece of op. 11 is ^very helpful)
Presumably, then, this refers to a private joke between Cage and Tudor regarding the
formers age.
34
This letter is taken from a draft of Tudors letter. The content of Cages reply, and the
similarity of letters from Tudor received by, for instance, Karlheinz Stockhausen, suggests
that little of the content would have been dierent in the nal letter sent. The reference to a
lonely heart clearly refers to the previous item: Cages mock personal advertisement.
35
This refers to concerts at the University of Colorado, Boulder. The rst concert included
Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Bartk, Wolpe, and Webern; the second concert, Cowell, Josef
Matthias Hauer, Nicolas Roslavetz, Wladimir Worono, Boulez, Feldman, Wol, and Cage.
36
In Tudors handwritten original, these symbols are reminiscent of the sorts of substitutions
for swearing which might appear in a comic book.
would alter the impression of the whole thing. Then the second program is too
weak while it ressembles [sic] the ^poetic carnival I planned, is too ^weak a
statement; it needs time-reselection and rearrangement to make the length of
each individual component unnoticeable (avoiding at all costs Boulez being
apprehended as a climax) and perhaps the omission of the Worono, which at
present disturbs me with its seeming similarity to harmonic motion;and/or
omission of 3rd mvt. Boulez
but I dont see how this is possible failing the ^timely
arrival of much longer pieces by Feldman and new contributions of Cage. I am
thinking, that since the situation is less formal at B.M., I might telescope
(dexterously!) the programs into one and present it on 2 successive evenings.37
What do you think of all this to-do? Dont advise me to draw from the hat I
have already thought of it your piece mightnt come out of it although I
cant quite see how it could fail.
Thank you for the your contribution communication regarding the
Changes; I knew all that already! A5 few things I would like to check: can you do
anything about the repeated D ( ) p. 15p.; is there no other solution than a
stroke for the B p. 2 (I forget the compositorical rit.); Does the rst p.3
3
refer only to the c or the whole shooting mess; is the group p. 3 C D D or
C D C; the B p. 3 doesnt work on every instrument; what are the exact
functions you had in mind for the pedals (-) p. 4 4s. + 5s (last ) 1 m.
2 m.;38 what about the inclusion in the pedals of the graces D + A p. 5 4 s. ^latter
part
2m.; are the 4 s top p. 6 correct (I hope so!); to which group does the 2nd
belong p. 7 3s. 1m., or ppp-pppp; do you wish the grace A immed.
fol. included in its (sim. p. 9 3s. 2m.); elucidate fully the cluster very very end
p.7; what is the point of + - 1st sound p. 8 3s.; does the harmonic DE p. 9
1m. really last for only 25 what a pity!; what the hell is the signicance of
the last - p.9 4s. Im havent worked on it for some time sure there are
some other important things that I cant remember now. I have revised the
pedaling considerably, well see how you like it; an innovation is the use of fp
attack which you dont use in this part with single ictus (this would mean

++-+, eliminating the situation with the glissando, for
instance) however if you desire only harmonic sounds in those places, this
interpretation will have to be changed! Another interesting question regards
the strong sounds in : which is more the important principal thing, or
the dynamic or the pedal; if they pedal dynamic are the dynamic + the pedal are
related they should be played as indicated, if not, one can make use of the
possibility of not depressing the pedal entirely; the results are very dierent in
either case; I naturally prefer to leave the question open; but it cannot be so or
can it?
37
In fact, this is almost precisely what Tudor did, as mentioned in note 22, on the evening of
August 18 and the afternoon of August 19. His Black Mountain College program included
Schoenberg, Wolpe, Feldman, Worono, Wol, Cage, Boulez, and Webern.
38
Cages s is an abbreviation for system.
John Cage to David Tudor August 5, 1951 19
Well, the impressions I have from this piece are incredible. There is an
important dierence between it and Boulez: in Boulez the space seems to be in
front of one, that is to say in ones line of aural vision, as it were; in your piece
the space is around one, that is, present in a new dimension. This phenomenon
It appears of the utmost importance to me now to be able to explain this
phenomenon I have had such dierent experiences with sound my work this
time that I almost wonder about the possibility(in general) of audial mirages
due to high altitude! I have several interesting theories, which we can talk about
at great length in a while . . .
8
[August 5, 1951]
Dear David
Your letter has given me much pleasure; how much exactly I cannot say
since Ive lost count of the number of times Ive reread it. And then too my
pleasure was increased by the fact that I never receive the hundred little daily
communications; I never had a set for that; I prefer what is actually in the
room the rest seems spooky. Although Jung et al to the contrary.
The day before your letter arrived I nished 2nd part of the piece (34 pages
plus a system; 16.525 minutes) and I was feeling lonely because working on it
had been a constant thereness and now gone, so that I took to washing the
windows (the day was bright and clear as it is also today). While washing the
3rd window I heard a knock at the door and it was an old friend and his wife,a
research scientist in crystallography. When I told him about the I Ching, he
said he already knew about it through a Chinese friend and that its
mathematics are equal to those of the current avant garde + that the book is
having quite an inuence on modern scientic research. Mirabile dictu.
I am going to say that I cannot send you the music now because it is not
copied and will take me several weeks to copy. It is quite a dierent piece from
the rst one, using accessory beaters and plectrums besides the ngers and
ngernails you were fam with. I myself in the course of composing it developed
several blisters (not calouses, since I do not practice) (having besides no ear
for music also no kinesthetic sense) (which, by the way, is my present
explanation for the chance that you are a pianist and not a composeryou
have a strong kinesthetic sense since listening to your conversation is like going
to the theater. The second part rises several times to 184 with all 8
superpositions. It also includes a half-minute of silence (about 23 of the way
through) which brings me to the idea that the approximate time-length of each
part should be included on a program (instead of allegro con brio or in C).39
39
Cage would ultimately realize this idea for the rst performance of 40 33, as well as in the
titles for the Ten Thousand Things series, including 340 46.776(1954), written for Tudor.
I am naturally delighted that the music has given you new experiences and if
they were due wholly or partially to high altitude it makes no dierence since it
would be a simple matter (from the pt. of view of high delity) to indicate at the
head of the score the proper footage above sea-level for a performance.
However it is tough waiting around here on Manhattan without hearing it.
Here are my answers (you can make up others) to your detailed questions:
Repeated D ( ) pg. 1. 5 s. (If passage is really pp leave it in; repetition does

not annoy; if it stands out to much, omit it; if I were writing it now I wd. omit it,
but I wrote it back in May.)
B pg. 2 (On my piano it works without a restroke; pianos vary however).
First
1
2 pg. 3: refers to whole shooting match
3
group pg. 3 = C D C
B pg. 3 is an absurd nesse (belongs to the groups A, B, C, B, B removed

for the B, E, F appearance + then meticulously replaced with perhaps no
eect due to D G A (or if any extraordinarily eeting)
Function for pedals (-) pg.4 4s + 5s): the EF in the bass requires reattack
(therefor 1st pedal); the others simply sustain sound up to next sounds.
(Doubtful comments).
Graces D + A pg. 5 4s. (not D + A, only D ( ) included in pedal)40
4 s top pg 6 read B B A C B
2nd
2 pg. 7 3s 1 meas. belongs to the group.
1
Grace A immediately following is to be included in its

1
2 but only
innitesimally (also similar situation pg. 9, 3s, 2m)
Cluster end pg 7 is C D F A (bringing about repeated D)
I remember also being sad about 25 harmonic D E pg. 9 1m.
Signicance ^last - pg. 9, 4 s is just to reinforce ppp E.
40
Presumably the A grace note referred to here is not, in fact, the A at the start of the second
measure of the fourth system on page 5, but, rather, the one below the treble sta following,
which coincides with an una corda pedal marking.
With regard to pedalling + the use of una corda. My knowledge of pedalling is

only kindergarten; Im just beginning to have a vague idea of the possibilities;
the guiding principle for performance should be to act so that each action is
itself (that means innitely dierent and incomparable, single, never before or
ever later to be occur, so that each moment makes history). Which all goes to
say that not only is the notation inadequate (since it does not refer to relations
(but seems to)) but my very grasp of distinctions is inadequate. I simply dont
know how many dierences there are; if I knew more I wd make a notation for
them but that wd. miss all the ones I dont know then. So the answer is leave the
question open by all means employing at any moment any solution (there
being no problem). All of this will be resolved in the synthetic music situation.
Until then let it be lively.
Which brings me to news from Christian and Boulez. (Enclosed are their
letters with exception of the following from Xian which I transcribe written
for an article that H. Cowell will write in Musical Q. regarding Morty, Xian,
me + Pierre.)
Dear John,
Re Henry Cowell and statement on the nature of my research. It

rst occurred to me that Ive never approached writing music as an
experiment. Thus no research. However Ill describe as best as possible
rst the method of writing with small numbers of pitches (if nec. you
could always amplify and explain). Then, Ill describe the structures Ive
been lately using.
I Making music within small areas of pitches (3, 4, 5, 8, 7 pitches have

been used for individual pieces) The idea that simultaneous combinations
of pitches, likewise overlapping combinations of pitches result in one
sound. For instance, (A comb. of 2 pitches = a sound (A comb

overlapping pitches) = a sound. Sounds of greater complexity are also
possible E.G.

A piece is then made with a gamut of these sounds, both simple +
complex, duration, timbre + amplitude are free.
II Making music in a structure which xes sound in a preconceived space

without regard for linear continuity. (the nature of the sounds: simple +
complex as in previous situation; amplitude, timbre + duration are static
or xed however) A structure is made with a number of measures having
a sq. rt. The structure is then planned within a square of these measures.
A pattern or series of patterns is superimposed on the sq. E.G.
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25
In the above this pattern is a smaller square of nine measures. Four of

these patterns overlapping at the edges ll up the area of this particular
piece. The individual structures are then lled in with sounds. The order
in which the measures are composed may vary.41
See as Ex. IV of prep. piano pieces which uses this particular structure
with an additional rhythmic structure for the sq.s. of 9 which is 4 2 2 1, in
this sequence of measures for the upper L.H. square: 1, 6, 11, 12; 17, 2; 3, 8;
13. + corresponding sequences for the other squares.
****************
I was pushed into action by Xians report of the synthetic music project in Paris
and am taking steps to one here now. I wrote to McLaren to Stevens Institute +
to the Council of Learned Societies so far.42 Maybe at the Univ of Illinois in
Urbana it cd. be done. I have a lot to say about this but will wait because it
makes me speechless with desire and you will be able to understand silence
about it.
Your programs of course are marvelous and as far a reselection
rearrangement in order to make the time-length of each component
unnoticeable goes, the diculty lies in the verbe [sic] to make and în the
adjective unnoticeable. That is to say you cannot make + you cannot inuence
what people notice or fail to notice. Acting ^(joyfully armatively) with this
awareness of futility is liberated action. Therefore any arrangement is O.K.
(including, as most people would agree, that which omits my piece). However,
41
Up to this point, Wol s text is practically identical to that which was published in Four
Musicians at Work, Transformation: Arts, Communication, Environment, vol. 1, no. 3
(1952), 16872. The nal paragraph, however, does not appear in the published version
(reprinted in Nattiez 1993, 10409), and is replaced by a dierent section concentrating on
gamuts of timbre, pitch, amplitude, and duration (Nattiez 1993, 10809). A later letter (no.
11) makes it clear that, originally, Cage had hoped that the statements would be published
in The Musical Quarterly.
42
McLaren is almost certainly the Scottish-born lmmaker Norman McLaren (b. April 11,
1914, Stirling, Scotland; d. January 27, 1987, Montreal, Canada). Cages later letter 13 in
connection with soundtracks probably refers to McLarens discovery that it was possible to
create music through marking the area reserved for soundtrack on a piece of lm with pen
or ink. Stevens Institute of Technology is based in Hoboken, NJ. The American Council of
Learned Societies supports research in writing in numerous elds, including musicology.
I have re-persuaded Morty to send you the Intersection. He promises to copy it

tomorrow and get it o to you. I think the Worono might be better near the
Stravinsky. However wd. walk to hear your concerts if they were only within
walking distance. Please tell me when you will play at B.M. Never knowing
whether I cd. get together the means to come down + hear them and see you.
God how Id love to see you.
John
The books Ill tend to tomorrow (Monday) Thanks for taking the shares. Say
hello to Lou for me + to Katy etc. (Regards in general + dont miss getting to
know Natasha + Mme Goldowsky (my love to both of them).43 Please thank
Rauschenberg (Bob) for a beautiful painting he sent me.44 And regards to Bob
Motherwell.45
I have another project for a lm with Herbert Matter.46 From the roof of a hotel
in Brooklyn to photograph the battery at intervals during a night to get a lm
which shows the lights as one takes a lm of a plant blooming. The music to be
those sounds of that night recorded on tape _ then cut up + IChinged (with
superposition) (A 24 minute lm the camera never changing position
Je te manque, mon cher, inniment47
P.S. Wd. you try depressing a single tone key around middle C and then making
a rapid nger vibrato on the 3 strings of that key. Can you get it so that its like an
insect near your ear?
43
Lou Harrison, who was teaching at Black Mountain College in 1951. Katy refers to the dancer
Katherine Litz, who had rst performed at Black Mountain College in 1951, suggesting that
Cage must have known her from her work in New York; Natasha Goldowski Renner taught
Physics and Chemistry at Black Mountain College and had previously worked as a metal-
lurgist on the Manhattan Project; her mother, Madame Goldowski, taught French.
44
Robert Rauschenberg (b. October 22, 1925, Port Arthur, TX; d. May 12, 2008, Captiva, FL),
American abstract expressionist. The painting Cage refers to is probably one of the white
canvases which led, in no small part, to Cage composing 40 33 in the following year.
Rauschenberg, along with Jasper Johns, also contributed numerous set designs for the
Merce Cunningham Dance Company, including those for Suite for Five, Antic Meet, and
Aeon. Rauschenberg was artistic advisor to the dance company from 1954 until 1964.
Johns, who had assisted Rauschenberg in designs for Cunningham previously, took over
the role from 1967 to 1980.
45
Robert Motherwell (b. January 24, 1914, Aberdeen, WA; d. July 16, 1991, Cape Cod, MA),
American abstract expressionist. He was, alongside other members of the so-called New
York School of the visual arts, such as Mark Rothko, William Baziotes, and David Hare,
responsible for the foundation of the Eighth Street Club for New York artists. He taught at
Black Mountain College, and also at Hunter College from 1951 until 1958.
46
Herbert Matter, Swiss-born photographer and graphic designer (b. April 25, 1907,
Engelberg, Switzerland; d. May 8, 1984, Southampton, Long Island, NY).
47
I miss you, my dear, innitely.
9
John Cage to David Tudor (Black Mountain College),
handwritten, August 6, 1951
By the way theres a poet down there producing reading matter: (books follow)
Charles Olson48
If hes good it would be marvelous; in dire need of poetry.
10
[c. mid-August 1951]
Dear David:
If youre playing this Saturday (Lous report), my best wishes.49 Have a

marvelous time. Morty and I both wish we were there. There is in fact a plot
afoot to get down there to you, but I doubt that it will come o. I copy the 2nd
part of the Changes hoping to be able to give it to you when you return to the
cemented world. I also am pulling strings for synthetic music project, writing
poetry (I-Ching method), arranging to do a new movie with Herbert Matter
(did I tell you about?) who will I-Ching the visual part and discussing with
the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. re another lm (if so a trip to Pittsburgh to
record glass sounds) and playing poker black-jack etc. with (at present)
phenomenal luck.
I miss you as much as ever which is a hell of a lot and when I think of music
I think of you and vice-versa.
Example of poetry:
independent
opulent ac-
tor
rst bud
The charts with words and vocal sounds arranged so that a particular vocal
pallette got over-all presented. Then placement on page + words tossed. Above
is Five Lines (rst one silent). Punctuation also tossed (none turned up). The
48
Charles Olson, American poet (b. December 27, 1910, Worcester, MA; d. January 10,
1970).
49
This refers to Tudors concert at Black Mountain College on Saturday, August 18, 1951. As
noted above, the program was repeated the following afternoon.
John Cage to David Tudor c. late Augustearly September 1951 25
charts are not well-enough thought out yet (wd. like ner dierences, more
understanding of phonetics etc.); however it is straight-forward.
Cant wait to hear you playing Mortys Intersection; must be magnicent.
Yours always changing,

J.
11
[c. late Augustearly September 1951]
Dear David,50
Peter Yates is on Micheltorena St (look in the phone book; I never can
remember the number, perhaps 1635.51 His wife Frances is a pianist and I hope
you enjoy meeting them; give them my love (which in large quantity you carry
around with you, I hope not too much a burden); and ask them whether you
could meet Buhlig (who is old and ill but was the rst to play Opus 11 and my
rst teacher and a magnicent lion-like person), 104 South Carondelet,52 and
George Tremblay (at one time an amazing musician (may still be composer
pianist and improvisor extraordinaire (whose address I dont have) and Ingolf
50
Tudor and M. C. Richards left Black Mountain College certainly after August 31, 1951,
traveling to the West Coast with two Black Mountain students. This letter, thus, may have
been sent to Tudor at Black Mountain College while the trip was being planned, or once he
had already reached the West Coast.
51
Los Angeles-based music critic and author (b. November 30, 1909, Toronto, Canada; d.
1976, Bualo, NY). Yates directed the Monday Evening Concerts of the Los Angeles
County Museum of Art until 1954, having begun the series with his wife at their home
in 1939. Yates is probably best known as the reporter of Schoenbergs alleged remark
that Cage was not a composer, but an inventor of genius. Yates was also the author of
an extremely idiosyncratic history of new music (Twentieth Century Music: Its
Evolution from the End of the Harmonic Era into the Present Era of Sound (Yates
1967)) and of a fascinating sequence of letters to Cage, which are held at the music
library of Northwestern University; Cages replies may be found within the Mandeville
Special Collections Library of the University of California, San Diego. Aspects of this
correspondence are discussed in Beal (2008). In later life, after 1968, Yates was head
of the music department at Bualo State College, which was to become the State
University of New York at Bualo, where Feldman was also a department member
from 1972 until 1987.
52
Richard Buhlig (b. December 21, 1880, Chicago, IL; d. January 30, 1952, Los Angeles, CA),
American pianist. As well as advising Cage to study with Schoenberg, Buhlig taught Grete
Sultan, who introduced Cage to Christian Wol.
Dahl (who might be able to engage you for playing or teaching at U.S.C., and
who is a composer).53 You might enjoy Adolph Weiss, composer + 1st
American to study with Schoenberg.54 If you see him (he was also my teacher)
give him and Mitzi (his wife who cooks very well and is pleasant to talk to) my
love too. (Used to be on N. Bronson). Give a concert at Yates home or perhaps
in Lester Hortons theatre on Melrose.55 Morty isnt home right now but I am
sure Yates can give you Antheils address and many more of the people he will
know who will be a pleasure.56
Am a close friend of Pauline Schindler, 815 N. Kings Rd. If you see her my
love to her (Not a musician but a beautiful person).57
All that is L.A.; going towards S.F. (Pauline might be in the Ojai valley) see if
possible Henry Miller (dicult to nd) in the Big Sur high in the mountains over
the sea.58 And Alan Watts in Palo Alto or San Francisco where he teaches at the
place for Asiatic Studies. Doris Dennison who plays for the dancers at Mills
College is one of my best friends (phone book S.F. 1206 (?) Pacic) She used to
play in the percussion work and is lovely.59 She will know whom you should meet
in S.F. among musicians (and can help towards a concert at Mills + other places).
See if possible the painter Gordon Onslow Ford (Doris ^much love to her will give you
53
George Tremblay (b. January 14, 1911, Ottowa, Canada; d. July 14, 1982, Tijuana, Mexico),
pianist and twelve-tone composer, who studied with Schoenberg. Ingolf Dahl (b. June 9,
1912, Hamburg, Germany; d. August 6, 1970, Frutigen, Switzerland), German-born
Swedish composer, who became a naturalized American citizen in 1943. Dahl lectured
at the University of Southern California from 1945 until his death.
54
As well as being the rst American to study with Schoenberg, Weiss (b. September 12,
1891, Baltimore, MD; d. February 21, 1971, Van Nuys, CA) also taught Cage.
55
Horton (b. January 23, 1906, Indianapolis, IN; d. November 2, 1953, Los Angeles, CA) was
an American dancer and choreographer.
56
George Antheil (b. July 8, 1900, Trenton, NJ; d. February 12, 1959, New York City, NY),
American composer, based in Hollywood principally as a lm composer after 1936.
57
The wife (b. 1893, Minneapolis, MN; d. May 1977, Los Angeles, CA) of the architect
Rudolf Schindler, most famous for the so-called Schindler House at 835 North Kings
Road in West Hollywood, Los Angeles. Though separated from her husband, Pauline
Schindler had returned to live in a separate part of the Schindler House in the later
1930s, so presumably Cage has slightly misremembered the address. Cage had had
a brief aair with Schindler following her separation from her husband (Nicholls
2007, 13).
58
The American novelist Henry Miller (b. December 26, 1891, New York City, NY;
d. June 7, 1980, Pacic Palisades, Los Angeles, CA), is probably most famous for his
Tropic of Cancer (1934), Tropic of Capricorn (1939), and the trilogy The Rosy
Crucixion (194960).
59
Doris Dennison performed as a percussionist with Cage and Lou Harrison. A photograph
of a rehearsal showing the three of them, as well as Margaret Jansen and Xenia Cage, can be
found in Nicholls (2007, 22).
John Cage to David Tudor c. late Augustearly September 1951 27
address + take you there) my love to him + his wife.60 And Varda (but I dont
know where he is, maybe on a boat in the bay)61
And if you go farther north: Lloyd Reynolds (Portland, Ore.);62 Morris
Graves and Mark Toby (Seattle, Wash.) and the whole town of Home on the
Puget Sounds across from Tacoma + a bit to the south.63
If youre with M.C. my love to her.
Christian is back before ye. Boulez gave him the M.S. of the 1st Piano Sonata
with a witty inscription something like: To Xian Wol looking forward to
meeting him soon again and in admiration of his so precocious talent from one
who is nearly an old man. PB
Also gave him a stack of ms. papers which is always the most demonstrative
gift one can give a composer.
Xian brought more fascinating information; this program with Morty
(Composers Forum) is denite. Also his pieces to be published shortly. Boulez
admired his Four Pieces you play + is having them done over Paris Radio.
Boulez + Heughel miserable because you dont record 2eme. Will pay all
expenses.64 Boulez commissioned by BBC to do 2 piano piece (new one, for
October which he will play with Grimaud) (shld. be with you.)65 Also most
astonishing news an American trip for Boulez is in the ong either this next
season or the following according to J. L. Barraults plans.66
60
Ford was an English artist (b. December 26, 1912, Wendover, United Kingdom;
d. November 9, 1993, Inverness, CA), who had worked with the Surrealists in Paris before
the outbreak of the Second World War, subsequently moving to Mexico, and then San
Francisco, where he studied with Alan Watts.
61
The Greek artist Jean Varda (b. 1893, Smyrna, Greece; d. September 1971, Mexico), who
co-owned with Onslow Ford the boat Vallejo, which they had converted for use as studio
space, and docked in Sausalito, CA. Varda had taught at Black Mountain College in 1946.
62
Lloyd Reynolds (b. June 18, 1902, Bemidji, MI; d. October 4, 1978, Portland, OR),
American artist, calligrapher, and designer who taught at Reed College, Portland, from
1929 to 1969.
63
Morris Graves (b. August 20, 1910, Fox Valley, OR; d. May 4, 2001, Loleta, CA), American
abstract expressionist painter and sculptor. Mark Tobey (sic; b. December 11, 1890,
Centerville, WI; d. April 24, 1974, Basle, Switzerland), American abstract expressionist
painter. Graves and Tobey were two of the founders of the Northwest School, along with
Guy Anderson, Kenneth Callahan, and William Cumming.
64
Though it is a surprising misspelling, presumably this is Cages mistake, meaning the
music publisher Philippe Heugel, who published Boulezs Second Piano Sonata.
65
In fact the premiere of Boulezs rst book of Structures was in Cologne on November 13,
1953. Yvette Grimaud did perform one of the parts, but the other was taken not by Boulez
but by Yvonne Loriod. Boulez had premiered Structure Ia with Messiaen on 4 May 1952 in
Paris. Tudor performed Structure Ia with Boulez at the Julliard School on 22 December 1952.
66
Boulez eventually arrived in New York on November 11, 1952. Although this visit did not
mark the ending of Boulez and Cages friendship, certainly their relationship cooled
markedly thereafter.
Carol + Earl Brown were here for 2 days + Im glad you met them; you gave
them much delight.67
Poor Mortys life is all mixed up + Im afraid his present music too. At least
I nd I cannot accept his present work which is an Intersection over an Arty
Shaw record.68 I feel we are somewhat estranged over this work which I nd
not valable.69 It is psychological; however, hes breaking up with Val Lombard
who inspired it and now hes again at sea, poor fellow, searching for something
someone etc.70 I always thought we were close friends but in the last few days
I realize something else; I too am at sea right now with regard to Morty. He
looks always for an easy way out. Of course theyre all around us and all
valable; maybe you can put me straight about all this. I only feel helpless and
silent for the words that reach him come from that ignoramus Danny Sterne.71
Then too, Mortys analyst has been away. An ugly paragraph (the above).
The second part of the Changes awaits your life-giving attention; it is taking
well over a month to copy.
When you come back you will be so very welcome (me a sh out of water
until then
J
Henry Cowells article on X. Morty + yrs truly in Oct. issue of Quarterly.72
67
It seems to have been extremely common in the early days of many peoples acquaint-
ance with him for the rst name of Earle Browns (b. December 26, 1926, Lunenburg,
MA; d. July 2, 2002, Rye, NY) to be misspelled Earl. Carolyn Brown (b. 26 September,
1927, Fitchburg, MA) danced with Merce Cunningham for many years and was a
founding member of the Merce Cunningham Dance Company. Her reminiscences are
gathered together in Brown (2007).
68
Cage means Arthur Jacob Arshawsky, commonly know as Artie Shaw (b. May 23, 1910,
New York City, NY; d. December 30, 2004, Thousand Oaks, CA), the American jazz
clarinetist and band leader. Though it is dicult to establish what piece Cage might be
referring to, unless work on it was abandoned, Extensions #1 (1951), for violin and piano,
seems to be the most likely candidate, with the nal manuscript dated November 12, 1951,
even if the sound world of the nal piece makes it dicult to see why Cage might have
regarded it in this way.
69
Showing good judgment. 70 I have been unable to identify Val Lombard.
71
Meant is the American novelist and short-story writer Daniel Stern (b. January 18, 1928,
New York City, NY; d. January 24, 2007, Houston, TX). Stern had been a promising cellist
in his youth, touring with not only the Indianapolis and Houston Symphony orchestras,
but also with Charlie Parker. His remarkably varied later career saw him take on roles as
Vice-President of Warner Brothers, CBS, and McCann-Erickson, as well as Professor of
English at the University of Houston.
72
The essay by Cowell (b. March 11, 1897, Menlo Park, CA; d. December 10, 1965, Shady,
NY) forms the New York part of the Current Chronicle section of The Musical Quarterly,
vol. 38, no. 1 (January 1952), 12336. A description of the recent music of Cage, Feldman,
Wol, and Boulez takes up the bulk of Cowells piece (12334), and is followed by a
John Cage to David Tudor and M. C. Richards c. late September 1951 29
12
John Cage to David Tudor and M. C. Richards, handwritten
[c. late September 1951]
Dear David (and M.C.)73
I am glad to hear you are in the land of the happy night. Enjoy yourselves.
My own feelings towards you were always those of wishing to ow in where
it looked like water was absent (mixed with an inherited missionary attitude,
itself not practicing what it preached). At any rate I feel very free that you are
loving.
David asks where he can read about clinging. If it is clinging to, anthologies
of love poetry; if about no longer clinging, the sutras, Eckhardt etc.
Daccord re Watts.74 He is however a magnicent cook. When it comes to
art he reminds me of the Boston Cooking School Books remark on the subject
of very old woody beets.75
Your gleanings from Debussy and Artaud gave much pleasure.
Delighted that you like my poetry. I shall of course go into the vocal choral
operatic theatrical spectacular world (and far).
Your plans about touring and M.C.s coming to N.Y. sound very good. The
Paris trip (if it has Boulez as an objective) may not be necessary, since Jouvets
death makes Barrault (+ Boulez) next in line.76 (Incidentally a new letter from
B with charts etc. + an indication of departure from le numro douze, not
however from lide serial. However he points out that ctpt. melody,
architecture, harmony etc no longer exist, cest plutt un evenement globale.
(a new 20 fm. work I ask him to photostat for us)77
Havent seen Kiessler.78 Know nothing consequently re Julliard.
separate section (13436) dealing with the premiere of Ferrucio Busonis Arlecchino,
directed by Dimitri Mitropoulos.
73
Tudor and M. C. Richards met at Black Mountain College in 1951, traveling together rst
to California before going to New York. There is probably a missing letter from Tudor to
Cage communicating the matters regarding Debussy and Artaud mentioned in the letter.
74
On Alan Watts, see page 12, n. 20.
75
Cage is referring to Fannie Merritt Farmers volume The Boston Cooking-School Cook Book
(Farmer 1918). The passage reads: Old beets will never be tender, no matter how long they
may be cooked.
76
Louis Jouvet (b. December 24, 1887, Crozon, France; d. August 16, 1951, Paris), French
actor and director. Jean-Louis Barrault (b. September 8, 1910, Le Vsinet, France; d.
January 22, 1994, Paris), for whose theatre company Boulez was musical director from
1946 to 1956.
77
This refers to item 31 within The BoulezCage Correspondence (Nattiez 1993, 98103).
78
Frederick Kiesler (b. September 22, 1890, Chernivtsi, Ukraine; d. December 27, 1965, New
York City, NY), scenic director for the Julliard School of Music from 1933 to 1957.
Have been asked to organize concerts at the Cherry Lane Theater. (which
natch shall do; want David to play a concert (or 2 or 3); also wish to put on the
Satie Vexations (12 hrs. + 10 minutes); Morty + Xian, etc. Theatre will be free.
But we will have to plan when David will be in town. Looks like a rare event
from your schedule.
Now well into 3rd pt. of Changes a new piece (I changed nothing but it
did). Is Strang as dull as ever.79 A pity I didnt tell you to see Tamada;80 hope
you did however.
Morty + I are ne; he works however very little + says a vacation is now
necessary to keep him out of bats house either to the North or to the
South. Girl he loved skipped o to Mexico to marry another.81 He back
again with Sarah who weighs a full 70 lbs! I am by the way neither a soul nor
lonely.
I disagree with Debussy re Bach + especially with (an idea of the truth!!!)
Looking forward very much to seeing you; am naturally anxious to hear you
play and want very much to know whether my new work meets with your
pleasure.
Love to both of you,
John
[along left-hand side of page] Hoping you play Mortys Intersection by now.
Must be glorious.
13
[c. mid-November 1951]
Dear David:
The way you can get the Aeolian Harp (I nally just this moment reached
Henry) is to write to Colin McPhee, Shady, New York and tell him that you are
doing it at Henrys suggestion, that there is a copy on one of the shelves in the
79
This is almost certainly Gerard Strang, who appears to have studied with Schoenberg at
roughly the same time as Cage (Revill 1992, 49).
80
Kitaro Nyokyo Tamada, a shakuhachi player acquainted with Cage via Henry Cowell. Cage
arranged a concert for Tamada at Henry Cowells house on April 13, 1935. For further
details, see Miller (2006).
81
The curious reference to bats house in this context may be a reference to certain groups
of Mexican Maya, who lived in Zotzilha (literally, bats house). Contemporary descend-
ants live in the Mayan community of Zinacantan in southern Mexico. Cage was perhaps
aware of this from Joseph Campbell or Alan Watts. Equally, it could, more simply, refer to
his going mad (i.e. bats).
John Cage to David Tudor c. mid-November 1951 31
attic which you would like to borrow.82 I would do this for you except with
some shifting dates + places I thought it best for you to do it.
Was irritated to have to stop Changes to do this piece for Marsicano but it
turns out a beauty which will be another available music item Pastorale;
(6 minutes) 7 notes are prepared, the innerds are used extensively, the whole
thing tossed; Marsicano pleased.83 Another 3 days on sc + it is nished; then
back to Changes.
Morty returned with notes re McLaren which gave history and technical details
of sd. track techniques. So are adding that to the Transformations article. The
Quarterly (H. just told me refused our statements not his article, however, on
the ground that they are unintelligible (Boulez, me, Xian, Morty)) so he + I are
happy that they are appearing in Transformations
The Satie Vexations cannot be done in the Cherry Lane. (due to contracts); so
after discussions with Morty we would like the two remaining concerts (Jan. 1,
New Years Day + Feb. 13) to be your concerts, all prots to go to you. Is that
o.k.? Please answer so that I can arrange publicity giving programs. If you are
agreeable we wd. like the New Years concert to be the 4 of us (B. F. X. + yrs
truly).84 The Vexations will take place later in 9th Street ârt gallery circumstances
where the 24 hrs. will not be a crucix.85
I was abbergasted by your playing and your awareness. You are (and then no
qualications necessary).
What is your attitude towards Earles piece?
Always yours,
John
82
McPhee (b. March 15, 1900, Montreal, Canada; d. January 7, 1964, Los Angeles, CA) was,
like Cowell, a part of the group of ultra-modernist composers, which also included John
Becker, Ruth Crawford, Lou Harrison, and Edgard Varse. McPhee was, presumably, at
this point staying at Cowells house in Shady.
83
This is the rst of the Two Pastorales. Cages autograph gives the completion date as
November 9, 1951. The rst performance of the rst Pastorale was given with Merle
Marsicanos choreography at the Kaufmann Concert Hall, Young Womens and Young
Mens Hebrew Association, New York City on December 9, 1951, with Tudor at the
piano.
84
Tudors New Years Day concert at the Cherry Lane Theatre contained Boulezs Second
Piano Sonata, the rst New York performance of Wols For Prepared Piano, and the
premieres of Feldmans Intersection #2 and Cages complete Music of Changes.
85
Cage was unable to realize a performance of Saties Vexations until September 9, 1963, at
the Pocket Theatre in New York City.
14
John Cage to David Tudor, typewritten86
[c. June 1953]
Many delights: Brown University has written and gotten replied to; appears
from Ray that Richard had already been invited by them to speak on sculpture
in some planned festival, so we have aroused their interest;87 Richard himself
by the way forgot to tell you that the Metropolitan has accepted his proposal re
SUN for $10,000.(bucks) have been writing to Havener and Bean and have sent
out circa 200 circulars representing Davids Xmas Greeting list, my Mabee list
and all but 17 of the Library Art List which practically put me to sleep.88 Have
been enjoying teaching Merces pupils how to stop thinking and feeling, and
also the Lankavatara book which is magnicent and can be said to be
enlightening.89 Finished 2nd String piece which turns out to be full of curves,
altogether dierent from the rst one.90 Also copied 40 33 in another way and
for MC and DT.91 Remains to be copied: new String piece (which by the way
Broadus called up and said no time please send to Colorado) Radio piece and
Water Music. Carroll in particular has done very well in the composition
class and Earle wrote music for her Trio for 5 dancers: music and dance
beautiful: youll probably get delectied by when she gets there.92 Also a
86
This letter, and the subsequent one, are very much distinct from the rest of the corre-
spondence, in tone and content. Above all, the individuals mentioned are signicantly
more complex to decipher in both cases. Thus, though I have attempted to identify who is
meant wherever possible, more ambiguity remains here than in many other cases.
87
Ray is likely to refer to Ray Johnson (b. October 16, 1927, Detroit, MI; d. January 13, 1995,
Sag Harbor, NY), the American collage artist associated with Pop Art, who studied at Black
Mountain College between 1945 and 1948 with Robert Motherwell, amongst others.
88
Meant here is Variation Within a Sphere No.10: The Sun, the sculptor Richard Lippold (b.
May 3, 1951, Milwaukee, WI; d. August 22, 2002, Roslyn, NY), commissioned by the
Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art in 1953, and completed in 1956. Lippold was
married to Louise Lippold, who choreographed Cages In a Landscape (1948), A Flower
(1950), and Music for Piano 2 (1953). I cannot identify Havener or Bean.
89
Specically, this probably refers to Daisetz Teitaro Suzukis translation of the Lankavatara
Sutra into English, rst published in 1932, or to his commentary on the same text, Studies
in the Lankvatara Sutra, published in 1929.
90
Cage is discussing the six short string pieces with durations in seconds, ve of which would
eventually form part of 26 0 1.1499 for a string player (1955). The piece referred to here is
10 5 for a String Player, which is dedicated to Broadus Erle.
91
This version of 40 33 is that prepared in timespace notation as a birthday gift for the artist
Irwin Kremen, who studied at Black Mountain College from 1946. It was republished by Peters
in 1993, having been rst printed in Source in July 1967. Thus the rst published version,
Henmar Presss 1960 version, is really the third version of the score. The original score, from
which Tudor prepared the premiere of 4 0 33 in 1952, was presented on ve-line staves.
92
Though misspelled, Carroll is presumably Carolyn Brown. The piece mentioned, by her
husband Earle, does not appear independently in Browns ocial work list, but is a piece
John Cage to David Tudor after July 2, 1953 33
number of movies to the point of losing interest in them, viz. SMALL TOWN
GIRL, REMAINS TO BE SEEN, MURDER WITHOUT CRIME, DOUBLE
CONFESSION, TROUBLE ALONG THE WAY, and THE SYSTEM.93 And
lost some money in one of those marvelous Saint-inspired street festivals. Not
to mention scrabble. Morty apparently going through throes of creative action:
speaks of need to discover himself; I suggested rst one day, then two, then
three, etc. To have tea this afternoon with Bob and Si at Orientalia plus Mme.
Eta H.-S.94 Also went to see Monroe Wheeler at the Museyroom about
magnetic tape and concerts; he wants letter re tape but is not very interested in
the Museums getting involved with music again since they have just managed
to get that Junior Committee out. He says he will look around for a Foundation
or Angel for tape. Bob Rauschenberg has gotten a contract to do windows for
Bonwits for August and so nancial problem removed for him temporarily.95
Think thats all the news. Naturally love
15
John Cage to David Tudor, typewritten
[after July 2, 1953]
Dear nocturnal telephonist96
have just tended to package details re s.l. and the barefoot boy: had only
one other touch from a gal in burlington, vt. who wanted to know when
from the Folio series entitled Trio for 5 dancers (1953), and is scored for piano and/or other
instruments.
93
Though it hardly has any bearing on Cages judgments of the various lms mentioned
here, it is intriguing to note that, although the US lms on the list are all from 1953, two
lms, J. Lee Thompsons Murder Without Crime (1950) and Ken Annakins Double
Confession (1950), were produced in the UK and, although they were both ocially
released in the US in 1951, it seems that they were just as current in cinemas by 1953 as
the newer American movies.
94
Since Rauschenberg is mentioned separately below, this is most likely to refer to Robert
Motherwell. Eta H.-S. refers to Eta Harich-Schneider, the German-born scholar of
Japanese music, and the dedicatee of Cages Music for Piano 419 (1953). I am unable to
identify Si.
95
New York Citys Bonwit Teller department store often used visual artists to help prepare
their visual displays. As well as Rauschenberg, other artists similarly engaged included
Jasper Johns and Andy Warhol. Together with Johns, Rauschenberg also designed window
displays for Tiany.
96
All the typographical oddities in this letter are Cages. As with the previous letter, there are
elements here which are extremely dicult to explain. The opening of the letter is
particularly ambiguous, since there is little evidence for what might be meant, for instance,
by either s.l. or the barefoot boy. The latter parts of the letter certainly become more
and what was the tuition. have made a list of your requests and will
grad. check them o; telephoned morty who is now speaking of the need
for discipline. Went on Meth-E rampage lecturing Norman S. who seems
to know no discipline. warned him re voices and visions which he
promptly said he was beginning to hear and have. All brought on by his
declaring he will give series of concerts at Cummington and wanted
music and bongos, both of which I refused and that produced WHY and
that in turn rampage. He has gone, and many others to Cummington
and they want me to come up there to give whatever, but the idea causes
only revulsion and no iota of desire. Sari came back from Yaddo en route
Cummington and displayed her new work which is the best Ive seen
from her.97 Presented me a beauty what Norman referred to aptly as
contemporary ming. was depressed hier; had nished manuscript of 6
string pieces and taken them to ACA.98 they should arrive there soon
sent to Seymour. also sent to erle in colo. no word from Pierre; will send
a telegraphic note today something like: magnifying glass hungry. am
about to write songs cannot yet tell details but seems clear will do it,
because it follows string business naturally and I may give radio program
wnyc rst sunday in august and thought of singing. (mama shocked)
pleasant dinner and evening chez earle and carroll. Had seen merces
rehearsal with new satie dances, stunning, though not by chance.99 saw
my rst 3D; not impressed. Sounds especially bad. why dont they get
wind of what can be done. went to hideous opera of antheil, cherry lane,
kowtowed to by all composers incl. varese, shake hands and get a
contract with Hollywood.100 left visibly after rst act to repair to nearest
movie. yesterday got car xed for merces trip which he looks forward to
as vacation from daily work; nd for rst time internal surprise that ill
lucid, but, nevertheless, letters 14 and 15 are amongst the least explicable of all of Cages
letters.
97
Sari Dienes (b. October 8, 1898, Debreczen, Hungary; d. May 25, 1992, Stony Point, NY)
was an artist, most famous for her work with found objects. In 1954, she had a residency at
the Cummington Art School in Cummington, MA.
98
This note suggests that, at the time, Cage certainly saw the six string pieces as functioning,
at least in some senses, as a set, rather than as materials to be reworked, as he later would
with ve of them.
99
This is Cunninghams Septet (1953), danced to Saties Trois Morceaux en forme de poire
(1903). Cages note regarding chance may not necessarily refer to Cunninghams choreo-
graphic methodology, being instead a reference to Cunninghams contemporaneous Suite
by Chance (1953), danced with Wol s Music for Magnetic Tape (1952), a result of the
same project which had led to Cages Williams Mix (1952).
100
This is most likely to refer to Antheils Volpone (1953), a farce after Ben Jonsons play of
the same name. Antheil had departed New York for Hollywood in 1936 and wrote
numerous lm scores, including those for Cecil B. DeMilles The Plainsman (1936) and
The Buccaneer (1938).
John Cage to David Tudor after July 2, 1953 35
not be going too. aware must study vowels and consonats at library
today. dentist again friday. gloomy but not as gloomy as communication
may suggest.
[Love,
J]
3 Determining the determinate
Music of Changes (1951)

Given the number of shifts in Cages life around 1950, it may hardly be
surprising that Music of Changes represents something of a fresh start
within his music, or at least a careful re-evaluation of what had preceded.
Both Nicholls (2002, 10003) and Pritchett (1993, 7478) mark out the
period of its composition as being of vital signicance, especially in forming
the foundation not only of Cages later work in the 1950s but also, arguably,
for the whole of his subsequent career. Like many of the European pieces
with which Music of Changes shares, in part unlikely, kinship such as Karel
Goeyvaertss Sonata for Two Pianos (1951) and Boulezs rst book of
Structures (1952) Music of Changes has certainly been more discussed
than performed. Nevertheless, one of the most signicant reasons why it
took such a powerful position in the Cageian catalogue is precisely because
of Tudors performances of it, and the activities he had to undertake in so
doing.
It is, however, in the juxtaposition of that which survives from Cages
work before Music of Changes and the parametric approach to material new
to his output where the complexities in performance, from Tudors per-
spective at least, arose.1 Alongside charts detailing the various potential
sound events, durations, dynamics and tempi,2 Cage retained the
1
It is precisely in the way in which Cages work in developing Music of Changes adopts the
independent treatment of musical parameters that the most overt links to integral serialism,
especially integral serialism of the European rather than East Coast hue, can be found. Cage
was surely, at least later, well aware that it was this parametric approach that dened
European integral serial approaches much more than the subdivision of elements according
to numerical patterns, whether determined by the number 12 or not. He makes this
relatively clear in his question to the 1958 Darmstadt audience Why do you suppose the
number 12 was given up but the idea of the series wasnt? (Cage 1968c [1958], 48). The
question is doubly provocative, given that, as I will outline, the parametric treatment of
material continued to play a key role in Cages output into the late 1950s and early 1960s.
Cages question and it is vital that it is a question may well be read as underscoring the
idea that there is not necessarily a problem with the idea of the series itself. Rather, it would
be a slavish adherence to system of the sort implied by the centrality of subdivisions of
twelves that might be seen as erroneous.
2
In a thoroughgoing, detailed analysis, Pritchett provides transcriptions of Cages second
[36] sound chart and his eighth duration and dynamics charts (Pritchett 1993, 8081). Plates of
Determining the determinate 37
underlying rhythmic structures to which he had become accustomed,3

utilizing a proportional framework of 3: 5: 6: 6: 5: 3. Each of these
numbers refers to notional 4/4 bars, such that the rst rhythmic cycle of
Music of Changes runs thus:
bb. 13 69 = = 2 cm. accel.
bb. 48 176 = = 2 cm. ritard.
bb. 915/3 100 = = 2 cm.
bb. 15/422/2 100 = = 2 cm.
bb. 22/327/2 100= = 2 cm. ritard.
bb. 27/330/218 58 = = 2 cm.
In essence, what the notation of Music of Changes presents is something
which is not quite traditional notation, but also not yet timespace notation.
The conventional barring structure collides with tempo changes determined
parametrically. Were the contents of the bars themselves conventionally
notated, this would present no greater diculty in performance than any
other piece which contains a high number of dierent tempi, accelerandi
and ritardandi. However, though the pieces structural frame the mensural
and tempo structure may be conventionally conceived, what is placed
within that structure is not. Instead, what is enframed is matter notated
according to spatial proportions, determined following the principle that
each notional 4/4 bar can be subdivided into four subsections measuring 2
centimeters each.4 Cages performance directions signal this skewing of
the original versions of sound chart eight, duration chart six, and amplitude charts ve and
six are given by Bernstein (2002, 20406). Intriguingly, Cages working materials for Music
of Changes do not form part of the John Cage Music Manuscript Collection at New York
Public Library, but are instead held as a part of the David Tudor Papers at the Getty
Research Institute in Los Angeles.
3
It is vital to an understanding of how one might fruitfully listen to Cages work after this
point to engage directly with the notion of a sound event. The sorts of criticisms that
construe Cages work as boring tend also to express a similar underlying concern to that
which one would have expected from Adorno, who criticized Goeyvaertss Sonata for Two
Pianos for having no sense of antecedent or consequent. Preempting the sorts of thinking
that would lead Stockhausen to the idea of moment form, in certain ways Cage is precisely
demanding that a listener does not listen for structures and it is here that Music of Changes
is really distinct from contemporaneous European musics which might otherwise be
compared with it but instead for event. This sort of listening model dominates his
music throughout the rest of the decade and arguably thereafter. It also makes sense of
the way in which scores like Winter Music and the Solo for Piano specically present sonic
events in their notated forms.
4
It is worth reiterating Holzaepfel and Bernsteins reminders that the published version of
the score for Music of Changes (Peters 625659) is smaller than the autograph, in which
each system is ten centimeters long.
what the surface of the notation might appear to suggest, as well as some of
the corollaries of such an adaptation, when they state that a sound begins at
the point in time corresponding to the point in space of the stem of the note
(not the note-head).
Were the temporal meaning of each 2 centimeters of score consistent
(as it perfectly well could have been, and would become in later pieces),
similarly the needs of the piece would be comparatively straightforward,
since the score would then become a straightforward representation of
events in timespace notation. Rather, the combination of both forms of
notation causes the temporal meaning of each 2 centimeters to be uid,
consistently in motion. It was precisely in trying to solve this conict that
Tudor began to develop the range of techniques which would form the
mainstay of his repository of realization practices.
Perhaps remarkably, Tudor was fortunate to be in a position to take
expert advice on solving the mathematical conundrum which seemed to
face him. In 1949, his former piano teacher, then Irma Wolpe, had remar-
ried and was now Irma Rademacher, wife of the University of Pennsylvania
mathematician Hans Rademacher. Rademacher devised formulae for carry-
ing out the calculations necessary to deal with the uctuations in tempo
Cages score presented. They are the sorts of equations that, at rst sight at
least, musicologists might think belong to the rareed world of music theory
rather than to a centerpiece of the American experimental tradition.
Ultimately, though, the equations are less unnerving than they may
initially appear. This is not least because they can be reduced (as becomes
clear on a separate sheaf of Tudors workings) to simpler, more manageable
versions. Ultimately, two formulae are used, one for tempi which remain
constant and one for tempi where an accelerando or ritardando is indicated.
These equations can be expressed relatively simply. Where t = the total time
of the passage, S equals the number of crotchet units (or 2 cm. units), and
T equals tempo marking (for a static tempo), and V1 and V2 denote the two
velocities indicated by two tempi (in cases where the tempo is mobile; the
actual tempo marking must be divided by 60 in this case), the two formulae
can be expressed thus:
For a static tempo:

60
t S
T
For a mobile tempo:
2S T
t where V
V1 V2 60
Admittedly, the exact equations Tudor wrote down still look more formi-
dable than this, but his practical working out of the durations of the various
sub-sections of Music of Changes conrms them. It is probably simplest to
show these equations in operation for at least the rst rhythmic cycle,
outlined above. Though again not exactly Tudors working, which neces-
sitated traditional long division, this is how the equations are carried out in
practice:
I. 12 ; = 69176 (mobile)
2 12 24
5:87755103
1:15 2:93 4:083
II. 20 ; = 176100 (mobile)
2 20 40
8:69565217
2:93 1:66 4:6
III. 27 ; = 100 (static)

60
27 16:2
100
IV. identical to third group
V. 20 ; = 10058 (mobile)
2 20 40
15:1898734
1:66 0:96 2:63
VI. 12 ; = 58 (static)
60
12:5 12:9310345
58
This is precisely the mathematical work it was necessary for Tudor to
undertake in completing a version of Music of Changes that would satisfac-
torily respond to the demands of the score, even if his versions could not be
made at the same sort of pace that can be achieved with the benet of a
calculator. In any case, the number of decimal places in the example work-
ings shown above is a fair representation of Tudors own procedure.
Nevertheless, though this seems to have formed an integral part of
Tudors working process, it should not be taken as a suggestion that he
expected to be able accurately to achieve a duration of 12.9310345 seconds
for the last sub-section of the rst rhythmic cycle: in later, tidier versions of
the working, durations are reduced to a maximum of two decimal places; in
Tudors copy of the score, indications are given to the nearest second, with a
superscript plus or minus symbol, should the tempo change occur just after
or just before the indicated time point. Nevertheless, Tudors meticulous
working to such decimal exactitude, even if it did not occur in the perform-
ance of the piece itself, certainly inuenced Cages own working processes,
as I shall outline below.
To be sure, the indications in Tudors score are not as accurate as true
timespace notation would have been; perhaps they are not even as accurate,
in dierent senses, as the results an entirely traditional score would have
generated, given the legacies of performance practice. Since only the beginning
and end points of tempo changes are indicated in clock time, there is a degree
of exibility in the realization of tempo curves that would be lost in much of
Cages music across the 1950s, where absolute clock time, at least in Tudors
hands, became central. Structural exibility on this level would not really be
regained until Tudors realization of Theatre Piece almost a decade later.
Nevertheless, it is in this nexus that a signicant shift can be seen, for both
Cage and Tudor, in the way in which musical time is conceived. As a result of
using a stopwatch in performance to regulate the course of events, Tudor later
observed he was watching time rather than experiencing it (quoted by
Holzaepfel 2002b, 174). This change, both a literal and a metaphorical one,
is central to the way in which time passes in Cages work after 1951.
Music of Changes already required hundreds of casts of the I Ching.5
Though Tudors work on realizing it may not have necessitated this sort of
work, he produced over 100 sheets of notes (some, admittedly, fair copies
of others), carrying out a huge number of complex calculations. Music of
Changes is not simply for David Tudor, as the dedication at the front of the
rst volume of the score indicates. As Cage suggested, [a]t that time,
[Tudor] was the Music of Changes (Cage and Charles 1981, 178). It is not
necessarily going too far to reverse that construction, and to suggest that,
albeit only in limited senses and perhaps only during the period of its
composition and immediately following, Music of Changes was Tudor, or
at least a pretty fair portrait.
Two Pastorales, Water Music, and 40 33 (1952)

The Music of Changes immediate successors were the Two Pastorales, also
written for Tudor, and choreographed, in the case of the rst Pastorale, by
5
For the composition of Williams Mix, Cage recalled over a dozen people who were involved
in the process of tossing coins; more than those who, visiting the Bozza Mansion, found
themselves provided with three coins and paper on which to transcribe the results of their
coin tosses, Tudor played an active part in the compositional process, though only using the
techniques Cage prescribed (Revill 1992, 146).
Merle Marsicano, the pieces dedicatee. Labor-intensive though the repeated

tossing of coins to select elements from predetermined charts may have
been, Cage continued this process here, though he reduced the number of
layers of sound events from a potential maximum of eight in Music of
Changes to a total of two. The result of this reduction in simultaneous
occurrences of sonic events is, unsurprisingly, a signicantly sparser texture,
characterized, much more than was the case in the previous piece, by long
stretches in which no fresh events occur. These areas are often, though not
always, lled through the use of the sustain pedal, with a resultant focus
on the decay of the sounds as they slowly dwindle into silence (Pritchett
1993, 89). Though the presence of the decay of sounds is not in itself
particularly signicant, the resultant sparseness (or spaciousness, viewed
from a dierent perspective) and explicit independence of sonic events that
results is important not only for Cages subsequent output most overtly in
the Music for Piano series, work on which was commenced relatively shortly
after the completion of the Two Pastorales but also for the way in which
space is conceived in Tudors realizations of the later 1950s.6
Tudors working practices, too, remained much the same. Having mas-
tered the calculations necessary to deal with shifting tempi within the
frames Cage outlined and, given that the piece was signicantly more
condensed than the mammoth proportions of Music of Changes, presum-
ably this work was both less intense and less obviously dicult than that
undertaken in the earlier piece. Certainly, the number of sheets of calcu-
lation Tudor found it necessary to work through was signicantly smaller;
moreover, the degree of copying and recopying pages lled with gures was
minimal in this case. If Cage may be considered to have set, in Music of
Changes, a puzzle for Tudor to solve, by the Two Pastorales Tudor seemed
largely to have solved that particular riddle.
What is more important in the Two Pastorales, in terms of Tudors later
realizations, is the timbral and gestural language it utilizes, itself, in part, a
further restitution of elements from Cages earlier work, most especially the
Sonatas and Interludes (1948) for prepared piano and the previous years
Concerto for Prepared Piano and Orchestra (1951). While the rst part of
Music of Changes contains no extended piano techniques (which is to say, it
is played exclusively on the keyboard, albeit with some extremely complex
6
To be sure, other pieces intervened between the Two Pastorales, the second completed on
January 31, 1952 according to the score, and Decembers Music for Piano 1, not least Water
Music, 40 33, and the beginnings of work on Williams Mix, though the last was not
completed until the middle of January the following year. Moreover, it is arguably in the
later pieces in the Music for Piano series that the empty spaces of the Two Pastorales really
reoccur.
and idiomatic pedal markings), as the piece continues, increasing levels of

additional resources are required of the performer, including not only
various interpolations of the pianists ngers on the strings (pizzicati,
muting and stopping, string scratches, nger strikes on the strings) but
also strikes with the hand on the body of the instrument, and the use of
various dierent beaters, metal and plastic. The use of these techniques,
associated by Henry Cowell with an attempt to replicate the diversity of
timbres available with the prepared piano on a piano without preparations
(Revill 1992, 134), continues in the Two Pastorales. Here though, as Cages
instructions for performance indicate, this is combined with preparations
for a small number of the pianos strings. The multiple possibilities thus
suggested for ways of expanding the pianos palette had increased, since
Cage had, implicitly, given permission for multiple modes of timbral
extension.
Water Music, too, responds in part to work Cage had carried out before
Music of Changes. It also acts as the rst point at which Cage explicitly came
to terms with the sort of calculations Tudor had had to carry out to realize
both Music of Changes and Two Pastorales. Like the Two Pastorales, then,
Water Music is, as Nicholls has described it, a hybrid work (Nicholls 2007,
56). Cages use of charts is still present within the compositional process and
the piano is partly prepared, in the manner of the Two Pastorales. Vitally,
however, the absolute clock times which Tudor had interpolated into Cages
earlier hybrid of metrical and timespace notation are now part of the score:
events are notated according to their precise clock time. For this reason,
realization of the score as carried out in the previous two pieces was
unnecessary; Tudor could simply play from the score. Although, then, the
piece deals to some extent with one problem the monumental number of
calculations needed to come to a performing version of the score it fails to
deal with another: if Cage felt, as he often suggested he did, the need to set
new challenges and puzzles for Tudor, to keep him interested, Water Music
does little to press forward in this regard. That said, the score is suggestive, at
least, of a private joke between the two. Time points measured in quarters of
a second are, perhaps, not unrealizable, but the notation of these, not as, say,
40 3914 but instead as 4.39250 might remind one easily of the numbers of
decimal places involved in Tudors early calculations. As with many private
jokes, part of the humor lies in its being placed in full view of an audience
which is not privy to it.7
7
One might think of Poes The Purloined Letter, where the stolen item of correspondence
is concealed by being placed in full view of the police prefect who is hunting for it, precisely
where he would never think of searching for something which ought to be hidden.
Furthermore, in the light of the visual aspects of pieces from later in the
decade, it is instructive to remember too that Water Music is music to be seen
as well as heard: the 55-inch 34-inch score is to be suspended or otherwise
positioned in view not only of its performer but also the audience (Nicholls
2007, 56). Though the disparities between the works sounding trace and its
visual trace that were to become central to Cages work of the later 1950s are
not present here largely, what the audience sees is what it gets the sort of
mindset that expects a listener to make connections between the visual and
the sonic aspects of a piece is clearly already in evidence.
Finally, Water Music integrates two elements of Cages broader sound
world, which rst appeared overtly in his output in 1939 and 1942 respec-
tively, in one piece central and one peripheral to the established canon of
his work.8 Cages Marriage at the Eiel Tower (1939), a collaboration with
Henry Cowell and George McKay, calls for the use of various toy whistles and
sirens; Water Music requires a duck whistle and a siren whistle. Though Credo
in Us does not explicitly demand the use of a radio receiver recordings of
music by, as suggested by Cage, Dvok, Beethoven, Sibelius, or Shostakovich
would be perfectly acceptable it is the rst occasion on which radio broad-
casts entered into the integral compositional language of a piece; in Water
Music the explicit intramusical references implied by the use of canonical
material in Credo in Us are absent, since radio frequencies rather than a
particularly desired form of sonic material are prescribed. Nevertheless, if the
radio is conceived of as a timbral device, its recurrence in Water Music is
signicant. Again, there are implicit permissions granted in this regard for
what sorts of material would be acceptable, within a Cageian context, in the
realization of a piece for piano (or, perhaps better, a piece for pianist). Though
this would not become immediately apparent, the extensions of potential
sound sources in this context would come to play an important role in
Tudors later realizations. Nevertheless, Water Musics indication prepare
piano with 4 objects pregures the sorts of decisions Tudor would later be
asked to make in scores more open to performer determination.
A nal piece from 1952 cannot be ignored, since it is, apart from anything
else, Cages most well-known piece and Tudors premiere of it on August 29,
8
This canon is established, in some ways, in very simple terms: what is central is almost
inevitably linked to what is available, which is to say, which pieces Edition Peters has kept in
print. Much of Cages early work has never been published and, as such, remains rarely, if
ever, performed since the period in which it premiered. Unsurprisingly, Cage scholarship,
too, has privileged certain bodies of work over others. As I will go on to note, this leads to
sometimes curious dislocations when looking at Cages work from a slightly skewed view-
point, such as the one undertaken here, in the way that, for instance, 40 33 becomes a
comparatively minor piece, despite its vital importance in other regards.
1952, is one of the key moments in Cages compositional career.

Nevertheless, 40 33 is much less important from the perspective of under-
standing realizations of Cages scores in general, and Tudors role in this in
particular, than its otherwise central position might suggest.9 From the
point of view of Tudors activities, 40 33 might better be viewed as a
consolidation of what has preceded, a summation rather than a develop-
ment. The notion Tudor expresses of a change from experiencing to watch-
ing time is clearer here than in either Music of Changes or Water Music,
since Tudors activities in performance here involved principally the literal
activity of watching clock time elapse, closing and subsequently reopening
the piano lid to indicate the beginnings and ends of the three sub-sections
of 40 33. In the original version of the score, from which Tudor gave the
1952 premiere, one might also see the conclusion of the calculations
which pervade Music of Changes and the Two Pastorales. Notated in ve-
line staves, the same calculations were, in a technical sense, required.
However, with an overall metronome mark of 60 (and, if Tudors recon-
struction of this original lost score is accurate, in 4/4 throughout), this
becomes timespace notation in all but name (Fetterman 1996, 74).
Moreover, Tudors performance style, always characterized by physical
understatement, is highlighted yet more extravagantly in a piece where
the demands made of the performer require nothing but ensuring that the
piece last for a dened period.10 Finally, a further inevitable consequence of
the material of 40 33 was that it emphasized the empty (or not so empty)
spaces of Two Pastorales. Tudors aesthetic response to this experience is
probably best illustrated by his own remarks that 40 33 is
one of the most intense listening experiences one can have. You really listen.
Youre hearing everything there is. Audience noises play a part in it. It is
catharticfour minutes and thirty-three seconds of meditation, in eect.
(quoted in Fetterman 1996, 75)
9
Fetterman provides a useful explication of 40 33 in its various modes and score copies
(Fetterman 1996, 6984), which includes comment on Tudors realization in particular.
10
As Cage made clear on many occasions, even though the piece would retain the title 40 33,
the total duration need not necessarily be restricted to this time span, although this was
Tudors practice. The original performance was subdivided into movements lasting 30,
20 23, and 10 40. The 1960 printed version of the score confuses the issue slightly, since it
states that [t]he title of this work is the total length in minutes and seconds of its
performance. Nevertheless, Cage also informed Fetterman in 1986 that the piece could,
for instance, last 23 minutes (Fetterman 1996, 76), though the division into three move-
ments must be retained. There are two further versions, as well as these two, of 40 33, one
in literal timespace notation, without ve-line staves, written for the dedicatee of 40 33,
Irwin Kremen, in 1952, and a marginal revision of the 1960 version, prepared by Cage in
the mid 1980s.
Though identifying the impact of this still, meditative aspect of Cages

music, as Tudor saw it, in the realizations of later Cage pieces is challenging,
a certain reection of it can probably be seen in certain of the pieces in the
Music for Piano series which followed it.
340 46.776 for a pianist (1954)

Before turning to Music for Piano, however, it is worth considering, albeit in
brief, a piece from what Pritchett has dubbed the Ten Thousand Things,
the composition of which intersected with the Music for Piano series.
Having seen the legion of decimal places to which Tudors calculations
ran in working out the durational characteristics of Music of Changes and
the Two Pastorales, the titles of the pieces contained with the Ten Thousand
Things series including 310 57.9864 for a pianist (1954), conceived as a
companion piece which Cage could play alongside Tudors performance of
the more complex 340 46.776 for a pianist, as well as 260 1.1499 for a string
player (1955) and 270 10.554 for a percussionist (1956) can hardly be seen
as other than a continuation of Cages playful response to Tudors method-
ical processes.
In a sense, 340 46.776 for a pianist, along with the other pieces from the
Ten Thousand Things, might well be seen as the culmination of Cages work
of the previous few years, with the pieces from Music for Piano, the
composition of which occurred on either side of the Ten Thousand
Things cycle, looking instead forward to the work of the later 1950s.
Certainly, many of the diculties Tudor had found with Cages earlier
music (or the puzzles he had been set to solve) are, in 340 46.776 for a
pianist, solved from a notational point of view.
Like the Two Pastorales, piano preparation is required in 340 46.776 for a
pianist, but, as in Water Music, the exact nature of these preparations is left
in the hands of the performer: the score determines which strings ought to
be prepared and what sorts of objects should be utilized in so doing. What is
key here is twofold: not only are the specicities of preparation left to the
performer, but the exact results of those preparations also uctuate across
the course of the piece; Cage requires that the placement of the preparations
be moved, or that items be removed or added (Pritchett 1993, 100). In many
respects, what Cage is actually determining is physical activity: the motions
that a performer needs to carry out are, as is largely the case in Water Music,
notated to a high degree of specicity, although the sonic results necessarily
are not. This is strikingly highlighted in the upper systems of the part, where
three additional bands of information are given which determine, from top
to bottom, the degree of force the pianist should use for each note, the
distance from the key his nger should be when he begins the notes attack,
and the speed of the motion. It may even be that Cage had not initially
decided precisely which of these bands would refer to which parameter
since, in the earlier of Tudors two copies of the score, Tudor himself wrote
in these parametric indicators by hand.
Equally important, the temporal notation of Music of Changes and the
Two Pastorales has been combined here with that of Water Music and 40 33.
340 46.776 for a pianist operates according a literal correspondence between
the horizontal space on the page and passing time. According to Pritchett,
Cage was still working in compositional terms with the same metrical
structures of changing tempi as were present in his earlier pieces but,
doubtless aware of the challenges that this presented in terms of realization
challenges which, in the context of the pieces rst performance, outlined
below, could have proved catastrophic had Tudor had to carry them out
across the course of the whole piece in the manuscript copy of 340 46.776
for a pianist the mensural structure has already been realized, such that it is
possible, more or less, for a performance to be carried out directly from the
score, the performer only having to write in simply calculated markers to
remain synchronized with the clock time of a stop watch (Pritchett 1993,
10002).
It is not necessarily, though, the content of the piece, nor Tudors
activities in working on it, that seem most relevant here but, rather, the
contingencies of its premiere, alongside 310 57.9864 for a pianist at
Donaueschingen on October 17, 1954. To term this the premiere of either
piece, though, is hardly accurate. Though the two pieces had been commis-
sioned for the Donaueschinger Musiktage by Heinrich Strobel, evidently
Strobel was extremely anxious regarding the results of allowing Cage and
Tudor to occupy the stage for thirty-four minutes. According to Cages
account, following a rehearsal given for Strobel and a few others a deathly
silence descended.11 As a result, Strobel felt that it would be impossible for
Cage and Tudor to perform with the piece at the length that it was; the
pieces by Feldman, Brown, and Wol they had with them on magnetic tape
met with a similarly negative response. After Cage asked for a break in
discussions, so that both Strobel and his advisors, on the one side, and Cage
and Tudor, on the other, could discuss what might be done, Cage returned
with the suggestion that he and Tudor might play an abbreviated version of
the two pieces within the advertised concert, but would then announce to
11
Guy Freedman interview with John Cage, December 1976, typescript held as part of the
John Cage Collection, Northwestern University.
the audience that they would play the full version for any audience member
who wished to remain; about one third of the audience stayed for the
complete performance. Even if individual clusters of events are more
important than the time span of the piece as a whole indeed, even if
any sort of narrative structure developed across the course of the complete
piece is alien to both this and much of Cages contemporaneous output it
hardly follows that such a brutal cut in the pieces running length necessa-
rily falls within the range of reasonable or permissible possibilities for
performance. Doubtless the length of an individual piece was not yet as
important for Cage as it would become. Nevertheless, in order to experi-
ence event as event, rather than as part of a developing continuum, a total
duration which made the former mode of listening more likely was surely
desirable. Pritchett hints at this when he describes the experience of
340 46.776 for a pianist as being of a spontaneous eruption of activity, of
gures that appear from nowhere and leave no traces behind (Pritchett
1993, 104). Whatever the compositional and aesthetic concerns here might
have been, there are practical ones to consider too, since cutting a thirty-
four-minute piece down to a twelve-minute one, while ensuring that it
remains in essence the same piece, under severe pressure of time, is hardly a
simple task.
If Cage had not been aware of how useful it would be to have music that
was genuinely amenable to being played at dierent lengths in dierent
contexts, the events of Donaueschingen made it eminently clear that the
exibility that, as I will outline below, he had already begun to think about
with regard to Music for Piano was one that it would be helpful to develop
further. Moreover, it was doubtless essential to think in terms in which it
would make no essential dierence to the piece as such were it to be twelve
minutes long or thirty-four. As outlined in what follows, ways of shortening
or lengthening the time span of individual pieces from the series were
already suggested by the possibilities of 40 33, but in the second large section
of Music for Piano, the twenty-rst to the thirty-sixth piece, Tudor would
devise a solution that would make it possible not to have to repeat the hasty
cutting of parts of a piece. Indeed, arguably this sort of reconguration of
predetermined material to suit specic contexts would, in the immediate
aftermath of the Donaueschingen experience, become a central feature of
Tudors organizing of Cage scores.
Music for Piano (195256)

In a contemporary world where rehearsal time for new music has become
increasingly scarce, the level of commitment, in terms of time even aside
from anything else, that Tudor must have given to Music of Changes and the
Two Pastorales may seem staggering. Nevertheless, it hardly seems unrea-
sonable to think that Tudor would not wish to go to such extreme lengths to
realize a score again. In point of fact, in later pieces by Cage, Tudor went to
much greater pains from certain points of view, but nevertheless Cages next
pieces for Tudor, the beginnings of the Music for Piano series, solved at least
one of the problems demonstrated by Music of Changes and the Two
Pastorales, taking the example of 40 33 into the eld of music which was
explicitly for piano. Though the series began with pieces in which time was
determined absolutely in Music for Piano 1 (1952), for instance, a single
system lasts for seven seconds, the same scale of passing time used in the
1953 version of 40 33 by Music for Piano 3 (1953) this aspect had become
indeterminate, albeit in a limited sense. From here onwards in the series, the
eective tempo determined by the length in seconds of a system becomes
variable. Rather than lasting for a predetermined seven seconds, each
system might last for fteen, or fty, seconds, or indeed almost any other
duration, in theory at least.
It seems likely that here this decision was, at least in part, a pragmatic one,
rather than one predicated clearly on aesthetic determinations, though it is a
dierent form of pragmatism from that which necessitated the abbreviation
of 340 46.776 for a pianist and 310 57.9864 for a pianist to 120 55.6078 for
two pianists. Pieces from the Music for Piano series were used to accompany
Cunninghams Solo Suite in Space and Time (1953), Minutiae (1954), and,
later, Suite for Five in Space and Time (1956).12 Tudors working materials
for Music for Piano provide several examples of the way in which its
constituent pieces were used in this context, at seemingly varying stages of
the development of the series as a whole. The sketch plans Tudor made for
performances tended to indicate the specic adaptations he would make to
the durations of systems. Typically the plans would notate simply which
parts of the Music for Piano he would play sometimes leaving options,
making the plans too, on a low level, indeterminate as well as the length of
the system and time points at which each system would end, as well as cues
where necessary, since in this context Music for Piano was typically per-
formed with two pianists, Cage being the other. The beginning, for instance,
of one of his plans reads thus:
12
Later the title of this last piece was abbreviated to Suite for Five or, on occasions when
Cunningham performed with a reduced company, Suite for Two for instance. Tudor would
later use the same indeterminate length of systems for performances of the Solo for Piano
when it accompanied Cunninghams Antic Meet.
1. SOLO 30 20
#18 or #19 50 per system .50 1.40 2.30 3.20
start watch rst note piano I
2. TRIO 20 30
15 silence .15
#35 15 per system .30 .45 1. 1.15
15 silence 1.30
#31 15 per system 1.45 2. 2.15 2.30
3. SOLO 20
#3 30 per system
start watch with rst movement
4. DUET 40 30
#34 10 per system
30 silence
start watch rst movement
Notably, Music for Piano 1, even though it was restricted to seven seconds
per system at the time of its writing, was also used in this context. One plan
for Suite in Space and Time begins with Solo 1 danced to Music for Piano
1, with a marking of 50 seconds per system. With the rst solo lasting 3
minutes 20 seconds, it must be presumed, though, that only one page of
Music for Piano 1 was used.13
Even if the decision to make the relation between time passing on the
page and time passing in the instantiation of performance indeterminate
was determined, to some extent at least, by decisions external to aesthetic
considerations regarding Music for Piano itself, there are at least two areas in
which the activities of Cage are signicant for the development of work in
the direction of indeterminacy proper. The rst requires little real expli-
cation, since it is an extrapolation of the temporal principle above and, in
13
This plan is designed only for Music for Piano 136 and so was probably a plan for
Cunninghams solo version of the suite, rather than the later Suite for Five, since Music for
Piano 36 was completed in 1955, before Suite for Five was choreographed. This also
suggests that Music for Piano 1 and 2 may have been used in these forms with variable
time lengths earlier, not least because Music for Piano 120 was regularly used for the Solo
Suite from late 1953 onwards. The occurrence of this suggests that it may have been as
early as 1953 that Cage had decided that the title 40 33 need not necessarily dene the
actual length in time of the piece.
any case, is stated clearly by the score.14 The mode of production, which is to
say the specic timbral characteristics of each pitch, is left free; the techni-
ques suggested by the scores prefatory notes include those predicated by
Cages previous piano output for Tudor, including pizzicato, ngernail
scratches along the string, muting to produce harmonics, and so on.
Alongside this, other facets of production are left to the pianist: pedaling
is left entirely at the pianists discretion as is duration (and concomitantly,
therefore, the decay envelope of each pitch). Second, Music for Piano 419
and 2184 (195556) may be performed singly or in any combination with
one another by one or many pianists. Again, it is probably not unreasonable
to contend that the contingencies of using Music for Piano to accompany
dance had an impact in bringing this decision about. In a situation where
dance is choreographed not to but instead alongside music, as it was in the
coincidence of Cages music and Cunninghams choreography, the exibil-
ity to be able to reconstruct a performance night after night in which the
same basic materials and principles are at work, but mitigate against the
possibility of music and dance congealing, was doubtless attractive. Though
the pitch content here is determinate, as is its ordering within the part for
any individual player, many other aspects thus turn toward indeterminacy,
beginning to approximate very closely the demands of Cages successive
piano score, Winter Music. Music for Piano, indeed, resembles Winter
Music in more ways than one, though in ways which are not obvious from
the score and are only clear from what Tudor did with Cages material.
Music for Piano can hardly be described as Tudors rst realization; he had
already worked out numerous of Feldmans and Browns scores from
indeterminate notation into a fully notated form. Moreover, in Cages
previous pieces for Tudor, arguably what he had carried out was already a
form of realization, albeit one that enabled Tudor to play from the original
score. The performance of pieces from Music for Piano was the rst
occasion on which Tudor felt it necessary to prepare his own score from
which to perform, derived from Cages notation.
Intriguingly, the realizations which pregure Winter Music most closely
are from the earlier pieces from Music for Piano, those preceding Music for
Piano 21. Tudor only prepared realizations in this format of Music for Piano
3, 14, and 18 or, at least, these are the only three which remain within his
14
It should be noted, though, that this consideration came before the insertion of what
amount to exible time brackets, determined by the lengths of systems. Although it seems
most likely that the changes made to Cages conception of page time in the context of
Music for Piano were predicated on the requirements of Cunninghams choreography, this
should not undermine the fact that the specic solutions Cage adopted were preempted in
his approach to timbre within the same group of pieces.
surviving papers. The titles given on these sheets, and that they are for pieces
exclusively from within Music for Piano 120 (195253), indicate that the
realizations are for three movements of Cunninghams Solo Suite in Space
and Time: At random (Music for Piano 18; see Fig. 3.1), Stillness (Music
for Piano 3), and Excursion (Music for Piano 14). In essence, all that
Tudor appears to have carried out in this activity is to remove those sections
of staves which contain no directions for performance, what might be
conceived of as empty spaces. The resulting notation is striking for at least
two reasons. First, it highlights, even more than Cages notation does, the
way in which what is signicant here is event (or point), rather than any
teleological drive shaping the course of the piece as a whole. The attention is
drawn to single moments in which an event occurs; Tudors notation
militates against any expectations of drawing links between these events.
Second, and more important in seeing the gradual development of both
Tudors and Cages work, the visual similarity of these realizations to Winter
Music is evident. Though I will discuss the particular challenges of Winter
Music below, there is a sense in which Tudors work on Music for Piano
created the space which Winter Music would ll; as a consequence, the
solutions Tudor would use to deal with the notation of Winter Music were
already provided by the example of Music for Piano. It is thus not only on
the level of the compositional systems where Cage determined the nota-
tion of points on the sta via identifying imperfections in the paper on
which he was writing and of similarities in texture where kinships can be
found between the two (Pritchett 1993, 11011).
A second realization of pieces from this early section of Music for Piano is
also in Tudors working materials. This realization is of ve pieces, Music for
Piano 4, 13, 7, 9, and 19, suggesting again that it was designed for the
Cunningham Solo Suite. What is important about this realization is that it
suggests an increased concern on Tudors part with the practicalities of
performance. Rather than needing to shift rapidly between various pages of
a score, Tudors strict ordering of them on two sheets would have made it
possible for him simply to perform from this. Moreover, he also simplied
Cages notation, reducing it to a single sta, and replacing his markings of P
for pizzicato and M for muted with a staccato marking and a + respectively.
It is notable too that although the possibility of separating the various pieces
contained within Music for Piano suggests a degree of indeterminacy on the
large-scale structural level, Tudors renotation for performance with
Cunningham xes this potential openness of form in a single constellation.
This relation between an implicit indeterminacy at the level of the score and a
xed realization takes on a much more signicant role in Tudors realizations
of Winter Music, the Solo for Piano, and Variations I.
Fig. 3.1 Tudors realization of Music for Piano 18

Though such forms of realization may have served Tudor well for the
early pieces in the cycle, for Music for Piano 2136 (1955) he adopted a
dierent solution. This second form of working might seem almost insig-
nicant in and of itself: Tudor simply renotated the Music for Piano pieces,
initially onto twelve-stave manuscript paper (see Fig 3.2), and then onto
small two-stave pieces of card, with a complete piece from the series written
out using both sides of each card, continuing to reduce Cages two staves to a
single sta in his rewriting.
What is most important about this is the exibility it provides in per-
formance. Simple though it may be, the ability to select quickly and easily
from the various pieces contained within the series would have had many
practical benets in, for instance, making it possible to congure mosaic-
like performances of pieces from the series in a way that would allow
multiple, distinct instantiations. Naturally this would be possible with the
original notation even with the attendant diculties of page turning but
Tudors rewritten version of the pieces implies that this mosaic would be the
expected state. This, indeed, is precisely what Tudor eected, using only
Music for Piano 2136, in the various recordings of selections from Music
for Piano for various of the German broadcasting corporations between
1955 and 1959.15
Certainly this is indeterminacy of a sort: on the formal level, Tudors
realizations made it easy to reconstitute diering performances from the
same set of pieces; temporally, the variable lengths of individual staves,
perhaps necessitated by working with Cunninghams choreography, meant
that the durational characteristics of any one of these individual modules
need not be xed. There is a nal way in which Tudors performances of
these pieces exhibit an indeterminate character. Cages notation of Music for
Piano 2136 contains, as well as the two staves for pitch material even
though these may be produced muted and as nger pizzicati as well as
simply on the keyboard an additional single-line sta between them,
which denotes activity inside or outside the body of the piano.16 In
Tudors realizations this is no longer a separate sta, but is integrated into
his two-stave notation as a large dot above or below the sta. While Cage
does not specify this activity, a single sheet of Tudors suggests that he
predetermined what activities he would carry out at, roughly, the same time
15
For instance, Tudor recorded Music for Piano 21, 22, 32, 35, 36 for the Westdeutscher
Rundfunk in 1956 and Music for Piano 27, 21, 32, 35, 36 for the Hessicher Rundfunk in
1959, amongst many other recordings.
16
A point below the sta denotes an activity outside the body of the piano, a point above the
sta denotes one within.
Fig. 3.2 Tudors renotation of Music for Piano 4, 13, and 7

as he determined an order in which to perform selected pieces from Music

for Piano. The notes on this sheet for Music for Piano 24, for instance, read
as follows:
24 I metal b. on sb. pins
O metal b. dropped on front case
I metal b. on ten. tuning pin17
It is not dicult to imagine Tudor performing using both a sheet such as
this and his renotation of the Music for Piano pieces simultaneously; the
sparseness of activity within these pieces would doubtless have made it
possible for individual cards and a sheet denoting additional performance
activities to be used alongside one another. Nevertheless, in realizations
after this point, Tudor would instead integrate these activities within the
single notation of his realization. What is perhaps more important here,
though it is not necessarily surprising, are the actual activities Tudor
determined for these unnotated actions. For the most part they are exactly
those that had been prescribed in Cages earlier work, especially in Music of
Changes and the Two Pastorales, dominated by the use of various drum-
sticks, beaters, plastic and metal bars on the body and frame of the instru-
ment. Although this element of the realization of Music for Piano may have
been left indeterminate by Cage, and may suggest strongly that, by this
stage, Cage was close to the sorts of strategies that would enable him to
renounce aspects of compositional control entirely, Tudor had learned how
to realize Cage scores even if he had not been aware that this was what he
was learning to do through the process of working on the earlier pieces.
Though Cage might have been controlling the sounds he had left undeter-
mined only from a distance, and without necessarily meaning to, the specic
route that he and Tudor had taken to reach these realizations meant that
Cages control over the language available to Tudor was still near enough
absolute.
17
The I denotes activity within the piano; the O activity on the exterior body. Other
abbreviations here were ones which would become standard for Tudor, b. always standing
for beater, for instance, along with the more usual sb. for soundboard and ten. for tenor.
4 Determining the indeterminate
Winter Music (1957)

As Holzaepfel notes, although Cage dated the score of Winter Music January
1957, it was premiered at the Brooklyn Academy of Music on January 12,
suggesting that work on the piece must have stretched back into 1956
(Holzaepfel 2002b, 175). Indeed, it is scarcely conceivable that a piece of
the scale of Winter Music could have been completed at an incredible pace,
even given Cages remarkable capacity for work. That said, as Kim observes,
his position teaching at the New School left him as free as a teacher could
be (Cage, quoted in Kim 2011 [2008], 142). Moreover, the period of the
completion of Winter Music was between semesters, presumably giving
Cage not only the security of regular income, but also time away from
teaching. Doubtless this was an invaluable commodity, even given the
relative freedom he had in the courses he taught at the New School.1 The
score of Winter Music, like the Solo for Piano which follows it, looks both
backward and forward in terms of Cages own technical procedures, and the
fact that its gestation seems likely to go back to the completion of the Music
for Piano series lends further credence to the idea that the particular way in
which Winter Music is scored was inspired by Tudors later notational
approach to the earlier series of pieces.
The relationship between the Music for Piano pieces and Winter Music is
strong in many senses. The systems Cage used to create both are, on one
level, almost identical: the positions of notes on the page were determined in
both cases by imperfections in the paper. In this way, the use of chance is the
same: the chance element is found in the paper upon which the piece was
originally notated. The use of indeterminacy, however, is quite dierent
(Pritchett 1993, 110). Kim rightly stresses that Winter Music represents the
beginning of a sense that Cage was truly creating compositions which were
indeterminate of their performance, a sense which would continue to be
reinforced in the pieces which followed (Kim 2011 [2008], 142). Where in
Music for Piano the degree of indeterminacy was exclusively a result of the
possibility of overlaying dierent pieces from the series, which is to say a
1
Kim notes that Cages next two major pieces, the Concert for Piano and Orchestra and
Variations I, both considered in fuller detail below, were also completed in between periods
[56] of teaching (Kim 2011 [2008], 142).
Determining the indeterminate 57
sort of macro-level indeterminacy, here Cage developed a system of clefs

which allowed for indeterminacy to develop on the level of the individual
aggregates which are Winter Musics sole material. Each of the aggregates
given in the score has two clefs, which are sometimes the same as one
another, sometimes dierent. Where they are dierent, some of the pitches
are to be performed according to one clef, some according to the other.
Except where there are only two pitches, such that one is performed in one
clef and one in the other, Cage provides numerals above aggregates to
indicate the number of pitches to be played in the upper and lower clefs
(with the rst number referring to the upper clef and the second to the
lower).2 Though Pritchetts exegesis suggests that the system is more exible
than Cage made it showing an example which would mean that any pitch
given could be played in either clef, regardless of the numerical indication
he is nevertheless quite right to conclude that Cage no longer made music
out of simple atoms or blocks, but now made his works out of little
mechanisms or mobile structures.3 However, as I will show, in the case
of Tudors performances at least, it would go too far to say that these
structures were to be xed only for a single performance (Pritchett
1993, 112).
Pritchett also exaggerates, if only a little, the indeterminacy implied by the
score. He claims that, in Winter Music, not only can dierent pages of the
score be combined in dierent ways, but within a page no order is imposed
on the chords (Pritchett 1993, 112). Arguably, Cages instructions in this
respect are not, as Holzaepfel notes, entirely helpful (Holzaepfel 2002b,
176) and, in any case, there is certainly some ambiguity which might explain
Pritchetts interpretation. Cage states that the twenty pages of Winter Music
may be used in whole or in part, which might well suggest, as Pritchett
proposes, that no internal order is demanded within the events of an
individual page. Moreover, the idea that overlappings, interpenetrations,
are also free is suggestive of Pritchetts conclusion. Yet Cages subsequent
statement that the notation, in space, 5 systems left to right on the page,
may be freely interpreted as to time might more accurately be taken to
imply that the particular timescale from left to right, which is to say
the value in seconds of an inch, as in Music of Changes, is not determined
by the composer, unlike the two-and-a-half centimeters equaling a quarter
2
The numbers themselves were determined by chance operations (Holzaepfel 2002b, 176).
3
Pritchett shows eight dierent possible versions of the second aggregate given on the rst page
of Winter Music. However, if Cages indications are taken literally, only four dierent cong-
urations are possible. This does not, though, undermine Pritchetts basic point regarding the
exibility of the notation. Nicholls repeats Pritchetts claim that the order in which the notations
is played can be freely determined by the performer (Nicholls 2007, 72).
note determinations of Cages earlier pieces. This indication seems to me

more likely to mean that what Cage expected was precisely that each system
be read according to a sort of time code, just as in those pieces, the dierence
being that the performer of the pieces would determine what the scale was
for themselves and that, moreover, the overlappings Cage described referred
only to the duration over which an individual aggregate might persist in
time.4 An incomplete realization of Winter Music also suggests that Tudor
tended to determine the total time of a particular realization before lling in
details: in this version each time a bar line is written, it denotes the passage
of a minute of performance time and, although bar lines are written through
to the nal duration of twenty minutes, the bars themselves are empty after
the eighth minute.5 This is suggestive of the idea, which would become yet
stronger in Cages later pieces, that a particular performance should last for
a time agreed upon in advance by the performers.
It is probably simplest, in terms of examining Tudors approach to
realizing Winter Music, to look at his approach to each of these parameters
independently, before considering how he brought pitch and duration
together.6 Tudors own copy of the score for Winter Music is entirely
without marking. As Tudor remarked to Holzaepfel, he liked his scores to
be clean as a whistle and it is plausible that this desire to avoid adding
markings to a printed score also drove some of the preparatory work
Tudor undertook (Holzaepfel 2002b, 176). Tudors initial approach to the
pitch content of the piece appears to have been to compile a simplied
index of the available materials. The rst aggregate of Tudors A sheet of
materials page 3 of the printed score was renotated twice. The rst of
these renotations showed all of the pitches as if they were given in the
upper treble clef; the second showed them as if they were all in the lower
bass clef. Tudor appended, too, the number given in the score which
determined how many notes should be taken from each reading. In the
rst place, this meant that Tudor had an easily readable version of the
possible parameters, but the added consequence was, as Holzaepfel
4
Nicholls, too, repeats Pritchetts claim that the order of notations on each page is free
(Nicholls 2007, 72). Even if Pritchett and Nicholls are correct that their interpretation of
Cages instructions is a valid one, this was not, as I show, the route which Tudor took.
5
There is another, complete realization of Winter Music amongst Tudors papers in the same
format.
6
Holzaepfels examination of Tudors approach to Winter Music is an extremely useful
complement to what is presented here (see Holzaepfel 2002b, 17685). It is worth noting,
incidentally, that the order of Tudors pages does not correspond to that in the printed
score. Evidently at the point at which Cage provided pages to Tudor for realization, he had
not yet determined the order in which they would nally appear. Thus, for instance, the
third page of the printed score is the one which Tudor has as his A score.
observes, that [t]his extra step allowed him to consider the pitch content
of both readings before selecting those ingredients, so to speak, which
would go into his realization (Holzaepfel 2002b, 178). It should be noted
that Tudor did not go to the fullest possible step of notating every single
possible realization for each aggregate: he created an index from which
selections and decisions could be made more easily. Nevertheless, Tudor
was already making aesthetic decisions or, perhaps more accurately,
framing aesthetic decisions in a way which went beyond what the score
itself might have seemed to imply.
Once Tudor had established his pitch index, he turned to rhythm or, at
any rate, to points of attack. Whether Cages instructions demand it or not,
Tudors basic approach was to treat each of the broken staves on a particular
page as if it were continuous and as if time progressed continuously from
left to right across the page. The fact that there are, notionally at least, ve
continuous staves on each page gives a further reason to think that this
essentially conventional approach to the passing of time on the page is
probably what was expected by Cage, at least at the point of writing the
score. In any case, Tudor took measurements of where precisely on the page
each aggregate appeared, with a distance from left to right of sixteen inches.
On some pages, such as Tudors A sheet, on which there were only two
aggregates, this was relatively straightforward: the rst appeared on the
notional second system, ve inches from the left; the second appeared on
the fourth system, 13.6 inches in. Other pages were rather more complex: on
Tudors B sheet, the rst system alone contained no fewer than fteen
aggregates. Tudors complete measurement list runs to a total of seven
sides of notepaper.
The approach that Tudor took to integrating pitch and duration also
recalls some of his work on Music for Piano. There he had created sheets of
card, each containing two systems, where Cages notations, regardless of
clef, were gathered together onto a single one of those systems. He had also,
on that occasion, drawn the sta lines in by hand. For Winter Music he
adopted a similar approach to the scale of the score he intended to read
from, but rather than make the performance materials from scratch and by
hand, he cut manuscript paper down to make smaller sheets, many of which
were bound together in small part books, marked with a letter, or letters,
referring to which page, or pages, of Tudors copy of the Winter Music score
were realized within. Tudor used letters because the sheets he received from
Cage were unnumbered. Though Cage would later give numbers to them,
there is little correlation between Cages numbers and Tudors letters. In
what follows, I use Tudors letter markings, but indicate to which page of the
printed score each refers.
Initially, Tudor appears to have used only the central two staves of the
four on each page, as in his realization of the J sheet of notations (page 11 of
the printed score), with regular clef changes to mark 8va and 8va basso.
Later, he would use all four, often, though not consistently, with the top line
marking an 8va treble clef, the next line down a standard treble clef, the line
below that a standard bass clef, and the bottom line an 8va basso bass clef. In
many of these notations, it is clear that Tudor copied the durations he had
made in inches literally into his realization copies: on the majority of pages
small pencil strokes appear beneath the upper system to indicate where the
next aggregate should be written. It appears to be at this stage, once points of
attack were determined, that Tudor began to decide which particular con-
guration of those available he would use. In a sense, it is here that Tudor
comes closest to achieving just the sort of immediacy for which Cage did
seem to be asking in Winter Music. A truly immediate response would,
presumably, have involved making decisions on the y. Tudor only went
so far as copying the possibilities into his index, rendering them still open,
merely easier to work from. He was doubtless making specic decisions
regarding the pitch content of particular aggregates at the point of entering
them into his manuscript part books.7 Nevertheless, Tudor must have been
strongly aware of precisely what the physical limitations of his own hands
were: the notes which would be struck normally are written in black ink,
while notes that Tudor would have to prepare in advance using the soste-
nuto pedal are indicated here in red. There is, in any case, little to suggest
that Tudor made intermediate transcriptions, then changing his mind
about the particular conguration he had selected for an individual aggre-
gate. As an example, the rst aggregate of Tudors H sheet page 8 of the
printed score contains a six-note aggregate, from which one note is to be
performed in the upper bass clef, and ve in the lower treble clef. Tudor rst
renotated all of the information in the upper clef, for convenience using an
8va basso bass clef, and marked a 1 beneath it to indicate that a single pitch
should be selected from here. Then he carried out the same procedure with
7
One might imagine, then, that Tudor made such decisions at the piano, taking into
consideration the dictates of where his hand might choose to fall. However, as Holzaepfel
has noted, in performance at least, Tudor seems only once to have been guided by the
patterns implied by his hands in the premiere of Feldmans Intersection 2 on January 1,
1952 and to have been dissatised with the results. His work on the next piece delivered to
him by Feldman, Intersection 3, resulted in the rst realization of an indeterminate score
undertaken in concrete form by Tudor. One might speculate that at least one possibility for
Tudors dissatisfaction could have been that his hands naturally fell into familiar patterns,
which prevented anything unexpected happening, from his perspective (see Holzaepfel
2002a, 16163).
Example 4.1 Example of Tudors decision-making process in Winter Music
the lower clef, this time marking a 5 beneath (Example 4.1). When he came
to notate the aggregate into his H part book, he selected the A from the
rst, upper-clef notation, thus removing the F from the second, lower-clef
notation.
Tudor also made a further decision with regard to overlapping. For all
that he worked rigorously to ensure that the order of Cages aggregates on
the page was retained, as well as the proportional distance between them,
Tudor appears to have felt that if the possibility of multiple pianists per-
forming dierent realizations simultaneously was allowed by Cages
instructions, then by extension the same rubric also allowed for a single
pianist to act as if he were taking the part of multiple pianists. Thus, he
overlaid several realizations on top of one another. Tudors A, L, O, R, and T
pages were combined into a single reading, as were the D, M, N, and S pages,
the E, F, and I pages, and the J and Q pages.8 Notably, these were the sparsest
of Cages original notations. Though what Tudor undertook was, to be sure,
licit within the instructions given, his actions served to normalize those
relatively sparse moments, such that the general level of pianistic activity in
any of Tudors performances would tend to be relatively similar, regardless
of which part of his realizations he was performing from.
Of these, the combined E, F, and I and the J and Q realizations were
transcribed in a slightly dierent format and may well date from a slightly
later period. They are written within a German music notebook containing
guide lines. Though those lines were doubtless intended to help music
students with lining note heads up appropriately, Tudor used them as a
simple proportional guide, such that he no longer had to make ruler
measurements as in the earlier realizations. As Holzaepfel speculates, this
may well have helped in performance, since those same divisions could be
8
He also appears to have considered at one point, but then rejected, combining pages D, J, M,
and Q. These relate to pages 1 (O), 2 (A), 5 (D), 6 (F), 7 (E), 9 (I), 11 (J), 13 (L), 14 (N), 15
(M), 16 (Q), 18 (T), 19 (R), and 20 (S) of Cages published score.
used to indicate the passage of clock time, with each division representing,
perhaps, a second (Holzaepfel 2002b, 183). This would certainly explain
why it might have been that Tudor used only thirty of the thirty-two
divisions available on each page: though those thirty-two divisions would
have tallied neatly with the sixteen inches Tudor had measured in Cages
score, it would surely have been more straightforward to have each page
represent thirty seconds of music.
Some of these combined realizations also exist in individual versions.
There is, for instance, a single version of the J page as well as its combined
version with the Q page. It appears that, as much as possible, when pages
became combined, Tudor did not create new readings of the earlier single-
page realizations. In this case, his earlier reading of the single J page was
transcribed faithfully into the composite reading, directly overlaid on top of
his earlier reading of the Q page. The only adaptations that appear to have
been made seem to come at points where the earlier readings overlap to such
an extent that ngering would be impossible, where octave transpositions
are occasionally employed. Though this may seem a relatively trivial alter-
ation, given the force of the instruction implied by Cages cleng system, it
does represent a signicant aesthetic decision, making pitch class central in
Tudors thinking in a way in which it certainly is not in Cages notation.
Nevertheless, Tudor clearly endeavored to reproduce his own original
reading as closely as possible in those where sheets are combined.
Once in this combined state, Tudors performance materials exhibited
almost precisely the same structural characteristics as Cages own scores for
Music for Piano had: the individual part books of Winter Music could be
performed from in any order, but the notation for an individual sheet, or
group of sheets, was now xed. In this sense, one might argue that Tudor
had retrospectively recreated versions of that earlier sequence of pieces. Yet
it was obviously fundamental to the nished product that it was Tudor, and
not Cage, who had undertaken the work. Equally, it was signicant that,
though Tudor had prepared xed realizations, the determinations he came
to were only single versions of very many conceivable realizations.
To claim that Tudor used only this set of versions of Winter Music would
be, however, slightly disingenuous. It seems to be the case that Tudor
created just this more-or-less exible version, using his part books for
realization, when Winter Music was played as a piece for piano alone, or
for multiple pianos. However, Winter Music also had a separate life, parti-
cularly in the context of the CageTudor performing duo, as the score for
Cunninghams dance Aeon, a guise it did not take on until 1961, premiering
at the Montreal Festival on August 5. For this version, Tudor prepared a
second version of the pages given the letters, in his copy, A, M, N, O, Q, S,
and T.9 Since this version was performed only after 1961, it is also worth
noting that, by that stage, Tudor was performing on a piano augmented by
contact microphones and electronics a matter to which I return below in
my discussions of Variations II and Five Stone Wind such that what he
physically played on the piano could be rather distant from the sonic
output.10 Nevertheless, a comparison between his earlier realizations of
Winter Music and this later one is instructive.
Though Cunninghams choreography typically was of a strictly prede-
termined length, Silverman opines that Aeon was made so that it too could
incorporate more or fewer events presented in any order (Silverman 2010,
180). By contrast, however, Carolyn Browns recollections contradict such a
suggestion. Though she states that in the beginning we rehearsed them [the
thirty-ve discrete sections of Aeon] in no particular order, her opinion
was that this happened only while Cunningham made decisions about the
ways in which the various sections could be linked to one another and that,
moreover, she did not believe that chance played any role in this proce-
dure. Finally, according to Browns testimony, Cunningham decided on a
xed order with three possible versions, a long, short, and touring version.
In the short version a single section was excised; in the touring version
several sections were cut and three fewer dancers were required (Brown
2007, 325). Cunninghams program note for Aeon doubtless reinforced
impressions like Silvermans: This is a dance of actions, a celebration of
unxity, in which the seasons pass, atmospheres dissolve, people come
together and part.
In creating his materials for this version, Tudor appears rst to have
returned to his original pitch index of the possible cleng combinations for
each aggregate or potentially to have worked directly from the score of
Winter Music for the Aeon version since there are numerous chordal
formations which do not appear anywhere in the earlier part book realiza-
tions. Second, Tudor returned to the use of only two staves, as had been his
earliest practice in the case of Winter Music, with ottava markings wherever
9
These relate to pages 1 (O), 2 (A), 14 (N), 15 (M), 16 (Q), 18 (T), and 20 (S) of Cages
published score.
10
It is also important to note in this context that what the audience actually heard in such
performances, especially ones where Tudors performance of Winter Music was combined
with an ensemble performance of Atlas Eclipticalis (196162), was sometimes regarded as
having become unbearable noise as a result of the amplication (Piekut 2011, 29). This
version was also used in later performances with Cage, as in that at the Cornish School in
Seattle in September 1962 (Silverman 2010, 181). Certainly, in Tudors later career, his own
use of electronics became much more sophisticated than seems to have been the case in
these early performances.
necessary. Third, and probably most importantly, Tudor abandoned the

strict relationship of time and space within his realization. In the earlier part
books each page would last a specic duration, with the chords propor-
tionally arranged in the manner of the Music for Piano series. Here, by
contrast, the information was condensed. Red double bar lines indicated a
division of a minute, with red single bar lines indicating the passage of
fteen seconds. Each of these realizations had a total duration of ve
minutes, making it even more straightforward than would have been the
case with the part books for Tudor to select an appropriate set for
Cunninghams dance.11 Simple though this may have been, however, the
fresh notation also perforce removes the precise points within any fteen-
second duration at which an aggregate ought to sound. Moreover, that
Tudor had taken fresh readings of the aggregates suggests that his memory
of the points of occurrence on a particular page in his part book readings
would have had little impact here. Though those part book realizations
suggest a relatively strict temporal relationship between the proportional
relationship of aggregates on the pages of Cages score, here Tudor must
surely have made some decisions in the moment of performance, even if the
order in which aggregates were performed remained xed.
Solo for Piano from the Concert for Piano and Orchestra
(195758)
One could, without too much diculty, devote an entire volume to the work
David Tudor undertook on creating his two realizations of the piano part
of Cages Concert for Piano and Orchestra, the Solo for Piano. Indeed,
a substantial part of John Holzaepfels doctoral dissertation as well as a
later extended book chapter from the same pen together provide some
important starting points for any consideration of Tudors activity here
(Holzaepfel 1994, 197312; 2001). The Solo for Piano contains a vast
11
A further sheet in the David Tudor Papers shows a number of realizations of precisely this
type amalgamated onto a single mimeographed sheet. This sheet is missing some pieces of
information, in that the rst minute of each system is absent. However, two things are
notable. First, though it is of the same format as the later Aeon realizations, it is not the
same as any of them: it appears to comprise realizations of three other pages of Cages
score. Second, one might wonder whether, in performance, the ideal situation from
Tudors perspective would have been to have just such a copy in front of him, such that
three or more of his extant realizations were mimeographed onto a single sheet from which
he could perform. As well as the obvious problem with ensuring that all the information
would t on a single page, the mimeographed copy is also in black-and-white and has,
thus, lost the use of dierent-colored ink, here blue, used by Tudor to indicate notes which
should be prepared via the sostenuto pedal.
compendium of techniques, or tools as Pritchett terms them (Pritchett

1993, 126). Elements of almost every piece Cage had already written for
David Tudor appear amongst the materials of the piece, as well as numerous
new ones, which would feature in Cages music for the next few years,
particularly in Variations I, Fontana Mix, and Music Walk. As Holzaepfel
summarizes the piece, it is an encyclopedic summary of his compositional
development as well as a forerunner of its immediate future (Holzaepfel
2001, 13738). The compendium aspect of the Solo for Piano was indeed
built into the piece seemingly from the outset. According to Pritchett, for
each notation to be used in the score, the rst decision made by Cage
according to I Ching determinations was whether the notation would be
one which already existed in his music to date, a variation on such a
notation, or an entirely new notational device (Pritchett 1993, 113; see
also Campana 2001, 12729). The process was, too, apparently iterative,
which is to say that each new notational device which was used would then
become, in turn, one which already existed, such that new notations could
also be repeated and varied within the score. Each notation in the Solo for
Piano has an alphabetic code attached to it, using one or two letters, which
mark out eighty-four dierent types of notation. Cages key for interpreting
the various notations precedes the score and is, as ever, as obfuscatory as it is
helpful: the descriptions are, as Holzaepfel puts it, little more than clues
(Holzaepfel 2001, 138). Indeed, the same confusion regarding the potential
orderings of material as arises in the case of Winter Music obtains again
here. Cages instructions state that a program made within a determined
length of time (to be altered by a conductor, when there is one) may involve
any reading, i.e. any sequence of parts or parts thereof. This suggests that
one need not, for instance, on the rst page of the score use all of the
materials (one marked A, one B, and two forms of the C notation) and
might select only the rst C notation. Yet to interpret this too strongly
would ignore Cages earlier instruction, that each page is one system. On
the evidence of Winter Music, Campana would be right to conclude that
here [t]ime is represented by the horizontal dimension of the score, read
from left to right (Campana 2001, 127), even if one might choose not to
play all of the events shown in any one system and even if the temporal scale
determined by the performer can have a form of ratio applied to it by the
conductor: a conductors right arm takes the function of the second hand
of a clock, incorporating varied motions, while the left hand indicates the
proportion of the entire work that has passed (Campana 2001, 12728).
Thus, though the conductor mimics the passing of time as indicated by a
clock, the conductors time need not move at the same actual speed as clock
time. Yet, in practice, Tudor does not appear here to have utilized exactly
this sort of ratio between the proportions of the page and the musical results,
although arguably his second realization exhibits an almost perverse read-
ing of the idea that the duration of a performance of the Solo for Piano is
represented by the left-to-right proportions of its notations (and certainly,
as I show below, it entirely disregards the idea of each page representing a
single system).
One of the things which is most remarkable about Tudors realizations of
the Solo for Piano is the comparative lack of preparatory work undertaken.
At rst blush, this may seem a ridiculous statement, given that Tudors
materials for his work on the piece run to something in the region of six
hundred individual sheets. Yet the volume has, in this case, more to do with
the sheer number of notations in Cages score which required work than the
scale of the work on any particular notation; the distance between Tudor
beginning the process of realizing each notation and the nal form of the
realization is signicantly shorter than it was in either, for instance, the work
on Winter Music that immediately preceded it, or that on Variations I,
undertaken probably more or less contemporaneously. This is not to say
that Tudor took a more lackadaisical attitude to the Solo for Piano than he
had to other pieces, nor does it diminish the accuracy of Holzaepfels
statement that the Solo for Piano stands out in aording a comprehensive
view of Tudors methods in preparing his performances of Cages scores
(Holzaepfel 2001, 137). What it may suggest, though, is that following his
work on, especially, the Music of Changes and Winter Music, extensive and
focused in both cases, Tudor had developed a facility for decision making in
respect of Cages notations and a willingness to make such determinations
rapidly. Having worked with Cage over a period of about seven years by this
point, Tudor had also doubtless gained a certain condence in the appro-
priateness of his solutions. For all that Cage suggested that to do this even
if you are David Tudor you have to prepare it carefully over a long period
of time (Cage and Retallack 1996 [1992], 297), it seems probable that the
amount of time Tudor had to devote to the realization was less than he had
often previously had, although his performance commitments were, if any-
thing, fewer in the rst quarter of 1958 than they had been in the last quarter
of 1957 or, for that matter, than they would be in the rest of 1958.
Tudor made two distinct realizations of the Solo for Piano. The life of the
rst began from the time of its 1958 premiere; it was also used for the
European premiere which took place later the same year in Cologne.
Despite the centrality of both these performances to Cages output as a
whole, Tudors second realization rapidly supplanted the rst, being used
from 1959 onwards, probably most famously in the Folkways recording
Indeterminacy, where parts of the Solo for Piano, along with elements from
Fontana Mix, were interwoven with Cages text. In the rst version, Tudor
endeavored to make use of as many of the notations in Cages score as
possible or, more accurately, he made use of all the forms of notation which
were distinctive, eliminating those which were either repetitions or varia-
tions of others. Of the total of eighty-four notations in Cages score, Tudor
thus reduced the gamut of materials to sixty-three dierent types. This
decision is, in and of itself, notable. It suggests that on one level at least,
Tudor did not wish to apply an identical solution more than once. This
tallies neatly with the notion Cage often expressed that Tudors role in
indeterminacy was principally as a solver of puzzles; apparently once Tudor
knew the way in which a particular puzzle could be solved, it lost a large part
of its interest.12 Equally, Holzaepfel may be right in his suggestion that, if
Cage and Tudor had agreed a duration for the complete performance in
advance, the decision may have been related to Tudors foreknowledge that
not all the notations would be required to complete a realization (Holzaepfel
1994, 212). Whatever the underlying reasons, the particular decision Tudor
made to eliminate repetitions is notable.
The range of notations in the Solo for Piano means that it is only possible
to give a avor of the types of realization Tudor undertook in working on it.
In Tudors approaches to the individual notations of Cages score, familiar
notations elicited familiar responses. Yet the condence noted above is
evident. In renotating Cages notation B on page 9 of the score, which is
essentially a reiteration of the notation of Winter Music, Tudor dispensed
with any sort of pitch index: he appears to have made a decision regarding
which of the indicated pitches would be read in which clef directly at the
point of transcription, with no intermediate stage. For many other nota-
tions, Tudor literally copied what Cage had written into his own realization
copy. Sometimes this also involved a form of simplication. For instance,
the I notation on page 29 of the score shows a number of note heads,
characterized by patterns of increasing and decreasing density, all on the
middle line of the bass sta and marked with an M for muted (Fig. 4.1).
This is transcribed faithfully into Tudors realization.
Cages instructions would have allowed each note head to denote a single
pitch, an interval, or a three-note chord, but there seems to be little sense in
Tudors transcription that he intended to perform anything more than the
12
It will be notable in what follows below that what is probably Tudors most radical solution,
that of Variations II, came as a result of a notation which was, in many respects, a repeat of
an earlier notation, that of Variations I. The latter piece essentially provides a more mobile,
exible version of the earlier ones notation. This suggests yet further that Tudor generally
tried to avoid repeating solutions.
Fig. 4.1 Tudors reading of Cages I notation from page 29 of the Solo for Piano. The
lower notation here shows Tudors combined reading of notations AA, AR, and AS
across pages 29 to 31 of Cages score.
repeated muted D that the most simple reading of the notation would
suggest. Tudors version of the O notation from page 27, too, removes
much of the potential sophistication Cages instructions allow. Notation O
comprises twenty-four pitches, left to right, above the treble sta, with the
pitch content rotating around a central A. Intersecting each of the pitches,
though, is a meandering vertical line. Cages instructions imply that these
lines might be used to generate chords, lines, arpeggiations. However, in
Tudors reading of the notation, only the core pitches are retained, using the
same proportions of the original notation to show time, making a note to
use the una corda pedal in the middle section of the notation, as was also
indicated in Cages original. It is worth noting, however, that Tudor made a
second version of the O notation, following its reappearance on page 58.
Tudors second version does introduce arpeggiation, notated either with an
upward arrow at the top of a particular chordal formation, or a downward
arrow beneath. Again, this suggests that, even when notations reoccurred,
Tudor forced himself to adopt a dierent solution.
Elsewhere Tudor simplied Cages notations, as in the case of the BO
notation which crosses pages 52 and 53 (Fig. 4.2). In Cages notation a
variant of the Music for Piano technique pitches are distributed across the
Fig. 4.2 Tudors reading of Cages BO notation from pages 5253 of the Solo for
Piano
two staves of the piano. Some are genuinely isolated, to be performed

staccato; others, in groups of three, are linked with straight lines, generating
triangles, which denote that they should be played legato. The triangles
naturally mean that each note as a part of a triangle is linked to two others;
the image is visually attractive, to be sure, but arguably at least one of the
lines is always redundant from the performers perspective. This detail is
removed in Tudors transcription of this notation: the proportional rela-
tionships between notes are retained, used to denote the passage of time as
in Tudors earlier realizations and Cages earlier scores, but the lines to
indicate a legato passage are simply drawn from one note head to the next,
in linear fashion. This eliminates the extraneous detail from Tudors
perspective in Cages notation, while still retaining a clear division
between notes which are to be performed legato and those which should
be staccato: the latter still sit as isolated pitches, with no lines joining them to
any other pitch.13
Other notations required more inventive solutions. Notation T, on page
12 of Cages score, comprises 10 shapes superimposed upon the two piano
13
This of course xes the ambiguity which would have resulted from the use of phrase
markings.
Fig. 4.3 Tudors reading of Cages T notation from page 12 of the Solo for Piano
staves (Fig. 4.3), the shapes themselves reminiscent of Cages later notation
for Cartridge Music. Each of the shapes includes a notated pitch and a
numerical indication of dynamic from 1 to 64 (where 1 can denote either the
loudest or the quietest determination). Cages instructions suggest that each
of these shapes denotes a mobile cluster, with the indicated pitch marking
the central point of the cluster and time being proportionally determined
from left to right. None of the central pitches appear in Tudors tran-
scription of this notation. Instead, he appears to have turned the outer
points of the shapes into pitches: the uppermost point of the rst shape,
for instance, appears just above the bass sta in Cages notation, thus
becoming a C at the top of the bass sta in Tudors reading. Tudor drew
thick lines between the points, presumably to indicate that he was showing
the pitch space within which clusters were to be performed, and translated
Cages dynamic scale of 1 to 64 into his own scale which ran from 1 to 10.5,
with lower numbers indicating quieter dynamic levels. This was, then, a
relatively accurate interpretation of what Cages instructions might suggest.
Yet the shapes of Cages notation were intertwined with one another, such
that, for instance, the beginning of the third shape of Cages notation began
almost simultaneously with the fourth and dovetailed with the rst and
second shapes. In Tudors reading of the notation, though the transcription
of the shapes themselves is broadly faithful, there is marginal overlap

between the rst and second shapes, and a large gap between the second
and third (which is, in turn, estranged from the fourth). The reason for this,
doubtless, is that it would have been physically impossible to perform the
clusters in the mobile way which Cage asked for without disaggregating
them. Yet that Tudor prioritized this necessarily meant that he could not
fulll other aspects of the notation. Tudor also added other idiomatic ways
of realizing the shapes Cage drew, such that the slimmest sections of them
became appoggiature when they were very short, or glissandi when longer.
Shapes dominated other notations, such as the K notation on page 8,
which comprises nine geometric gures laid on top of two oversized piano
staves. In the corners of each of the shapes is written the nearest pitch. Here
Tudor appears largely to have disregarded Cages instructions. Cage asked
the performer to disregard time. Play only odd or even number of tones in
a performance, using others of a given 3, 4, 5 or 6 sided gure as graces or
punctuations. Each of the pitches in a given gure was notated by Tudor as
a single chord, such that there were certainly no grace notes. This is certainly
licit within the letter of Cages instructions, but seems willfully to go against
their spirit. Not only that, but Tudor did not really disregard time: he
appears to have used one of the pitches indicated within a particular gure
as a reference point for where the chord which related to it would appear
from left to right in his realization. Since his reading of notation K appears
to be in timespace notation, Tudor thus specically determined time from
Cages notation.
In short, wherever possible, Tudor adopted a direct, simple solution,
retaining Cages original notations as literally as possible, wherever possible
(and, indeed, his readings of Cages notations make clear that the original
score is certainly not as forbidding as it may at rst appear). Perhaps this is
further evidence that there was some pressure of time in completing his rst
realization. Yet it should not be thought that Tudor was dissatised with his
work here, since these rst readings of Cages notations lay at the heart of his
second realization too. Even though he would use the notations in a dier-
ent way later on, the actual determinations he made of each notation
persisted.14
Tudors plan for the premiere of the Solo for Piano, in the performance of
the Concert for Piano at the Town Hall retrospective on May 25, 1958, gives
some indication of how the events of a performance became structured.
Intriguingly, as Holzaepfel notes, Tudor evidently began his decisions
14
Descriptions of further readings made by Tudor of Cages notations may be found in
Holzaepfel 1994, 244304.
regarding structure by starting at the end of the score (Holzaepfel 1994,

212). The sketch for the performance plan itself, which contains all the
elements which would be used in both the premiere performance and the
nal rehearsal, begins with page 61 of the score a page containing no
events and thus denoting silence or, at any rate, no activity running
backwards through the score as far as page 4. The reading is far from
complete. Only a comparatively few events are selected from each page,
and not every page is used. Necessarily events are regularly rejected, though
this appears to be partly systematic: Tudor clearly tried to avoid repeating
notations. Apart from the two BX notations which occur almost simulta-
neously (and were, in fact, elided into a single reading by Tudor), there is
only one repetition of forms of notation: notation H was taken from both
page 4 and page 36 of the score.
Tudor also noted the duration which each notation would have. Despite
Campanas suggestion a likely solution in the light of Tudors practice
until this point the relationship between the lengths Tudor sketched and
the physical proportions of notations in Cages score is a weak one. Some of
Tudors notes appear to suggest that the proportions of the score were
important: for notations A and BA, which measure roughly half-an-inch
from left to right in the score, Tudor indicated a duration of 5 seconds.
There is not, though, any sense that an inch might be expected regularly to
equate to a 10-second duration: notation CE, which measures six inches
from left to right, is allocated a total duration of 30 seconds, while notation
CC four-and-a-quarter inches in width is allocated a duration of 1
minute. Notation AY, a quarter of an inch wider than notation CC, is given
a duration 45 seconds shorter than CC. For some of the notations, Tudor
appears to have given options for possible durations: the U notation could,
for instance, have lasted either 45 or 50 seconds.
In doing this, he also kept a running count of the durations he had used,
such that he knew what sort of total duration he would be likely to have.
This does not necessarily imply that Tudor had already decided on how he
would realize the individual notations. Certainly, it would have been helpful
in deciding how long it was possible for the realization of a particular
notation to last if he had rst carried out some determinations of the
individual notations (and this would account too for the degree to which
the relationship between the durations indicated in the sketch and the
proportions of notations in the score diered). Similarly, though, had
Tudor begun with the sketch plan, this would have made it possible for
Tudors work on the notations themselves to be reasonably economical,
avoiding generating too much or too little material. It may also have been
possible that Tudor worked on both at the same time, allowing the
requirements and implications of smaller-scale determinations of individ-

ual notations to inform the formal planning, and vice versa.
The sketch plan provides materials which would have lasted for 25
minutes and 45 seconds, including 7 minutes and 15 seconds of silence.
From it, Tudor created two further versions for the Town Hall premiere,
one for the rehearsal and one for the performance, both of which had an
indicated total duration of 23 minutes and 15 seconds. To achieve this
reduction in total duration, Tudor of course had to eliminate materials
from his sketch version. For the most part, these were longer elements, the
removal of which made it possible to reach the aimed-for duration more
quickly and easily, as well as preserving a greater total number of notations
used. For instance, the O notation (given a potential duration of either
1 minute or 1 minute and 20 seconds in the sketch) does not appear in the
performance plan, although it is in fact retained in the plan for the rehearsal.
Tudor also added material which was not in his sketch: both the rehearsal
and performance versions ended with a reading of Cages CF notation, for
instance. What is probably more notable about the duration Tudor came to
is that this is precisely the length for which he played. Indeed, according to
the evidence of the recording, Tudors performance at the Town Hall
retrospective maps directly onto his plan to such an extent that it seems
implausible to think that he was not performing with a stopwatch, reading
directly from the time determinations made in his plan. This would mean
that whatever Cunninghams actions may have been as the living clock
conductor, Tudor paid no heed to them.15 The rst three-and-a-half
minutes of Tudors plan for the premiere of the Solo for Piano looks as
follows, where S always stands for silence, and the gures on the right
denote the end points of the indicated events:
PERFORMANCE
5/15/58
4H .20
S .30
5J 1.15
15
Holzaepfel suggests that Tudors realization exhibited a level of variability because of
Cunninghams conducting. As suggested above, I am unconvinced by this; I suspect the
confusion may arise from a dierence in reading what is meant by Tudors plan. Though
Holzaepfel is right that the Town Hall performance is marginally longer than Tudors 23
minutes and 15 seconds duration, Tudor ceases playing at just this moment. Rather than
denoting points at which events begin, as perhaps Holzaepfel does, I believe that Tudors
notations indicate when the performance of a particular notation ends. With this adapta-
tion, Tudors performance plan and his actual performance map onto one another neatly
(see Holzaepfel 1994, 21617).
S 1.25
8K 1.40
910P 2.30
1012G 2.40
S 3.30
In essence, these performance plans replicate the structural indetermin-
acies of the Music for Piano series and Winter Music, but at a slightly
magnied level (and, indeed, the similarity between these performance
plans and some of those for Music for Piano is marked). Rather than
complete sets of events being shued, what Tudor reordered between the
plan for the rehearsal and the plan for the performance were his small-scale
readings of Cages notations. This said, although Tudor certainly could have
achieved quite a radical reordering of elements, for the premiere at least, the
maneuvers undertaken are quite conservative. Where Tudors original
sketch was clearly created reading from the end of the score, moving
through the pages sequentially toward the front, for the rehearsal and
performance at the Town Hall retrospective, this procedure was simply
reversed. In both, as shown above, the rst notation Tudor performed was
the H notation from page 4; then the pages were used in ascending order
until he reached the CF notation on page 62. The subsequent performances
at the Village Vanguard on May 25, 1958 when two versions were given,
the rst without and the second with voice were similarly conventional.
Here Tudors rst version utilized notations running forward through the
score; his second reversed the process. These performances were, as
Holzaepfel has it, abbreviated forms of the plans for the Town Hall
concert, which continued to draw only on those materials indicated in
Tudors original sketch plan, Tudor selecting a sucient number of materi-
als for a total duration just shy of ve minutes for each Village Vanguard
version. Later performance plans took advantage of more radical possibil-
ities. The version for the European premiere in Cologne appears genuinely
to begin to shue the notations: it begins with notation H from page 36,
which is followed by notation CE from across pages 59 and 60, then, after a
period of silence, notation AC from page 31. There appears to be no sense
that any system determined the order in which the notations were used,
beyond the fact that Tudor aimed at a total duration of 13 minutes.16
16
Tudors notes also include a performance plan for the International Society for
Contemporary Music performance at the Mozartsaal in Vienna on November 15, 1959,
where the instrumental parts were performed by Die Reihe ensemble under the direction
of Kurt Schwertsik. Though the Concert for Piano and Orchestra was performed twice at
the concert as at the Village Vanguard once with and once without voice Tudors notes
Tudors plans for his second realization appear to have proceeded from
quite dierent beginnings. Holzaepfel has provided a comprehensive anal-
ysis of how events in Tudors second realization were structured, a realiza-
tion which, when combined with the ninety, minute-long stories Cage
gathered together under the title Indeterminacy, from Holzaepfels per-
spective represents the rst great culmination of the Tudor-Cage collabo-
ration (Holzaepfel 2001, 140). Tudors realization and Cages ninety stories
were combined in the recording Indeterminacy, the ninety-minute duration
of which meant that the original plans Tudor had made were entirely
inadequate. Even using all the materials from his initial sketch, a duration
greater than half-an-hour was not truly conceivable.
Perhaps specically because the use of everything Tudor had prepared for
the rst realization would still not have generated the necessary duration, he
was either freed or forced to take a more radical step than might have been
expected: rather than increasing the number of materials available to him,
he eliminated even more of the notations of the score. Tudor reduced the
notations he used according to a simple criterion: the second realization
would contain only those notations containing single icti, as Tudor would
put it in his own program notes for the piece. What Tudor meant by single
icti was notations which contained discrete, independent attacks, rather
than ones which implied forms of phrasing, or simply relationships,
between notes or attacks. This also stresses, of course, the relationship the
Solo for Piano itself had to Winter Music, where Cages instructions very
clearly demand that the aggregates must be played as a single ictus.
Tudors decision may have been related to his knowledge that the Solo for
Piano was to be the music which would intersect with Cages lecture
Indeterminacy, thus meaning that the text Cage read ought not to be
drowned by his performance. Even if this was the impetus, Tudor must
certainly have been satised with the results, since he continued to use this
version from this point onwards.17
Tudor took two independent sets of readings. He created two booklets,
with 90 pages each one for each minute of his performance and inserted
the readings into these booklets. The rst page of booklet one reads:
only include one performance plan, suggesting he may have used the same plan for both
performances. The singer in the second performance was Edith Urbanczyk.
17
Nevertheless, Tudor did make a revision to the second realization, which recalls Winter
Music more than any of Tudors other notations, since it consistently makes use of just the
broken staves which Tudor had himself eliminated from Cages notation in his realization
of the earlier piece. Moreover, such a maneuver emphasizes the idea that what Tudor was
looking for in preparing realizations was fresh puzzles, not that the purpose of using only
distinct notations was to add variety. Whatever its aesthetic basis, this decision reduced the
number of usable notations to fty-three.
060
[.0 BV1 (53)]
24.3 T1 (41)
27.65 I1 (46)
42.65 B1 (34)
while the rst page of the second booklet reads:
060
40.5 B1 (9)
47.66 ACAE1 (21)
With the two booklets created, Tudor merged the readings on ve closely
typed sheets, which contained a mapping of events for the whole ninety-
minute realization. The rst minute of the sheet, therefore, appeared as
follows:
0
(.0 BV-1 53)
24.3 T-1 41
27.65 I-1 46
40.5 B-1 9
42.65 B-1 34
47.66 AC, AE-1 21
The numbers on the far right, of course, denote the page from which each
notation is taken, while the numbers on the far left show the attack point, in
seconds, of each ictus. The numbers following the notation letters are rather
more complex to explain. In the rst minute, this matter seems simple
enough: these are the rst occurrences of particular notations. Yet within
the second minute of Tudors typed plan, two readings of notation BB occur,
given as BB-8 and BB-11, even though they are the rst readings of that
notation in the plan. The explanation of what is meant is linked directly to
the explanation of why particular notations have the attack points they do,
which is far from obvious in examining the score. Indeed, it is hardly more
obvious from Tudors materials, and my own work here has beneted
immeasurably from Holzaepfels lead: the solution is itself extremely com-
plicated and is one which perhaps only Tudor would have been likely to
have invented.18 Given the arcane procedure Tudor undertook, Nicholls

probably understates the issue (even though he stresses that it is the most
signicant factor) when he states that perhaps most importantly came the
decisions as to which notations should actually be performed, and in what
order: Cage allowed Tudor (and later performers) complete freedom of
choice in this fundamental aspect of the works character, one consequence
of which is the potential for widely diering durations for separate rendi-
tions of the piece (Nicholls 2007, 70).
As so often with Tudor, the volume of work is belied by comparatively
simple results. There are certainly distinctions between the nal form of the
realization of the Solo for Piano and that of, say, Winter Music. There, Tudor
tended to increase the level of density as, for example, where he elided his A,
L, O, R, and T sheets into a single reading. Here, as noted above, Tudor had
pruned the material down. Of the six notations for which he had readings
for the rst page of his second realization, only two survived into the
performance copy: the reading of B-1 at 40.5 seconds, and the combined
reading of AC and AE at 47.66 seconds. These were, themselves, signi-
cantly shorter than one might expect. Although the original notation, on
page 9 of Cages score, on which Tudor drew for his reading of notation B
contains more than twenty chords, only the rst of these chords appears at
this point in Tudors reading, in line with the general principle of using only
a single ictus. As I show below, the subsequent chords from the B notation
did appear in Tudors realization, but not together.
The combined reading of AC and AE similarly makes use only of the rst
ictus of the AC notation, which is in any case the rst of the two to appear in
the score. The AC notation demands noises, either created using the inside
or the outside of the construction of the piano or using some auxiliary piece
of equipment. Notation AC is written on a four-line sta, with the spaces
between the lines indicating a degree of amplitude, from quietest at the
bottom of a space to loudest at the top. The rst event of the AC notation on
page 21 of the score asks for a relatively quiet noise using the interior of the
piano: Tudors notation at this point reads H.R.B. on plastic, which is to
say a hard rubber beater on a piece of plastic positioned within the body of
the instrument.
The decision to use a single attack at a time from each graph used must
have been made at the same moment at which Tudor established how attack
points would be generated. Tudors method for devising attack points was as
follows: he took a measurement of the complete length of one of Cages
18
Though my solution would not have been conceivable without Holzaepfels example, it is not
identical to his version, and the two may be fruitfully compared (Holzaepfel 1994, 23740).
notations (A) as well as the position within that graph of each ictus (p).19
The proportional relationship between an ictus within a graph mirrored
exactly its position within the 5,400 seconds of the whole piece, such that its
attack point (ap) was determined thus:
p ap

A 5400
In eect, then, Tudor made each and every notation which he used notion-
ally last the whole duration of the realization, with icti occurring propor-
tionally through the whole. Thus, though the rst ictus from the B notation
mentioned above occurs 40.5 seconds into the piece, the second does not
appear until 175.5 seconds, with the third then following at 337.5 seconds,
and so forth. This accounts in the typed plan, then, for the numbers
following each notation. The rst seven attack points from the B notation
on page 9, for instance, appear within the score as follows:
40:5 175:5 337:5

0:0075 0:0325 0:0625
5400 5400 5400
540 810 877:5 1080

0:1 0:15 0:1625 0:2
5400 5400 5400 5400
These proportions are clearly mirrored in the notation within the score where,
for instance, the close proximity between the fth and sixth icti is obvious.
The process which Tudor used for generating attack points explains why
he needed to have his preparatory 90-page booklets (though it does not
explain why he had two of them, which were then later merged; there seems
to be no obvious reason within Tudors materials why this decision was
necessary). Knowing which of the notations were capable of being realized
as single icti, he presumably was able to begin at the start of the score, taking
his readings sequentially, but then writing them into the booklets according
to the appropriate attack point, at the appropriate minute. Moreover it
meant that in the case of the B notation described above, he could simply
transcribe the attack points of one notation into dierent pages at a single
sitting. More accurately, for the most part, Tudor used the materials he had
generated for his rst reading: the chordal formations used for the B
notation of page 9, for instance, are unchanged in his second realization;
19
It is worth noting that Tudors approach to measuring the complete area of a particular
notation was sometimes idiosyncratic. Though this would often be achieved by a simple
measurement from the left to the right of a notation, Holzaepfel is right to say that Tudor
measured the area of length of each graph, using whatever means of measurement he found
appropriate to a graphs individual form (Holzaepfel 1994, 23940; my italics).
they are simply now dispersed throughout the realization as a whole rather
than kept together.
Once this superimposition of notations had taken place which is to say
once Tudor had generated the typed sheets which showed what the com-
plete dispersal of the complete gamut of materials would look like across
time he began the process of transcribing this into his realization copy. At
rst, Tudor used small sheets of manuscript paper, as he had done for
Winter Music and for his rst realization of the Solo for Piano. Ultimately,
he created a fresh codex of ninety small sheets, onto which he transcribed
his reading. These sheets were themselves hole-punched, and were bound
together with small metal rings. The pieces of paper Tudor used were blank;
he drew ve-line staves onto them with a rastrum only where necessary, as
noted above recalling the notation of Winter Music. Though in the record-
ing of Indeterminacy Tudor used all of the sheets, the use of individual
sheets in this way meant that any number of the pages could be used in any
order, making shorter performances easy to generate.
As early as August 1958, the Solo for Piano was being used to accompany
Cunninghams Antic Meet, the piece which contained the moment probably
most famous as an image of Cunningham the performer, that of him
suspended in mid-air, a chair strapped to his back, seemingly unperturbed
and imperturbable. Tudor does not appear to have created any fresh read-
ings of Cages notations for Antic Meet, though he did create dierent
structural routes through the Solo for Piano: despite the development of
Tudors second realization, he appears to have continued using the rst
version for Antic Meet at least for a period afterwards. There are three
performance plans in exactly the same format as those for the Town Hall
premiere, the Village Vanguard performance, and the European premiere in
Cologne. Two of these, marked Antic Meet and Antic Meet2, were
probably in regular use for performance with Cunningham, while the
third, marked Antic Meet Phoenix 2/16/60, was presumably used only
for the Merce Cunningham Dance Companys performance at the Phoenix
Theatre in New York City on that date. The rst two plans exclusively use
materials which Tudor had prepared for his initial sketch version, suggest-
ing that these were probably prepared for the premiere performances of
Antic Meet in New London, Connecticut, between August 14 and 17, 1958.
The Phoenix Theatre version introduces three notations not present in the
early performance plans, the T notation from page 12, the BB notation from
page 53, and the AE notation which runs between pages 56 and 57.20
20
The rst and last of these, notably, do not fulll Tudors criterion for the second realiza-
tion, that they be performable as single icti.
The period of overlap between the two versions was probably only brief.
Later notes made by Tudor suggest that he soon came to use the second
realization for Antic Meet too: in some situations he would perform with each
system of his realization lasting for fteen seconds and, in others, each system
would have a specic, and regular, length, but it would be a predetermined
one which was not fteen seconds. As far as Tudors notes are concerned, each
system could, in theory at least, have had a duration of any length whatsoever,
just as had been the case with his use of the Music for Piano series when it was
combined with dance. Since the duration of Antic Meet was xed at twenty-
six minutes, however, the change of duration was certainly limited in practice,
and presumably Tudors plans for performances in this context simply
adjusted the length of each system in time according to how many of the
realization pages Tudor chose to perform (Cunningham 1982, 178).
Revill recounts that, while writing the Concert for Piano and Orchestra,
Cage would share each freshly completed sheet with friends. When asked
what a particular page would sound like, Cage replied Youre not listening to
it, youre looking at it (Revill 1992, 111). Just as Cage was, then, as Nicholls
notes, increasingly concerned with the calligraphic precision and visual
beauty of his output around this point,21 so Tudors mind seemed to be
turning slowly toward the centrality of his own physicality as a performer, a
performance parameter which must have been highlighted strikingly for him
as early as the performance of 340 46.776 because of the separate staves it
presented to denote degree of force, vertical distance of the hands from the
keyboard before beginning an attack, and the speed with which that attack
was to be executed (Nicholls 2007, 70). The importance of the body of the
performer on stage would also come to play a central part in Cages own
thought, in Theatre Piece most obviously, but also in the skittish performance
activities which would result in Cartridge Music. The implications of this are
well summarized by Pritchett in his suggestion that actions are treated as if
they were sounds as if they were objects to be manipulated and ordered,
with the result that Cage treated actions as objects (Pritchett 1993, 147).22
21
Echoing the contemporary frustrations of many composers who found their scores framed
and displayed, David Sylvester stressed that however beautiful [a score] may be to look at,
it was not made as something to be looked at (Sylvester, quoted in K. Brown 2002, 111).
One should surely modify Sylvesters claim a little to suggest that a score was not made as
something only to be looked at. A score might well be visually beautiful; it might even be
approachable as if it were a work of visual art. Yet if it is a score, it must surely exhibit other
qualities or interpretative possibilities.
22
Pritchett is referring here to a broad spread of pieces, including Theatre Piece and the
Fontana Mixderived Sounds of Venice (1959) as well as the much earlier Water Music, but
the remark can certainly be broadly applied to most of Cages output from the late 1950s
into the early 1960s. It is also possible that Pritchett means to indicate Water Walk (1959),
Physical considerations would become yet more central for Tudor personally
in his realization of Variations II.
To be sure, there was little shortage of detractors regarding the direction
Cage had taken in the Solo for Piano and, by extension, in the Concert for
Piano and Orchestra as a whole. Both the premiere at the Town Hall in New
York on May 15, 1958 and the European premiere in Cologne on September
19, 1958 were, by almost any standards, disastrous. In the rst place, the
performers in New York were hardly taking things wholly seriously, obvious
passages from Le Sacre du printemps on the tuba of Don Buttereld being
only the most recognizable quotations on display.23 Nevertheless, it was
some way into the performance that the laughter and catcalls from the
audience began, though they were loud and persistent once they did. The
end of the rst performance dissolved into a rich melange of applause and
boos. In some fairness to the audience, the concert was exceptionally long,
with the Concert for Piano and Orchestra coming at the very end of a
program the length of which had required two intermissions. Moreover,
there is no real reason to presume that it was the Concert that was the
fundamental site of the discontent. As is audible from the recording, the
worst of the audience response followed the performance of Williams Mix
and, if anything, simply continued into the Concert. By contrast, the piece
before Williams Mix, the Music for Carillon No. 1 (1952), had met with
seemingly generous applause.
In the second performance the situation was, if anything, worse, not least
because the audience here did not have the excuse of exhaustion, nor of
being already sated by an all-Cage diet: the Concert was the rst piece in the
second half, followed by a performance of Boulezs Flute Sonatine, while the
rst half had included two performances of Stockhausens Klavierstck XI,
Kagels String Sextet, and Kreneks, admittedly rather bloodless, Hexaeder.
Not only that, but Cage had spent time working individually with the
instrumentalists in the hope of preventing the sorts of activities which had
characterized the New York premiere. The performance was given a live
performance in front of an audience, then a second studio performance,
recorded for radio broadcast. In the rst performance, the Cologne audience
made their feelings known in a way little dierent from the audience in New
York, though probably with fewer supportive voices amongst the dissenters.
rather than Water Music, thus situating his observation directly and more specically
within this period, even though it is arguably just as true in the case of the earlier piece.
23
Notably, though, Buttereld apparently did not fall into general disfavor with either Cage
or Cunningham. He would also perform in the second performance of the Concert for
Piano and Orchestra at the Village Vanguard on May 25, 1958, and would later be one of
the performers in the premiere of Cages Theatre Piece.
The performers were seemingly emboldened by this and continued to

misbehave during the recording. Cage, perhaps understandably, got royally
drunk following the performance (C. Brown 2007, 22627). Carolyn
Brown neatly puts her nger on the dichotomy that Cage faced. The piece
presented John the aspiring Zen Buddhist at loggerheads with John the
frustrated Methodist minister. He wanted to let the sounds be themselves, but
he was not happy letting people be themselves if they behaved irresponsibly,
and musicians, faced with one of Johns unconventional scores and the
freedom to choose their own actions, all too often mistook freedom for license.
They made fun of the music, and thereby fools of themselves. John wanted
people to behave nobly. He burned with evangelical zeal to convert them to
the Zen view of the world but was rendered powerless by the very philosophy
he so energetically espoused. (C. Brown 2007, 19899)
Earle Brown felt that the fault lay, for the most part, with Cage himself, since
he failed, in Browns opinion, to provide the performers with sucient
information in the score to give them the condence as performers to do
what Cage wanted. As Brown put it, from his perspective, the conditions he
[Cage] presents to the musicians are ambiguous and in a certain way some
of the things he does are insulting (E. Brown and Dickinson 2006 [1987],
143). This may to some degree explain why, in New York at least, it was an
experienced jazz performer and improviser, Don Buttereld, who made
the most obvious musical protest when he quoted the Dance of the
Adolescents. Perhaps it was also no surprise that it took Tudor, for
whom at least some of the materials were familiar and thus unambiguous
or signicantly less ambiguous at least, to make a convincing attempt at
realizing the piece. Nor was it particularly surprising that the successful
part of the piece, the Solo for Piano, took on a life of its own: Tudor
performed it regularly, albeit in his second version, as a solo piece and
alongside Fontana Mix or Cunninghams Antic Meet throughout the rest of
his performance career. In truth, the situation was little better a few years
later, with the 1964 performance by the New York Philharmonic of Cages
next essay in the orchestral medium, Atlas Eclipticalis. The title of Benjamin
Piekuts chapter on the performance, When Orchestras Attack!, could
well have stood for the vast majority of orchestral performances Cage
received until the 1970s (Piekut 2011, 2064).
Variations I (1958)
The notation for Variations I is, as Pritchett observes, derived directly from
notation BV in the Solo for Piano (Pritchett 1993, 136), though it also bears
similarities to notation BB.24 Indeed, this almost modular quality of repe-

tition of score elements became of great signicance for Cages work around
this point. Just as the notations from Winter Music were embedded in the
Solo for Piano, so these notations from the Solo for Piano were extracted and
formed the core of Variations I.25 Later, Music Walk would make further
use of notations from the Solo for Piano, while derivations of Fontana Mix
lie at the heart of Theatre Piece and Music for Amplied Toy Pianos (1960).
Indeed, it was specically these interrelated pieces which were often per-
formed simultaneously: Cunninghams piece Antic Meet, for instance, was
danced to the Solo for Piano alongside Fontana Mix, a combination which
was also a mainstay of Tudors concerts without dance in 1960.26
The distinction between the notation in the Solo for Piano and that in
Variations I is simple: in the Solo for Piano notations BB and BV are xed
arrangements of points and lines, with various parameters being deter-
mined by dropping perpendiculars from a line to a point and measured
according to a scale predetermined by the performer; in Variations I, the
notations are themselves variable, printed on six transparencies. One of
these transparent squares contains twenty-seven points: the thirteen small-
est denote a single sound; seven relatively small ones demand two sounds;
three larger ones demand three sounds; and the largest four points demand
four sounds. The other ve transparencies each contain ve lines. Each of
these lines is allocated a parameter by the performer: one, for instance,
denotes the lowest frequency, thus distance away from it shows increasingly
high pitch. The other lines denote the simplest overtone structure (later
Cage would clarify that the extremes might be understood as a sine tone, at
simplest, and noise, at most complex), greatest amplitude, least duration,
and earliest occurrence within a time period decided upon in advance by the
performer. In the event of using the thirteen smallest points each of which
determines a single event only one line transparency would be required.
However, for the points which determine more than one event, an addi-
tional line transparency is to be added for each additional event, with
readings taken for each point used according to each line transparency.
24
The principal distinction between notations BB and BV is that, in BB, each line is assigned
to a particular parameter, while in BV, the allocation of parameters to lines is left to the
determination of the performer.
25
The same notations were also used for Cages roughly contemporaneous Haiku (1958), an
unpublished score which was not apparently performed until 1987. I consider this piece
below in the context of Tudors late work. The notations for Haiku were, in fact, closer to
those of Solo for Piano, since they were xed, rather than mobile, as in Variations I.
26
A ow chart of the relationships between these pieces as well as Aria, the two Solos for
Voice, and WBAI (1960) may be found in Holzaepfel 1994, 231.
Almost inevitably, this could lead to conicting instructions. Cage gives no

information which might help the performer to mediate between his
demand, on the one hand, that the four events notated by the largest points
could occur together, as single icti (or could be construed as a constellation
of linked events),27 and, on the other hand, that the use of four dierent
transparencies would almost certainly result in points of occurrence for
each of those four events which were potentially widely disparate.
Nevertheless, without the use of multiple line transparencies, it would be
hard to see how the largest points could be disaggregated into four separate
events.
Cages instructions give the option that a performer could either measure
or simply observe the distances by eye. Given Tudors general practice to
this point, it is doubtless hardly surprising that his decision was not to make
determinations by guessing on the basis of his visual impression of any
particular arrangement of the score materials. It should be noted, though,
that while one might think that Cage gives the option to improvise a
response to Variations I at sight, this is probably not the case, even if
Cages instructions are typically ambiguous. It seems most likely that Cage
simply meant that a ruler was not vital to creating a realization of Variations
I, such that one could estimate the readings that one was taking; Cage almost
certainly expected a realization to be made, after the model of Tudors work
on Winter Music and, undertaken contemporaneously with Variations I, on
the Solo for Piano.28
Pritchett is doubtless right to observe that even a mobile version of
notation BV is, in some respects, very limited, at least in comparison
with many of the other notations used in the Solo for Piano. Yet in other
ways, precisely because of what Tudor did with the notations, Variations I is
an extremely important way stage. It is certainly true too, as Pritchett notes,
that although the use of a single sheet of points xes the number and
structure of events in the piece (Pritchett 1993, 136), the variety that
resulted in Tudors realizations is striking. Indeed, it is arguable that the
variety which Tudor generated from the notation is remarkable specically
because of the relative inexibility of the notation.
27
Cage was probably thinking of a notation like that of the G notation in the Solo for Piano
when conceiving of constellations of linked events.
28
Though begun earlier, it should be remembered that the Solo for Piano was not premiered
until after Variations I; the former was rst performed at the Town Hall Retrospective
concert on May 15, 1958, while the latter was probably rst performed at the University of
North Carolina at Greensboro on March 15, 1958. Tudor almost certainly worked on the
two realizations at more or less the same time.
That Cage created a new version of a notation which he had already made
use of and that, further, that revision was itself mobile surely carried several
important implicit instructions. As should already be clear, when it came to
Cages indeterminate music, Tudors practice was, broadly, to create a single
realization and then to use that version of the piece in all subsequent perform-
ances. Indeed, as noted above, though Tudor did make two separate readings
of Solo for Piano, the second version wholly supplanted the rst, with the
earlier realization only in use for a relatively brief period between 1958 and
1959, except when it accompanied dance. Even then, Tudor probably used
the rst realization rarely, if at all, after 1962. The case of Tudors realizations
of Variations I, titled at its creation and premiere performances simply
Variations, is quite dierent. A fresh approach to the already existing nota-
tion, but this time with the possibility of multiple versions of that set of
instructions being completed afresh on each reading, suggested an integra-
tion of the more uid form of notation utilized in Winter Music with the
uidity of realization which Tudor undertook in the case of the Solo for
Piano. That Cage created a framework for such variability to occur in the
context of a notation that already existed seems to imply that, more than
previously, the challenge to Tudor which is to say the particular puzzle for
which Variations I demands a solution was to retain that multiplicity in
performance. Thus, Tudor prepared several dierent realizations, with no
implication being made that any particular realization was more nal than
any other.
The versions of the notation which were in Tudors possession do not
appear to be in the form of transparencies at all. Though they are identical to
Cages nal notations, Tudor either received them from Cage drawn directly
onto tracing paper, or copied them onto tracing paper himself.29 Each of the
lines, on each sheet, is marked with a numeral from 1 to 5, which indicate
which is allocated to which parameter. The sheet of point notations is, too, a
copy. Though the points retain the same sizes that Cage gave them, Tudor
added a numeral to notate whether they denote one, two, three, or four
separate events. As well as that numeral, though, each point was allocated a
separate number from 1 to 13. The points were thus enumerated systemati-
cally to account for all of the dierent types of point; as shown in Table 4.1.
There is no reason, however, to presume that Tudors actions in these
notations did much more than act as a helpful aide-memoire for which point
had which function, not least because Tudors other notations do not suggest
29
The line notations are marked I to V in Tudors hand, so the latter proposal seems most
likely to me, though it is possible of course that Cage copied the notations out, and Tudor
added the determinations after he had received them.
Table 4.1 Tudors table of point types in Variations I
11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131

12 22 32 42 52 62 72
13 23 33
14 24 34 44
that the numbers allocated to the various points determined any order for use,
or a correlation between line sheets, for example. Though there is no obvious
relation between which of the ve line notations Tudor used and the numbers
allocated to points, Tudors working materials strongly imply that he dis-
carded the numbers from six upwards. Though this is doubtless wholly licit
within Cages instructions, it does suggest a certain stance with regard to
volumes of activity. Just as Tudor had, in his realization of Winter Music,
elided the sparsest pages of Cages score into his ALORT part book, here he
specically determined for those points which were more likely to determine
greater volumes of activity, privileging those points which would demand
larger numbers of musical events. Indeed, the enumeration applied to the
point sheet may well have been intended precisely to make this more
straightforward, to ensure that the perpendiculars Tudor dropped were
more likely to intersect with numbers which denoted more than a single
event.
For most parameters, Tudor generated scales of distance, which could easily
be translated into concrete determinations. The scales were typically broken
down into divisions of an inch for when Tudor measured the distance between
a particular line and a particular point. He sketched out specic durations
alongside determinations of length: ES, for extremely short, was allocated to a
thirty-second note, with VS (very short) denoting a sixteenth note, and so on
reaching all the way to a double whole note with a fermata. These notehead
durations were doubtless only a shorthand notation, but they persisted in the
realizations as a way of notating the seven-division scale for duration running
from very short to very long on which Tudor eventually settled. Each of these
divisions was allocated a measurement of fourteen sixteenths of an inch.
Tudors scale of dynamics ran from one to ten, again measured in sixteenths
of an inch, with each division allocated either ten or eleven sixteenths. Thus,
allowing for minor discrepancies, no dynamic was especially more likely to
occur than any other.30 His scale for overtone structure was divided into ve:
30
Tudor may have borrowed this numerical notation for dynamics from Bo Nilsson, whose
contemporaneous Quantitten (1958), dedicated to Tudor, uses a similar scale, in which
one denotes pppp, two ppp, three pp, and so forth, until reaching at ten.
the simplest overtone structure was regarded as traditional performance on

the keys of the piano, followed by either muted or pizzicato strings, then
musical noise on the body of the instrument. The upper two divisions were,
rst, the use of an accessory, such as a squeaker, and, second, noise. Each was
allocated a length of one inch and ve sixteenths, with an extremely gentle steer
toward the pure pitch of the keyboard, which covered the rst inch and six
sixteenths of any measurement.
For notes to be performed on the keyboard or strings of the instrument,
Tudor created a complete table for the determination of pitch, with meas-
urements of the length of a perpendicular bound to any of the notes of the
piano keyboard. To begin with, each sixteenth-of-an-inch measurement
related to a dierent pitch, but again there were skews introduced into
Tudors system: above the G above the treble sta, the distances Tudor
measured moved rst to three sixteenths of an inch, then nally four and
seven sixteenths of an inch for the uppermost B and C respectively. Thus, it
was, if only a little, more likely that Tudors determinations would result in
higher pitches, above the treble sta. For attacks on the body, accessories,
and noise, Tudor utilized instead a seven-division scale, notated against the
abbreviations VL, L, ML, M, MH, H, and VH, running thus from very low to
very high. As noted above, the parameters were tied to individual lines on
the line sheets: a line marked 1 denoted frequency, 2 denoted overtone
structure, 3 denoted amplitude, and 4 denoted duration.
Thus, the fth line was intended to show the earliest point at which a
particular sound could occur. By the time Tudor came to decide on how this
parameter would operate he had already determined that he would make
three independent versions of Variations I. Plausibly this was agreed in
advance with Cage; perhaps it was intended to mirror the three versions of
Stockhausens Klavierstck XI which Tudor would perform in the same
concert in which Variations I was premiered. Whatever the reason, it is sure
that Tudor determined this parameter last: where each of the other param-
eters had a single scale which determined the conversion of a measurement
into a parametric element, for the point of occurrence Tudor determined
three dierent scales.
Though doubtless this was the most convenient way of operating, it
suggests that several aesthetic decisions were made by Tudor in the process
of realization. First, Tudor determined musical events rst and foremost.
The way in which they were displaced in time was, literally, a secondary
consideration. Second, in principle at least, those musical events could be
exactly the same ones in any number of readings of Variations I: the dier-
ent translations for position in time would determine the structure of the
piece and, at root, it was this last conversion chart which unambiguously
introduced the variations of the title. In truth, this extreme potential

implication of Tudors actions does not play out in his realizations. His
solution here is far simpler. In the rst realization, the time scale is one in
which a sixteenth of an inch measured on Cages notations equates to 1.1
seconds of musical time; in the second, the same distance is equivalent to 2.7
seconds and in the third to 4.6 seconds. Though Tudors complete scale runs
to seven inches and ve sixteenths, only the third realization runs to this
length, resulting in a total duration just shy of nine minutes. The rst and
second realizations could presumably have continued to this length, but the
rst ends at six inches and thirteen sixteenths giving a duration fraction-
ally shorter than two minutes with the third reaching six inches and fteen
sixteenths, resulting in a performance length of just below ve minutes.
Given how close to complete minutes each of these durations is, it seems
most likely that this was the reason why the measurements stopped where
they did: Tudor wanted to have performance durations close to whole
minutes, and two, ve, and nine minutes were appropriately distinct
lengths. These are, however, clearly time brackets, just as Cage would later
use them. The points notated by Tudor are indeed the earliest points at
which a potential action might take place, with the next subdivision mark-
ing the point beyond which it could not. While Cages instructions certainly
created the conditions within which time brackets could be conceived, their
concrete instantiation was of Tudors devising.
Tudor then set about integrating the various parameters. This he achi-
eved via a separate sheet of readings, in which the various measurements he
took from the score sheets of Variations I were translated into their various
musical characteristics. Almost inevitably, the readings taken from the score
sheets meant that the time brackets came out in an order which was not that
which would ultimately appear in Tudors realizations. Since all three
realizations made by Tudor follow the same pattern, I take here the rst,
and shortest, of the three as a case study.
The rst event notated in his rst realization received a point of occur-
rence of 1 minute and 52 seconds, making it, in fact, the twenty-eighth, and
last, event to be performed in that realization. This event, then, was tran-
scribed into this penultimate sketch thus:
28. 1.52.2 H F2 5 ML
This denoted that it was the twenty-eighth event, that it would be the F an
octave below the bass sta, would have a dynamic of roughly mezzo piano,
and would be of a moderately long length, notated by Tudor as a dotted half
note. Tudors notation of H was used to denote the second degree of
complexity of overtone structure, showing that the note should be either
muted or pizzicato, or both. His use of the letter H for this is drawn from
Cages own notations in earlier pieces where H denotes that an attack is to
be made on the harp of the instrument. As for his other notations in this
respect, K stood for keyboard, A for accessory, C for case, and N for noise.
This information was translated into part books similar to those used for
Winter Music, but now with information notated on only a single sta, with
each page of the part book having a duration of fteen seconds, subdivided
into notional bars of ve seconds each. Tudor may well have had in mind
such a solution before beginning the work of transcribing his sketches into
sta notation, helping to account for his decision to work to durations
divisible by a minute.
Tudors use of time brackets aorded him some latitude in terms of his
transcription. The second event of his rst realization demanded, in fact,
that two events occur, one of which was, according to the determination of
occurrence, to take place at 8.8 seconds and one at 41.3 seconds. Tudor
selected the earlier point of occurrence to have precedence and, otherwise
following the strict letter of his transcription, at this point a G two octaves
above the treble sta is notated, as a fortissimo attack on the keyboard to be
held for a moderate time (this last notated as a half note).31 The second
event, however, follows directly: instead of at 41.3 seconds, it occurs some-
where between 11 and 12 seconds into the realization, a double-muted
pianissimo note on the G below the bass sta. This note appears in
Tudors transcription as a very long one and is accordingly notated as a
double whole note. Similarly, the third event of his rst realization required
three events to result. According to the strict letter of the readings he took,
this ought to have resulted in two simultaneously produced eighth-note Cs,
two octaves above the treble sta, both of which were to have been forte, at
15.4 seconds into the realization. The last of the three events would have
been a D, at the bottom of the treble sta, with a similar duration but a
dynamic of piano. This last event ought to have occurred just after 23
seconds. All three were to be produced on the keyboard. Because they
31
Tudor did not always select the earliest point of occurrence as the primary one for
constellations of events. For what became his sixteenth event, possible points of occurrence
appeared at 3.3, 46.2, and 51.7 seconds. He selected the latest of the three. Had he chosen
the mark at 3.3 seconds, this would instead have become the second event of his realiza-
tion. The ultimate fteenth event would, similarly, have been the third event, with an
earliest possible point of occurrence at 5.5 seconds. Here Tudor again selected the last
available point as the primary one, 50.6 seconds. Lest it be thought Tudor made a binary
choice between earliest and latest possible points of occurrence, for other events the middle
value was taken. Decisions of this type allowed Tudor to be, relatively speaking, in control
of the density of events within his realizations.
were grouped together as a single constellation of events, however, Tudor

rearranged them: one of the Cs and the D occurred simultaneously just after
the 15-second mark, with the second C displaced though retaining the rest
of its characteristics to approximately 16 seconds. Tudors processes were
largely similar throughout his realizations: where possible the earliest
occurrence of an event would be where he would choose to have it occur,
but conicts like this forced him to make displacements within the time
bracket; though the measurements for points of occurrence would some-
times state that an event ought to take place at a particular point, when this
event was part of a constellation, it was possible to choose any of the
available time brackets to determine which would govern its position.
On other occasions, Tudor pruned the demands of his transcription. The
very rst event of the rst realization ought by rights to have contained three
elements, only one of which Tudor actually transcribed. As well as the
extremely loud, keyed middle C which does appear in the realization
copy, Tudors notes suggest that the A above it ought to have appeared
somewhere nearby as well as either noise or activity on some accessory
equipment. Those other two events, strictly speaking, were allocated points
of occurrence just before 43 and 54 seconds respectively, but do not appear
at those points either.32 Thus, although Tudor had, in the process of
compiling his readings of Cages notations, specically selected for a greater
density of events, when he came to transcribe those readings into sta
notation, he also cut back again, reducing the density his own process had
suggested at the point of copying his realizations into a performable part,
the strategy in many respects a familiar one from the Solo for Piano.
The materials Tudor selected for attacks on the case of the instrument are
largely ones which would have been familiar from Cages earlier output,
especially from pieces within Tudors repertoire. Where, for instance,
Tudors notation reads vert. stick in hole, this is a direct analogue to
Cages more detailed instruction within the Music of Changes to drop
cymbal beater vertically through hole in metal construction (middle
range) to strike sound board. Though Cage thus set the sorts of range of
possible activity, Tudors gamut of possible ways of creating sound on the
piano body was wider than Cage might have predicted. Only a few of the
determinations Tudor made in this respect should give the sense that he was
thinking of the instrument in these terms, too, parametrically, seemingly
attempting to generate as many possible combinations as he could of beater,
32
In point of fact, the area just after 50 seconds is probably the densest of the rst realization.
Even had Tudor had any desire to insert this event here, estranged by some distance from
its parent in the constellation, it would not have been possible.
beater position, and location on the instrument: at beater on sound-

board, stick at on case, front or rear, edge plastic on tenor strings,
metal beater on metal construction, felt beater on tenor construction,
stick on right case, stick at under keyboard, stick vertical under
keyboard, and numerous others.
As for accessories, Tudor made use of a wide range of whistles, some of
which were also recognizably part of the sound world of Cages earlier
music, such as the duck whistle or siren (i.e. swanee or slide) whistle, both
of which were used within Water Music. Others were a little more exotic,
such as the quail and pig whistles which Tudor used, but this variety, too,
was implied by Cages own earlier use of, for instance, a New Years Eve
whistle and an Aztec whistle in Two Pastorales. As with Tudors use of
beaters on the body of the instrument, Cage set the precedent and, indeed,
dened the sort of sound world which would be appropriate. However,
Tudor expanded the instrumentarium a great deal. Notably, in later realiza-
tions Tudor would create a gamut of available sounds, sometimes determin-
ing their use according to chance operations or the dictates of a particular
realization process. Here, his determinations were seemingly more exible
and, almost certainly, more contingent upon what was physically perform-
able (while in Theatre Piece, for instance, Tudor would notate the impos-
sible and perform what was possible from it, which would introduce an
element of indeterminacy into each performance). While this meant that his
realizations of Variations I were arguably more deterministic, his process in
creating them was perhaps less so, at this point at least. Tudor appears to
have selected a particular beater and location on the case largely freely on
each occasion which his reading of Cages notation demanded it; similarly
there appears to be no systematic determination of which accessory should
be used when. In short, the sound world of these activities is clearly
Cageian and Tudors performances of Variations I are obviously of pieces
with timbral characteristics wholly redolent of Cages other output in the
1950s but the detailed specics are Tudors.
In the rst of Tudors realizations there are no points at which noise is
determined (or, to be more accurate, there is a single point at which noise
exists within his sketch, but this is one of the elements which is excised
between the sketch and the realization copy). However, according to the
evidence of the third, and longest, realization, noise seems always to
indicate the use of a radio. As was the case with Tudors use of accessories
and performance on the case of the instrument, the notation he used for the
radio was directly drawn from Cages own earlier notations. Though he
abbreviated the instruction and it also looked rather less amboyant than
Cages version the notation is evidently a derivative of Cages notations in
Water Music. As would have been the case in Water Music, in performance,
the use of the radio inevitably did not always result in noise as such. Tudor
always indicated a range of potential frequencies to which the radio could be
tuned, which would sometimes result in either speech or music. In Tudors
third, and longest, realization there is in fact a point where there is a
glissando across the AM frequency band, lasting some fourteen seconds.
This would almost inevitably have resulted in at least some recognizable
noise. This glissando, too, suggests further latitudes taken by Tudor in
realizing the score: the center of the glissando occurs just after 5 minutes
and 40 seconds and is one of four indicated events for the seventy-second
event of the realization. It is also allocated the correct dynamic value of 5,
equating to mezzo piano. As was Tudors practice elsewhere in the score, the
other three events allocated to the constellation do not appear at this point,
or anywhere else in his realization. More notably, however, this event is the
center of the glissando, so the previous event should be where the glissando
begins and ought to be event seventy-one. It is not: the glissando begins
around 5 minutes and 31 seconds into the realization, while event seventy-
one takes place at roughly 5 minutes and 17 seconds. That said, the point at
which the glissando begins is one of the points available from Tudors list of
possible points of occurrence. However, it was not one which appeared in his
readings: Tudor seems to have interpolated this glissando, although it was
not, strictly speaking, available within the framework of his own system.
Something similar occurs at the close of the glissando. Tudors seventy-third
event does take place at precisely the point where the glissando ends:
5 minutes and 45 seconds into the piece. Yet the sketch Tudor made of
which events ought to go where would have had this moment be an
extremely loud keyboard strike, of moderate length, on the E in the middle
of the bass sta. In short, though Tudors realization process was method-
ical, he was willing to make changes from the strict letters of the process if
they seemed to make musical or aesthetic sense, or if what the process of
realization demanded was fundamentally physically impossible.
In certain respects, making multiple readings of a single piece is little
more than an extension of what Tudor had already done in the cases of
Winter Music or the Solo for Piano, where, in the former case, the individual
part books could be played in any order or, in the latter case, where Tudors
ring-bound sheets could, similarly, be reordered. Yet in these two earlier
realizations, though the order of determined events could be changed, the
events themselves remained consistent or, at least, consistently notated, in
an extension of the practice Tudor adopted for the Music for Piano series.
Here, by contrast, though an individual reading of Variations I was com-
plete in and of itself, brooking no internal diversion from its plan, Tudors
realizations explicitly showed that genuinely multiple solutions to the puz-

zles set by the notation were possible.
Why precisely it would have been that Tudor would have moved from
notations which could be shued into dierent orders though could not in
themselves be changed to a notation which was wholly xed from beginning
to end, but which existed in multiple versions, can only be speculated at. On
the one hand, as noted above, it does represent a logical continuity of sorts,
at least if the core puzzle is seen as a question of how to create a truly
indeterminate performance from an indeterminate notation, and Cages
version of this notation in Variations I suggests that something dierent
from what Tudor had done in the Solo for Piano was required. In this
respect, Tudors realizations of Variations I certainly fail since each of the
three is determinate, but fail dierently from those of Winter Music or the
Solo for Piano. As I will show below, given the nal state of Tudors
realizations in Variations II, the idea that Variations I is a further stage in
his ongoing attempts to solve the basic challenge Cage had set may well
appear reasonable. Yet there is no reason necessarily to think that the
particular route Cage took, together with Tudor, is not in part a result of
Tudors activities. As shown above, it is likely that Tudors notations for
Music for Piano played a part in Cages own thinking regarding his later
notation for Winter Music.
Given the fame of Cages performances at the Darmstadt New Music
Courses, it might have been thought that the multiple versions of Variations
I were prepared specically for performances there: a two-piano version was
performed by Cage and Tudor at a concert on the evening of September 3,
1958.33 Variations I was also performed on three separate occasions during
Cages second Darmstadt lecture, Indeterminacy, on September 8, 1958.34
However, the three versions had already been given their premiere at the
University of North Carolina at Greensboro on March 15, 1958, having
been completed in January of the same year, and dedicated to Tudor: on
33
This concert also included Earle Browns Four Systems (195254), Morton Feldmans Two
Pianos (1957), Christian Wol s Duo for Pianists I (1957) and Duo for Pianists II (1958), as
well as Cages Winter Music. All of the pieces were being given their European premieres,
save for Wol s Duo for Pianists II. Perhaps surprisingly, though there was whistling,
jeering, and catcalling during Cages music, it seemed to be the music of Wol that
occasioned the greatest hilarity and uproar amongst the audience members. See Iddon
(2007, 89104) and Shultis (2002, 2040) for further details regarding Cages Darmstadt
appearance.
34
Though Borio and Danuser (1997, 592) suggest that Cage and Tudor again performed as a
piano duo in Cages lecture, a comparison of Tudors performance materials and the
recording of his performances makes clear that Tudor performed Variations I solely here,
while Cage read.
his birthday (tardily).35 Though Karlheinz Stockhausens claims to have

played a major role in the formulation of indeterminacy ought ordinarily to
be regarded with some caution, it seems unlikely to be wholly coincidental
that Tudor had recently begun performing Stockhausens Klavierstck XI
and, as noted, performed three dierent versions of that piece in the
Greensboro concert when he premiered Variations I.
35
Since the score for Variations I is dated January 20, 1958, the date of Tudors thirty-second
birthday, it is not clear what, precisely, is tardy about Cages dedication. One speculative
answer to this question might be to suggest that Cage did not regard the pieces he wrote for
Tudor as being nished until such a point as Tudor could play them. In such a context,
even if Cage completed the score by Tudors birthday, the piece could not be complete until
a later date. More prosaically, Cage might have dated the score with Tudors birth date,
even though he nished it slightly later. Such possibilities can remain little more than
speculation, however.
The long break in the correspondence between Cage and Tudor, spanning the
period from 1953 to 1958, may doubtless be explained in large part by the fact
that during that time Cage and Tudor were rarely very physically distant from
one another, being either on tour together or living in close proximity to one
another in Stony Point. It is, then, perhaps little surprise that the correspond-
ence begins once more, and in earnest, while one or the other was away from
Stony Point, for the most part on tour in Europe. The letters too indicate a
signicant alteration in the positions of both Cage and Tudor. By this stage,
Tudor was already becoming seen in Western Europe as the pianist for new
music, having given numerous premieres on either side of the Atlantic; for his
part, Cage was arguably taken more seriously as a composer in Europe than in
the United States or, to be more accurate, though the Europeans were
obviously not sure that what he was doing really was serious, nevertheless
they cared strongly, sometimes violently, about whether it was serious or not.
The Europeans also had access to rather more generous funding streams than
were available in America. The change of focus in the letters is, then, hardly
surprising: if the correspondence between 1951 and 1953 reveals aspects of
the American networks which supported Cage, this later stretch of corre-
spondence indicates particular aspects of the international network. That
particularity is, itself, intriguing, because it highlights a striking disparity in
the networks into which Cage and Tudor were integrated. In short, Cages
involvement in Europe seems to have been at its fullest in northern Italy.
Though he writes of his work at the RAI studios in Milan, it is in Venice
that he found himself most thoroughly involved. His friendships with the
American expatriate community was surely a signicant factor: Peggy
Guggenheim and Frank Amey were, it is clear from his letters, important
for him there, and doubtless his acquaintance with Nuria Schoenberg-Nono
gave him access to a wider range of contacts including Schoenberg-Nonos
husband Luigi Nono not least. By contrast, it was in Cologne that Tudor
found himself most fted. His letters show his close involvement with the
whole scene based there, from Stockhausen, Kagel, and Cardew as composers
through to people like Otto Tomek, who was in charge of new music at the
Westdeutscher Rundfunk at this point, and the percussionist Christoph
Caskel, to whose son, David Cornelius Caskel, Tudor was godfather. This is
[95] far from to say that Cologne had no interest in Cage, nor that the Italians were
uninterested in Tudor. Clearly, Cages music interested Stockhausen deeply,

while Cage himself appears to have felt some strong aection for Cardew;
similarly Maderna wrote his Piano Concerto (1959) for Tudor, who would
premiere it at the 1959 Darmstadt courses. Nevertheless, the Venice and
Cologne circles seem broadly to have tended toward Cage and Tudor respec-
tively. Doubtless natural inclinations played a part here: the amboyance of
Sylvano Bussottis scores is closely related to Cages notations especially in
the 5 Piano Pieces for David Tudor, where Tudors name is intended as a
performance direction rather than a dedication; though Stockhausens scores
of the late 1950s and early 1960s owed a debt to Cage, too, they were surely
more closely attracted by the performative rigor of Tudor. As well as the
major centers of Venice and Cologne, the correspondence shows Cages and
Tudors relationships developing with a wide range of promoters of new
music, not least in Brussels, Vienna, and at Fylkingen.
The correspondence is hardly interesting only for the relationships it
shows, of course. There is, on Cages side, a sense of condence in the value
and importance of what he is doing which, while present in his earlier
correspondence, was arguably more muted there. Though Tudor was hardly
ever only Cages pianist, his letters seem to indicate a growing interest
even if it would ultimately be short-lived in composers other than Cage.
This did not signal, however, a lessening of his interest in Cage and his
music. In truth, Tudors letters seem to indicate that he increasingly felt
himself torn by the demands on his time of all manner of composers and
promoters, culminating in his statement in his letter of October 30, 1961
that he had now arrived at the point of great coldness vis--vis the euro-
pean scene and cannot be trusted to negotiate.
16
[late August 1958]
Dear David,
Hope I havent screwed up matters by sending everything to Kln. M.C.
sd. thats where youd get mail after 4th Sept.1 De A. is sending note re Pn
1
Presumably this was sent after Tudor had left for Europe but before Cage had left America
for Darmstadt, and therefore at some point between August 18 and September 2, 1958.
Cages worry regarding this letter having been sent to the wrong place is doubtless a result of
his having discovered that Tudor had not in fact left for Europe until early in the second
week of September: a letter from M. C. Richards to Keith and Donna McGary, dated
September 11, 1958, suggests that David ew o in a pouring rain in an Icelandic airplain
[sic] with not very many people on it but lots of boxes. [. . .] He was very tired when he left,
John Cage to David Tudor between October and November 1958 97
Concert.2 Xian was here + has gone thru score + put pencil correction in your
part (score).3 Conductor beats 54 time (in a uent rather than military way)
each beat = 1 sec. (using stop watch) uses both hands on 1st beat of each page
(all red numbers in parts).4 If piece needs to be shortened use always rst part
(up to 1st tutti tacet) plus if possible cue sheet* for any desired time. Or if can be
longer use other additional sections always ending with cue sheet. Capito?
Unfortunately cannot locate March Suite.5 Think P. G. Hicks got it somehow.6
Weather here so wet mushrooms grow little.
* Begins in 250 version at 200 30 Here conductor is like watch using both arms
at last minute.
17
[Copenhagen, between October and November 1958]
Dear David,
As you probably know, I am staying I dont know yet how long in Milan (they
will pay all expenses plus) and I dont yet know what to do.7 I gure that if I make
tape which can be used:
had been working straight through, wrote 17 letters the last night from midnight to 8 a.m.,
etc.but in good spirits I think.
2
Emile de Antonio (b. May 14, 1919, Scranton, PA; d. December 16, 1989, New York City,
NY) had been involved, along with Robert Rauschenberg and Jasper Johns, in the organ-
ization of the Twenty-Five Year Retrospective Concert, under the group title Impresarios
Inc and presumably still had a copy of the program note for Cages Concert for Piano and
Orchestra. Later, de Antonio became famous for his politically charged documentary lms.
At this time, however, De worked in advertising, and sold the mushrooms Cage collected
on his behalf. (Revill 1992, 182).
3
As mentioned above, Tudor was to give the European premiere of Concert for Piano and
Orchestra at the Westdeutscher Rundfunk in Cologne on September 19, 1958.
4
Given that the conductor for the Concert famously acts as a human stopwatch, the
movement of his arms imitating a sweep-second hand, it is intriguing that, at this stage
(after the rst performance in New York City), Cage describes the conductor as utilizing
normative beat patterns within certain sections of the piece, not least since Tudor appears to
have followed a consistent pattern of time in his performances, probably using a stopwatch.
5
Although it is unclear why Tudor would have sought a copy, this is probably William
Russells March Suite (1936), which Cage had performed at the Cornish School on May 19,
1939, at the University of Idaho on January 8, 1940, at Walla Walla, WA, on January 9,
1940, and at the Arts Club of Chicago on March 1, 1942.
6
Peggy Glanville-Hicks (b. December 29, 1912, Melbourne, Australia; d. June 25, 1990,
Sydney, Australia), Australian composer, based in New York City from the early 1940s until
1959 and a regular music critic for the New York Herald Tribune between 1948 and 1958.
7
Cage worked at the RAI electronic music studios in Milan from November 1958 until
March 1959. Cage and Tudor last performed together on their 1958 tour of Europe
accompanying a Merce Cunningham Dance Company program in Hamburg on October
a) with 340 46.776

b) with concert for pn and orch.
c) with ?
it will be the most useful.8 Something that can function by itself or with
something else. Cd. you therefor look among my papers for the structural
numbers of 340 46.776 + the I Ching table for tempi regulations ^for that piece.
Also send me the part for percussion (some pages are at Stable Gallery + should
be taken from frame + included so the MS is complete).9 I wd. like to do several
things. I wd. also like to have some of tape library (at Merces I believe)
particularly loops, but will respect your discretion as to choice or decision.10
God knows whether I will be able to make something lively and how much
time they will give me, + splicing (!).
As for now, my address is c/o Luciano Berio, via Moscati 7, Milan.11 Have
arranged with Schack here in Copenhagen to get us a dozen bladder whistles.12
Will stop in Kln again on way to Milan and pick mushrooms + see
Cornelius13
28. The score of Fontana Mix was completed in November 1958. But the result of the work
in Milan was not fully completed until February 1959, when Cage nished the two-tape
realization which he most often used in performances, at least those with the Merce
Cunningham Dance Company. As Nicholls observes (2007, 75), arguably the score of
Fontana Mix is better conceived of as a compositional tool for the creation of music; the
tape piece, Fontana Mix, is only one instantiation of this, confusing though it then
becomes that they share the same name, when other pieces in which the score of
Fontana Mix was also used as a tool such as Aria, Sounds of Venice, Water Walk, and
Theatre Piece do not. The tape version of Fontana Mix was completed with the assistance
of Marino Zuccheri (rather than the clearly less Italian Zucchen which is sometimes
given), according to a detailed program note from April 26, 1959, from a concert featuring
Cage and Varse. It was premiered, presumably in a one-tape version, on January 5, 1959.
8
Fontana Mix was regularly performed with the Solo for Piano, but the proposed combi-
nation of it with 340 46.776 is more surprising. Though Tudor still occasionally performed
340 46.776 as late as 1964, he appears never to have paired it with Fontana Mix.
9
New York Citys Stable Gallery had exhibited Cage scores from 1934 to 1958 in advance of
his Twenty-Five Year Retrospective Concert at Town Hall on May 15, 1958.
10
Presumably, for the most part these are the tape fragments used in the composition of
Williams Mix (1952).
11
Berio (b. October 24, 1925, Oneglia, Italy; d. May 27, 2003, Rome, Italy) was at this time
based at the Studio di Fonologia, which he had co-founded with Bruno Maderna (b. April
21, 1920, Venice, Italy; d. November 13, 1973, Darmstadt, Germany) in 1955.
12
I am unable to identify Schack.
13
Cornelius Cardew (b. May 7, 1936, Winchcombe, UK; d. December 13, 1981, Leytonstone,
UK), English composer who was Stockhausens assistant at the time, until 1960. His
encounters with Cage and Tudor presaged a turn away from European multiple serialism
toward graphic scores, most famously Treatise (196367) and The Great Learning (1968
71), ultimately turning toward simpler music inuenced by his Marxist and Maoist
sympathies. He decried both Stockhausen and Cage in his book Stockhausen Serves
Imperialism (1974).
John Cage to David Tudor between November and December 1958 99
URGENT
Metzger needs by Nov. 7 photos of Brown, Feldman, Wol, you me Merce +
Carolyn.14 The 4 last I think I can get from Hamburg. Please try to get the
others sent to
Heinz-Klaus Metzger
c/o K. Bauer
Dieringhauser Str. 12
Kln-Brck
and it wont hurt to include other photos if you can get them of you me Merce
Carolyn.
Please write when you have a chance.
Auf wiedersehen!
John
18
John Cage to David Tudor (and M. C. Richards), handwritten
[Milan, between November and December 1958]
Dear David + M.C.,
I will shortly need biographical statement + list of works. Cd. you forward.
Lets hope it gets here. Post Oce strikes yesterday. Lifted now but was a
warning. Piece proceeds I have 60 30 composed (although time changes in
performance) + 10 15 spliced. Interruptions occur due to Lucianos radio
obligations + sometimes a machine goes on the blink. Will lecture here in
Italian + concertizo but most surprising is that I will probably be on a quiz
show (mushrooms) + come home rich!15 Of course that is vague possibility but
it looks possible. Im not supposed to let anybody know about it because theres
been a lot of gossip about how the quiz is run irregularly. I go in + out
however of a door marked VIETATO ENTRARE. Huxley was here +
14
Heinz-Klaus Metzger (b. February 6, 1932, Constance, Switzerland; d. October 25, 2009,
Berlin, Germany), Swiss-born German writer on new music. Metzger was consistently one
of Cages most vocal supporters in Europe, even when faced with a welter of negative
reactions to Cages music.
15
The neologistic concertizo presumably suggests that Cages projected Italian lecture was
expected to focus on the Concert for Piano and Orchestra. The quiz show Cage refers to was
Lascia o raddoppia? (Double or Quits), which ran from 1955 to 1959, and on which he
appeared answering questions on mushrooms for ve weeks, ultimately winning the
equivalent of $6,000. This money went toward the purchase of a new Volkswagen camper
van for the Merce Cunningham Dance Company and a grand piano. Cage performed
Sounds of Venice, Water Walk, and Amores (1943) during his appearances on the show.
lectured.16 Hidalgo + Marchetti here.17 H. writing piece for you + strings all in
harmonics.18 I think must be done. Also Luciano piece for voice + recorded
voice.19 Please send address of Arlene (give her my love + to you two too20
J
19
John Cage to David Tudor (and M. C. Richards), handwritten
Dear David + M.C.,
Things change constantly. Now it looks as though new piece to be done rst in
Brussels with Maderna conducting Cathy Berio singing + orchestra.21 Same or
16
Aldous Huxley (b. July 26, 1894, Godalming, England; d. November 22, 1963, Los Angeles,
CA), English-born novelist and essayist, based in Los Angeles after 1937.
17
Walter Marchetti (b. July 21, 1931, Canosa di Puglia, Italy), Italian composer, and Juan
Hidalgo (b. October 14, 1927, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain), composer and multi-
media artist, who had begun to collaborate following Hidalgos arrival in Milan in 1956,
where he also met David Tudor and began to study with Maderna. Hidalgos Ukanga
(1957) was premiered in Darmstadt on July 28, 1957, while Marchettis Spazi II (1958)
received its premiere there on September 5 the following year by Ensemble Incontri
musicale, under Madernas direction. It was during this years courses that Hidalgo and
Marchetti met Cage for the rst time. Though the early history of their Zaj Group is
dicult, it is entirely possible that the idea was formulated while Cage was in Milan in
1959. Zaj would rst perform, with Ramn Barce, in Madrid on December 19, 1964.
Amongst the pieces included in that concert was a performance of Cages Variations I.
18
This piece may have been that which became Milan Piano (1959), for piano and other
instruments able to produce indeterminate sounds, although a copy of the score does not
appear amongst those owned by Tudor. Another possibility is Hidalgos score Aulaga no. 1
(1959), a copy of which Tudor did have.
19
Presumably Cage is referring to the piece that would ultimately become Visage (1961), in
which Cathy Berberians voice is central. It is, however, also possible that, in reworking his
early Thema (Omaggio a Joyce) (1958), following an initial presentation on June 14, 1958 in
Naples with which he was not satised, one of the options Berio considered was a version
which also included a live vocal part for Berberian.
20
This may well refer to Arline Carmen, the contralto who sang Cages The Wonderful Widow of
Eighteen Springs (1942) and She Is Asleep (1943) at the Twenty-Five Year Retrospective
Concert at Town Hall in 1958.
21
Cathy Berberian (b. July 4, 1925, Attleboro, MA; d. March 6, 1983, Rome, Italy), American
mezzo-soprano, married to Luciano Berio between 1950 and 1964. Berberian is probably
most famous for her realizations of her, by then former, husbands Sequenza III (1966) and
her own Stripsody (1966). Though this plan never came to pass, it seems most likely that
what is meant is a performance of the orchestral parts from Concert for Piano and Orchestra
with Berberian singing Cages Aria (1958), which was composed for her. While Cage and
Tudor were on tour in Japan in October 1962, they did take part in a performance of Aria
with Solo for Piano and Fontana Mix. Many years later, the Washington Performing Arts
Societys Tribute to John Cage realized the original plan, and Concert for Piano and
Orchestra was presented with Aria in the West Court of Washington, DCs Pension
John Cage to David Tudor between November and December 1958 101
dierent few days later in Hamburg. If David is free to do so + other engagements

forthcoming wd. you, David, want to come back to play? Or if I get a book (asked
Lois to send) I may win much money on quiz,22 then wd. you be free to come if all
expenses paid etc.? I wd. write to Severino who you remember sd. something about
engagements in Jan.23 Let me know immediately. Also if Schott doesnt want to
take me on, Zerboni here in Milan will + publish lots.24 I think MS. should be sent.
Or I can do it later when I return. At any rate music will get published! Many
interruptions in studio but none serious Splice constantly to everybodys
amazement Bruno wants to hear all the splices carefully + engineer saves loops
when I tell him he shld. send to Eisenhauer.25 (He fought against E. in Sicily, was
imprisoned in Africa + then fought with Americans against H.) Am glad I will see
K.S. again in K. also T. etc + M.M. in B.26
So silly that one can be so active in Europe. How will be changed America?
One of these days will visit Luigi in Venice (want to save a few days for that).27
Write immediately re retour.
John
Building on November 20, 1982. Tudor was the piano soloist and Isabelle Ganz the soprano.
Aria was premiered by Cathy Berberian on January 5, 1959.
22
This is almost certainly the American illustrator, Lois Long (b. 1918), with whom
Cage would later collaborate on his Mushroom Book and Mud Book. Presumably, Cage
had requested a book on fungi in preparation for his appearance on Lascia o raddoppia?
23
Severino Gazzelloni (b. January 5, 1919, Roccasecca, Italy; d. November 21, 1992, Cassino,
Italy), Italian autist, who assumed a similar position with regard to his instrument as
Tudor had to the piano, in that it was largely perceived that Gazzelloni could perform
practically anything, no matter how complex. Berios Sequenza I (1958), the Darmstadt
premiere of which, in the same year, was rather overshadowed by Cages presence,
amongst many other pieces was written for Gazzelloni.
24
The Milan-based music publisher Suvini Zerboni also published music by Berio and
Maderna. Cages work was, in the event, never to be published by them, and, ironically,
Zerboni were, in any case, Schotts Italian agent.
25
Plausibly this is meant humorously, following the amount of time Cage and Tudor had
both spent in Germany during 1958. Meant, of course, is Dwight D. Eisenhower, who took
overall charge of the Allied invasion of Sicily between July 10 and August 17, 1943, which
ultimately led to Italys withdrawal from World War II.
26
Karlheinz Stockhausen and Otto Tomek in Cologne (Kln) and Marcelle Mercenier in
Brussels.
27
Luigi Nono (b. January 29, 1924, Venice, Italy; d. May 8, 1990, Venice, Italy), Italian
composer whose 1959 presentation, delivered at Darmstadt on September 1, Geschichte
und Gegenwart in der Musik von heute (or, in Italian, La presenza storica nella musica
doggi, translated between its two potential titles: The Presence of History in the Music of
Today) would be perceived in some quarters as an attack on Cages historical irresponsi-
bility in endeavoring to treat sounds simply as sounds, divesting them of their acquired
cultural resonances. Tudor suggests that the attack may really have been directed against
Stockhausen (letter 22), though it may be thought to describe more accurately younger
composers whom Nono seemed to feel were absorbing Cages ideas without serious thought
about what the musical consequences might be. Nono may well have included composers
such as Sylvano Bussotti, whose Five Pieces for David Tudor (1959) is clearly heavily indebted
to both Cage and Tudor, and Nam June Paik, in the light of pieces such as his Hommage
John Cage (1959) or his later Etude for Piano (1960). A letter from Nuria Nono to Cage, dated
20
Dear David,
Of course you were right not to send loops because of course am making new
sounds + in quantity. Engineers marvelous to work with + all goes well. Heard
rst 30 4 tracks this evening + am pleased So is Luciano. Its like no other tape
music on this side of ocean but resembles Wms Mix but is more light + airy also
has much greater variety in duration some sounds being very long. Composition
derives from CC + Music Walk but it is a little dierent.28 Treats machines as
things to perform with indicates sources ABCDEFXY (X = fragments arising
from work Y = reservoir of library material) also indicates modes of splicing.
Which fascinates all here for I sit as we did with scissors, blades etc + work 12 hrs
a day till dizzy also cant see very well + drink much wine.
However, do send percussion piece because would like to give to fellow in Kln.29
Please write when you have a chance or feel like it. I will surely stay till rst
performance of this piece with instruments (from Concert) in Hamburg, Jan 9.30
As ever,
J
Love to M.C., Aunt Hazel31
February 25, 1959, conrms that Cage visited the Nonos for lunch shortly before that, and it
appears to have been a pleasant occasion, since Nurias letter suggests that Cage had oered
to assist Nono in nding studio space at Columbia University from November 1959. Though
this plan would not come to pass in this form, a grant from the Coolidge Foundation would
enable Nono to complete Sar dolce tacere (1960). A warm letter from Nono to Cage, dated
July 11, 1959, in which he mentions both his hopes to work with Cage and Cunningham in
the United States, and his plans for an edition of the Darmstdter Beitrge specically
devoted to Cage, and also suggests that Nono was endeavouring to promote Cage for
publication at Schott (Nonos own publisher and that of the Darmstdter Beitrge), strongly
suggests that whoever Nonos target may have been later that year at Darmstadt, it was more
likely to have been Cages devotees than Cage himself.
28
The notation for Fontana Mix is indeed extremely close to an almost literal superposition of
the notations used for Music Walk (1958) and notation CC from the Solo for Piano.
29
Cage presumably intended to give the score of 270 10.554 for a Percussionist to Christoph
Caskel (b. January 12, 1932, Greifswald, Germany). Though Caskel never performed the piece,
he became a close friend of Tudor; Tudor was godfather to Caskels son, David Cornelius
Caskel (who was named for Tudor and Cardew), born on May 23, 1970 in Cologne. Tudor and
Caskel regularly performed together, and were especially well regarded for their performances
of Stockhausens Kontakte (195860), which they premiered in Cologne on June 11, 1960, at
the IGNM Festival in Cologne, and Kagels Transicin II (195859), which Caskel and Tudor
premiered at Darmstadt on August 29, 1959.
30
As noted above, the rst performance of Aria actually took place in Rome, with Fontana
Mix. It does not appear that the projected performance in Hamburg ever took place.
31
Aunt Hazel probably refers to Hazel Witman Cramer (b. 1894; d. 1960), Tudors maternal
aunt. Hazel Cramer was a chiropractor and treated Cages arthritis until her death.
David Tudor to John Cage October 8, 1959 103
21
[Milan, January 1959]
Dear David,
Its a great pity youre not here making money on TV programs playing
pieces Id write for you. Ive nished + performed (!) Water Walk which I think
youll enjoy one day.32 Includes a dozen roses. Everybody it seems was
delighted all the way from artists to street cleaners. No doubt critics just as
furious as ever. They now complain that Im a product of a capitalist society.
The studio is very busy Bruno Luciano + Migliaroi (pop. music) not doing their
own work but radio requirement Helen of Troy etc. so Fontana Mix may stop
here it is: 14 minutes although Ive composed 3 more + am ready to work but
no studio time available.33 So I go o to Venice + stay with Peggy
Guggenheim.34 The Venetians are very sweet + follow us through the streets
We the balloons to the dogs.35 And have a marvelous time. Tomorrow am up
to win or lose 1,280,000 Lire ($2000.) But by the time you get this will be too
late to cross your ngers.
Yrs. as ever,
J
22
David Tudor to John Cage, typewritten
October 8, 1959
Dear John,
at last theres a moment to write.
32
Water Walk, like Sounds of Venice, was premiered on Lascia o raddoppia?
33
Presumably this was RAIs attempt to capitalize on the popularity of Warner Bross 1956
lm Helen of Troy, which starred the Italian actress Rossana Podest. The production was
entitled Il cavallo di Troia (1959), which contained a score written by Maderna, with a text
by Gastone da Venezia and Ugo Liberatore after Christopher Morleys novel The Trojan
Horse (1937), which retells the story of Troilus and Cressida. Migliaroi is almost an error
on Cages part in spelling the more common Italian surname Migliari. It is tempting to try
to link this to Enrico Mascilli Migliorini, but he had almost certainly moved to Calabria to
become the rst director of the RAI studio there, which opened in late 1958.
34
Marguerite Peggy Guggenheim (b. August 26, 1898, New York City; d. December 23, 1979,
Venice, Italy), American art collector and patron of the arts. She moved to Venice following
her divorce from her second husband, Max Ernst, in 1946. By the late 1950s, her disagreement
with Cage over the performance of his work in a rival New York gallery was long forgotten, and
Cage and Cunningham stayed with her whenever they found themselves in Venice.
35
This refers to the fact that Cage had become something of a minor celebrity as a result of
his appearances on Lascia o raddoppia? Reputedly, many locals spontaneously wished him
luck on the show during his stay with Guggenheim.
Just back from Berlin, perfectly marvelous city, very lively where we gave an
all-Stockhausen evening, very well received, with new piece (Refrain) for vib.
cel. & pno., with vocables.36 Saw the opening of Moses & Aron which produced
a disturbance of political nature, the music quite inoensive & plays a rather
weak role theatrically.37 Choreography by Dore Hoyer also weak.38 West
Berlin has a wonderful feeling of spaciousness & generosity, the east zone is not
to be believed in comparison.
To plunge into business: November 19th in Vienna therell be a lovely

concert with Dr. Cerha (Xian, Earle cello & pno., Morty Ext. vln. & pno., pno.
Piece by Schwertseg young Austrian, Bussotti, 2 versions of Concerto).39 They
want to have a version of Conc. with voice (not Cathy), & have singer they think
would love to do it (they heard F.M. with Cathy so have some idea).40 Would you
please send them the part (if you agree) as soon as you can? The address is:
36
This performance took place on October 2, 1959, and was the rst ever all-Stockhausen
concert. Refrain (1959) contains numerous pitched tongue clicks and spoken syllables for
each of the players, which are what Tudor is referring to here as vocables.
37
This performance of Schoenbergs Moses und Aron took place at the Stdtische Oper Berlin
on October 4, 1959, under the direction of Hermann Scherchen.
38
Hoyer (b. December 12, 1911, Dresden, Germany; d. December 31, 1967, Berlin,
Germany) was a German dancer and choreographer. It is plausible that Cage or
Cunningham may have encountered her work during the 1957 American Dance Festival
at Connecticut College, New London, CT.
39
Friedrich Cerha (b. February 17, 1926, Vienna, Austria), Austrian composer probably best
known for his completion of the third act of Bergs Lulu in 1979, but also founded the
ensemble die reihe alongside the Austrian composer and horn player Kurt Schwertsik (b.
June 25, 1935, Vienna, Austria), erroneously named Schwertseg here by Tudor. Sylvano
Bussottis (b. October 1, 1931, Florence, Italy) Five Piano Pieces for David Tudor (1959),
part of the larger cycle Pices de chair II (195860), became one of the most famous graphic
scores written for Tudor, not least because of Bussottis suggestion that the titles for
David Tudor should be taken not as a dedication but, instead, as a performance direction.
Bussottis intentions are compounded by the fact that the performance instructions
necessary to carry out a realization of the scores are not printed within the published
version. Tudor, however, had a copy of these directions, and Bussotti was one of the few
composers not part of the New York School for whose indeterminate music Tudor
generated rigorous realizations. Arguably, the rst half of the title is incorrect, if only
Tudor was to be allowed to perform the pieces: even though the published version of the
score contains just the promised ve pieces, Tudors own copy contains apparently unique,
handwritten copies of piano pieces 6 and 7 (dated September 19 and 22, 1959, respec-
tively). Piano Piece for David Tudor 6 is subtitled hommage Cardew. Nevertheless,
these two pieces do not appear in Bussottis ocial work list.
40
This refers to Berberians performance of Aria with Fontana Mix at Darmstadt on
September 4, 1959, on which occasion Kagel was in charge of the tape. Tudor describes
his impressions of the event below.
Dr. Friedrich Cerha With it please send also the necessary explanations
Salzgries 3/10 & information as to how much material the
Wien I instrumentalist should use, & any preferences as
to instruments (they have all the parts & will try to use as many as possible,
especially winds they dont have good string players). I would appreciate it
also if you would answer some of their question directly (since I am not so
familiar with the procedure) I copy from their letter:
We want to play 2 versions, a short one of about 5 min. & a longer one of 10
or so (in the meantime I have written suggesting 20).
a) Must every player prepare the same no. of pages or could for instance vln.
prepare 10 pages, bassoon 3 pages (every page taking more time as to the later
one)
b) In case of every one preparing the same no. of pages, is it necessary that
they prepare the same ones or might they change (f.i. 4 pages to prepare: vln.
prepares 1st 4 pages, bassoon last 4 pages).
c) How many pages were played at the Kln concert?
Can you also tell them the title of Xians piece?41 & have you a program note for
it? Have just written to Xian but if you can supply one please do they need to
start publicity, & I only have old address for Xian.
Some questions for me may I know your plans for this season? Will you make
a music tour for us as you thought? When will you go to India? Would you like
to visit Europe on the way to or from? Does Merce have tours?
I plan to return early in December, because Merce said he would make

arrangements then I hope he will keep me informed about it. People are
asking already when you & I could come back to Europe; I have said that it might
be possible in the spring. Pierre wants me for Paris March 29 (Bussotti); I could try
to set things in motion for March or April, if you want to come; if you dont I wont
want to come either (frankly, I need a rest). Poland is very interested in our
coming & Im sure we could have several engagements there (they are fascinated
with the prep. pno.), in several cities. Kagel is making concerts & would use us.
However if you prefer to come in the fall I should know. Darmstadt is still dicult
but there are lots of open doors Bremen, Dsseldorf, Stuttgart, Mnchen,
Helsinki, Brussels, Vienna, Ankara (!), etc. Bruno would be interested in a
program with his Conc. & yours for prep. pno., I think.42
41
Wol s piece was entitled Music for Merce Cunningham (1959), also known under the title
For Six or Seven Players.
42
Maderna had begun his Concerto for Piano and Orchestra (1959) in 1955. Though its ve
instrumental groups, spaced around the piano on the stage, recall the sorts of contempo-
raneous spatial ideas that can be found in Stockhausens Gruppen (195557) or Gesang der
Fontana Mix was great success in Darmstadt! Cathy was perfectly incredible
(in purple) & entertained royally. This in spite of Nonos outburst, which
everyone knew was directed against Karlheinz, except critics, there in force.43
K. was very active, lectures & comp. class all based on new graphic tendencies
(his own, yours, Kagel, Cardew, Bussotti, Boulez, Brown), & works written as a
result, which were performed by Severino Caskel & self. Beside this Nono was
just a shadow in the corner & hoped to gain everything with violence; most of
what he said was without names, but he used your (& Schillingers) like a
symbol. It was all quite obvious, unfortunate, & disgusting. For instance: you
see that pieces for ute & pno. are growing like mushrooms, because they hope
that they will be performed by Gazzelloni and Tudor; they see that they only
have to spit on the paper & these artists will make something beautiful etc., &
worse. Its rather pathological; the next evening he came to Karlheinz because
he heard that he was angry & couldnt understand why.
Met some marvelous people Bodes, who made the Documenta in Kassel.44
They loved Bobs paintings, but at one point had to remove the one with the
pants, because people kept stung money into the pocket. Unfortunately was
not able to see the show. Their daughter, a real live wire (sculptress) may come
to America in the spring. Also Cathy Berio, who will come in May, & wants to
know whether we could give performances with Fontana Mix & Bussotti; what
am I to say?
Kagels piece for pnst. & percussnst. & tape is quite gorgeous (altho tape part
is unsuccessful because entirely redundant).45 It makes a beautiful activity at
the pno., the percussionist at the side with all sorts of beaters (the dampers of
black keys all marked in white so one can hit denite strings), the pianist with
lots of fancy sliding tone clusters (mute); the sound is very dense & quite
consonantal, & rich in a superabundant way. We could try to do it together if
you are so inclined (but I fear its immensely complicated).
Played Cors pno. sonata very lively piece & will play it when I return.46 His 2
pno. piece works beautifully & you might like to try it with me.47 He & I will do
it here on Oct. 28th; Kagel has organized a concert with it, Bussotti, Xians new
Jnglinge (195556), they also point forward to Nonos late works, especially his
Caminantes cycle (198789).
43
This relates to Nonos 1959 Darmstadt presentation, mentioned above.
44
Arnold Bode (b. December 23, 1900, Kassel, Germany; d. October 3, 1977, Kassel,
Germany), German artist, who was the founder of the documenta series of contemporary
art exhibitions in Kassel and the artistic director of it on its rst ve occasions (in 1954,
1959, 1964, 1968, and 1972). Bodes daughter is the Frankfurt-based sculptor Eva Rene
Nele Bode (b. March 17, 1932), more often known as E. R. Nele.
45
This refers to Kagels Transicin II (195859).
46
Tudor is referring to Cardews Piano Sonata No. 3 (195758).
47
Cardews Two Books of Study for Pianists (1958).
pno. piece (1st p.), Winter Music (1st. p. in new version for 1 pno.), &
Refrain.48 Cor & I plan a concert for Dsseldorf with new Variations for pno. 4
hands (yours), also for London, where we hope to be able to have 2 pnos. for
Winter Music etc.49 Cor likes Feldman extremely so well do lots of it.
Metzger Bussotti & Helmses miss you very much & hope youll come again.50
Heinz wants to write book about new music, for which purpose he wants to
have everything from America (Cage Wol Feldman Brown etc.) for study.51
He says his publisher in Frankfurt will pay all expenses. Want to bother with it?
Perhaps microlms can be made. Poland also wants copies of material for prep.
pno. for study. They will write to me or to you in December.
O to Paris in 2 days to make recordings, then back here for concerts & then to
Italy, which is not yet well arranged (usual procedure in Italy as you know), but
I hope to have Palermo Rome & Milan Venice & Florence very uncertain.
For Vienna we have to cut Xians piece so I took the rst 2 pts. (up to 13 min.), to
be followed immediately with 3 min. of cues, all right? Or should I rather include
silence before cues? & how much? Does this mean that the ute only gets to play
cues, or that he shouldnt play at all? (I take it theres no cue sheet for trombone.)
Kagel is interested in this piece for future concerts in Kln. He wants me to leave
the material with him, but would you prefer that he have new since you have
marked it yourself? I could ask him to photograph if it is necessary.
Please write about future plans. During Oct. Im in and out of Kln. After Nov.
2nd its probably better to address me in Vienna, where Ill be 15th to 19th.
Love to all Merce, Lois, Earle, Carol, Viola,52 Bob, Jap etc.53
[and to you,
david]
PS No disturbance (beyond general utter of excitement as in movie) during
Fontana Mix except in back half of hall where a lady stood up crying stop the
music Ill have heart failure. She was quieted by a gentleman who remarked:
Ah! Its natural selection.
48
This performance was at the Staatliche Hochschule fr Musik in Cologne.
49
These projected performances appear likely never to have come to fruition.
50
Hans G. Helms (b. June 8, 1932, Teterow, Germany; d. March 11, 2012, Berlin, Germany),
German experimental poet and sociologist, who along with Metzger and Wolf Rosenberg
translated Cages 1958 Darmstadt presentations into German.
51
Though much was projected for this volume, to have been published by S. Fischer Verlag in
Frankfurt, Metzger in fact never completed it.
52
Viola Farber (b. February 25, 1931, Heidelberg, Germany; d. December 24, 1998, Bronxville,
NY), German-born American dancer and choreographer. Having met Cage and Cunningham
at Black Mountain College in 1952, Farber became a founding member of the Merce
Cunningham Dance Company, setting up her own Viola Farber Dance Company in 1968.
53
Jap was a nickname for Jasper Johns used by many of his friends.
23
Stony Point, October 15, 1959
Dear David, Thank you for your letter which has been enjoyed by many. We are
very happy that you are so busy. I have written Dr. Cerha, and tried to answer
clearly the various questions. I will go as I told him to see Arline who has the only
copy of the song. Christians address is the same as before except for the excahnge
of a C for a D or vice cersa [sic].54 The season is planning me rather than I the
season. Stella Adler wants an evening.55 Also Schwartz wants either an all-Cage
deal or sharing it with Brant.56 I prefer to do the latter course. On Jan. 11, you and I
are advertised to do the indeterminacy lecture. (record is already out) This last at
Living Theater.57 I have arranged no tour, but this could be spurred on. However
Antioch wants us to come but hasnt set a date. Merce expects you for Dec. 10
Millbrook, Bennett Junior College; he placed it as late as he could. We perform
tomorrow in RutgersSuite.58 There are also engagements in Middlewest in
February. The dancing situation is desperate and needs the sort of activity you are
encountering. Can you stir up interest there? Particularly Merce and Carol would
like to go. I imagine any time, but they say next fall. I am now not so certain that I
will go to India, because I heard indirectly that it would be a political walk, and I
dont wish to be involved in politics good or bad.
If Cathys coming in May though if I go to India I wouldnt be here then

perhaps the Schwartz deal could be arranged for then.
Your arrangement of Xians piece seems ne. There is no cue sheet for
trombone. Do let the ute play in cues. Ask Kagel to have a copy made for
Europe and let us have the copy back because of Xians pencil notations.
(which dont yet appear on the transparencies)
54
Again, this is most likely to be Arline Carmen. Presumably, Cage had given her the copy of
Aria after his return from Europe.
55
Stella Adler (b. February 10, 1901, New York City, NY; d. December 21, 1992, Los Angeles, CA),
American actress and pedagogue, probably best known for teaching Stanislavskis method.
56
Henry Brant (b. September 15, 1913, Montreal, Canada; d. April 26, 2008, Santa Barbara,
CA), American experimental composer who pioneered the spatialization of performers
within a performance space. I have been unable to identify Schwartz.
57
This performance ultimately took place on January 25, 1960. There was no tour specically
for Indeterminacy, though it was performed at Antioch College, Yellow Springs, OH, on
May 18, 1960 and under the auspices of Fylkingen, the Swedish Society for New Music and
Intermedia Art, in Sweden on October 10, 1960.
58
Sections of Cages Music for Piano accompanied Cunninghams Suite for Five. It is unlikely
that Cage means Wol s Suite, which accompanied Cunninghams Changeling, since this
was one of the pieces for which Tudor was the exclusive performer with the Merce
Cunningham Dance Company.
John Cage to David Tudor June 4, 1960 109
Earle is anxious to know about the performance and reception of his piece in
Darmstadt.59
I have made the discovery of the hog-peanut.60 Also found Hydnum Caput-
Medusae.61 Give my love to everyone. I dont know what to say about coming
to Europe. I have no new music. Also I am so concerned about the dancers. Is
there no way to organize that for Europe?
[As ever,
J
Did any think to say to N. that music cant grow better than like mushrooms?]62
24
Stony Point, June 4, 1960
Dear David,
By now you may have seen Bengt (Hambraeus).63 The Swedish
correspondence continues and has gotten to the point of how much money do
we want and what are our ideas for a program (1) of music: Fylkingen (they
want Lecture on Nothing, intermission, and compositions of mine; (2) details
with timing for a TV program with Merce and Carolyn to last 1520 minutes;
(3) suggestions for a tape recording for the radio; and (4) probably a dance
program to be arranged by Hger.64 The only date given so far is October 3
(Fylkingens programs are on Mondays). I have phoned Lufthansa and the
round trip tourist ight from Berlin to Stockholm is $117. Multiplying by 4 and
adding $10 per day for four days for each of each and then adding $100 a piece
59
Tudor, Gazzelloni, and Caskel premiered Browns Hodograph I on September 1, 1959 at
Darmstadt. It was given a studio performance (and repeated) in the same session as Nonos
presentation, mentioned above.
60
Amphicarpa bracteata is a vine, the seeds of which can be cultivated as a nut or bean
substitute.
61
The medusa hydnum is a tree-growing fungus, with a taste when cooked not dissimilar to
oyster.
62
Meant by N. is Nono.
63
Swedish composer (b. January 29, 1928, Stockholm, Sweden; d. September 21, 2000, Apple
Hill, Canada), who worked for Sveriges Radio (Sveriges Radiotjnst until 1957) in Stockholm
from 1957 until 1972, when he became professor of composition at McGill University in
Montreal.
64
This is most likely to be Bengt Hger (b. April 27, 1916, Malm, Sweden; d. November 2,
2011, Stockholm, Sweden), who founded the Swedish Dance Museum in 1950 and, with
Birgit Akesson, Stockholms State Dance School in 1963.
I come to $1028. Could you chat with Bengt to discover whether the radio, TV,
Fylk. and Opera could come up with that much or more? I will await your reply
before answering the letters.
Also: Berliner Festwochen is sending contract, but they have decided (if
my translation is correct) to forego the pleasure of a musical program, since
they are getting music on the dance programs anyway. Thus they are now
contracting for three dance programs: Sept. 28, 29, and 30 at $3000. Out of
that fee must come 600 for Susan Pimsleur and how much for the German
Govt.?65
The program given them is: Suite for Two JC

Winter Music
Untitled Solo CW
Solo EB
Lavish Escapade CW
Waka TI
Changeling CW
Nightwandering BN
Variations JC
Music Walk with Dancers66
We could change from program to program but if you wish to do this, let me
know immediately because they are printing programs with photos etc.
I will have Cartridge Music to add to repertoire. I dont mean this with
regard to Berlin, because I dont want to belabor them with regard to
equipage.
How are You?
[J]
65
Susan Pimsleur was, by this time, agent for Cage, Tudor, and Cunningham at Musical
Artists in New York City.
66
Suite for Two was danced to Cages Music for Piano; Untitled Solo to Wol s For Piano I;
Lavish Escapade to Wol s For Piano II; Waka to Toshi Ichiyanagis Music for Piano 2;
Changeling to Wol s Suite; and Nightwandering to Bo Nilssons Bewegungen,
Quantitten, and Schlagguren. Cages Variations I would have been performed without
dance, although Cunningham developed choreography for later pieces in the Variations
series. The dance titled here Solo would be retitled Hands Birds (the title, too, of a two-word
poem by M. C. Richards written after she rst heard Tudor perform at Black
Mountain College in 1951) by the time of its premiere in Venice on September 24, 1960,
and the performances at the Hebbel-Theater in Berlin, and was danced to Browns
December 1952.
David Tudor to John Cage June 16, 1960 111
25
June 16, 1960
dear John,
thanks for the notes and mail. So busy up to now, no chance to write, also its
been hard to reach the swedes apparently there is some split between
factions. & so all I know is that Fylkingen oers you & me each 750. Sw.Cr.
thats about 144. dollars apiece & that we could have Oct. 10 instead of 3rd if
we want (all this from Welin).67 I should have some info. from Bengt
tomorrow if so will write. Have heard rumour that St. Opera is undergoing
construction, so another hall may have to be found (this from a bystander so
unocial), & if this turns out to be the case you must inquire about the
Moderna Museet, Skeppsholmen (thats a section of Stockholm) this is like
the M. of M.A., new, & has hall with moveable walls & seats.
Venice looks very good Amey has backing & has asked for 5 programs:
piano; dance; Stockhausen; instrumental; theatre.68 Need to know from you
as soon as possible: a) will Cathy be able to be there? Want to start on Aug.
26 & if possible a program every day. b) concerts will be in Palazzo Grassi in
an enclosed court (roofed over glass?) pillars near ground, windows
above & galleries where speakers can be put, more windows up to ceiling. A
platform will have to be constructed & could be placed at one end or in the
middle which does Merce prefer? I asked for 35 x 25 ft., or if in round 30 ft.
sq. is this ok? we have to know this so it can be ordered. What would be
necessary in way of lights? If in round Amey thinks it would be nice to have
lights coming from the 4 corners of the ceiling would this work? He doesnt
know the exact dimensions but it is rectangular, that is somewhat longer
than wide, very high, & can seat ca. 300. c) re: theatre piece, do you think of
30 min. or a whole evening? Also please tell me about disposition shall we
keep it we 4 for the present or do you want other performers? Besides us
there will be Cardew (piano, guitar), Schwertsik (french horn & red beard);
then possibly Caskel & Cathy; Nikky & Frank Amey; perhaps Xian. If you
decide to include others send me parts.
67
Karl-Erik Welin (b. May 31, 1934, Genarp, Sweden; d. May 30, 1992, Mallorca), Swedish
composer and organist, who became secretary of Fylkingen in the late 1950s.
68
Frank Amey, American pianist and composer, based in Venice and friendly with Peggy
Guggenheim, providing music for several masques performed in her garden with texts
by the poet Alan Ansen. His wife, Nikky Amey, appeared in Joseph Loseys Eva (1962),
with her forename spelled Nicky; Peggy Guggenheim also had a small role in the same
lm.
d) re Fontana Mix will Solo for Piano, & Cathys version if she comes, be
desirable? (These could be placed on dierent programs). Amey wants an all-
Stockhausen evening including the new piece, which requires a 4-track
machine, very expensive to rent & probably would prohibit having other tape-
machines for us. Could you then make 4 tracks of 30 min. which you could
send or bring to Kln or Venice to be dubbed on to the 4-track tape; you could
then sit at the mixer & perform the tape during the concert by bringing the
amplitude up and down (it will go to 0). Dont have to pursue this immediately
because it looks doubtful that we can get the machine in which case therell be
no trouble getting 4 machines as we usually have. Until this matter is settled, &
until we know whether Cathy is coming (please nd out for us as soon as
possible), we cant settle the programs besides our stu we have to juggle
Stockhausen, Kagel, Bussotti, Cardew, Amey, taking consideration of the
performers involved etc.
e) can you possibly garner a vague notion of Merces wishes re dance

program whether he wants to stick to Berlin [program] or not. Problems
here are 1) whether everything can be done in the round 2) what music is
involved (trying to avoid repetition on other programs) 3) whether any
electricals are needed for the music.
f ) fees the preliminary gures are: for me lions share 300,000. L; Cathy
80,000.; Merce & Carol (together) 130,000.; for you 100,000. These gures are
discussable & for one thing I shall ask for more for Merce & Carol. What do
you think? We will all be housed & fed.
g) besides Solo we like toy piano & cartridge music can you bring the pianos,
microphones & cartridges? Suggest you investigate shipping possibilities right
away.
h) when can you all arrive in Venice? The cheapest way I know is via Icelandic,
447.30 round trip to Luxembourg, thence to Venice by rail. They only y to L. on
Tuesdays which means you could leave on Aug. 23 & arrive 24th or early the
25th I have already told Amey not to make the dance program rst. The trip via
Icelandic I have found the least tiring of any except jet the planes are very
quiet & usually not too crowded & the trip is broken in mid-Atlantic; longer than
other routes but more pleasant food is the same. They have more business in
July & August so best to make reservations now if you want to come this route.
i) shall one expect that you & Merce will stay at Peggys or at Ameys?
Realize this is all complicated but please try to answer the specic questions so
we can proceed to make the programs at the moment its very complex
because of the multitude of possibilities & desires among those involved.
As for other engagements, Brcher is trying in several places, including

Mnchen but he says you dont answer & he doesnt know what dates are
available, so I said 1st 2 weeks Sept. & last 2 weeks Oct.69 Please write him. &
very important: please tell me the dates in Berlin I seem to have forgotten
them.
Pousseur is going to try to get us a dance program in Bruxelles would you

please inform him as to the possible dates? & send him a brochure or
something.70
Hbner from NDR Hamburg is interested again probably in theatre piece

because I told him it would not be done in Berlin as per your letter. I expect to
hear from him about this shortly.
Cerha & Schwertsik will try to organize something in Wien. I am waiting for
word from Bremen & Rome. Will go shortly to Berlin & after that will write lots
of letters for music engagements. Will look at theatre while there.
Kln looks hopeless as for dance, but we can always give music in Mary
Bauermeisters Atelier (but probably no pay).71 Its a lovely place, top oor,
triangular (as summer house), with ladder in back going up to attic-like
situation. We had a wonderful evening I stood in front & shued cards
which gave the order of the program & wrote the pieces on the blackboard, one
by one. It came out: Poem, 5 Piano Pieces, Water Music, Variations, Toshi,72
69
Ernst Brcher (b. December 8, 1925, Berlin, Germany; d. November 12, 2006, Munich,
Germany) was the founder of Colognes DuMont publishing house, responsible for the
publication of Stockhausens writings until 1984, amongst much other support for new
music, and directed DuMont until 1997. Stockhausens Refrain is dedicated to Brcher.
70
Henri Pousseur (b. June 23, 1929, Malmedy, Belgium; d. March 6, 2009, Brussels,
Belgium), Belgian composer, associated with Darmstadt in the 1950s, but most famous
for work which involves indeterminate elements, such as Scambi (1957), in which the tape
can be reassembled in a range of dierent congurations, and Votre Faust (196168), an
opera with a libretto by Michel Butor, in which the audience is given some license to
determine the course of the piece.
71
Bauermeister (b. September 7, 1934, Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) regularly used her
studio at Lintgasse 28, close to Alter Markt in Cologne as a venue for the performance of
experimental art and music, and it became, albeit briey, an important center for the
development of the European brand of Fluxus. In 1962, Bauermeister moved to New York
and was friendly with, amongst others, Johns and Rauschenberg. In 1967, she would marry
Stockhausen; they would have two children together, Julika and Simon.
72
Toshi Ichiyanagi (b. February 4, 1933, Kobe, Japan) was one of those principally respon-
sible for introducing Cages music to Japan, returning there in 1961 following his studies at
the New School in New York City. He also worked regularly with the Merce Cunningham
Dance Company, providing the music for Waka, Story (1963), and Scramble (1967) (the
For pianist, Card-piece, Candle-piece.73 Cardew, Schwertsik, Hans & Chris,74

Frank & Nikky Amey, Ush Kagel,75 Malcom Patterson (a young negro from
Canada) performed; I had to switch Xians piece & the voice piece because
Schwertsik had to catch a train! We had 7 radios, & for the Poem 1 piano stool,
1 scrub-brush on wall, 1 piece of rubber-tire on wet glass, 1 wooden stool in
corridor, & 1 wooden chair upstairs.
Khs piece is for tape pno. & 1 percst, 38 min. Its full of rotation [speaker-
wise] & mixed kinds of white noise & sounds quite dierent than what Dick M.
copied. The tape has quite nice parts, but with instruments the whole thing gets
transformed into a Lou Harrison-type situation, I feel (tape sounds take on
Beethoven character). I have lots of percussion instruments around me. If a
4-track machine can be brought to US Kh wants to make a tour in fall 61. Just
now there are requests from Scandinavia for November please tell me
quickly, have we a tour in November?
Also there are negotiations in progress for a tour in Apr/May 61, starting in
Bremen, thence to Wien & Yugoslavia what is our situation for April? I am
pressed to answer about Nov., I have said its unlikely but would wait to hear
from you.
Will be back in Kln (June) 2426 & hope to hear from you by then, because
unsure of whereabouts afterwards, but expect to land in Venice by July 8th or
so to look over situation etc. Then I will be free to come home about July 15th
shall I do this?
Actually I would like to but if this makes nances of the tour dicult for you &
you think I should stay over, please say so now! Venice address: c/o Frank
Amey, Palazzo Contarini-Corf, Accademia 1057. All for now. Regards from
tout-le-monde.
music used was Music for Piano 2, Sapporo, and Activities for Orchestra). He was Yoko
Onos rst husband; jointly they are the dedicatees of Cages 0 0 00.
73
This suggests that the program on June 15, 1960 took the following form: Poem, La Monte
Young; Five Piano Pieces for David Tudor, Sylvano Bussotti; Water Music, John Cage;
Variations, John Cage; Music for Piano No. 2, Toshi Ichiyanagi; For Pianist, 1959,
Christian Wol; Card Piece, George Brecht; and, Candle Piece, George Brecht. However,
the recording of Tudors rst performance at the Bauermeister atelier suggests, instead,
that the order was: Five Piano Pieces for David Tudor, Sylvano Bussotti; Water Music, John
Cage; Variations, John Cage; Music for Piano, Toshi Ichiyanagi; Card Piece, George Brecht;
Card Piece (repeated), George Brecht; For Pianist, Christian Wol; Candle Piece, George
Brecht. This suggests that the recording is probably missing the rst piece on the program,
La Monte Youngs Poem, and that a very small amount of further shuing was under-
taken in the later part of the program.
74
Hans G. and Khris Helms.
75
This refers to Mauricio Kagels wife, the artist Ursula Kagel.
26
Stony Point, June 22 [1960]
Dear David:
Merce is already in Colorado, so I am inventing his attitudes towards the

questions you ask. (I also called Carolyn and have her view.) It is: that the
dances were made to be seen from one vantage point, and that the platform
should be at one end. The size 35 x 25 is good. Lights then would come from
the rear I should imagine. Where will the instruments be placed? On the
platform? If so, it might be good to have it at least 30 ft. deep. Means for exits
and entrances should be considered. Places for costumes to be changed.
Re Theatre Piece. I would be interested in a whole evening, but if that makes

programming other pieces dicult (having time for everything that is desired),
then it can be 30 min. If it is the whole evening, my thought is to let the
performers make 3 readings of their parts, in the same way we have made 3
readings of the variations. One would be free, e.g., to be absent wholly or in part
from a given act all of them 30 minutes long. As to the performers see below.
(Am waiting to speak to Cathy.)
I wont do anything about Fontana Mix until I hear from you about the 4 track
machine.
As to the dance program, I assume it will be the Berlin one. Earle is writing a
new piece for Carolyns new solo. I believe it uses a tape machine. I called him
about this and he was as indenite as often: he has begun work and has thought
of using a machine but could do without, etc. But if he does without its a
dierent piece.76 Incidentally he has given Capitol notice and is giving up his
job.77
I have reached Cathy. She will not arrive in Milan until the 3rd of September
and would not be available for concerts until the 5th. (You cd. arrange a Cage
Birthday!)
76
As noted above, Hands Birds was ultimately danced to pieces from Browns Folio. Brown
completed no work involving tape after Octet I (1953) and Octet II (1954) until Wikiup
(1979).
77
Brown worked as a recording engineer for Capitol Records between 1955 and 1960. From
1960 until 1966 he worked for Time Records, where he released discs featuring music by,
amongst others, Berio, Birtwistle, Boulez, Bussotti, Cage, Evangelisti, Feldman, Kagel,
Lucier, Maderna, Mumma, Nono, Scelsi, Stockhausen, and Wol.
The Venice fees are arranged no doubt according to amount of work done.
This brings up the nances of the entire tour with Merce and Carolyn, and the
question of whether you return soon to go back again in August. The contract
for Berlin is not yet signed, and when it is, 20% goes to Susan. She, by the way,
has insisted that all the correspondence go through her, and that is why I have
not answered letters myself. I will now write to Brucher to explain that
situation. Your returning work would add circa $500 to the expenses, and I see
no necessary reason for this being added to Merces obligation. If you make this
trip, my feeling is that you should pay for it. Should Merce be able to pay it, he
would be able to bring Nick or Rick for the lighting which wd. be of such help.78
That possibility has not yet been taken seriously because of lack of funds.
Also, the Connecticut programs have been arranged in such a way that they
can be done without you, because of your early uncertainty as to whether you
wd. return. If you do come back, the piano parts (Suite, Septet, and Rune) could
be played by you and Dunn instead of you and myself, since I have already set
Dunn to work on the music.79 I would limit my work to conducting Rune. That
would give us all fees. If, versus the general tenor of my remarks, you feel
that you want to come back and Merce should pay for it, then I think any fees
that are given should be more equal and cooperative.
I cd. bring pianos, microphones and cartridges. Will look into shipping
possibility.
Carolyn has made reservations for Icelandic ight on 23 August. I hope this letter
reaches you soon enough for an immediate reply, because we have 5 reservations
for the maximum possibility (you, me, Merce, Carolyn, Nick or Rick) and $100
for each must be given by the 30th of this month. I rather think Merce and I
would stay with Peggy, if she does not have other guests then. Otherwise wd. be
delighted to stay with Amey. There is also rumor that Iliana Castelli is taking a
house on the Lido and will have room (also for Bob and Jap possibly).80
78
Rick refers to Richard Nelson (b. December 7, 1938, New York City, NY; d. November 6,
1996, New York City, NY), lighting designer who worked with choreographers such as
Martha Graham and Paul Taylor as well as Merce Cunningham. I am unable to identify
Nick.
79
Robert Dunn (b. Oklahoma, 1928; d. July 5, 1996, New Carrollton, MD), American
choreographer, who also worked in the late 1950s and early 1960s as an accompanist for
dance choreographers, including Cunningham. Dunn and Cage jointly compiled Peters
Editions 1962 catalogue of Cages output to date.
80
Ileana Schapira (b. October 28, 1914, Bucharest, Romania; d. October 21, 2007, New York
City, NY) was a major art dealer, principally remembered for bringing American art to a
European audience, including the work of Johns and Rauschenberg. She married Leo
Castelli, who was also an inuential New York art dealer, at the age of 17, and they both
moved to New York City with the outbreak of World War II. They had divorced in 1959.
The dates in Berlin, if the contract is signed, are Sept. 28, 29, and 30. Possibly
also Oct. 1. I have written that we wd. arrive by the 26 for technical
arrangements, rehearsals, etc.
About fall plans: the answers to my last few letters sent out have been
negative. We have so far only L.A. for $200 and Potsdam NY for $300.
Furthermore, Ive just been invited to be a Fellow at the Center for advanced
studies at Wesleyan for three months from Sept. 15 to Dec. 15th. I will
therefor cancel these and you are then free to do the Stockhausen November
engagements. As for Spring and your question about Apr. May 61, I know
that Susan has gotten and is getting more engagements for Merce and at good
fees. She was assured that we were available for Feb., March and April. She
now has 8 engagements Feb. 10, 14, 18, 22; March 8, 11; Apr. 12, 14, and is
naturally getting more. If you are going to be in Europe for April and May, let
me know so that we can substitute Dunn and arrange the programs
accordingly.
I am trying to arrange the Wesleyan Fellowship for a beginning around the

15th of Oct. or the 1st of November.
Am also having rather promising conversations with Hendrickson of Peters

Edition.81 They contemplate publishing the Concert for Piano and Orch. plus
another piece. I will propose something with transparencies.
I think Ive answered questions a)i). Await those jz.
As ever,
[J]
81
Meant is Walter Hinrichsen (b. 1907; d. 1969), who had emigrated to the United States in
1936 and, following the war, been US Music Ocer for the American Zone of occupied
Germany. On his return to New York, he founded the music publishing rm, C. F. Peters
Corporation. This comment by Cage suggests that his negotiations with Edition Peters
may not have been quite as immediately and denitively positive as Cages own recol-
lection of the story suggests:
I picked up the Yellow Pages and I ran down the list of music publishers, and I
stopped at Peters. The reason I stopped there was because someoneI think someone
in some string quartethad said that Mr. Hinrichsen was interested in American
music. So I simply called and asked to speak with him. He said, very cheerfully over
the phone, Im so glad that you called. My wife has always wanted me to publish your
music. That day we had lunch and signed the contract. (Cage and Kostelanetz 2003
[1987], 22)
Nevertheless, letter 30 suggests strongly that Evelyn Hinrichsen was indeed strongly in
favor of Edition Peters publishing Cages music.
27
Stony Point, June 23 [1960]
Dear David,
Just received your letter of the 21st.82 My position with regard to writing
letters about the dance engagement possibilities is dicult, because as I wrote
in last letter, Susan Pimsleur has insisted that they all go through her. I will
write to Bengt Hambraeus to explain this, and the same with Hager, who has
written telling me of the reconstruction of the Opera and the problem of the
Museum of Modern Art there (which has no stage) where a platform would
have to be constructed.
The conversations with the Peters Edition continue promisingly. If they decide,
however, to do nothing, I will bring something for Mary Bauermeister.
Otherwise not, since I hope to give Peters an exclusive position. Their plan is to
begin with the Concert plus parts, another piece, and information about the
pieces that are available on transparencies, and as orders for these latter give
indication, add to the publishing.
Several reports have come through from San Francisco re recent performances
of La Monte Young.83 I enclose a letter from Ann Halprin.84 Did you ever meet
her? She is a good person. I also heard of the version of the Opera with girls.85
La Monte has written that he will send recent pieces.
82
This letter is not extant.
83
Young (b. October 14, 1935, Bern, ID) had rst encountered Cages ideas through Tudor,
during the 1959 Darmstadt courses, subsequently beginning a correspondence with Cage.
By the late 1950s, Young was performing Cages work in California, and Tudor was
performing music by Young, though the performance history shows no evidence that
Tudor ever actually performed those pieces that were dedicated to him: Piano Pieces for
David Tudor nos. 1, 2 & 3. He did, however, perform Youngs Poem and X for Henry Flynt,
as well as 2 sounds, regularly, the latter as the accompaniment for Merce Cunninghams
Winterbranch.
84
Anna [sic] Halprin (b. July 13, 1920, Winnetka, IL), American dancer, choreographer, and
pedagogue, who worked with La Monte Young and Terry Riley, amongst many other
composers, at the beginning of the 1960s. Her letter is not reproduced here, but reports
positively on recent concerts in San Francisco featuring the music of the above two
composers and Alan Hovhaness, as well as giving contact details for potential dance
performances at Mills College, Contemporary Dancers Center, San Francisco State
College, and Stanford University.
85
The opera were group improvisations featuring Pauline Oliveros and Morton Subotnick,
and dancers who worked with Anna Halprin, including A. A. Heath, John Graham, and
Lynn Palmer.
I dont remember a letter from Maryvonne Kendergi.86 I remember writing to

her but not receiving a reply. Due to your rst letter in which you said you were
being pressed for November dates in Europe, I have cancelled the two
engagements here (potsdam [sic] and Los Angeles) and am making no
attempts to get engagements; in your second letter however you mention all
these Canadian dates for the fall. If, as is almost certain, Wesleyan accept the
dates I proposed for the Fellowship (Oct. 15 to Feb. 1) I wont be available. You
could, of course, full the engagements yourself.
I have written to Brucher and told him that the letters have to go through Susan
Pimsleur, Musical Artists, 119 West 57th St. NY 19.
My plans for next summer are to be in Michigan with Dr. Smith from June 25
for 8 weeks (that goes to mid-August).87 I would be very interested in going to
South America but I want to spend the 8 weeks in Michigan denitely. If their
program is June thru Oct. perhaps something could be worked out, unless you
are planning to be at Darmstadt (Aug.-Sept.)
About the Cartridge Music (unwritten so far). I will bring cartridges with me,
but the number we will use will depend on the loudspeakers and ampliers
available. These must be of good or excellent quality. The composition will be
written in such a way that the number of cartridges is not set. Give it the
program length that seems suitable to the program. There will also be any
number of players. I will bring 1 or 2 dozen cartridges.
Is the Duet for Cymbal a piece I am to write? I have vague recollections of some
inspiration. As I think about it now, it also needs a very good loudspeaker,
contact mike, and amplier.88 Let me know whether they are available.
I had only 5 registered pupils in my composition class.89 And for once I had the
courage to cancel the whole thing. It was dicult because two or three of the
students were extremely sweet (milk behind ears) and one showed signs of
working with energy. His name is Joseph Jones, so I sent him to study with
86
Kendergi (b. August 15, 1915, Aintab, Ottoman Empire; d. September 27, 2011, Montreal,
Canada) was a naturalized Canadian commentator on new music. She was most likely to
have met Cage in Europe in 1958, during the period when she visited many of Europes
leading music festivals.
87
Alexander H. Smith (b. December 12, 1904, Crandon, WI; d. December 12, 1986, Ann
Arbor, MI) was an American mycologist, based at the University of Michigan. He also
served as President of the Mycological Society of America.
88
Duet for Cymbal (1960) would ultimately become a version of Cartridge Music. Since
Cartridge Music was unwritten at this stage, it seems likely that the idea that other
amplied media could be controlled following the materials provided by the score arose
during the compositional process.
89
These were Cages 1959 classes at the New School in New York City.
Earle Brown.90 Furthermore they have in common the Schillinger experience.

But he had not only energy but humility. A dear.
What I have left is a fellow whos cracked I think and who is going to manage
he says to get out here for private lessons. As far as he is concerned everybody is
old-fashioned and he plans a work for large orch. 8 perc. 4 pianos and
Bernstein to be nished this summer! Once he lost his voice for two years.
Perhaps I need a private guard.
His name is William Gale.91 Gale and Jones are both 20yrs. old.
Dear David, our needs are now very separate: I must quietly work and Wesleyan
will be marvelous for that. You need I understand all this activity of performance.
Should it be that you are not going to be in Europe for November and want to
have the engagements revived that I have cancelled let me know and I will do
what I can for you. La Monte has also sent names to write to. Those that Ann
sent are useless since they dont have rst names.92
Let me know whether you have been able to use the contact mike and cartridge
you took with you in Europe with the ampliers there. Wd. also appreciate for
composition purposes some information about the range of amplitude in your
experience (those little drawings you make after testing the ampliers).
Am sending copy of this to Venice just in case it arrives too late in Kln.
[Copy includes Anns letter. X]
28
Cologne, June 27, 1960
Dear John,
letter arrived this morning. Leaving tomorrow for London, one week;
dont know where Ill be staying but can probably be reached at Manis (129
90
Following his studies with Cage and Brown, Joe Jones (b. June 19, 1934, New York City,
NY; d. February 9, 1993, Wiesbaden, Germany) began to take part in Fluxus events,
working with Dick Higgins and Alison Knowles, amongst others.
91
I have been unable to identify Gale.
92
This is not entirely true, William Ward at San Francisco State College and David Broyden
at Berkeley have their names given in full.
Hamilton Terrace, N.W.8).93 After that will be with Amey in Venice, looking at
Palazzo Grassi. Will arrange platform at one end.
After all will not come home I too am lacking in funds & dont see how
present decit can be made up if I return.
Sorry about Cathy believe Frank wants to be nished by the 1st; will have his
reaction presently.
Not important to have exact dance program now; but if you have any news
from Merce contra the indications in your letter (esp. concerning platform)
please communicate.
In re fees, I too was somewhat startled to begin with. However all things
considered, I dont see how there can be any question of equal fees. If all goes
as desired at present, an immense labor is involved for me; I shall have to go to
Kln to prepared & rehearse the Stockhausen pieces & Kagel Kh. is in
Switzerland for the next 3 months & can contribute nothing. Furthermore, I dont
believe that there is any lump sum involved (I was informed that if it were known
that I oered to take less, it would probably be the case that I would receive
less & not necessarily that others would receive more). So what requires to be
said at this point is whether the fees for each person are adequate. If necessary
later, we can make some arrangement between us; however the extent to which I
am wiling to do this naturally will be inuenced by the program requirements
in any case I have no intention of giving 5 programs to the price of one.
In Berlin it is possible that we will lose the usual 15% to German Govt. Perhaps
S.P. can try to do something about this there are ways to get around it, but
dicult & usually I dont bother about it.94
Concerning November I will inform those interested that I am available. However

I hope that this is an arrangement you really believe in I have no choice between
the two alternatives. Perhaps though you might like to try to shift Potsdam to
December, when Kendergi wants us to come to Montreal (incidentally she was
surprised at the low fee). Theres also Philadelphia Ive asked Rochberg to get in
touch with you.95 April & May in Europe are still question marks for me.
93
Mani is Materama Sarabhai. Though Cage was close to Geeta Sarabhai, Tudor was closer
to Mani, who had married into the family.
94
S.P. = Susan Pimsleur.
95
George Rochberg (b. July 5, 1918, Paterson, NJ; d. May 29, 2005, Bryn Mawr, PA). By 1960,
Rochberg had left his role as director of publications at the Theodore Presser Company,
Universal Editions distributor in the United States (and, thus, the publisher of the English-
language translation of Die Reihe from 1957 to 1968), and begun teaching at the University
of Pennsylvania, where he would remain until 1983.
Enclosed plan of Hebbel-Theater-Berlin measurements in meters. Old place,

well equipped though & often have ballet. Stage in front is only 9 meters but
quite deep & acoustics said to be perfect so pianos could go far back (no pit),
otherwise in wings l & r. In front are two wooden posts which somewhat
obscure the interior width of the stage, alas. They have light colored cyc, which
please note has 3 possible positions. Also note that stage can revolve (said not
to be noisy), in which case 2nd cyc position is used. When at rearmost position
there is still room for crossover. For dance they put down a sort of hard
composition board (wooden oor underneath it is all chewed up), then light
colored cloth on top (believe its canvas) couldnt ascertain dimensions of
this (also placement of dressing rooms but theres plenty of space on stage for
changes) but have written to someone about this & I expect you will receive the
information (thru Carol!). Lights: appr. 20,000 watts, about half of which come
from balcony area. There are footlights. Can be 4 or 5 wings. Seats 680.
Need to know which date you have accepted for Fylkingen Boulez wants me
for Domaine Musicale Oct. 12th. Both he & Henri are trying to get dance dates
for us. Also have invitation from friend in Hamburg-Bremen area for us to stay
if there is time to spare.
Good news about Peters keep the pot boiling.
[will be back in Kln 1 day July 8th] [david]
29
Stony Point, July 7, 1960
Dear David,
I spoke to Merce about the platform in Venice. He said that it should have at
least one side to a wall with arrangements for them to get on and o stage. He
mentioned Hamburg stage at the Radio in connection with this. So the
platform should either be at one end or along the wall on one of the sides.
(Audience could be on 3 sides)
I have signed a contract with Henmar Press Inc. (which is part the ASCAP
part of the C.F. Peters Corporation). They will have all of the music (past and
future works) and agree to publish two a year for ten years. They also will have
all of the masters and mss. on hand and will take care of individual orders on
everything! Thus, if Metzgers publisher wants to have the things for Metzger,
I give you the address: Mr. Walter Hinrichsen, President, Henmar Press Inc.,
373 Park Ave. So., New York 16, N.Y. Together with the words Copyright c
John Cage to David Tudor July 7, 1960 123
1960 by etc., I must have been writing that on everything: title pages and rst
music pages (Scores and parts) for a week now. I have the choice of what will be
published this year ready for the fall. I rst thought the Solo for Piano with all
the Orchestral parts, but now Ive decided on the Music of Changes and one of
the early chromatic pieces, probably the six short inventions with the
preceding solo with canon. Everything seems so graphic now, I thought better
to put conservative feet forward.
Also have received appointment from Wesleyan for FellowshipOctober 15

to February 1 with 2 wks o at Xmas. Peter Yates wrote saying All is Forgiven,
damn it!
Tanglewood phoned saying Aaron wanted me to give a program there on their

chamber music series.96 They oered the Lenox St. Qt, winds and a singer. So
Im doing the old St. Qt., also 60 52.119 for String-Players, and Concert for
Voice, Flute, Clar., and Strings.97 Also giving a talk.
The Fylkingen date should be October 3. I have a tentative return ight on the
13th from Luxembourg. If dance dates are gotten following that, someone
there could take my place if that is needed. Berlin is Sept. 28, 29, 30.
If youre not using the Haikus, could I have your copy? Also would you be
willing sometime to record the Changes? If so, give me a vague idea when, and
Ill start in that direction. Also mention desired fee.
Pimsleur seems to be getting many engagements for Feb., March April.
96
Aaron Copland (b. November 14, 1900, New York City, NY; d. December 2, 1990, Sleepy
Hollow, NY). Copland was involved with the Tanglewood Music Festival from its incep-
tion with the foundation of the Berkshire Music Center (later the Tanglewood Music
Center) in 1940. The familiarity of Cages Aaron may appear surprising, in the light of
current histories of Cages life and work, in which Copland is, when he is present at all, at
best a peripheral gure. Nevertheless, as early as January 17, 1950, Cage suggests in a letter
to Boulez that he could speak to Copland regarding a possible attendance at Tanglewood
for Boulez (Nattiez 1993, 46). Thus, Cage would have known Copland for some ten years
by this stage. It seems likely, then, that such familiarity would have been likely to have
inuenced Copland to propose Cage for Tanglewood; even though Copland may have
been unsure of the value of Cages music, Pollack argues that the two liked each other
personally, socializing together both at home and abroad (Pollack 2000, 205). Copland
also supported the work of Cunningham and Feldman, even though Feldman had booed
the premiere of Coplands Piano Fantasy (ibid.). Cages own surprise at being invited to
Tanglewood is indicated in letter 30.
97
The piece for string players suggests that this was a performance of an arrangement of
260 1.1499 for a string player, with the original piece distributed between at least ve
players. Nevertheless, it is probably more likely that some parts of the earlier version of the
piece were simply cut, and it was performed by the Lenox String Quartet alongside String
Quartet in Four Parts.
Please soon let me know how many loudspeakers, ampliers are available in
Venice so that I can put my mind to cartridge music. Will Cornelius be
available to play with us in that? And others?
[Yrs.,
J]
Had bite from Beyrouth (Leban)!98
30
July 27 [1960]
Dear David,
A quick note since I have to go into town. Now nished are CARTRIDGE
MUSIC (which is also DUET FOR CYMBAL, PIANO DUET, TRIO, ETC.)
and SOLO FOR VOICE 2. The Solo for Voice can go with the Fontana Mix, the
Concert for Piano and Orch (any parts) and also with the Cartridge Music. It
can make the situation of congestion of soloists with the cartridges. I am taking
this material to Henmar Press today (373 Park Ave. South, and will have the
two copies of each sent on to you as soon as reproduced.
Our plan there is to begin with the Music of Changes. It will be done in 4
volumes the old green deal of Edition Peters. My question is: if they are
willing are you willing to have your editingthe timings included, with, of
course proper mention and check?99 Also please let me know if you will record
it and if so suggest a time.
Earle is becoming an A and R man, and is beginning with a record of old

percussion music conducted by me.100 I have to make a 40 minute L.P. next
week. Certainly wish you were here.
Morty is doing a Hollywood lm.101
98
This is an odd mixture of Franco- and Anglophone usages. In any case, what is meant is
Beirut, Lebanon. In French, Beyrouth, Liban would be correct.
99
The published version of Music of Changes does not contain Tudors timings, so it must be
presumed that he did not accede to this request. It is perfectly plausible that, from Tudors
perspective, it would be necessary for a pianist to work through the piece, in a manner
analogous to his own, in order fully to understand the demands of the score.
100
The disc was released by Time Records in both a stereo and a mono format (catalogued as S/
8000 and 58000, respectively) in 1961, and contained music by Amadeo Roldn, William
Russell, and Henry Cowell, alongside Cages Amores, Lou Harrisons Canticle No. 1 (1939),
and their jointly composed Double Music (1941).
101
The lm in question was Jack Garfeins Something Wild (1961). In many respects, Something
Wild stands in stark contrast to the Hollywood movies of the time, dealing directly and
On the 12th I do a program at Tanglewood with strings, ute and clarinet, and
give a talk. Is this Tanglewood? Then what am I doing here?
Please write to me and tell me what the programs are in Venice so that I can get
whatever I have to do together. E.G. what about the Theatre Piece?
M.C. is back and is marvelous. Dashes about to the 3-fold farm to hear about
the mind, the senses, and the universe with Russians in it.
It is now clear to almost everybody that we are a lower-class nation.
Where are you?
The wife of the publisher was at Mills years ago when I gave percussion
concerts there, and she has been telling him all along you should have heard,
you should print it, etc.
Pleawse send a word.
Yours,
[John]
31
Stony Point, August 1, 1960
Dear David,
Thanks for letter July 26.102 Postscript is amazing re Welin. I had accepted
3rd of Oct. and then Munich (Everding coming through for Oct. 2 and 3) made
explicitly with rape, and it received a lukewarm critical reception. Even though Garfein was
only 31 at the time of its release, it proved to be the last of the three lms he directed.
Moreover, lmed almost exclusively in New York City, it is really not a Hollywood movie in
this sense either. Its reception is reminiscent of the contemporaneous response to another,
similarly dicult, lm: Michael Powells Peeping Tom (1960). Although Hitchcocks Psycho
would cover a similar psychological range later the same year, to critical acclaim, this was
Powells last lm, in no small part a result of the critical panning it received. It was, doubtless,
dicult to deal with such troubling subject matter at the time, and music certainly had an
important part to play in this context, since it is hard to imagine how much Psychos reception
might have changed had Bernard Herrmann not persuaded Hitchcock that a score really was
necessary. Similarly, Garfein rejected the quiet, delicate music Feldman had developed for the
lm, replacing him with Aaron Copland. Certainly the incongruity of Feldmans score with
the graphic imagery of Something Wild would surely have altered the lms reception, even if
not necessarily in a more favorable direction.
102
This letter is not extant.
me send cable to Welin saying please make it the 10th; that was sent
Saturday.103 Your letter, Monday, says he says 10th! Very good.
Saw a letter MC is forwarding to you from Tomek.104 Apparently doesnt want

Cartridge Music or is afraid or something. At any rate some problem expressed
in German
Now just back from Tanglewood to hear Lucianos new piece, Circles for
Voice, 2 perc. and harp. Done beautifully be Cathy and Boston Symphony
people. CATHY WILL BE AVAILABLE IN SEPTEMBER.
It is terribly hot today and I am feeling extremely strange: cant sleep! Didnt
sleep last night and now thought Id take a nap, and cant!
Cathy is anxious to appear in Theatre piece. Is also interested in my new sound

which is called Solo for Voice 2 and which has been sent to you with cartridge
music.
When I got back recd. letter from Welin saying 3rd ne; so there is denitely
confusion. I do hope we get Munich for 2 and 3 Oct. and Stockholm for 10.
Will keep you informed.
Meanwhile Pimsleur is sending you publicity junk via Venice.
My present feeling is to keep our tickets Icelandic which are bought sealed and
delivered and y to Venice on Au. 23 and sit there rather than here. Wd. you be
there? Would then be able pleasantly to prepare the various shindigs, since
now there is change of dates.
Pimsleur says London idea re her is good, that is get TV and do the live thing
for 60 pounds or what not. Am also, naturally, willing coop with Bauermeister.
Have written her. She sent me map of locales. Pimsleur has some deal going on
with a German agent and thinks there will be many engagements for the three
of you: You, merce and carolyn. Because I must return Oct. 13.
If you see the toy pianos (which I sent ages ago, will you let me know how they are?
103
August Everding (b. October 31, 1928, Bottrop, Germany; d. January 27, 1999, Munich,
Germany) was artistic director of the Mnchner Kammerspiele from 1959 until 1963, when
he became its manager. Though he was particularly famous, especially in later life, as a
director of opera, this particularly performance in Munich was by the Merce Cunningham
Dance Company. The program given on both evenings is identical to the Berliner Festwochen
program (detailed in letter 24 above).
104
Otto Tomek (b. 1928, Austria) began his career at Universal Edition in Vienna, before
taking over direction for new music at the Westdeutscher Rundfunk in Cologne and later
becoming program director for the Donaueschingen New Music Days.
The Fontana mix is being tossed around. Luciano wont have it on the
Tanglewood program (pardon me, dear J. he says, but I dont like it except
with Cathy; meanwhile Peter Yates new article is about how potent the
Fontana Mix is and how shilly shally Berio-Maderna tapes are, not shilly shaly
but Strauss, he says, Domestica.
A lady came up to me at Tanglewood and said, Who are you? I said I was a
friend of Lucianos. He said to her, dont you know him, hes J.C. the composer.
She said, Why didnt you say you were a composer. I said, How could I since
many dont hink its music. Perhaps I should have said Decomposer. Luciano
almost ipped. It took quite a lot of trouble to explain decomposition to him,
and he was a little tipsy. I met Mme. Koussevitsky.105 She is delightful and told
me a lot of russian names for mushrooms which I collected for her. And Cathy.
Cathys performance was magnicent. Im so glad shell be with us in Venice.

Should be a memorable series of concerts.
Hope Ive answered your questions. Ill be at Tanglewood, Lenox Mass. from
Aug. 812. Then at New London where you cd. write c/o Merce (Connecticut
College). I was surprised to nd that Bob Dunn cant play the Satie very
beautifully. After so many yrs. with you, I had thought that if 2 people sat down
to the piano, grand or upright, that it wd. all sd deelicious. But tis not the case.
I have to explain, can you beleeve it that you dont play emphatically on the rst
beat of the measure?
Christina was in Tanglewood, the little Berio girl. I am so en famille with the
Berios. It was marvelous. But musically we are out of sight.
Exceept Cathy who is inspired woman.
What presence!
I cant gure Copland.
He introduced me to Fromm who kept saying nicht.106
105
Olga Koussevitzky, the widow of the conductor Serge Koussevitzky (b. July 26, 1874,
Vyshny Volochyok, Russia; d. June 4, 1951, Boston, MA). Koussevitzky was the principal
architect of the Tanglewood courses, and founded the Koussevitzky Foundation to
provide commissions for new work.
106
Paul Fromm (b. September 28, 1906, Kitzingen, Germany; d. July 4, 1987), German-born
patron of music in the United States; having settled in Chicago in 1939, Fromm made his
fortune as a wine importer, and in 1952 founded the Fromm Music Foundation to
commission composers for new work. Berios Circles, mentioned by Cage, was Berios
Please ask Priaulx to lend me the Haikus;107 Ive got to copy them. I havent
written many good pieces and I dont like to lose those. I remember perfectly
giving them to you for this trip. You cant possibly have given them to her last
yr. Wd. they be anywhere here?
Will get you 500 for Changes.
Dear david, I miss you very much. Hope you will be in Venice late August. Let
me know; why is it all so marvelously confusing, the dates I mean?
32
New London, CT, August 16, 1960
Dear David,
Did not get your letter until yesterday because I was at Tanglewood and then
here eventually MC forwarded mail. Things are not clear to me as to dates: I
sent a telegram to Welin that we wanted Stockholm Fylkingen to be the 10th of
October and asked him to reply to Susan by cable. He did not do this
apparently and I have not heard boo from him, except a letter that must have
crossed my telegram in which he expressed pleasure with the 3rd of October.
Thats how it stands at the moment. Everding in Munich is on vacation but
wrote asking for 2nd and 3rd of October. Oce sent note to Susan saying be
patient. I also have letter from Pousseur who wants hr. TV; can house 3 of us.
Wants program suggestions, etc. Has contacted Susan. Susan accepts your
having signed biennale contract for Merce. I think that was a good idea. And I
would not change to Theatre Piece. O-hand, I rather think we should save
Theatre Piece for another European elan. Our air tickets are to Luxembourg
and we y on the 23rd. Your letters have made it clear that we might delay that,
but I think it will be better if we are together in situ, better able to make
decisions, programs, rehearse, etc. If, for instance, the theatre in Venice is
absolutely impossible for Merce and Carolyn in their program as it stands, then
we can make the dance program into such things as Music Walk with and
Theatre Piece (if we have to). Cathy of course is all hopped up and ready to sing
childrens songs and hot stu. What I mean is we y to Lux. and then train to
Venice. I wrote some time ago to Peggy who replied that she had long expected
Merce and me for the end of August. Please ask Amey if Carolyn may stay with
rst commission, and one of the small number of commissions awarded by the founda-
tion to a non-US resident.
107
Priaulx Rainier (b. February 3, 1903, Howick, Natal, South Africa; d. October 10, 1986,
Besse-en-Chandesse, France), South African-born English composer, who was Professor
of Composition at the Royal Academy of Music from 1943 until 1961, and where Cardew
would almost certainly have come into regular contact with her.
John Cage to David Tudor December 15, 1960 129
him. One of your letters said she would be welcome. If Frank wants exhibition
of scores, Henmar will certainly provide them. I did already send the toy
pianos. Did they arrive? Perhaps they should be housed in Europe forever
along with necessary mikes. Shall I bring items you list. Though I8ll be heavier
than an elephant! You say we can work on Cartridge piece, but wdnt I have
to bring more cartridges? I dont know why Im asking questions because
I probably wont hear from you again. Am somewhat alarmed that there are
some very necessary corrections to be made in the transparents of the
Changes because it is already in the works. I loaned them your score so that
they could deal with the transparencies. It will be in facsimilie natch. Are they
not errors I can accept? Henmar want it recorded, but not until its published
which will be before Xmas 4 vols. in the usual Peters Edition pale green. I
know nothing about dates in Stockholm besides the 10th if it is the 10th. Could
you please write to them? Bengt, I mean, and Welin. Hambraeus, I mean. I y
back on the 13th Oct. from Lux. If you want me to be with you in Paris, I
propose two versions of Winter Music, your solo one, and our duo made very
empty. Yes, from California many scores but theres an interesting new fellow
Bill Morris involved with smells, explosions etc. who is also not in Calif. but is a
New Yorker.108 Not dumb. Tanglewood actually worked. The string quartet
was 4 members of the Pittsburgh Symphony and they played very well with the
little time they had to prepare. The singer was the main problem a bird from
Boston Soprano who found the situation ludicrous and so operatically tried to
let the audience know she was in it but not of it. Cellist took toy gun he had
with him and shot her at one point in the Concert.109 Reaction was to eect:
this music doesnt sound like anything else weve been hearing up here. Article
in paper ahead of concert: Tanglewood goes o Beam.110
33
Wesleyan University, December 15, 1960
Dear David,
Paul Weiss (Philosophy at Yale) wants to make a number of programs at
Yale,111 no one of which wd. bring a big fee but all of which wd reach dierent
small groups. One is in a Night Club arrangement* where jazz also takes place
108
I am unable to identify Bill Morris.
109
The soprano was Marguerite Willauer. The cellist was possibly Donald McCall of the
Lenox Quartet, yet Cages letter suggests that the quartet, though expected to play in the
performance, ultimately did not, and were replaced by orchestral musicians.
110
Since this is unsigned, it is possible that the letter should continue into a second page, but
this is not extant.
111
Weiss (b. May 19, 1901, New York City, NY; d. July 5, 2002, Washington, DC) is probably
now best remembered for the lawsuit he led against Catholic University, Washington,
and wd. bring at least $150 + prob. more. Then the others: Art Dept + Jonathan
Edwards College. Prob. $100 each. Sometime after Feb. 1. What is your
pleasure?
See you,
J
*
highly recommended by Weiss, Thornton Wilder etc.112
34
May 23, 1961
Dear John,
am in usual busy state & hope youll forgive my not writing before. The new
carillon piece was not played in Bremen there was no instrument!113 Only a
keyboard glockenspiel and there were no loudspeakers available because they
were all set up for another concert in a dierent hall. We decided against that
substitution of a piece just for piano; and in any case Otte says he wants to
commission a piece from you, perhaps for next year.114 However since it seems
so dicult to get a proper instrument here, I would suggest that you dont give
him this piece and instead try to get a performance of it in Chicago!
On the same program Otte had a theatre-type piece, 4 percussionists and two
pianists and conductor, and 4 vocalists using a text of Helms the whole thing
quite lively and with a sense of fun that I have never met before in Europe.115
One of the singers used an incredible megaphone containing a battery-
powered amplier (with control). Helms seem both very well, Chris works very
DC, when, at the age of 91, the university declined to oer him further reappointment. He
ultimately won the lawsuit, remaining in post until the age of 93.
112
Thornton Wilder (b. April 17, 1897, Madison, WI; d. December 7, 1975, Hamden, CT)
was an American novelist and playwright, who won the Pulitzer Prize for his play Our
Town (1938).
113
Meant is Music for Carillon No. 4 (1961).
114
Hans Otte (b. December 3, 1926, Plauen, Germany; d. December 25, 2007, Berlin,
Germany). Although a composer, Otte is principally remembered as one of the most
vocal supporters of American experimental music in Europe, through his role as music
director for Radio Bremen from 1959 until 1984.
115
The piece in question is daidalos, though it is slightly more complex than Tudor suggests.
daidalos is similar in its manner of operation to much of Cages work with Cunningham,
which is to say that the instrumental parts were written by Otte, but the text parts were
not. Thus, the performance was, in fact, a simultaneous performance of Ottes daidalos for
four percussionists and two pianists, and Helmss daidalos for four voices.
David Tudor to John Cage May 23, 1961 131
occasionally as a photographers model, and send you greetings. But rather

peculiarly they seem to have told no one about their good fortune via the
Wms.116
Mary Bauermeister is in a very serious condition it seems that for the past 3
years Haro has been beating her she told no one. In January she tried to
break o completely from him, and he became even more violent, and now
threatens to kill her. Her father has some political status and will not press
suit in order to avoid scandal; in the meantime Ernst and others, including
lawyers, had tried to get him to stop which he promises, but then after a few
days he attacks her again. She has now been in a hospital for 3 weeks,
following the last attack, and is waiting patiently till she can get out she
wants to have another series of programs at her atelier. What Haro will do, no
one knows; it seems he has the aspect of an insane man. Apparently legal
restraining actions are very dicult to bring about in Germany, so altho
everything is being done for her that friends can do, we are all quite
apprehensive.117
There has just been a most curious performance of the Concert, in Zagreb,
with 5 players and Kagel conducting. He rehearsed the instrumentalists
very well, but apparently with an idea of making a classical presentation.
I had no opportunity to attend the rehearsals, so I asked that he make
sure that there would be a variety of accessory sounds. This he did by giving
the performers percussion instruments, just before the performance. Also
he didnt wish to extend his arms fully (because he is so visible) so it was
all quite timid (tho strange enough for the Zagrebians). Much as I admire
him, his concern for the way he appears to the public seems unfortunate
to me.
I have seen a copy of the Pastorales here terribly dirty, so much so as to be

dicult to read in spots. Have also heard the same story from someone who
ordered the toy-piano piece.
116
It is unclear what the good fortune referred to here might be. Nor is it clear what the
indication Wms. denotes. Plausibly this could refer to Emmett Williams (see following
note) or, indeed, Paul Williams, who had funded Cages own Williams Mix, but there is
little to suggest either of these possibilities above an otherwise unidentied meaning for
the abbreviations.
117
Doubtless it would be impossible to discover the exact truth of what Tudor reports here.
Nevertheless, Emmett Williams, who worked for The Stars and Stripes, an American
newspaper based in Darmstadt, recalled that Haro Lauhus spent a week at his home,
recuperating from a leg fracture inicted upon him by Stockhausen following a dispute
over Bauermeister. See Hans Ulrich Obrists interview with Williams for more details at:
www.undo.net/cgi-bin/openframe.pl?x=/cgi-bin/undo/features/features.pl%3Fa%3Di%
26cod%3D45, accessed March 26, 2009.
Everyone asks about you and sends greetings. Doris expects her new baby any
minute.118 Caskel asks for explanation of time-indications in 70 . . . (are the nos.
for a 280 version?).119 Mauros new piece, Sonant, is elegant and marvelous.
I will return sooner than expected probably early in the 3rd week of June. Am
looking forward to it.
Miss you let me have your news.

David
In Kln June 4 11.
35
[May 31, 1961]
Dear David,
Thank you for writing. I had just heard the day before from M.C. who had had
word from you. And so knew that you would return earlier. What alarming news
about Mary! My best wishes to her. Haro should receive some kind of medical
help. What else does society oer? Do please give my love to everyone, and to new
Stockhausen. Sorry to hear that music is dirty. Believe Satie remarked that about
the music business. Well have to nd some other place than Chicago for the
carillon piece: they nally gave up their plans for this year. As it stands I am
supposed to nish a piece for large (75 men) orchestra by the middle of July!120
And now those wrist pains going into ankles. Or am I getting alarmed and imagine
things? I nd myself more and more stupid. My work at the moment consists of
writing headnotes for the various texts to be in the book.121 Returning to
Montreal: I hope they have contacted you. The dates are early in August. I
mentioned that the pieces you could oer would change with the presence of
Caskel (and Kagel too). About Caskels request I dont know what to say about the
time indications. I thought they were clear and that the whole thing amounts to 7
minutes and a second or so. If it were a 280 version, I should think one would have
to multiply by 4. We had a beautiful program by La Monte Young. He and Bob
118
This is Doris Stockhausen-Andrae, Stockhausens rst wife. Their daughter Majella was
born in 1961.
119
It is unclear to what piece this could refer, unless it be an abbreviated version of 27 0 10.554
for a percussionist. This would, at least, explain Tudors query as to whether the piece is
really to last twenty-eight minutes. Other than the Seven Haiku and the late number
pieces, however, no piece by Cage ts easily the description given.
120
The piece in question is doubtless Atlas Eclipticalis.
121
The book referred to here is, presumably, Cages Silence (1961). By the time Tudor wrote
letter 37, Silence had been published.
John Cage to David Tudor May 31, 1961 133
Dunn drew 30 straight lines using a string with a weight in the manner somewhat
of surveying.122 By the time La Monte had nished, not only had all the audience
left, but Bob Dunn too had left exhausted. The next evening the project was
shortened by shortening the line. Even then it took 3 hours. The audience the
evening I was there was small (as it was also the next evening) but in excellent
spirit. People conversed, read books, made collages, etc. One girl provided a kind
of musical accompaniment (unintended by La Monte). She kept pushing a large
wooden spool with her foot until it fell over, then retrieved it and the whole process
over again. The AG gallery electronic festival continues, and without contacting
me they are giving a program of the two mixes and marrying maiden music next
Sunday.123 I doubt whether I will attend. Toshi gave a program at Carnegie Recital
Hall. He played very well all the music which was not conventionally notated
(including the Winter Music). But I did not like his playing of Xian, Stefan, or
Morty.124 He played too faithfully what was notated. I gave him a speech about it a
few days later, illustrating by means of Mortys music. However he played a
magnicent piece by La Monte: a single cluster, both arms) fortissimo, utterly
regular, for nine minutes or so!125 And then there was a ghastly concert by the
Synthesizer at Columbia. You would not have believed your ears. Luenings piece
was violin and tape doing Bach like gures. Unbelievable. Vladimirs was a
recorded chorus moving around the room. I preferred the Babbitt to anything else
and perhaps Davido, but others tended to disagree.126 The whole thing was
embarrassing, and of course very well attended. Maxeld has given three programs
(plus two at the loft of Yoko) at AG.127 I went to the last one and enjoyed it. Did
122
This must, therefore, have been a realization of Youngs Composition 1960 #10, which has
the instruction, Draw a straight line and follow it. The two performances at Yoko Onos
loft took place on May 19 and 20, 1961.
123
This concert took place on June 4, 1961.
124
Ichiyanagi performed pieces from Browns Folio, Feldmans Piano Piece 1952, and Wol s
For Prepared Piano. The performance was on May 14, 1961.
125
This piece is Youngs X for Henry Flynt, where X can stand for any number. Tudor would
perform the same piece as (to Henry Flynt) at Darmstadt on September 6, 1961, using
repeated tam-tam strikes.
126
Cage is doubtless referring to one of the inaugural concerts of Columbias Electronic
Music Center, at McMillin Theatre, Columbia University, on May 9 and 10, 1961. The
pieces in question are therefore Otto Luenings (b. June 15, 1900, Milwaukee, WI; d.
September 2, 1996, New York City, NY) Gargoyles (1960) for violin and tape, Vladimir
Ussachevskys (b. November 3, 1911, Hailar, Manchuria; d. January 2, 1990, New York
City, NY) Creation: Prologue (1961), Milton Babbitts (b. May 10, 1916, Philadelphia, PA;
d. January 29, 2011, Princeton, NJ) Composition for Synthesizer (1961), and Mario
Davidovskys (b. March 4, 1934, Mdanos, Argentina) Electronic Study No. 1 (1961).
127
Music by Richard Maxeld (b. February 2, 1927, Seattle, WA; d. June 27, 1969, Los
Angeles, CA) was featured at Yoko Onos Chamber Street Loft between April 28 and 30,
1961 and at the AG Gallery on May 7, 21, and 28, 1961. Like Ichiyanagi, Maxeld had
studied at the New School, and took over Cages role there. It was at Maxelds studio that
Cage made the incidental music for The Marrying Maiden (1960).
you hear the Clarinet piece? Many interesting squeaks. Now a new piece called
Opera for Simone Morris. Using her voice and then chance operations. I enjoyed it
but apparently Simone didnt because she prefers improvisation and didnt want
her improvisation messed up by the chance os. I know nothing about the situation
here at Wesleyan, that is what the future holds. I dont ask, and no one says
anything.
The present Japanese plan is for April and May with dancers. Then June and
July for music. Four months, should be a pleasure. One of the newspapers has
agreed to pay for us, but not for travel. Therefor we are currently trying to
stimulate the USGovt.
I dont know why I go on thinking I could do all those things when playing is
already bad enough and then with bad wrists
Did you see or will you see Xian?
[As ever,
J]
36
David Tudor to John Cage, telegram
Paris, June 21, 1961
JOHN CAGE=
WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY=
YOU HAD A WONDERFUL CONCERT TONIGHT WITH ME JASPER

JOHNS NIKI DE SAINTPHALLE ROBERT RAUSCHENBERG JEAN
TINGUELY AT THE AMERICAN EMBASSY=128
DAVID=
37
October 30, 1961
dear john,
here are latest trophies.
128
Niki de Saint Phalle, ne Catherine-Marie-Agns de Saint Phalle (b. October 29, 1930,
Neuilly-sur-Seine, France; d. May 21, 2002, La Jolla, CA), was a French artist, sculptor,
and lmmaker. Jean Tinguely (b. May 22, 1925, Fribourg, Switzerland; d. August 30, 1991,
Berne, Switzerland) was a Swiss artist and sculptor.
have been with otte who is concerned because he wants to do a theater-type

work of yours in early may as he wrote you, but he doesnt want to give the
theater-piece unless you or I can be there and is even thinking of giving up that
program if there is not work of yours (he feels you are the daddy of it all).
there will be a piece of mauro 2 pianos with a percussion-assistant and,

perhaps, an actor or two; a short beckett (with music by he doesnt know
whom perhaps a few other instruments can become involved I suggested
sylvano); the study 2 of karlheinz danced by cbron;129 and then he hopes cage,
and wants to know can we come thru Bremen on way to japan?
he doesnt know to whom he could entrust the theater-piece (and rightly; we

are seeing currently that the german idea of theater is as heavy as a rock and
one should be leery of actors); Ive suggested two fellows from my darmstadt
class who did marvelous work Rose and von Biel, plus Schwertsik and
Cardew, but dont know whether otte will act on this suggestion perhaps
when forced by circumstances.130
have now arrived at the point of great coldness vis--vis the european scene
and cannot be trusted to negotiate.
couldnt get amplier onto stage with piano in rio, so did winter music with
henri at the controls it was quite fantastic, rolling around from place to place
and appearing and disappearing suddenly and excellent audio. I made a score
for Henri but he didnt need it, enjoyed himself immensely. rio is marvelous
but has a bad atmosphere among the people (little but like naples) enjoyed
more bahia,131 an exceedingly beautiful spot, was very warmly received and
invited back (also you and merce but they cant pay travel from US).
latest from toshi (4 weeks ago) is that you and I are almost surely invited to
japan next spring, perhaps in may.
129
Jean Cbron (b. 1927, or 1938, according to some accounts, Paris, France) is a French dancer
and choreographer who between 1961 and 1964 was based at the Folkwangballett in Essen,
becoming Professor of Modern Dance at the Folkwang-Hochschule in 1976. He has also
worked with Pina Bausch at the Wuppertaler Tanztheater and with the Jos Limon Company
in New York. Though this project does not seem to have come to fruition, Cbron had danced
Stockhausens Studie I (1953) on April 3, 1960 at the Staatsoper in Hamburg.
130
Grith Rose (b. January 18, 1936, Los Angeles) is an American composer who was
resident in Germany from the late 1950s until 1965, before moving to France. Michael von
Biel (b. June 30, 1939, Hamburg, Germany) is a German composer, also active in his
earlier career as a cellist and, especially after 1966, as a visual artist. He is probably now
best remembered as the originator of numerous extended string techniques which found
greater critical acclaim in the music of Helmut Lachenmann.
131
Bahia is one of Brazils twenty-six states, located on the Atlantic coast.
know anything dierent?
karlheinzs theater not so interesting I guess he still feels he hears and sees in a
more interesting way than others do (so no one is free, even tho he thinks that
in his composition (it is a composition) he has allowed people to do just what
they normally do).132 (note: how can you do what you normally do if youre
supposed to have someone elses sense organs?)
you can see my mood is atrocious; cant wait to get away but sick and tired of
travelling. have to stay here till nov. 8th, then to spain and portugal (m.c. has
address for nov. 1215), then am supposed to go to munich nov. 2930 but
waiting to hear merces wishes. failing advice to contrary will be home dec. 2.
how are you? and hows the book and the new piece?133 will it be done in ny?
regards from otte, and all klners
david
38
[November 1961]
Dear David,
Thanks for letter, news, etc. World traveler, you will be moved to hear that we
leave New York for Michigan on December 2, early in the morn. (perhaps you
wd. prefer to y to Detroit?) We have two programs, Ann Arbor and Detroit, in
that order I believe. Some other plans, besides Merces. e.g. Music in our Time,
and I have been trying to get Lenny Bernstein (!) interested in doing Atlas E. But
no answer as yet. Have no news other than yours re Japan. Think your
suggestions for Bremen good. I do not relish idea of going there en route Japan.
The book is out. Am pleased. Tomorrow give 4 speaker lecture at Living

Theatre as celebration of publication. New piece am still working on. Should
be nished by Jan. 1. I am getting over gout. No air-conditioning. Am very well
but today a little fatigued too much mushrooming. And we moved the wild
strawberries at Lois land. Tyhis week must do TV, Radio, panel and lounge re
132
The piece in question is Stockhausens Originale (1961), which owes much to Cages
Theatre Piece in the way in which performance activities of various kinds are framed, but
not prescribed, by the score.
133
At the time of this letter, Cages Silence had recently been published.
David Tudor to John Cage November 8, 1962 137
book. Plus lecture and etc. Also have pulled strings re New York Mycological
Society meetings in Botanical Gardens. Etc. Christian in neighborhood, will
see him tomorrow! Foss wants you in Ohio.134 But what abt. Japs.? Maybe we
should sit still for awhile? Wouldnt that be nice?
[As ever,
J]
39
November 8 [1962]
dear john,
at the last moment koyo forgot to arrange to send the remainder of the money
to the plane its too bad because I could cash any amount of yen here. Nakano
has sent a telegram saying that the money will be entrusted to you. good luck.
geeta is in london but expected soon everyone else is here & sends you
greetings, including papa sarabhai who remembered you.
it is quiet & peaceful here & beautiful beyond description but I miss our
japanese friends very much & am momentarily consumed by sadness.
mani is planning a few trips while I am here & pupuhl jayakar has invited me to
visit her in delhi,135 so I may get around a bit after all. big party last night at
gautams with entertainment by a band of gypsies very noisy.136
give my greetings & love to everyone if you remember yoko toshi koyo
okuyama nakano yano toshiro tokru kenji yuji akiyama & peggy!
hope you are feeling better please be well. David
134
Lukas Foss, n Lukas Fuchs (b. August 15, 1922, Berlin, Germany; d. February 1, 2009,
New York City, NY) was a German-born composer, conductor, and pianist, who became
an American citizen in 1942.
135
Pupul Jayakar (b. September 11, 1915, Etawah, India; d. March 29, 1997, Mumbai, India)
was an Indian cultural thinker and writer. Close to the Nehru-Gandhi family, her books
include not only biographies of Indira Gandhi and Krishnamurti, but also an examination
of Indian textiles.
136
Gautam (b. March 4, 1917; d. 1995) was another member of the Sarabhai family who,
along with his sister Gira Sarabhai (b. 1923), owned several textile factories and dye works
in India.
6 (In)determining the indeterminate
Music Walk (1958)

Like Variations I, Music Walk is a further expansion of the materials used in
the Solo for Piano.1 It is broadly similar to notations Y, AC, AQ, BE, BS, and
BY from the earlier piece. Yet Tudors realization is of a radically dierent
nature from his approach to either of those earlier two pieces. For Winter
Music, the Solo for Piano, and Variations I, Tudors approach had been to
turn increasingly indeterminate notations into a determinate ve-line sta
notation, even if particular forms of structural indeterminacy were exhibited
in each. Music Walk represents the rst departure from this into a form of
notation which is itself, in part at least, indeterminate: the use of text against
time code. Tudor would only return to sta notation for one other Cage
realization, that of Music for Amplied Toy Pianos. Even there the dierence
from earlier forms of this notation is marked.
For Music Walk, Theatre Piece, and Cartridge Music, Tudor developed a
form of notation largely based on forms of written instruction. In Music
Walk, some proximity might still be seen to some of Cages own notations,
not least those for Water Music and Water Walk, even if it might more
properly be argued that Cages own notations for Water Walk bear similar-
ities to Tudors notations for Music Walk.2 It is notable that Pritchett selects
Music Walk as a specic point for comparison with Winter Music or the
Concert for Piano and Orchestra. For Pritchett, Music Walk had no existence
as a score, but rather exists as a means of making scores a compositional
process handed over to the performer to execute in contradistinction to
those two earlier pieces, where, for Pritchett, a score might still be held to exist
(Pritchett 1993, 128). As should be clear from the above, in Tudors hands
Winter Music, the Solo for Piano, and Variations I all already existed, quite
1
My description of Tudors activity in respect of Music Walk, Theatre Piece, and Cartridge
Music builds upon Fettermans work on those pieces. Though with the benet of fuller
access to Tudors working materials and realizations it is possible to clarify and develop
aspects of Fettermans investigations, they remain an extremely valuable adjunct to what is
presented here (Fetterman 1996, 4767; 10417; 23442).
2
Or, for that matter, Cages own notations for Music Walk, an example of which is provided
by Fetterman (1996, 54). Cage observed that the titles of Water Music, Music Walk, and
Water Walk wish to show that all those works are connected (Cage and Kostelanetz 2003
[138] [1987], 113).
(In)determining the indeterminate 139
literally, as means of making scores. Nevertheless, Music Walk represents a

breach, of sorts, for Tudors praxis.
As Silverman describes it, Music Walk is a more self-contained setup
than in the earlier derivation of a piece from the materials of the Solo for
Piano represented by Variations I (Silverman 2010, 161). This is true, to be
sure: where Variations I allowed all manner of materials into a particular
realization even if Tudor only actually made use of materials already
recognizable from Cages previous output the demands of Music Walk are
relatively restricted in these terms. There is no reason to suspect, however,
that it was this that led to such a signicant change in Tudors working
method. It is entirely plausible that Tudors reasons were wholly practical.
Cage dated the manuscript of Music Walk September 24, 1958 and wrote
it (or completed it, at least) in Stockholm, where Cage and Tudor were
attending the Fylkingen festival, which followed almost immediately after
their appearance at Darmstadt and Tudors performance of the Concert for
Piano and Orchestra in Cologne on September 19.3 The rst performance
was given following their return to Germany, via Warsaw, Copenhagen, and
Brussels, at J. P. Wilhelms Galerie 22 in Dsseldorf on October 14, in a
three-piano version.4 The three pianists were Tudor himself, Cage, and
Cornelius Cardew. Revill reports that the correspondent of the Rheinische
Post for one regarded Music Walk as the sensation of the day, even in the
context of a concert which also contained a performance of Variations I. By
1960, Music Walk had acquired a choreography by Merce Cunningham,
which was premiered at La Fenice at the Venice Biennale on September 24,
1960, although Cunningham, as will be detailed below, appears to have had
largely negative feelings toward the piece.
Tudors preparations, in the ordinary run of things, took time, but in this
context traveling from European venue to European venue at some speed,
with relatively little time based in a single venue such a luxury was not
aorded him. Indeed, even had Tudor found himself in the more ideal
situation of not having to travel so regularly and rapidly, conceivably the
three weeks between the completion of Music Walk and its premiere would
barely have been enough to prepare and nish a concrete realization,
3
According to Cages own account, Music Walk was completed in only two hours (Cage
1968k, 136).
4
Nicholls suggests a premiere for Music Walk at the Worlds Fair in Brussels (Nicholls 2007,
74), but most other sources favor Galerie 22 as the venue. The correspondence between the
gallerys proprietor, J. P. Wilhelm, and David Tudor also implies that Wilhelm, at least, was
hoping for the premiere of Music Walk to take place in Dsseldorf. Cages own description of
the writing of Music Walk was rst delivered in his lecture Indeterminacy, which he gave in
Brussels, before it was reprinted (and regularly reused) in How to Pass, Kick, Fall, and Run.
let alone also rehearse it, even given Tudors phenomenal ability to read at
sight. It may well be that Tudors move into the realm of less determinate
realization was, then, initially occasioned by the need to nd a notation from
which he could read, but which could be worked out and on much more
quickly.
Cages principal notations comprise nine sheets containing various num-
bers of points, from two to fty-two, scattered across the page, numbered
from two to ten (sheet one, which is not included, would be a blank sheet),
and a transparency containing ve parallel lines. This last appears to be
almost a parody of the ve-line sta, not least because its function is quite
dierent. Each of four of the lines could refer to action on either the piano or
a radio:
1. piano strings, plucked or muted; alteration of the overtone control on
the radio or a glissando across the AM frequency band;5
2. the use of the keyboard or string glissandi; music on the radio;
3. noises within the body of the piano; radio static;
4. noises on the exterior of the piano; radio speech.
The last would refer to auxiliary sounds, which could include the use of the
voice or piano preparations (in Tudors realization, it was consistently the
latter). The use of auxiliary sounds would be developed much further in
Cartridge Music, in turn leading on, in part at least, to 00 00 (1962).6 Tudors
recollection to Fetterman that the top line referred to the rst form of action
given above, with the bottom line, then, referring to preparations, is also
borne out by his sketches for his realization, although according to the
instructions Cage provides any line could be mapped onto any of the given
parameters.
For any given performance, a number of the sheets with points would be
used. In the case of performances by Cage and Tudor, all ten pages were
ordinarily employed. In turn, the ve-line transparency was superimposed
upon each sheet and where a point and a line intersected, an event would
occur. There is some disparity between how Pritchett and Fetterman
respectively interpret a possible reading of Music Walk. Pritchetts version
5
Cage describes this last action as a kilocycle glissando, a notion familiar from Imaginary
Landscape No. 4, for instance.
6
Pritchett insists, however, that such relationships as may be drawn between Cartridge Music
(and, by extension, Music Walk) and 00 00 should be seen as largely supercial: The use of
amplication [in 00 00] suggests a connection with Cartridge Music, but in that work the
amplied objects are treated as instruments to be played, and the amplication system is
used as a source of other musical parameters to manipulate; there is no sense of either
instrument or parameter in 00 00 (Pritchett 1993, 139).
seems to suggest that proximity of a point to a line should result in an event

(Pritchett 1993, 126), while Fetterman implies that only when a point
directly coincides with a line should an event be notated (Fetterman 1996,
5051). Cages instructions seem to favor Pritchetts interpretation, since he
suggests that [v]ertical relation to lines may be interpreted relatively within
a given category with respect to any characteristic. This too would tally
with his usage of similar notations in the Solo for Piano, where the distance
from a line was used as an indication of amplitude, but, as shown before,
Tudor used a dierent method to determine dynamic levels, following the
specic instructions within the score for Music Walk.
Tudors realizations are unfortunately inadequate to settle whether what he
actually did was more closely in line with Fettermans or Pritchetts interpre-
tation. Nevertheless, the realization which Fetterman examines seemingly a
comparatively early version is gently suggestive. This realization has a total
duration of ten minutes. The greatest number of actual events notated within a
particular minute is eighteen, in the seventh minute of Tudors realization,
while the nal minute contains eleven events. Apart from these two compa-
ratively dense minutes, the number of events drops o precipitously, with no
other minute containing any more than three events. It is almost inconceivable
that at least one of these minutes was not generated from a sheet which had
nineteen points on it, as shown in the speculative reconstruction below.
Minute Events Points on score page
01: 3 19
12: 1 7
23: 3 19
34: 2 11
45: 0 2
56: 3 23
67: 2 12
78: 18 52
89: 0 0
910: 11 39
This suggests that Tudor was almost certainly stricter about how close a
point had to be to a line in order for a musical event to result than the letter
of Cages instructions would imply. In short, though Pritchetts description
seems closest to what Cages instructions asked, Fettermans version
appears to mirror more accurately what Tudor actually did. Arguably, if
one took the approach that Tudor and Cage did, which was to use all ten
pages and equate each page to a minute, while using some form of scale
which converted the space of a page to divisions of that minute consistently, it
would be necessary to restrict the number of resulting events somehow; if

mere proximity to a line were enough to trigger an event there would have
been points at which an impossibly large number of events would have been
demanded. Given the example of earlier realizations, one might plausibly have
expected Tudor to create a sketch realization which contained all the possible
events which is to say a number where performance of them all would have
been realistically impossible and then to have pruned those events, nally
making use of only a selection of them. Here, he did not. Doubtless the
pressure of time was again a factor, but the change in his procedures, such
that they were no less methodical, but certainly signicantly more ecient, is
notable. Indeed, the general trend across the whole sweep of Tudors activities
in respect of Cages score is one which increasingly shows Tudor nding ways
of getting from Cages instructions to a complete realization more rapidly.
There is also another notation which I have here regarded as secondary,
rst because Cage appears to have done so himself, stating in his performance
instructions that it may be used at any time or not at all, and second because
there is little indication that Tudor made any signicant use of this notation
in his realization. At any rate, almost everything within Tudors realization
could have been generated without this notation and, moreover, a full use of
it would probably have forced his realization back in the direction of his
earlier, more determinate approaches. This notation is a second transparency,
containing eight miniature versions of the line notation of Variations I. Each
of these could be placed over any point on one of the nine sheets with points
in order to determine parameters almost exactly as in the earlier piece: the ve
lines here were designed to refer to the number of sounds in any aggregate
of sounds, the point of occurrence of a sound (in a given time bracket),
frequency, duration, and amplitude.7 The only one of these determinations
which appears in Tudors realization is that of amplitude, which is given
numerically on a scale from 1 to 10, the numeral always written to the right of
his performance instruction.
Again, one might wonder whether these notations were even available
to Tudor in their nal form, which is to say as transparencies, at the point
when Cage completed the score of Music Walk in Sweden. Plausibly Cage
had brought the materials for Variations I with him although there is
little strong evidence to suggest that he necessarily had and these could,
theoretically at least, have been superimposed upon any of the nine sheets of
7
The dierence between the use of the notation here and in Variations I, then, is the exchange
of a line to determine the number of sounds for one which determined overtone structure.
Other than this, the usage is identical. In a sense, then, Music Walk almost contains Variations
I within itself.
points in order to take readings following the model of the earlier piece. This
would already have been a dierent set of materials in the detail if not in the
broad sweep, but it seems comparatively unlikely that during the stay in
Stockholm Cage would have created a fresh set of transparencies specically
for Music Walk, especially not in the two-hour period in which he suggests
the composition of Music Walk was completed. This said, when he spoke at
the Brussels Worlds Fair in October 1958, Cage did state that additional
small plastic squares were provided, just as in the published score. Even if
he had not actually made the squares by that point, he certainly knew that
he was going to. In any case, Cages own realization does not appear to rely
upon these secondary notations, and it relies on Tudors only in very small
degree (Fetterman 1996, 54).
As in his previous realizations, Tudor seems to have looked to the model of
Cage to nd some starting points. Many of what seem to be the earliest sheets
detail auxiliary objects familiar from Cages own earlier music, as well as from
Tudors realizations of it, including rubbers, plastic, plectra, sticks, rattles,
ratchets, and whistles and squeakers of numerous varieties. Similarly, the rst
of the two sheets which contain most of the earliest draft of Tudors realiza-
tion of Music Walk also has what appears to be a chart for converting the
distance from left to right on Cages ve-line transparency sheet into time.
According to this chart, the (roughly) fteen inches of the ve-line trans-
parency would become eighteen seconds of clock time. Though Tudor
arranged this in a ve-by-ve grid of eighteen-second durations, totaling
six minutes, he appears to have dropped this plan relatively quickly.8 Though
Fetterman notes that Tudor did not recall how he determined the time for
the events, Fettermans conclusion that Tudor eventually adopted the simple
solution of taking a page of the point materials (including the absent, blank
sheet) to have a duration of a minute is exactly how Tudors realization plays
out: from the ten pages of point materials, Tudors realization results in ten
minutes of performance materials.
Tudor appears freely to have reordered the readings he took, rather than
using the pages in the order he had them when he took his measurements,
8
Indeed, this structure drops out of Tudors planning so seemingly rapidly and so com-
pletely, that one might wonder whether the ve-by-ve grid was actually intended for a
dierent piece entirely. While Tudors determinations are so detailed (with fractions of a
second taken in the sketch version, even though seconds were always rounded down in the
realization) that one might expect that some sort of conversion chart must have been used,
the conversion of the horizontal dimension of a page into sixty seconds was, by this stage,
probably second nature to Tudor. A further plausible reading, then, might be that Tudor
initially considered the idea of doing something dierent within Music Walk, but ultimately
decided to fall back on a procedure already known from earlier realizations.
but keeping events read from the same point page together, such that the
events of any individual minute would always occur in the same order, at
the same points. However, in Tudors sketch version, his measurements for
the second minute of his performance read 1.125, 1.215, and 1.298.9 These
durations, however, occur in the third minute of his realization. Similarly
the sixth minute of his sketch becomes the seventh minute of his realization,
while the seventh becomes the sixth. The eighth and tenth minutes were
undetermined in the earliest sketch: both appear underlined on the sheets
where the earliest readings were taken. In the realization, it is these minutes
in which the greatest numbers of events occur, eighteen and eleven respec-
tively. Though there was, probably, sucient space on the early sketch pages
to t determinations for these two minutes, it seems likely that the potential
pressure of space on the page caused Tudor to leave sketching them until a
later point. Readings for these pages occur on a separate, almost certainly
later, sheet, which also contains tidy rewritings of the readings in the rst
sketch. Later, the idea of swapping one minute for another became an
option within the performance of the realization such that, in truth, the
work Tudor did in rearranging the order of minutes between the sketch and
the realization at this early stage was ultimately overturned. Nevertheless,
Tudors initial instinct appears to have been closer to what he had done
structurally with Variations I than the mobile pages and notations he had
used in Winter Music and the rst version of the Solo for Piano; his later,
presumably more considered, approach, however, allows just the same sort
of shuing of structural elements as he had used in the two realizations
which preceded work on Variations I.
Despite such changes, the sonic palette determined in the sketch is
unchanged in the completed realization for all minutes other than the
eighth and the tenth, except in terms of the precise formulation of instruc-
tions. That rst minute of his realization is expressed thus in the sketch:
21.3 static 6
24.7 dbl pz (snap) 10
25.2 rubber gliss slow
(deep sound) 1
In the completed realization, the same section is renotated in slightly clearer
terms, here including in square brackets the auxiliary materials that would
be required, as well as details of Tudors stage movements:
9
Although expressed as decimals, numbers after the decimal point in Tudors notation
represent seconds.
[rubber] 0 go to radio
.213 static 6
quickly to piano
.247 snap pizz (2 stgs.) 10

.252 rubber gliss (low) 1
[long] put rubber on SB deep sound
In the readings for the eighth and tenth minutes of Tudors realization, he
utilized a simplied shorthand for both timbre and dynamic. The scale from
7 to 10 used for dynamics appears here, but there is also a scale from one to
ve as a determination of timbre. These ve map directly onto the timbral
possibilities noted above, but this means by extension that, unlike the events
in the vast majority of Tudors realizations, the specic timbral require-
ments of an individual event were decided after the taking of readings and
plausibly determined only at the point of writing out the realization proper.
Nevertheless, what is suggested strongly by this is that, for the most part,
Tudor decided the sort of materials which he would use at each time point
early in his decision-making process.
This is of vital importance to the performance of Music Walk or, at least, to
the theatrical elements of any performance and, to be sure, the pieces theatre
is central to its identity, as is implied by the element Walk in its title.10 The
score of Music Walk explains that, although the piece is designed for one or
more pianists, only one piano is used in a performance.11 More than one
radio may be used, but there should be no expectation that the piano and a
radio would necessarily be conveniently located with respect to one another
on stage. Thus, when Tudor determined that the rst event of his realization
would be represented by radio static (rather than, as would have been
possible, by noises inside the body of the instrument) and the second string
pizzicato (rather than an alteration of the position of one of the dials on the
radio), as a consequence he also determined that it would be necessary for
him to move between the radio and the piano between the twenty-rst and
twenty-fourth second of his realization. It does not appear, though, from the
complete realization that Tudor specically selected actions which would
involve him rapidly moving across the stage, nor that he specically made
selections which would avoid this, despite his claim to Fetterman that he
would try to put things far apart so you would have little problems of getting
10
In Yoko Onos 1962 performance in Tokyo, however, the walk became a conceptual, rather
than a physical, one, in which she laid herself over the body of the piano (Everett 2009, 19596).
11
Tudors recollection was that this was not the case in the premiere of Music Walk with
Dancers at La Fenice, where both he and Cage had separate pianos (Fetterman 1996, 49).
there on time (Fetterman 1996, 47). Just as the movement required within
the rst minute of Tudors realization was a rapid one (and one which could
have been avoided by selecting a dierent sort of noise), the whole of the
eighth minute of his realization relies upon his being at the keyboard,
although there are numerous gaps which would have allowed time for
motion. Similarly, the nal minute of his realization required him to be
underneath the piano, largely producing events on the sounding board, a
motion which followed, understandably enough, a minute marked tacet,
giving him sucient time to crawl under the body of the instrument.
As Feldman described it, while simultaneously rejecting the possibility of
such theatre occurring in his own music:
The reason I dont like theatre pieces is that one usually has to sacrice some
of the musical for the sake of the theatrical [ . . . ] It works for Cage, though,
as in his Music walk, where there are instruments all over the stage and
David Tudor moved all around playing continually. That is the nest kind
of integration of music and theatrics. (Feldman, quoted in Johnson 2006
[1987], 36)
Cages instructions imply that, since the realizations of each performer

should be undertaken independently, without reference to any of the other
performers, there is the possibility that actions will conict: two dierent
realizations might simultaneously demand that both performers alter the
same radio dial at the same point, for example. As Fetterman neatly describes
it, [t]he choreography that results from chance determinations from score
superimpositions thus might mean trac jams (Fetterman 1996, 53). Yet the
reality was probably, rst, that as Tudor noted, if such a trac jam was likely
to result, one simply went on to the next action (Fetterman 1996, 55), and,
second, that just as in the case of the later Theatre Piece, the purpose of a
rehearsal was almost solely to ensure the avoidance of such collisions, on the
grounds of the safety of the performers not least. This may, plausibly, be
another reason why there is some lag in Tudors determinations for the
minutes which are densest in material. Since he played almost consistently
from the same realization, in those more complex minutes he could have
saved the diculties arising from trac jams simply by leaving the possibi-
lities slightly more open until a rehearsal had revealed what the other
performers would be doing.
There is technically a second realization of Music Walk. This is identical
save that it is renotated onto separate sheets of card, one card per minute of
the realization, such that it would be possible to play the pages in a dierent
order from that demanded by the rst realization, in just the same way that
Tudors realization of, for instance, Music for Piano ultimately functioned.
This would explain Tudors comment to Fetterman that, in the case of the
minutes of the rst realization, [t]his is not necessarily the order that
I played them, but I might have. The written-out realization is itself inde-
terminate in the sense that once you start a page [ . . . ], you nish it, then
you go onto the next, but what the next page is isnt determinate, so you can
rearrange the next time you do it (Fetterman 1996, 55). This would also
have, potentially, enabled a dierent solution to the trac jam problem,
since it would have been possible simply to exchange the events of one
minute for another in the event of any potential collision.
It appears that not all, even within the Cage circle, may have been
convinced by the route he had taken away from the Concert for Piano and
Orchestra. Carolyn Brown wrote to her then husband, Earle, from Berlin
during the European tour that Cage had said to her that Merce was making a
fool of himself. That he wasnt working or doing his yoga. That he wasnt
dancing well. And that the reason for all this was that Music Walk, which
Merce refuses to consider his own piece and will not really enter into, is the
most successful with public and press. And this annoys Merce. Even though
Brown went on to observe that it was, nevertheless, the dancers who were
receiving the accolades with comments that it was something of a shame
their sterling eorts were being undermined by Cages awful music this
seemed to make little dierence. In any case, Browns later reection was that
Cage was certainly right, if only in part, but that there were other factors
involved too: Merces contribution to Music Walk with Dancers was cer-
tainly minimal; hed scarcely bothered to deal with it at all. A value judgment
on his part, I thought. I think he deemed Music Walk a silly romp, one of
Johns philosophical statements about life-and-art dressed in outrageous
theatrical form, and he just wasnt interested (C. Brown 2007, 305). The
upshot, in any case, was that the dance was, from Browns perspective, at odds
with the music, in that both John and David had come up with some zany,
unconventional means of producing sound in, on, and under the piano, but
there was nothing unconventional about the movement that Merce had
produced for us (C. Brown 2007, 289).
Jill Johnstons memory of preparing for her performance of the piece, as a
solo dancer with Cage and Tudor, was that, rather than choreographing the
piece as Cunningham had, she too would use Cages notations to determine
her own choreography, an activity which she seems to have found puzzling
at best. In any case, just before the performance itself, the stack of cards she
had prepared was accidentally dropped in water, making her inked nota-
tions illegible (Johnston 2003, 99100). Johnstons performance of Music
Walk with Dancer was therefore ultimately largely improvised, and not,
according to some accounts, on the basis of what she could remember of the
instructions she had prepared (Sell 2000, 167). Though she probably did
not know it, in the premiere of Music Walk with Dancers the same situation
had arisen, though for dierent reasons. Cunningham and Brown com-
pleted their choreography in half the total time of the piece, and the second
half was, as Brown puts it, ad-libbed (C. Brown 2007, 296). By the later
performances at the Hebbel Theater in Berlin, things were little better: full
of gaes, as in, but dierent from, those perpetrated in Venice. Wed never
rehearsed it, of course (C. Brown 2007, 301). It is dicult to assess precisely
what it may have been about Music Walk which specically failed to interest
Cunningham. The only radical dierence, in some senses, was that the
performers were on stage, with the dancers, while the performers were, in
the normal run of things, in the pit. Brown probably exaggerates in suggest-
ing that no rehearsals had taken place, but they were certainly limited and
the change of space from La Fenice to the Hebbel Theater would certainly
have involved some rethinking. Given this seeming paucity of rehearsal,
Cunningham may simply have been concerned that too much planning
would actually have led to a greater likelihood of dangerous collision between
dancers and performers. In such a situation, it would hardly be surprising that
one of the few elements which Cunningham did choreograph was one in
which collision was impossible: Carolyn Brown was lowered in a chair from
the catwalk above onto the stage. If this had been Cunninghams concern
rather than, perhaps equally likely, the ennui of touring then the extensions
of this performative dimension, which would occur in Cages next piece
involving Tudor, Theatre Piece, would surely have been yet more worrying
for him.
Theatre Piece (1960)

If Cunningham had been leery of the direction Cage had taken in Music
Walk, with Theatre Piece Carolyn Brown was arguably added to the dissent-
ers, describing its premiere at the Circle in the Square, New York City, on
March 7, 1960 as a veritable junkyard of props and foolishness (C. Brown
2007, 263). A letter she wrote to her parents immediately following the
performance implies that she may have been more enthusiastic at the time,
even if a certain skepticism is still evident in her note that it was fun to do
although I didnt want to do it right up until the last moment (C. Brown
2007, 265).
Brown thought Theatre Piece was an oshoot of Water Walk, perhaps at
the forefront of her recollections because of Cages then-recent performance
on Italian televisions Lascia o raddoppia?, but equally fundamental pred-
ecessors were surely the 1952 untitled Black Mountain event as well as the
more temporally proximate Music Walk.12 In a certain sense, Theatre Piece

was a composite of the 1952 untitled Black Mountain event in certain
aspects of its structural procedures and of Music Walk in terms of what
might take place within them, though it went further than either. As
Duberman described the composition of the untitled event, Cage
outlined various time brackets, totaling forty-ve minutes, on a piece of paper

and invited various people to ll them. [ . . . ] To ll the time brackets, Cage
invited Olson and Mary Caroline Richards to read their poetry, Rauschenberg
to show his paintings and also to play recordings of his choice, David Tudor to
perform on the piano any compositions he wanted, and Merce Cunningham
to dance.
According to Dubermans report, [t]he idea developed in conversation

between Cage and David Tudorand our ideas were so electric at that
time, Cage told me, that once the idea hit my headand I would like to
give David Tudor equal credit for itI immediately then implemented it
(Duberman 1993 [1972], 370). The idea of time brackets was central to
Theatre Piece too, but now Cages materials made it possible indeed made
it necessary for the performers to generate them for themselves. In a sense
this change mirrored what Tudor had undertaken earlier: his realizations
of Winter Music, for instance, create a piece which is recognizably Cageian
and which, indeed, Cage could have created himself, but did not.
Cages materials for Theatre Piece are reminiscent of others he had used
in the 1950s, but adapted in notable ways. Indeed, as Fetterman observes,
the score for Theatre Piece was itself created through readings of the score
of Fontana Mix.13 Previously, Cage had typically utilized an approach to
the notation of time which suggested a probably consistent relationship
between a particular distance on the page and a particular length of time; in
Tudors realizations it had been increasingly the case that a page of the score
would result in a minute in performance and, even where Cage had pushed
against this strictness in the living clock of the Concert for Piano and
Orchestra, Tudor seemingly ignored the implied uidity, retaining his
own predetermined temporal divisions. Theatre Piece was broadly similar
12
Brown may have said this in mind of the fact that the materials for Theatre Piece were
derived from readings of Fontana Mix, as Water Walk (and Sounds of Venice, also
performed on Lascia o raddoppia?) had been. Cage too suggested that Water Walk
might be regarded as a written-out example of how one might create an eective realiza-
tion of Theatre Piece (Fetterman 1996, 236).
13
Pritchett, indeed, describes the score for Theatre Piece as consisting of prefabricated
Fontana Mix readings, to be applied to arbitrary collections of theatrical actions (Pritchett
1993, 134).
to the earlier pieces but, unusually, Cage provided a set of ve rulers to the
performer. These rulers contained scales running 0100, 0120, 0180, 050,
and 060. Though it is not determined specically within the score, these
seem most often to be used by performers to provide scales in seconds for
the reading of a particular page; certainly this is how Tudor used the rulers, at
least to begin with, though Cages instructions also allow performers to
determine their own temporal scales.
The individual pages of Cages score each contain two systems. As in
Winter Music, the notation is such that one may not expect that the simplest,
most traditional way to read the notation is the correct one: the top half of
the page is read from left to right, followed by the bottom half of the page,
again from left to right. Indeed, the notations are even separated into what
seem like notional bars, with a longish vertical line marking the beginning
and end of each of these. Within the notional bars are smaller brackets, which
are often laid on top of one another, notated as horizontal lines with a short
vertical dash to mark their beginnings and endings. These, then, are time
brackets: once a particular scale has been chosen, which need not remain the
same consistently, Cages time rulers can be used to mark out the period a
particular time bracket covers. Events are to take place within, rather than
throughout, this time period, though there is no instruction that would
prevent the whole bracket being used.
Above each time bracket is a large number, or sometimes more than one,
between one and twenty. Theatre Piece demands that the actions of each
performer be determined via the creation, in advance, of a list of twenty
words nouns, verbs, or a combination of the two which would be used to
refer to the large numbers, above the line, in the score, each word indicating a
dierent action. Next to the larger numbers, still above the line, are some-
times smaller numbers which indicate the addition of cards to, or the removal
of cards from, this gamut. Cages instructions in this respect are ambiguous,
even by his standards. Because cards were being added and taken away,
though the numbers above the line within the score do indeed run from
one to twenty, a direct correspondence between those numbers and any
individual card would leave an interpreter sometimes lacking the card
which equated to that action. Moreover, since Cage at some points demands
both the removal and the addition of cards, sometimes of dierent number,
it cannot be that where Cage asks for three cards to be added, three should
also be taken away to retain a general spread of twenty. Cage claried
precisely this point in conversation with Fetterman, showing him a particular
moment at which you add three [cards] and take away two (Fetterman
1996, 235). One might presume, then, as Nyman seems to, that the performer
would simply count forward the given number of cards to determine the next
action (Nyman 1999 [1974], 73). This would probably be a reasonable way to
approach Theatre Piece, but is not seemingly what Tudor did.
There are also numbers below the horizontal lines which determine time
brackets, in columns of four. Again the numbers range from one to twenty,
sometimes with more than one in each row, sometimes with, instead, an x.
These refer to Cages instruction that, in the event of any question arising
regarding the action determined by the number above the line, the issue
may be claried by asking up to four questions, which are posed in such a
way that a number or numbers (120) will provide an answer. X is no
answer (Performers free choice). Though Tudor does not appear to have
made any use of these numbers, Cage here turned over to the performer just
the sort of decision-making process that had concerned him, not least, in
Music of Changes.14
Tudors realization breaks Cages rules for the piece, but in a way that creates
a solution to the problems of direct correspondence between an individual card
and the event denoted by it. As Fetterman has established, Tudors realization
is drawn from the third of the eight parts and, of the eighteen sheets within
that part, he ultimately used only ten to complete a thirty-minute realization
(Fetterman 1996, 237).15 Tudor created readings of all eighteen sheets, but
nally discarded his readings of pages 5, 79, 1113, and 15 of Cages score.
Rather than a list of twenty nouns or verbs, Tudor compiled a list of forty-
six events, most of which are detailed in the form of a noun or other nominal
construction. At simplest these events were written as coil or big beater on
bass strings. More complex events, or at any rate ones where it is more
dicult to imagine the sonic result from Tudors event list, include atoms,
money in bank, and tea. For only two events does Tudor provide a verb:
wipe keys and wipe strings. Tudor had a deck of one hundred and twelve
blank cards, numbered accordingly.
That Tudor did not simply shue the cards and deal out the result is clear
from his notations. The rst brackets of the rst page of score III have, as
their large numerals, 3, 4, and 9. For 3 and 4, Tudor took from his list the
14
Cages stress on the importance of the way in which a question was asked here, such that
it could be answered by reference to a number, or numbers is revealing. Arguably, in his
own work it was the questions he asked of the I Ching that were most signicant; if the
right question were asked, or if the question were asked in the right way, any of the
available answers would be acceptable.
15
In the version of the instructions for realizing the piece which Tudor had a version
prepared by Cage before the completion of the nal printed score there was no
stipulation of the length of time a performance of Theatre Piece should take. Presumably
it was, in this case, a time length agreed upon by the performers in advance, as Cage had
required in his previous recent work (Fetterman 1996, 238).
actions which corresponded to those numbers, big beater on strings and

jack in the box. Yet, where Cages notation reads 9, Tudor has derived the
number 22 (which yields the event dipsy car). For Tudor to have been
counting out cards as Nyman seems to have expected, it would have been
unlikely that the third card and the fourth card would have occurred after
three turns of the cards and then a further four. This translation is hardly
uncommon within Tudors reading of Cages score: only seven of Tudors
numerical notations are the same as Cages, with four of those occurring on
his reading of the rst page of Cages score. If Tudor had been dealing cards
in the way anticipated by Nyman, one might easily enough have explained
the way in which the 9 became 22. Since he was seemingly not, however, the
situation is already much more complex.16
A sheet of Tudors preparatory materials contains nothing other than lists
of numbers, in the range 1 to 112. Most of the numbers are ones which
represent the dierence between one of the numbers of Cages notation and
one of those in Tudors realization and, though the correspondence is not
exact enough to state denitively that Tudor used a shuing of his deck of
cards to generate these numbers, it is strongly suggestive of such a maneuver.
Thus Tudor created, via a shuing of the deck of his blank one hundred and
twelve cards, a list of numbers by which he could displace the numbers in
Cages score. Having generated this displacement list, Tudor appears to have
reordered his displacements. Rather than simply taking them in the order in
which they appeared when he shued them, he seems to have created a sort
of musical structure from the results: on the rst page of Cages score, the
majority of the numbers Cage provided are retained in their original format.
Across pages one to three, the increases Tudor applies are all relatively low
odd numbers, from nine to twenty-one. Across pages four to seven, the
displacements Tudor applied were increasingly large positive ones, gradually
including more and more even numbers: the beginning of page four retains
the displacements of nine, seventeen, twenty-one, and twenty-three, familiar
from pages one to three; on page four the highest displacement is one of forty;
on page ve the displacements range from twenty-one to forty-nine and,
following a single displacement of thirty-one on page six, those on page seven
range for the most part from fty-eight to seventy-one, with a single low
displacement of twenty. Pages eight to ten are characterized by a mixture of
very high and very low displacements, with the introduction of negative
16
There is also no obvious way of reconciling the disparity between nine and twenty-two
according to the cards added to the deck. Either four or eight would have been added at the
stage of Tudors translating of 9 into 12, while the dierence is actually thirteen; nor do the
smaller numbers beneath the nine (sixteen, twenty, an x, and four) help.
displacements for the rst time on page eight: here the low range of displace-
ments runs from minus two to plus seven, with the high range running from
eighty-six to ninety-eight (with two retained in the middle range, one of
twenty and one of forty-six). A similar strategy is pursued on pages nine and
ten. Numerically, then, the numbers used in Tudors realization are in a
general pattern of increase across pages one to seven, then splitting into high
and low numbers from page eight onwards. Tudors own sketch notation for
the rst page of Cages score, then, reads as follows, with Cages original
numbers given in superscript following Tudors displacements:
.9538 33 16 13 5, 12 11, 20
14.548.5 44 12, 19 8, 12, 20 14 18
2551 229 16 20 x 4
3348.5 2310, 1818 x 5, 17 14 3, 12
44.555.5 1717 x 10, 15 x 8
7484.5 1111 4, 7 7 9, 11, 16 14
I will return presently to Tudors measurements of time, given on the left of
the above notation, but it is worth noting in passing that, even at what was a
relatively late stage in Tudors sketch work, the numbers Cage provided for
asking questions were retained. Though Tudor does not appear to have
made any use of these numbers, that they survive in a notation where Tudor
had already determined the numerical values that were to relate to events
conrms that they played no part in the determination of those values.
There is no reason to presume that this patterning of a numerical increase
across the rst seven pages was necessarily expected to bring about musical
results which were predictable, since Tudor must have completed the
generation of his numbers rst before deciding on the allocation of an
event to a particular number: there are no events notated against numbers
which do not appear in his preparatory sketch for the piece. Tudor must
therefore have known before allocating events to one of his one hundred
and twelve numbers precisely which numbers actually required an event.
This explains, too, why only forty-six events were notated. It is impossible to
ascertain from Tudors working materials whether he applied any particular
procedure to the allocation of events to materials, though certainly there are
numerous paper sketches of potential materials, not all of which ultimately
found their way into the realization: absent, for instance, are bingo beans,
wash hands, and cap shooter.17
17
A sketched version of a later version of Theatre Piece certainly later because it is mainly
sketched on the notepaper of the Sogetsu Art Center, which Tudor did not visit until
1962 suggests that activities were characterized by aiation with re, air, water, earth.
Tudors complete event list runs as below. Following Fettermans reno-

tation of Tudors chart,18 the rst number indicates the number of times a
particular event occurs in Tudors realization, while the second is the
reference to the number in his sketches:
11 squeaker hammer
23 big beater bs. stgs.
24 jack in box
35 coil
16 rubber hammer
1 11 wipe keys
3 12 exploding matches
1 13 turtle
1 14 mustard snake
3 16 big beater sb
3 17 atoms
2 18 mouse
2 20 re alarm
3 22 dipsy car
5 23 rubber whistle
1 25 wipe stgs.
3 26 money in bank
1 29 confetti
1 30 recording 1 (music)
3 33 glass
1 36 beater right case
1 40 tea
2 41 jap. whistle
2 43 plastic under
2 44 trem. plastic rod
1 49 shoe squeaker
1 50 small scope
1 53 balloon squeaker
1 64 beater const. bar (bs)
1 65 dart
However, there seems to be little correlation between these later plans and Tudors core
realization. Indeed there seems to be no reason to presume that Tudor ever actually
performed this later realization, not least because the materials for it exist only in a
sketched format, apparently never having been copied up into a performable version.
18
The version of the chart here is identical to that of Fetterman (1996, 23839), though I have
left Tudors abbreviations such as sb for soundboard unchanged. Tudors version does
not contain the number of occurrences of a particular event.
1 69 saucer
2 74 ash pad
1 79 bird
1 82 beater metal plate
1 84 bubble horn
1 86 plastic gliss.
1 91 recording 2 (speech)
1 96 beater const. bar (ten)
1 98 chicken (alto)
1 99 ball on stgs.
1 100 plastic sb
1 102 cracked record
1 104 chirping bird
1 105 trem. mobile
1 110 beater under
1 112 big scope
At this stage, then, Tudor knew precisely what the events of his realization
would be and, following Cages score, the order in which they would occur,
and which time brackets would overlap with one another. The mode of
working from this point onwards was, compared to what had preceded,
relatively simple. The transcriptions of the beginnings and ends of time
brackets Tudor made show clearly that he made use of Cages 0100 ruler,
and that the positions on the page for those events are transcribed faith-
fully, such that the time brackets Tudor read for the rst page appear as
follows:
.9538 (big beater on bs. stgs.)
14.548.5 (jack in the box)
2551 (dipsy car)
3348.5 (rubber whistle/mouse)
44.555.5 (atom)
7484.5 (wipe keys)
These readings were then doubled in the realization itself, though the results
are not simply translated into seconds. The rst event is doubled to read
1.976, which one might take to mean that the time bracket lasts from
1.9 seconds until one minute and sixteen seconds. The doubled version of
the third event, however, reads: 5010 02. In the rst place, this means that
numbers are literally being doubled, such that fty plus fty equals one
hundred, rather than one minute and forty seconds. In the second, even
if these transcriptions do literally refer to clock time, there is a conict
between the notations, such that it is impossible to tell whether Tudors

notation of seventy-six ought really be held to mean one minute and sixteen
seconds.
If each of the ten pages were held to last for three minutes, resulting in the
expected performance length of thirty minutes, however, an explanation of
sorts can be created, such that a performance is conceivable, if still highly
complex. In such a reading of Tudors notations, the minutes of each page
would overlap, as follows, where the last event of his rst page then overlaps
with the events of his second page:
1.976 becomes 1.910 16
2997 becomes 2910 37
5010 02 becomes 5020 02
6697 becomes 10 0610 37
8910 11 becomes 10 2920 11
10 4810 69 becomes 20 4830 09
Inevitably such a reading of Tudors realization is, at best, speculative, and
Fettermans observation that establishing a denitive reading is thorny
probably understates the diculty, not aided by the fact that Tudor appears
not to have had a solid recollection of how he dealt with these readings
(Fetterman 1996, 240). Since Cage conducted the rst performance, the
solution may even be simpler. Cages conducting of the piece appears to
have been in the same style as that of Cunninghams work in respect of the
premiere of the Concert for Piano and Orchestra: his arms acted as a sort of
musical clock. It would, then, have been possible for Cage to conduct
minutes which lasted for one hundred seconds. Though this would surely
have been dicult to follow as a performer, the notation, at least, would
then have been readable in the state in which Tudor wrote it. Moreover,
with a resultant total length of each of Tudors pages in such a case of two-
hundred seconds, the ten pages would have taken thirty-three and a third
minutes to perform. Despite the attractive relationship of this duration to
Cages later 3313 (1969), neither of the proposed explanations is wholly
satisfactory, and the matter must probably remain unresolved.
It is important to note, of course, that, although Tudors own preparatory
work for Theatre Piece was no less meticulous than his usual practice, the eight
individual parts make possible performance by up to eight performers.19 The
19
As noted more fully below, Cage was disappointed with many of the realizations of Theatre
Piece completed by performers other than Tudor. Since he did not, seemingly, necessarily
object to a bending of the strict letter of what resulted from a reading of his instructions,
one might wonder whether it was, quite specically, Tudors discipline which made his
realization acceptable above all others.
practicalities of achieving this in performance meant that, if each performer

created their own determinations of the score independently, then there was
certainly a level of indeterminacy which would necessarily occur in between
the various performers, such that some sort of macro-level indeterminacy of
density could not but result. Just this practice of independent determinations
characterized Cages work with the Merce Cunningham Dance Company,
such that Cage would complete his music and Cunningham his choreography
separately, with the results only being brought together at quite a late stage
and only the duration determined in advance.20 In the case of Theatre Piece,
though, there were inevitably more complex problems since, as Tudor
observed to Fetterman, [i]ts just like choreographyyou have to nd out
whether what you have in mind is going to work or if somebody is going to be
in your way or whether it bothers you (Fetterman 1996, 112). Cages
instructions advise that a rehearsal will have the purpose of removing physi-
cally dangerous obstacles that may arise due to the unpredictability involved,
including, as Nicholls notes from seemingly bitter experience, other perform-
ers (Nicholls 2002, 107).
In truth, there is some reason at least to have some degree of skepticism
regarding whether all that was achieved by carrying out the single rehearsal
Tudor recalled was to ensure that individuals did not physically collide, at least
if Ben Johnstons recollection can be relied on: at one point David Tudor took
a rope and tied [Arline Carmen] to the piano while she was singing, all the
while continuing her song without any notice of what was happening
(Fetterman 1996, 109). Presumably, had Tudor not known where Carmen
was going to be at that point (or at least that someone would be in range of
the piano), it would have been impossible to carry out his action.21 That said,
the majority of the descriptions of performances of Theatre Piece which
Fetterman relates do emphasize independent action, even if the description
of this minor incident suggests that Tudor was willing to deviate from his
planned notations if something occurred in rehearsal which suggested that it
was, as he said, going to work. As with the case of Music Walk, where it is my
20
This could result in links being made between the music and the choreography which
became, naturally unintentionally, meaningful. In Cunninghams Suite by Chance (1952),
danced to Christian Wol s For Magnetic Tape (1952), at the point where he did a slow,
deep pli in second position, a sound, as close to a prolonged, resounding fart as electronics
were then capable of, scorched the stage space and set the audience atwitter. Cunningham
certainly could have changed when his pli occurred in later performances, but did not,
accepting the combination which chance had determined, as well as the humor it elicited
(C. Brown 2007, 99).
21
Of course it could well be argued, just as Tudor had done in the case of Music Walk, that
had there been no possibility to carry out the action designated, he simply would have
ignored it and continued on to the next action.
suspicion that a particular pressure of time caused Tudor to develop solutions

that he otherwise might not have done but which, nevertheless, worked to his
satisfaction, in Theatre Piece Merce Cunningham noted that we had so little
time putting things together in the theatre, that all one could do was to keep
ones wits together (Fetterman 1996, 110). Again, it may have been that some
of the degree of exibility that Tudor appears to have given to his own
determinations was a product of just this time pressure.
Carolyn Brown speculated that, of the eight performers she and Merce
Cunningham danced, while Tudor performed alongside the contralto Arline
Carmen, the trombonist Frank Rehak, and tuba player Don Buttereld,
and Nicola Cernovitch and Richard Nelson provided the lighting design22
only three actually sat down with our parts, and with our rulers and
cards measured and shued, asked the four questions allowed, and honestly
tried to realize the piece as John had intended (C. Brown 2007, 26364).
Intriguingly, the three that Brown marked out were herself, Tudor, and
Carmen, who had sung in the Town Hall Retrospective concert in 1958;
Cunningham, then, according to Browns recollection at least, presumably did
not follow the instructions Cage had laid down. It is hardly surprising, in such
a context, that Cage felt that only he and Tudor really got his music right,
even if one might also sympathize with Browns evident dismay and incom-
prehension that, even though she and Carmen had done their best to create a
realization which accorded with Cages instructions, he told her that neither
she nor Cunningham, nor any of the other performers from the premiere,
save Tudor, ought to perform the piece again.23
It is notable too that the specic time determinations in the version of his
realization Tudor used for performance are dierent from the ones in his rough
version. Though Tudor himself said to Fetterman that he did not recollect the
reasons for those dierences, dierences which cannot be reconciled with
Cages instructions, it is surely plausible that adaptations to Tudors plans
were contingent ones, made in the context of a specic performance situation,
as in the case of the situation with Arline Carmen mentioned above. As noted
above, the time brackets which Tudor used were themselves indeterminate
on a lower level, since they specied only the time range within which a certain
action ought to take place, rather than that an action ought to begin at the
22
Although Brown credits Nelson, Fetterman suggests, following an interview with him, that
Nelson was unable to be present and that another, unknown person helped Cernovitch for
the performance itself, although Nelsons plans for the piece may still have been used
(Fetterman 1996, 110).
23
Perhaps most notably, in Browns recollection Cage had wanted her to extend a short jazz
improvisation which had occurred in her realization, and was disappointed by her
response that it only came up once, for that length of time (C. Brown 2007, 266).
start of a certain time bracket, or that it ought to ll the whole bracket. More
important, Tudors reading of Cages instructions is arguably not simply
idiosyncratic; there are numerous aspects of the realization process which
are strictly unpredictable from Cages score. Though Music Walk was the rst
of Tudors realizations where the realization itself exhibited indeterminate
characteristics, Theatre Piece contained procedural elements at the realization
stage which were wholly of Tudors own invention. It is at this stage when
Richardss observation regarding the nature of the CageTudor collaboration
takes on an additional pertinence:
When he [Cage] and David Tudor worked together they planned their
concerts according to what might be called a benevolent form of artistic
anarchism. They managed to collaborate and remain independent at the same
time. Cage explained: I was not telling David Tudor what to do, nor was he
telling me what to do, anything that either of us did worked with everything the
other did. (Richards 1996, 135)
Tudors realizations were, then, already becoming less deterministic, but the
specics of Theatre Piece seem to have meant that he had no option but to
adapt them, thus opening the possibility of the much more indeterminate
form of realization, which he would pursue in Variations II.
Music for Amplied Toy Pianos (1960)

Pritchetts evaluation of Music for Amplied Toy Pianos is that it falls into a
category of relatively minor works, all of which he regards as basically
derivative of Fontana Mix (Pritchett 1993, 134). In a sense, in Pritchetts
evaluation, Music for Amplied Toy Pianos is little more signicant than
pieces like Sounds of Venice or Water Walk, each literal derivatives of
Fontana Mix, devised by Cage using the materials of that piece. Cage himself
seems to have thought Music for Amplied Toy Pianos to have been at least as
entertaining as it was serious: It sounds like ancient Chinese music with
Korean inuence [ . . . ]. Each sound is magnicent, but the means of pro-
ducing them are hilarious (Cage, quoted in Silverman 2010, 198).
In some respects, Tudors realization of Music for Amplied Toy Pianos
seems also to be something of a retrograde step. His work on both Music
Walk and Theatre Piece allowed for a certain exibility in performance in
ways in which, precisely, his realizations of Winter Music, the Solo for Piano,
and Variations I had not. In those earlier pieces, to various degrees, though
the relationship between Cages score instructions and the realizations which
Tudor prepared was indeterminate to the degree that other realizations
which were radically dierent would have been conceivable, a conception
foregrounded in the multiple versions of Variations I the actual notation

from which Tudor performed was wholly xed, at least so far as any conven-
tional score exhibits xity. By contrast, even if in limited degree, the realiza-
tions for Music Walk and Theatre Piece exhibited a stronger degree of
indeterminacy in performance. To be more accurate, the notations deter-
mined physical actions to be undertaken at a specic point, or within a
specic period of time, the sonic results of which could be relatively variable.
From this perspective, even though Tudor was working with words and
temporal markings as a form of notation, rather than extensions of the ve-
line sta, in those two pieces his realizations seem to approach the sorts of
tablature notation which are found in the upper staves of Cages 340 46.667,
which indicate degree of force, vertical distance from the keyboard at the
beginning of an attack, and speed of attack, all of which are parameters
which require a physical response, and where the sounding result is not
encoded into the score as such. In a sense, then, Tudors motion was toward
a position where the instructions of his own notation determined what he, as a
performer, would physically do, and such notations inevitably resulted in
some indeterminacy of sounding result. Despite this general tendency, his
own realization of Music for Amplied Toy Pianos returned to the xed, ve-
line sta determinations of his earlier work. In truth, however, it is not the
realization itself which seems most illuminating in the case of Music for
Amplied Toy Pianos, but rather the process undertaken.
If Tudor had materials with which to prepare his realization of Music for
Amplied Toy Pianos which were identical to the ones which were present in
Cages published score, they do not survive. What does remain of Tudors
working drafts, though, certainly suggests that he worked with something
extremely close to the nal printed version. Cages materials are, as Pritchett
and Nicholls have both observed, redolent of other pieces Cage completed
around the same time, especially Fontana Mix, which made use of a similar
combination of transparencies featuring points, a line, and a grid, musical
tools, as Pritchett dubs them (Nicholls 2007, 75; Pritchett 1993, 126, 134).
There are six point transparencies provided by Cage, two of which contain
small points, two of which contain circles, and two of which contain encircled
points. The points sheets indicate an attack, either on the keys of the toy
piano, or a sort of pizzicato, achieved by lifting the lid of the toy piano
and icking the plastic rod, which connects the key through to the hammer,
which in turn strikes the metal bar which produces sound. The encircled
points denote noise. Cage goes no further in explaining what is meant by
noise here, though I outline below what Tudor took it to mean. In any
case, however, it should be presumed that what was meant was a mode of
production which involved neither the keys nor the rods which led to the
sound-producing metal bars, since they were already accounted for. The
circles were used to indicate amplication: the line transparency was placed
so that it connected two points; where that led to an intersection with a circle,
the circle would then be used to determine amplication. Thus, not every
note needed necessarily to be amplied, since the line between each pair of
notes would not necessarily intersect with a circle. Given that amplication
was, however, determined independently for each individual toy piano, each
instrument required its own amplication and, also, potentiometer for
control of that amplication. The speakers being distributed around the
audience, according to Cages instructions, it was, thus, in a ve-piano version
such as that which Tudor performed, also spatialized in those ve chan-
nels, just as another piece concerned with a certain sort of childhood,
Stockhausens Gesang der Jnglinge (195556), had been.
According to Cages instructions, all six sheets must be used in any
realization of Music for Amplied Toy Pianos, with the grid sheet, which
determines pitch on its vertical axis and time on its horizontal axis, laid over
the top. In Variations I, for instance, that each transparency was the same
size implied that they should be overlaid precisely on top of one another
in order to generate a reading. In Music for Amplied Toy Pianos, Cage
instructs only that each of the available sheets must be used and must be at
least partly superimposed by the grid. Thus, so long as at least a part of each
sheet is covered by the grid, a reading would be licit within the terms of
Cages instructions. The range of possible interpretations is, thus, far wider
than might be expected from the six transparencies and, as such, it is
remarkably dicult to work out how Tudor may have had the transpar-
encies arranged when he took his readings.
In the case of Fontana Mix, the grid was in a certain sense arbitrary: the
twenty-by-one-hundred graph was to be interpreted according to a scale
determined by the interpreter, and a scale which could be variable to the
degree that each small square of the grid, reading horizontally might, in
theory at least, have a separate durational value. The same is true in the case
of Music for Amplied Pianos, on the horizontal level. Though the horizon-
tal reading of the grid denotes time, Cage states that the passage of that time
could be either regular or irregular. Nevertheless, unlike Fontana Mix, there
is something gently suggestive in the way in which the grid is divided. In the
horizontal dimension, there are ten large squares, each subdivided into
ten smaller squares. This provides a relatively convenient scale for time,
whether it be subdivided regularly or irregularly. More notable is the vertical
scale. Here there are ve large squares, which Cages instructions give the
reader to understand refer to the ve amplied toy pianos, with the possi-
bility of making more graphs if there are more toy pianos. Each of these
squares, though, is divided into twelve. Initially one might think that this
implies that Cage expected to determine which note of the total chromatic
would be utilized when this grid intersected with one of the other sheets which
determined the occurrence of pitches. Yet, it might also suggest a knowledge,
in advance, of precisely what sorts of toy piano Tudor was intending to use,
or even a determination on Cages part of the outer range of what Tudor
would be able to do in the dimension of pitch in his realization. I will return
to this below.
Tudor made four separate readings of the materials. In each of his read-
ings, he redrew the larger squares of Cages grid out onto blank paper, so
that for each reading he was left with ten squares for each of the ve toy
pianos. In his rst two readings, these were spread across two sheets of
paper, so that he retained the exact spatial proportions of Cages grid,
suggesting that the distances on his own notation were equivalent to con-
sistent clock time, as in his earlier realizations; in his second two versions,
however, the large squares of Cages grid were squeezed in the horizontal
plane, so that all ten time squares could t onto a single page. In Tudors
third reading, this appears to have been a consequence of there having been
almost no activity determined, in any part, in the second, third, and fourth
large squares (working left to right).24 In the fourth reading, however, Tudor
seems simply to have begun to take down the information provided by his
reading of Cages notations, rather than trying to preserve the spatial
distribution of that information on his redrawing of the grid.
Tudors notation of most events in his transcription is reasonably straight-
forward, and exhibits a close relationship to Cages original notations. Even in
Tudors earlier notations, his later abandonment of an attempt to retain the
spatial proportions of an individual casting of Cages materials is, in some
senses, implicit, since the rst piece of information Tudor notated was the
order in which each event individual pitches for the most part was to take
place. Following this, he wrote down where horizontally on the grid a particular
event occurred; he used the smaller divisions into ten which Cage provided, but
he also added an additional subdivision of up to two decimal places, suggesting
that Tudor must doubtless have been making use of a ruler to notate his own
divisions, as well as Cages grid. Finally, he notated a number from 1 to 12 to
indicate the pitch to be used. When nally translated into the score copy,
Tudor made use of only diatonic notes, suggesting that he wanted the realiza-
tion to work on relatively basic for which one might well also read cheap toy
pianos. That said, the pitch range he made use of in his realization went a little
24
A single event was determined in the rst toy piano, in the second large square, in this
period. The other fourteen squares were blank.
Fig. 6.1 One of Tudors grid notations for Music for Amplied Toy Pianos
beyond the typical single-octave range of such entry-level toy pianos, span-
ning the octave-and-a-half spread from A3 to E5: this diatonic range, then, is
equivalent to the twelve small squares available on Cages grid, and a 1 in
Tudors sketch for his realization is equivalent to A3 (with 2 becoming B3
and so forth). Thus, in the rst page of Tudors rst sketch realization shown in
Fig. 6.1, the 1 followed by a colon denotes that this is the rst event of the
realization, while the lower numeral 2 beneath denotes that that event contains
the pitch B3. That the event is notated in the third large vertical box denotes
that the event occurs on the third of ve amplied toy pianos.
The nal notation Tudor utilized appears, as noted above, on six-sta
manuscript paper: Tudor evidently cut sheets of standard twelve-sta
manuscript paper into two halves, and punched holes in the side, so they
could easily be gathered together in a ring binder, as was the case with the
Solo for Piano, for instance. Tudors title for the realization, Music for 5
Amplied Toy Pianos, xes the number of toy pianos used at the lowest
number allowed by Cages instructions, and each of the ve pianos appears
on one of the staves of the manuscript paper, with a single line left blank.
Each page of the realization is allocated a duration of fteen seconds and is,
too, equivalent to one of the large boxes of Cages grid (or, for that matter, of
Tudors sketch). This meant, then, that where an event had been transcribed
from Cages materials as occurring at a horizontal distance of ve-and-a-
quarter squares, as in the rst event of Tudors graph shown above, along a
particular large square of Cages grid, it would occur at seven-and-seven-
eighths of a second within the fteen-second duration allocated by each
page. Tudor left the occurrence of such events within the timespace
notation of the fteen seconds of page time, rather than notating precisely
each event, such that one might presume some degree of exibility, the
event mentioned above probably happening in performance more or less
just after the midpoint of a fteen-second duration. All four of Tudors
readings of Cages materials were used in his nal realization, resulting in
forty six-stave pages, of fteen-second durations per page, meaning that his
realization lasted ten minutes in total.
As had increasingly become Tudors custom in earlier realizations, his
work is economical in terms of clefs: previously they were often left absent
because he knew that, consistently, the top sta would denote an 8va treble
clef, the next a standard treble clef, the next a standard bass clef, and the
bottom an 8va basso bass clef; here Tudor did not bother to notate any clefs,
since only the treble clef was available on the instruments. That said, there is
no reason to presume a close relationship between sign and sound in the
case of what Tudor actually notated, since the wide range of possible tunings
in the case of toy pianos suggests that at least some dierence is likely to
have instantiated in performance. Indeed, it is plausible that there might
have been a very wide range of tuning systems and a large degree of micro-
tonal relationships set up between the instruments, none of which is
determined from Tudors own realization. It is plausible, to be sure, that
Tudor could have selected toy pianos specically for this purpose, and
arranged them accordingly. However, there is nothing in his own prepar-
atory materials to suggest this. What is sure, though, is that what Tudor was
notating here was really something which told him what he was to do, not
what would happen as a result of that action.
As well as diatonic pitch material, which is notated in the realization with
standard black note heads, Tudor utilized a range of extended techniques and
sound-producing devices not available within the toy pianos themselves in

order to generate various forms of noise, as demanded by Cages instructions.
Relatively early on in work on Music for Amplied Toy Pianos, Tudor created
a compendium of the possible extended techniques he might be able to make
use of in the case of the toy piano; these included trills with a wire brush,
dragging a le across the leg of the instrument, glissandi with an emery board
or with a beater, in the latter case using both ends of the beater both on the
keys and along the metal bars of the instrument, as well as strikes on the body
of the instrument and of the keyboard lid. At some point in his planning,
Tudor appears to have considered a detailed system of color coding, with
dierent forms of extended technique categorized as gold, red, blue, or
black, for instance. In the nal realization, however, extended techniques are
notated exclusively in red, while ordinario attacks on the keys are in black,
and blue is used, as noted below, for indications of amplication. Although
Tudor did create a separate conversion system for the twelve vertical posi-
tions within Cages notation such that a reading of 1 would now become
D4, with a reading of 12 equating to A5 there seems to be no consistent
correlation between a particular pitch and a particular method of producing
noise; B4 denotes, on a single page of Tudors notation, that Tudor should
produce a trill on the lid, produce a trill underneath the instrument with a
metal beater, and lift a beater (but not strike the instrument with it). It seems
reasonably likely that Tudor introduced such extended techniques with
relative freedom, even if it is also likely that, at an earlier stage in realizing
the piece, he had probably anticipated systematizing which technique would
be introduced at which point.
The available degrees of amplication range from a reading of 2.5 to one of
180, suggesting that what such numbers determined was most likely to be an
indication of degree regarding how far the dial of a potentiometer ought to
be turned.25 Each of these indications of degree was written above the
appropriate point of each sta in blue, with either an upward or a downward
slash beneath, on the sta itself, which indicated whether the dial would
need to be turned up or down in order to reach the appropriate point on
the potentiometer. As with the points of occurrence of pitches and noises, the
point at which changes of dynamic were to be made were measured by Tudor
25
Ronald Kuivila discusses a similar potentiometer in the early version of his essay Open
Sources: Words, Circuits, and the NotationRealization Relation in the Music of David
Tudor presented at the Getty Research Institutes The Art of David Tudor conference
(Kuivila 2001, 8). The version of this essay revised for publication in the Leonardo Music
Journal does not describe this particular potentiometer, but does provide a range of
detailed descriptions and discussions of Tudors work with electronics, both as a composer
in his own right and as a performer of Cages music (Kuivila 2004, 1723).
according to the same scale, occurring, in accordance with Cages instruc-

tions, at the point where a line placed between two pitched notes intersected
with an open circle. Tudor also made a note in his sketch of where the
intersection occurred in the vertical dimension, but there appears to be no
obvious correlation between this and the resulting determination of the
degree of amplication. Indeed, as was the case with Tudors introduction
of extended techniques, the same degree appears to be reached according to a
wide number of dierent readings of the original materials. For instance, the
potentiometer is to be set at 167.5 for each of the following readings: 7.5
across, in the fth box across, with 6.5 up, in the fourth box down; 8 across,
in the tenth box across, with 1.5 up, in the second box down; 1.5 across, in the
fourth box across, with 12 up, in the third box down. Though it seems almost
certain that Tudor must have made use of some form of combining the
available pieces of information to determine a specic degree of amplica-
tion, establishing what this system may have been from the materials which
survive appears implausible. In any case, there are no conversion sheets,
suggesting that whatever translation may have been undertaken was car-
ried out more or less live, in the process of making Tudors initial sketches.
Even if Tudor had an independent conversion scale for amplitudes for each
of the toy pianos, with only a relatively small number of changes of
amplication within the piece, reconstruction is an impossibility.
Cartridge Music (1960)

Though completed at Stony Point in July 1960, Cartridge Music was
another piece which received its premiere in Germany, on this occasion
at Mary Bauermeisters Cologne atelier on October 6, 1960. The perform-
ers on that occasion were numerous, and included Cornelius Cardew,
Hans G. Helms, Nam June Paik, Benjamin Patterson, William Pearson,
and Kurt Schwertsik, alongside Cage and Tudor. The performance of
Cartridge Music occurred alongside a simultaneous performance of Solo
for Voice 2 (1960). Since Tudor also performed Music for Amplied Toy
Pianos within the same concert, it seems reasonably likely that broadly the
same amplication was used both for this piece and for the performance of
Cartridge Music with Solo for Voice 2,26 though Music for Amplied Toy
26
Stockhausen also attended this concert (Beal 2006, 119), which was in many respects
something of a gathering of the usual suspects where Cage and West Germany were
concerned. Nam June Paiks compositional approach was radically altered following his
encounter with Cage at the 1958 Darmstadt New Music Courses (as indicated in Paiks
letters to the then-director of the Darmstadt courses, Wolfgang Steinecke, after that event,
reprinted in Metzger and Riehn 1999, 12330), while Schwertsik and Cardew would
Pianos had already been premiered not long after the score was completed,
at Wesleyan University on February 25, 1960.27
The cartridge of the title referred to old-fashioned phonograph car-
tridges. Of course a stylus could be inserted into the cartridge, according
to its design, but it was also possible to insert other items, such as pipe
cleaners, wires, feathers, slinky springs, or matches: anything that was small
enough to be inserted into the cartridge could be and thus, through the
insertion, use, and removal of objects from the cartridge, manipulation of
timbre and amplitude dials of the associated ampliers, [and the] produc-
tion of auxiliary sounds, a performance of Cartridge Music was able to
reveal sounds which, without amplication, could not be heard (Cage,
quoted in Nicholls 2007, 75). As Cages instructions suggest, as well as the
sounds of objects inserted into phonograph cartridges and amplied,
auxiliary sounds are created via attaching contact microphones to other
objects, most typically furniture: one of Tudors sketch sheets for Cartridge
Music lists the additional, auxiliary objects which he made use of: a table,
a card table, and a ladder. Silvermans description is doubtless close to
the mark:
In a performance of Cartridge Music [ . . . ] the sounds of chairs, tables,

wastebaskets, and the like can also be liberated by attaching to them contact
microphones connected like the cartridges to ampliers that go to
loudspeakers. The audience not only hears the indwelling sounds of pipe
cleaners being electronically released, but also sees the performers icking the
cleaners or dragging Slinkys along the oor, crisscrossing each other as they
attach microphones and move tables and chairs and other stage furniture.
(Silverman 2010, 179)
The connection to the physical theatre of Theatre Piece is clear Silverman

also notes that Cage thought it important to make electronic music theatri-
cal in order to enjoin a greater level of interest but, as will become clearer
below, Cartridge Music is thus, in Tudors terms at least, a way stage between
Theatre Piece and Variations II; the same physically involved approach to
creating sound I detail with respect to Cartridge Music below found perhaps
fuller form in the second of the Variations series and, it is worth noting
perform their own realization of Variations I on February 28 the following year, at the
Staatliche Hochschule fr Musik in Munich.
27
The score is dated only February 1960, but even if it was completed at the earliest possible
juncture in that month, with almost no break after the completion of Theatre Piece in
January 1960, this still suggests that Tudor was moving increasingly quickly from Cages
instructions through to a completed realization, or set of realizations, and may in part
account for some of the decisions which are dicult to explain in Tudors work on Music
for Amplied Toy Pianos.
too, Tudors notations for these two pieces remain indeterminate in almost
precisely the same way: both sets of notation demand physical, sound-
producing actions at particular time points, but only partly determine the
nature of those actions.28
Tudors approach to realizing Cartridge Music appears to have followed
Cages instructions closely. He was certainly well acquainted by this stage
with the use of transparencies, from Variations I not least as well as Music
Walk. Though Cartridge Music may appear at rst sight more complex than
the earlier scores in its notation, in point of fact it is probably rather simpler
to generate a realization of it. Here, Cage provided four transparencies, all
of which were to be superimposed as in the earlier pieces. One contained
nineteen points and one ten circles. A third had a clock face printed on it,
with ve-second intervals marked out on it. The last transparency com-
prised a dotted curved line which, as Fetterman describes it, meanders over
the entire sheet, crossing over itself at six points (Fetterman 1996, 59).
Additionally, there were twenty other non-transparent sheets: the rst had
one shape on it, the second two, and so on until there were twenty shapes on
the nal sheet. Only one of these twenty sheets needed to be used: the
number of shapes was expected to correspond to the number of available
cartridges. Each shape would be taken consistently to refer to a particular
cartridge. As noted below, the majority of Tudors realizations appear to
have been completed with only two cartridges, so the sheet with two shapes
on it was, doubtless, the one which he made use of more than any other.29
Once the four transparencies had been overlaid on top of a sheet contain-
ing shapes, it was possible to follow Cages instructions more or less literally,
although, as noted above, the result of doing this would hardly determine
everything that was necessary for a performance of Cartridge Music, even if it
would ensure that a performer knew what was needed which had not, by the
28
An anecdotal recollection made by Christian Wol of working with Tudor on studio
performances of Cartridge Music at Darmstadt in 1961 suggests that he, at least, did not
regard the particular approach to amplication implied by Cages instructions as necessarily
the only viable way to create a realization of the piece, even if it was the most normal one.
Wol stated that: In a class in Darmstadt in the early sixties David had suggested some of
us prepare a performance of John Cages Cartridge Music, even though the necessary
phonograph cartridges were not available, nor in fact any means of electric amplication.
We worked up something with objects that would serve as resonating chambers and did a
performance for the rest of the class (Wol 1998b [1997], 380). Adorno was auditing the
class that day and, according to Wol s description, provided a long, complex response to
the performance, detailing what he regarded as the implications of the music. Tudors
response was to say to him, simply, You havent understood a thing.
29
Indeed, Tudors sketches suggest he probably only ever made use of the second, third, and
sixth sheets.
stage of completing a set of readings, been determined. If the dotted line

intersected with one of the nineteen points within a shape, then a sound was
to be produced on the cartridge to which this shape referred. If the dotted line
intersected with one of the nineteen points outside a shape, then a sound was
to be produced on one of the auxiliary objects, which were probably already
amplied with contact microphones. The dotted line had a point on the end
of it, which ensured that it would perforce intersect with at least one point.
If the dotted line intersected with a circle within a shape, then the volume
dial of the amplier of the cartridge to which this shape referred was to be
moved. Where the dotted line intersected with a circle outside a shape, then
the cartridge related to the nearest shape to it was to have its tone dial
moved. Cage gave no indication of the degree of alterations that would be
acceptable in the case either of timbre or dynamic, though his statement
that all events, ordinarily thought to be undesirable, such as feed-back,
humming, howling, etc. are to be accepted in this situation suggests that
extreme changes would probably have been no more or less desirable than
subtle ones. Even given this, one could conceive of a version of Cartridge
Music in which all ampliers found themselves turned down to extremely low
levels or, indeed, no amplication at all for large portions of the performance.
As in Music for Amplied Toy Pianos, the loudspeakers were expected to
surround the audience.
There were two further instructions. First, if a circle, the outline of a
shape, and the dotted line all coincided, the object in the cartridge should
be exchanged for another one. As Cage observed in his instructions, if the
amplier was loud enough at a point when this occurred, the change of
object would itself be audible. Second, if either points or circles were crossed
by the dotted line at one of the six points where the line crossed itself, then
the sound pattern which resulted was expected to be repeated, or looped as
Tudors earlier notations had it. In theory, this could mean that any of the
above actions could require looping, including the changing of the objects
inserted into the cartridges. Tudor seems to have accepted this instruction
wholeheartedly: in his realizations there are loops required for changes of
position on the amplitude and timbre dials, for actions on auxiliary objects,
and for actions on individual cartridges. In some sketches he even has a
loop indicated for the changing of objects within the cartridges; elsewhere
a sequence of four separate actions is regarded as a loop, although since
Tudor was, following the determinations of time brackets discussed below,
only able to allocate nineteen seconds to the repetition of these four actions,
in practice a loop was, as such, probably implausible. These two latter, more
complex determinations do not appear in the realizations which Tudor
appears to have used in performance, being restricted only to his sketch
material. It is tempting to suspect that Tudor may have avoided loops which
seemed impossible or simply inconvenient, as in the case of the looped
changing of objects within a cartridge, since he was clearly aware of this as a
possible result of the determinations he made from Cages notations. Yet it
is no less plausible that, in the case of the determinations he actually made
for performance, no such requirements were demanded by the particular
conguration of shapes and transparencies.
As was typical with pieces by Cage which required the derivation of read-
ings based on a particular intersection of transparencies, the individual
performer was expected to take a sucient number of readings of the nota-
tions in order to ll the space of a pre-agreed performance duration. Tudor
created numerous dierent versions of his own performance materials for
Cartridge Music, most of which last, as Fetterman notes, ten minutes, though
there are versions for durations of roughly fteen and twenty minutes. The
number of dierent versions prepared by Tudor suggests that, comparatively
speaking at least, he found it straightforward to devise performance realiza-
tions. Those realizations are all, more or less, indeterminate: they do not tell
what objects are to be placed into the pick-ups, what the auxiliary sounds are,
or how to manipulate either the cartridge or auxiliary sound objects
(Fetterman 1996, 61). A wide range of performance decisions are not notated
in them, even if Tudor was reasonably well aware of what he would do. A
second form of performance indeterminacy, though in many ways a more
minor one, was introduced into the instructions provided by Cage in his
demand for time brackets within which, rather than specic points at which,
musical events would take place. Whereas the score for Theatre Piece had
provided the necessary time brackets there it was what was dispersed within
the brackets that was at stake here Cage allowed the performer to determine
their own brackets too, within certain prescribed limits. Tudor appears to have
determined his time brackets exactly in accordance with Cages instructions,
which is to say by recording the points at which the dotted line of Cages
notation passed through the circle of the stopwatch. In Tudors sketched
versions of Cartridge Music, he only notated the numbers which resulted
from these intersections. Cages instructions suggested that the indications
of seconds which were thus transcribed could refer to any one of the minutes
of the total time programmed which may be any agreed-upon time. For the
most part, if the numbers which Tudor obtained meant that the second
number was lower than the rst such as the situation in his realization for
six cartridges, where the time bracket for the second event begins at 39 seconds
and ends at 32 seconds the second number would be displaced by a minute,
which doubtless seemed the most simple solution. Occasionally, where a large
number of events are determined for a particular time bracket by Tudors
transcription, Tudor instead displaced the clock by two or, on one occasion,
three minutes. This seems to have been an entirely pragmatic decision, given
its relationship to the number of events prescribed.30
In some of his realizations, both the minute and the second counts are
transcribed. In others, only the seconds are given. Regardless of whether an
indication of the minute of the piece was given, Tudor added a neat form of
notation to remind him, one must presume, of when the clock was going to
change minute. If the second indication of time occurred within the same
minute as the rst, a long dash would be placed between the two; if the
second indication was in the following minute, the dash would become an
arrow. On the unusual occasions on which more than one minute would
pass, additional heads would be added to the arrow, so that on the occasion
on which the time bracket began at 9 minutes and 27 seconds and ended at
12 minutes and 22 seconds, Tudor notated an arrow with three heads
(Fig. 6.2).
Each cartridge in Tudors performance realizations of Cartridge Music is
allocated a number. The greatest number of cartridges Tudor seems to have
utilized, on the basis of the available notations, is six, although, in the vast
majority of his realizations, the number of cartridges with which Tudor was
working was limited to two, suggesting in accordance with Cages instruc-
tions in the score that the number of performers be at least that of the
cartridges and not greater than twice the number of cartridges that these
notations were principally designed for duo performance with Cage. Thus,
in most of Tudors extant realizations of the piece, a 1 denotes the rst
of two cartridges and a 2 denotes the second. These are followed by a
relatively small number of potential indications which demand action of the
performer: an X means simply that the performer must produce a sound
on the indicated cartridge; a V denotes that the volume dial should be
turned up or down, with an upward or downward slash following the V
accordingly (Tudor made use of a range of dierent angles of line in this
respect, to show how far up or down the dial ought to be turned); a T
indicates that the timbre dial should be turned, with upward or downward
slashes performing the same role as for the V notation.31
30
Although Cages instructions would have allowed for it, since the seconds could refer to
any one of the minutes of the piece, it seems that Tudor never considered the possibility of
overlapping time brackets. Cages later use of time brackets suggests, in any case, that this
would probably have been antithetical to his expectations of what the results of his
notation would have been.
31
As Cage later noted, the stage performance bears comparison with Music Walk since [t]he
situation gets quite confused, with people turning dierent knobs, the eects of which they
Fig. 6.2 A page from Tudors realization of Cartridge Music
The notations for auxiliary sounds sounds generated by some form of

action on the auxiliary objects, typically items of furniture such as the table,
card table, and ladder mentioned above, amplied through contact
microphones are notated in a similar way. A capital A denotes that an
auxiliary sound is required; where multiple dierent auxiliary objects were
in use, Tudor wrote a subscript numeral next to the A to denote which
object was to be used. These subscript numerals appear to be a remnant
from an earlier notational method, in which Tudor used a C to denote
cartridge, followed by a subscript numeral to indicate which cartridge was
to be utilized. While there was a certain consistency to this notation, it
have no way of knowing (Cage and Kostelanetz 2003 [1987], 92). This, too, points forward
to the electronic indeterminacy of the circuits Tudor would use for Variations II, as well as
his own later work, although in these cases it was typically the action of a single performer
with the electronic resources that led to this particular form of indeterminacy, while in
Cartridge Music, [o]ne person may be turning down the amplitude while someone else is
playing something. Causes and eects get disconnected. The personal element seems to
make the machinery not quite work properly (Cage and Kostelanetz 2003 [1987], 125).
necessitated an excess of notational information, since it was necessary to

provide information regarding which cartridge changes of volume or timbre
applied on every single occurrence of a required change. In Tudors more
elegant, later solution, the numeral to indicate the cartridge to be used
would persist, like an accidental within a single bar, until cancelled by a
dierent numeral. The C notation, now with a square drawn around it to
enhance its clarity, became, instead, a notation which demanded that the
cartridge in use be exchanged for a dierent one (or the object inserted into
the cartridge be changed if too few cartridges were present for it to be
possible to have cartridges with numerous dierent objects inserted into
them ready at hand). For both the notations X and A a superscript R
could be added, which in Tudors earliest notations for Cartridge Music was
described by him as a loop. The R ultimately signied something very
similar, but distinct: rather than a loop as such, the R indicated a repeated
action. Again, this change shows the ways in which Tudors thinking,
especially when electronic elements became involved, was increasingly to
do with the idea of a notation which prescribed physical action, rather than
musical results. Even though this idea was, in a sense, pregured in Cages
parametric notations of attack in 340 46.776, by Cartridge Music Tudor had
begun to nd ways both to investigate the parameters of such physical
action and still to retain an element of indeterminacy in his response to
such indications, even within his own realizations, an idea which would nd
much fuller form in Variations II.
For the most part, Tudors realizations were signicantly dierent from the
sorts of realizations which Cage completed of his own work, regardless of
whether the realizations were intended for simultaneous performance. As
noted above, the relationship between Tudors and Cages approaches was
broadly similar to the relationship between Cages music and Cunninghams
choreography, in that both would occur at the same time and in the same
venue, but there would be no attempt to coordinate the activities of the two,
as in traditional choreographic approaches. Yet in the realizations made by
Cage and Tudor for Cartridge Music, it is possible to see that, at points at least,
they appear to have begun from similar starting points. Before Tudor reached
the simple notation described above, he created a realization in which his
actions were described in rather fuller written form, such that what he might
later have notated as 3: xR was here given as loop on cartridge 3.32 This
32
It is worth noting that it is plausible that this realization was, in fact, never intended by
Tudor for use in performance. Not only are the descriptions of activity relatively dicult to
read, in comparison with the format Tudor ultimately reached, but also the notations for
time are not aligned with the events which Tudor notated. This said, there is no later
realization also contains a particular notation for changing the position of

the amplitude and timbre dials, in which they are presented as a circle with
two slashes marking the starting and ending points of a turn. This notation
appears, also, in the two performance realizations Cage made for Cartridge
Music, an example of one of which is provided by Fetterman (1996, 63). This
suggests strongly that, at a certain point, Cage and Tudor discussed methods
of notating actions within Cartridge Music and, indeed, that it may have been
at a relatively early stage. In any case, Cage retained this notation for altering
timbre and amplitude, while Tudor ultimately rejected it. However, in other
respects the notations are similar: Cages notation to indicate that a dial
graphic should be applied to the timbre of the second cartridge, for instance,
is shown by T2, and a change of cartridge is notated by placing a circle
(rather than Tudors square) around a number. Yet Cages notation is slightly
more inconsistent in terms of the meaningfulness of signs. Though T2 is
followed by a dial notation, a change of volume receives the marginally more
cumbersome notation AMP2, again followed by the dial graphic. A single
action on the rst cartridge receives the simple notation 1, while a repeated
action on the same cartridge is indicated by L: 1. Cages notations are, to be
sure, perfectly readable; indeed in terms of the visual impression of the
notation, Cages realization is signicantly more attractive. However, it lacks
the elegant simplicity of Tudors version.33 The realizations do also reveal
slightly dierent concerns in respect of the notation of the passage of time
between Cage and Tudor, which belie their respective modes of thought
regarding the relationship between sound and sign, in part at least. Cages
notation retains a proportional relationship between leftright space and
time, such that each reading of a card of Cages realization lasts for a total
of sixty seconds, with the point on the card having a direct correspondence to
the time at which the events occur or, more accurately, the beginning and end
point of the time brackets within which events occur. This timespace
notation was, of course, still the familiar one from Cages earlier pieces,
such as the Music for Piano series or Winter Music. Tudor, too, had retained
such proportional notations until very recently; indeed, they persisted as far as
his realization of Music for Amplied Pianos. In Cartridge Music, however, his
realization which seems to be a renotated version of this early sketch. Nevertheless, it seems
most likely that the two pages of this outline plan for a realization of Cartridge Music
represent Tudors initial sketch work, perhaps completed some time before he came
toward a satisfactory procedure and notation.
33
In some of Tudors own sketches for his realizations, especially the ones which appear close
to literal transcriptions of the readings he was taking from his castings of Cages notation,
his notation also is somewhat confusing, at least when compared with its nal form. Here,
for instance, a C followed by a superscript (or sometimes subscript) number indicates that
a cartridge is to be used, as well as which one.
approach was closer to that of Theatre Piece, in that he simply notated a time
range for each set of events, with no direct relationship between where on the
page actions were described and when they would occur beyond a reference
to the time indicated. This was a wholly pragmatic solution; indeed, it is
plausible Tudor may have given no thought in his notations to the idea of a
timespace solution . Given that Cages instructions simply asked for a certain
set of events to take place within a particular time range, not at particular,
specied, and predetermined points within that range, if anything a propor-
tional approach would have confused things, giving an impression of specif-
icity about the occurrence of events which was at odds with the more
indeterminate aim of a certain number of musical actions taking place within
a given range of time. Indeed, as Tudor recollected to Fetterman, it was not
always even possible to carry out all the actions a realization demanded: in
reality, Tudor attempted to do as many actions as feasible to be performed
(Fetterman 1996, 64). In his later music, Cages own approach changed to
accord with Tudors. To take only two examples germane to the collaboration
between the pair, to which I will return below, in both Five Stone Wind and
Four3, Cage provided time brackets like the ones Tudor created for Cartridge
Music as a part of the performance materials.
Variations II (1961)
Pritchett notes that it is not an exaggeration to say that Variations II
encompasses any piece of music that could possibly be created (Pritchett
2004, 12). It probably is an exaggeration, in truth, but surely not much of
one, since the only pieces of music that could not be created from it would
be ones where questions arising could not be answered by measurement of
a dropped perpendicular. Such questions are doubtless relatively few, at
least as far as what decisions a performer might make in creating a realiza-
tion of Variations II, though it is unlikely that such readings would produce
a piece of nineteenth-century virtuoso pianistic writing, despite Hilbergs
claim that the notation might portray Beethovens Fifth Symphony just as
well as a trac accident (Hilberg 1996, 13). That said, Tudors realization
also suggests that there is no reason for a realization necessarily to sound like
Cage either. In his previous work, broadly speaking, when he had introduced
musical materials which were not ordinarily available within the piano itself,
he had normally used sonic elements which could be found in Cages pre-
indeterminate output. Even though the realizations of the Solo for Piano and
Variations I were highly idiosyncratic at points, the nal result in perform-
ance was recognizably a Cageian piece, despite the fact that chance oper-
ations were used to dene only properties of the sounds (frequency, duration,
etc.), rather than the sounds themselves (Brooks 2002a, 129). In Variations
II this was no longer the case. Doubtless the experience of amplication in the
Music for Amplied Toy Pianos and of amplifying other materials in
Cartridge Music informed Tudors decision to utilize an additional range of
sonic elements in Variations II. Yet the notational aspects of the realization
also went far beyond any of Tudors previous work.
In principle, the notation of Variations II is a simplication and clarica-
tion of that used in Variations I. It is also a much more uid and variable tool.
Arguably, Cages note that Variations II represents a kind of puzzle, [ . . . ]
almost impossible to understand is an overstatement, at least in the context
of earlier pieces like the Solo for Piano or Variations I where the puzzles were,
surely, more complex (Silverman 2010, 175). Where in Variations I the lines
were xed on ve transparent sheets, each containing ve lines, in Variations
II each line is itself an independent, mobile transparent sheet. Moreover, there
are six such sheets. In Variations I, the various perpendiculars which were
dropped determined lowest frequency, simplest overtone structure, greatest
amplitude, least duration, and earliest occurrence of a constellation of events.
Variations II retains the parametric division which had dominated Cages
work in the 1950s as a whole, but on the one hand makes the decision-making
process simpler and, on the other, places more responsibility in the hands of
the performer. As well as the six line sheets of Variations II, each containing
a single line, there are also ve transparent point sheets. Each of the lines
determines a particular parameter of an event, but leaves any possible scale
of measuring a parameter to the performer. Where in Variations I one of the
measurements determined the lowest frequency of a constellation of events,
in Variations II the drawing of a particular perpendicular is a measurement
for determining frequency, but not for a lowest or highest point. The trans-
lation of the readings into particular frequencies here is, according to Cage,
to be undertaken by means of any rule. The scores instructions demand
only that there be a rule. Moreover, the parameters to be determined are
slightly dierent: frequency, amplitude, timbre, duration, point of occurrence
in an established period of time, and structure of event. The penultimate of
these also implies the foundation of a particular rule which is not necessarily
obvious from the score. The determined period of time asked from the score
probably suggests that each reading taken should have the same duration.
In short, the casting of any particular conguration of the ve points and
six lines would result in a notation for reading very close to the more xed
notation of Variations I.
For all the extended uidity in terms of the notations he provided, Cages
choice of words suggests that he may well have expected a realization
reasonably close to that which had been undertaken for Variations I or,
indeed, Winter Music. His description of the resulting music as a combination

of constellations and aggregates implies the sort of materials which Tudor had
dispersed across his realization of those earlier pieces, as Pritchett states
(Pritchett 2004, 12). Indeed, according to the example of what Tudor had
already done with Cages earlier pieces, what one might expect him to have
done would be relatively predictable. The most likely solution, according to
his own example, would have been to take a sucient number of readings of
the notations for a performance, making measurements for each parameter,
and translating those measurements into specic determinations for each
parameter according to a predetermined scale, before combining those para-
metric determinations into a complete reading. In a very particular sense, this
was what Tudor did. However, he seemed to have been aware from the outset
that what he would do with Variations II would be of a completely dierent
nature from the earlier pieces.
In Tudors preparatory materials for his realization of Variations II
there are no sheets which contain detailed charts of measurements for
each parameter, as Tudor had constructed in those earlier realizations.
This is not to say, though, that there are no measurements at all. What
Tudors working notes suggest is that, from the outset, he intended to
create a realization which used a simpler, more direct notation to convert
Cages instructions into a performance. Two working sheets contain lists
of Cages parameters assigned values from 0 to 5, presumably according
to how close a particular point was to a particular line. Although each of
the readings was attached to a particular parameter, it seems that, at this
stage, Tudor endeavored to shue the readings that he had taken.
Though the readings Tudor took received a numerical indication for
which parameter was indicated with 1 referring to frequency, 2 referring
to amplitude, 3 to duration, and so forth each of the parameters also
received an alphabetic coding, using the letters a, b, c, x, y, and z. As far as
I have been able to ascertain, Tudor seems to have assigned these letters to
individual readings of a particular casting of Cages notation randomly.
The numbers were then transplanted into a neat copy of 3 by 2 grids, in
the following manner:
16 21 26 16 21 26
b11 z10 a13 011 011 321
z20 b21 b22 110 000 112
c41 y30 y31
x31 a40 x41 abc
y51 c51 z52 xyz
a60 x60 c61
However the numerical readings of parameters were transplanted into the

later grids is, ultimately, not hugely important, since these readings were
not used in this format in any case. My suspicion is that these rst sketches
for a realization were made before the ones which Pritchett describes in
his examination of Variations II, not least because, even if Tudor had
restricted each parameter to a maximum degree of variation of six possible
forms, his later attempts increasingly cut the number of possible variants
for each parameter. In either case, the numerical readings Tudor took were
used in a dierent fashion in the version he actually used.
In what Pritchett takes to be Tudors earliest sketch notes for a realization
of Variations II, in most cases the number of variations within an individual
parameter has been cut from six to three:
freq. L M H (place)
occ. 200
dur. S M L (if statis., qualitative)
amp. S M L (actions)
o.s. nat. low amp
med amp hi amp access
1 3
simple compound
2 4
complex chaotic
deg. of agg. single dual manifold
Some of these notations are reasonably self-explanatory. Under frequency,
L, M, and H presumably mean low, medium, and high, though Tudors note
to the side regarding place suggests that his concern might, even at this
stage, have been a physical one, rather than with an idea of a pitch (or,
indeed, a frequency qua frequency) which exhibited such characteristics.
This is itself still reminiscent of Cages thinking, since notation BT from the
Solo for Piano also showed where on the instrument a particular attack was
to be made, but gave no indication of pitch content.
Tudors notes for amplitude (here: soft, medium, loud) are similarly
suggestive. The word actions by the side of this parameter again seems to
indicate that Tudors interest was with a physical action which might be soft,
medium, or loud, rather than that necessarily being the quality of the sonic
result. He was obviously aware too that it would be decisions regarding
amplication which would be likely to determine most strongly the overtone
characteristics (o.s.) of any musical event; though he worked with a seem-
ingly arbitrary scale from simple to chaotic (Pritchett 2004, 12), it is
evident from his notes that it would be the electronic aspect of the amplied
piano that would determine this. Since Tudor would, then, have to alter the
amplication level being used, again this parameter determined for him, in
eect, a physical action. It also helps make rather more sense of his determi-
nations regarding amplitude: since the amplication would necessarily alter
the volume of any action he carried out, his actions could only be ones which
would be determinate of specic amplitudes on an unamplied piano; once
amplied, quiet actions could easily become loud and, to a lesser extent,
vice versa. His notation here for degree of aggregation in this sense already
seems to refer to a range of actions, from a single physical event to a multi-
plicity of events, within a dened time period, even though the dened period
here represents only the total anticipated duration of a particular perform-
ance of Variations II.
In any case, Tudor seems not to have been wholly satised with such a
system, perhaps feeling that it represented something of a compromise,
halfway between a fully determinate reading and a more inventive one.
Whatever his motivations, he soon generated a simpler chart of possible
congurations, reducing each possible articulation of an individual param-
eter to a binary choice:
T simple, complex
A simple
complex (with A) [prep or altered]
F simple
complex (condition)
D simple (long or short) takes own time
complex (overlapping or prep.)
O simple
complex (R)
C simple
complex
Pritchett is certainly right to observe that these decisions on Tudors part must
have been genuinely unexpected from Cages point of view (Pritchett 2004,
13), though certainly in line with Cages claim that the purpose of indeter-
minacy would seem to be to bring about an unforeseen situation (Cage 1968c
[1958], 36). Cages notation doubtless implies ranges of action, rather than
binary choices. That said, Tudors determinations still allow for quite a wide
range of actions, even within their seemingly black-or-white principles.
Again there are hints of the ways in which Tudors thinking regarding
the best way to realize Variations II was developing. On the one hand, the
idea of a binary opposition between simple and complex approaches to
each parameter, in a sense unifying Tudors core methodology across all
parameters, is obvious. On the other, though, there are marked distinctions

which contrast sharply with his earlier thinking. At this stage, for instance,
duration is no longer measured in terms of whether a particular event is
short or long, but rather the distinction is made between events which
simply take their own time to decay, and ones where preparations inter-
vene or which are overlaid with a second or third event in order to extend
them. Similarly, though, the idea of what frequency might be taken to mean
is altered. It is no longer a case necessarily of physical action here, but once
again of sounding result, though of a rather dierent nature than had
previously been the case. Here, Tudor suggests that what is important is
the simple or complex condition of a frequency. This cannot refer to the
relative complexity of the overtone structures of various events, since they
are accounted for elsewhere in the table. What seems likely to have been
Tudors thinking may be inferred from the last of these preparatory param-
eter sheets:
Ampl: S xed (0 to innity)
C variations, feedback processes, etc.
Freq: S
C g as conditions
unchanging
changing
Dur: S Takes own time
C Overlapping, mixed etc.
Occur: S Once only
C Repeated
Timb: S Fixed spectrum
C Varied spectrum
Here, then, it becomes clearer that Tudor, by a simple frequency, means one
in which he would make no change to that frequency with a single event.
Clearly one way of achieving this would be through an attack on the keys of
the piano, without moving any preparation which might have been applied
to the relevant string or strings. Just as evidently, one way of achieving a
complex frequency, according to this method, would have been the same
attack on a key where the strings had a mobile preparation, which was then
moved during the decay of the sound. Doubtless, scrubbing, scrapes, or
sweeps on the strings would also have been reasonable ways of responding
to such a determination. Such actions would, nevertheless, surely have
intersected and interacted with Tudors determinations for timbre, since
many such approaches would also have caused an adaptation of the partic-
ular frequencys overtone structure. Given, though, that Tudor specically
had circuits within his electronic setup designed to alter equalization, it does
not seem unreasonable to suggest that a likely solution to this dichotomy is
that, for the most part, frequency determined what Tudor would do with the
instrument, while timbre here determined actions aecting the electronic
processing of such actions. Such a distinction between actions involving
Tudors work on the piano itself and actions involving electronics can be
seen elsewhere on this last parameter sheet. Amplitude now appears to refer
exclusively to electronic processing. Indeed Tudors ampl might just as
well be taken to mean amplication as it might amplitude at this stage.
Evidently, in the case of a simple reading of this parameter, the volume dial
would remain xed wherever it was at the point the initial keyboard attack
took place, while in the case of a complex reading it could be varied, or
subjected to processes through which it was repetitively fed back into the
electronics. By contrast, Tudors determinations for occurrence seem to
imply that he personally would either carry out a particular action a single
time or would repeat it; given that feedback processes are determined under
the rubric for amplitude (or amplication), it seems most plausible that
this latter parameter is a question, instead, of physical action. Given, in any
case, that the determinations for other parameters might be complex,
especially in terms of electronic processing, there was certainly no reason
to presume that the same action made by Tudor with respect to the piano
would have the same sonic result. As Wol described the situation, Tudor,
when preparing a piece which involves amplication or electrical modication,

often multiplies his circuits and wiring to the extent that, once all the
ampliers, preampliers, speakers, mixers, generators, consoles and
microphones are connected and turned on, he can no longer entirely keep
track of where and how the sound appears. (Wol 1998a [1968], 62)
Whether Tudor carried out his initial sets of readings before or after these
plans for the treatment of parameters, it was, in any case, those readings
which he then integrated with his approach to each parameter. Pritchetts
description captures his approach precisely:
Each reading was represented as a ve-by-ve grid with an additional modier.

The rst four rows of the grid describe (from top to bottom) the parameters of
timbre, frequency, duration and amplitude. A dot appears in either the
rightmost or leftmost column for each of these, indicating a value of simple or
complex respectively. The bottom row of the grid describes the point of
occurrence. This is represented by either a dot or an X located on one of the six
vertical lines of the grid. In this case, the use of a dot or an X represented the
values of simple or complex. (Pritchett 2004, 13)
Each of these grids, then, was a representation of a single sonic event within
Tudors reading of Variations II. Additionally, to the left of each of these
Fig. 6.3 A strip of Tudors realization of Variations II
grids, Tudor wrote an S or a C to determine the structure of the event as a

whole. If simple the event described by the notation would feature in
performance on its own; if complex, a further event would be overlaid on
top of it. Tudor ultimately created fty such readings of individual castings
of Cages notations. Finally, Tudor retranscribed his notations in a format
which was easier to read, if only slightly, with thick, short horizontal lines
struck through the left and right sides of an empty square to show the
parameters other than point of occurrence. That parameter was still indi-
cated at the bottom of the square, with the space of the square from left to
right representing a notional sixty seconds of stopwatch time; a dot still
represented a simple reading in this parameter, while, if the reading were to
be regarding as complex, the dot would have a circle drawn around it.
Similarly, Tudor replaced the S and C marking to the left of the square by
having a single square for a simple reading, and a double square for a
complex one (Fig. 6.3).
Other aspects of Tudors practice remained unchanged: the squares
themselves were copied onto strips of paper of about the same size as the
sheets he had previously used for the Music for Piano series. Not only this,
but Tudors own notes on the realization indicate that he regarded these
notations as no less performable than the fully determined realization he
had created for earlier pieces. As he described the notations: a series of
graphic gures was made, transcribing readings from the superimposed
score transparencies, in such a way as to make all conditions for each event
readable at a single glance. At some point Tudor also conceived a list of
potential physical actions, reminiscent of that devised for Music Walk or
Theatre Piece, though these too were divided into two types, here single,
rather than simple, and complex. Single actions included elements such
as a beater on a piece of at plastic on the soundboard, string slaps with
a thimble, or amplied chord clusters; complex actions included string
sweeps with a plastic ruler, a thimble, or the side of the hand.
Since the notation does not allow for any particular one of these forms of
action to be specically determined at any point, presumably these lists were
made as an aide-mmoire or during the preparation and rehearsal stages to
explore the actions which might be appropriate. In truth, mapping them

directly onto the parameters Tudor used for his notation is not a simple
task, since in many cases what is described might easily relate to duration,
timbre, or frequency. It seems most likely, then, that these were lists that
ultimately played only a tangential part in Tudors realization as such, but
are nevertheless strongly suggestive of the sorts of activities he might have
carried out.
In many respects, those activities should seem relatively familiar: many of
them are directly analogous to ones used in Music Walk or, for that matter,
Theatre Piece. Yet the sounding result could hardly be more dierent.
Tudors realization of Variations II seems to have been conceived from
the outset as a piece for an amplied piano, integrating electronics. Indeed
this decision doubtless informed the decisions which Tudor made in terms
of the above mode of reading Cages notations. As he stated, my realization
of V II evolved from a decision to employ the amp. pno, conceived as an
electronic inst., whose chartics. orient the interpretation of the 6 parameters
to be read from the materials provided by the composer. Tudors notes
continue to observe that in performance the parameters can interact in
unforeseen ways, & the performance becomes a process of constant inven-
tion & re-invention of the sound events. Tudor would later observe to
Hilberg that probably the most major way in which his performances of
Variations II had changed over time was a function of the fact that he had
come to understand precisely what the electronic elements he introduced
could, and would, do under certain conditions (Hilberg 1996, 34). What is
most signicant about such a statement is that, at least at the point of
Tudors initial preparations for Variations II, the interaction of parameters
as he had notated them necessarily caused him to undertake actions the
results of which he would not know at the point of making them; the
electronic transformation acting upon the acoustic results of those actions
added a further layer of indeterminacy. An examination of Tudors own
circuit diagram drawings suggests something similar, although there are
very few such diagrams which can condently be contemporaneously dated
with his performance notations. Indeed the program for Tudors premiere
of Variations II at the New School on March 24, 1961 states outright that
the piano was only partially amplied. By contrast, there are detailed
diagrams for two later realizations, dated 1980 and 1982.34 Though the
34
In both of these cases, a separate diagram is appended for the Solo for Piano. It is evident
that a part of the plan here was to make it possible, relatively simply, to reorganize the
electronic element, such that a rapid switch could be made between the electronics of
Variations II and those of the Solo for Piano. It would be tempting to argue that one
example of what could be achieved through such electronic intervention in

Cartridge Music was doubtless a direct spur to Tudors exploration here, it
would only be much later, after his own detailed compositional work in
electronic spheres, that he would seemingly be able to state with condence
what the results of a particular approach to electronic processing would be.
One might reasonably presume that Tudors initial attempts here were,
more or less, improvised, on the basis of Cartridge Music especially.
Cartridges, in fact, formed part of the electronic setup. Two were placed
within the body of the instrument and used in ways similar to the earlier
piece. In his, probably early, list of sonic events, Tudor lists cartridges
under his potential single event materials. According to Tudors prepar-
atory list for his 1982 performances at the Holland Festival in Amsterdam
on June 22 and Utrecht two days later, in Philadelphia on September 11, and
in Washington, DC, on November 20 two cartridges were used. The rst
of these had alternately a pipe cleaner and a paper clip extended out to make
a sort of wire inserted into it; the second had some sort of wedge, though
Tudors notes give no indication of what material this was made of. Both of
these cartridges were used exclusively on the double and triple strings of the
piano.35 There was also a range of contact microphones added to the piano,
some attached to plastic rods with which Tudor performed sweeps and
scrapes on the strings,36 with others attached to preparations within the
piano, or left loose within the body of the instrument. There were also
several air microphones, one below the body of the piano, and several in the
body of the instrument (Hilberg 1996, 21). All of these inputs were equal-
ized and fed into the mixer, before being sent to a variety of speakers within
the performance space, perhaps ve, as in Music for Amplied Toy Pianos. It
is plausible, too, on the aural evidence of Tudors 1967 recording of the piece
for Columbia, that he used gating at some points in the eects chain, since it
potential reason why Tudor developed a second reading of the Solo for Piano was precisely
to take account of the changed performance situation the introduction of electronics
created. However, that second realization of the Solo for Piano was seemingly made shortly
before Tudor began to work on electronic elements in his realizations of Cages scores. In
truth, though he certainly used the second version of the Solo for Piano in those perform-
ances where a similar electronic setup to that of Variations II was utilized, he does not
seem to have made any adaptations to the materials he had prepared for the earlier piece.
The electronics appear only to have introduced an element of indeterminacy, on top of
Tudors determinate notation.
35
Tudors own recollection in interview with Hilberg was that he made use of four cartridges,
but there is little in his notes to suggest more than two (Hilberg 1996, 31).
36
Hilberg suggests that in Tudors 1967 recording of Variations II, these plastic rods are curb
scrapers, which is to say small pieces of plastic designed to protect car bumpers. The
recording was made in a church, the large acoustic of which helps to contribute to the
particular qualities of feedback which occur in that recording (Hilberg 1996, 22).
seems that certain sounds are being made less continuous and more frag-
mented by lower-amplitude sounds being cut out of the mix.
In that same recording, feedback is also vital to the general sound world of
the piece. Because the sustain pedal was consistently down, a cartridge
inserted between two strings would be able to generate feedback almost on
its own, at least when carefully passed through an equalizer and mixer. This
careful mixing was certainly vital; as Tudor noted, it was extremely dicult to
keep the feedback levels at an acceptable level, not least because once a
cartridge had begun to generate feedback, this would then be reinforced by
the air microphones. Tudor recollected to Hilberg that an outdoor perform-
ance in Rome in 1980 helped to deal with the diculties, which were only
emphasized when performing the piece in a traditional performance space
(Hilberg 1996, 32).37
For Pritchett, Variations II marks a culmination point in terms of Cages
output, or at least a major way stage. As he summarizes it: this piece takes
Cages goal from the early 1950s to understand the quantities that act to
produce multiplicity and approaches it in the most fundamental way
possible: by having a performer enumerate all the variables and then measure
them. It was a watershed piece for Tudor too. The goal of Cages music from
the early 1950s, though Pritchetts summary is accurate, surely had other
aspects too. Pritchett adds that Variations II reduced Cages compositional
voice to near silence (Pritchett 1993, 137). This might be rephrased slightly
to add that the goal was to nd a puzzle to set Tudor, in which the process of
realization would almost necessarily reduce Cages compositional voice to
near silence. Whether Tudors realization truly achieved Cages ends in this
sense is debatable: many of the physical materials used to approach the piano
were familiar from the earliest stages of Tudors collaboration with Cage; the
notion that action could be substituted for musical (which is to say, sounding)
event was present as far back as Water Music and, in Tudors own realiza-
tions, present in Music Walk and Theatre Piece too; the use of phonograph
cartridges with objects inserted into them was obviously derived from
Cartridge Music; and the mode of amplication itself was, largely, present
in Tudors work on Music for Amplied Toy Pianos. Yet there are at least two
distinctions, the rst to do with Tudors notation; the second to do with the
way in which sound was processed in his performances of Variations II.
37
This performance took place at the Piazza SantIgnazio on July 30, 1980. It was part of a
sizeable set of performances of Cages music, including Variations I, II, III, IV (1963), and
VI (1966) as well as the Solo for Piano, Winter Music, and Cartridge Music, between July 29
and August 3. As well as performing Variations II, Tudor was also the performer of the
Solo for Piano and played Cartridge Music with Frederic Rzewski, and Winter Music
alongside Rzewski, Giancarlo Cardini, and John Tilbury.
Tudors notational resource for Variations II was, truly, unpredictable

from Cages score materials and, for that matter, from anything Tudor had
previously produced. Tudors earlier realizations of course had turned Cages
materials into largely conventional ve-line staves. Even the notation of
actions against time brackets which exhibit low levels of performance
indeterminacy, because the bracket determines only a range within which
an activity might happen and because there was a reasonably wide number of
ways in which a particular action could be carried out could be argued to
represent notational simplications of the sorts of score Cage had written as
early as Water Music. Though Tudors notations for Variations II may
demand physical action, they do not specify it. Not only that but, even though
Tudor appears to have prepared notes regarding the sorts of physical action
he might carry out, he seems specically to have selected a notation which
would be inappropriate for accurately determining it. Nevertheless, it remains
a notation from which it is more than possible to conceive of reading. In
short, though the activities Tudor undertook were conceived of as a broad
gamut those available within the range of physical action he had gradually
developed through working on Cages scores to date here the notation
allowed a large range of them to be undertaken in respect of the notation. His
notation then was indeterminate of Cages score copy, but his action was,
furthermore, indeterminate of his own notation or, more accurately, his own
notation demanded actions which were determined only in limited fashion.
In this rst sense, then, Tudor had found the solution to the puzzle which
he seemed to have set himself in realizing Cages scores, such that the
indeterminacy demanded by the realization should equal the indeterminacy
demanded by Cages instructions. Thus, in Variations II, Tudor developed a
way not only of making his realization indeterminate of Cages score, but also
of making his performance indeterminate of his realization copy.
The principles of such physical action were to some extent implied in
Cartridge Music, since the notation there did not determine with any great
specicity what a performer would be expected to do with the cartridges.
Although, in any case, the parameters for activity there were signicantly
lower than in the case of Variations II, in the latter Tudor redoubled the
indeterminacy in the way in which the piano was electronically prepared.
The way in which the electronics interacted with one another, and with the
mechanism of the piano, had the eect of making the actual results of any
physical action almost impossible to predict accurately too. Indeed, Tudor
may well have increasingly designed electronics to exhibit just this quality,
increasing their complexity as he became better able to predict the results of
his actions. This is truly the area where the distance from Cartridge Music is
clearest. Though Tudors notation for Cartridge Music is some way distant
from Cages score copy, exhibiting a genuine sense of indeterminacy on the

level of notational instruction, once the sound of an individual item in an
individual cartridge is assimilated, the sonic results of action on that cartridge
are more or less predictable. Not only that but the sonic material there was,
broadly, still of Cages devising. Yet in Variations II, for all that the core sonic
materials remained broadly Cageian in terms of their physical production at
the piano, Tudor developed a system of live electronics and amplication
which made those materials into something else entirely. It is not entirely
surprising that Pritchett goes so far as to regard Tudor as a co-composer in
the case of Variations II (Pritchett 2004). Later, Cage might well have given
such an idea more serious consideration, too, since as I hope to show below,
in the case of Five Stone Wind, a piece which may truly be regarded as a
collaborative one, Tudors contribution to the score is really a live electronic
setup, which is replicated from piece to piece and is, arguably, itself what
Philip DArcy Gray terms Tudors secret voice (Gray 2004).
If the rst run of Cage and Tudors correspondence, from 1951 to 1953,
largely related to the national networks within which their activities took
place, and the second, from 1958 to 1962, largely revealed the interna-
tional networks, especially those of Cologne and Venice, the last section,
from 1965 to 1989 as might be hardly surprising given its length, the
relative paucity of letters within it, and the long gaps of time between
them shows something of the much wider, more diuse networks in
which Cage operated in his later career. There are, notably, no letters
from Tudor to Cage within this last period. This need not be parti-
cularly surprising. As noted above, other than his correspondence with
M. C. Richards, Tudor wrote relatively little in general. Moreover,
throughout almost all of Tudors later career, he spent a large portion
of each year on tour with the Merce Cunningham Dance Company,
working alongside Cage on a daily basis. That he preferred to speak to
Cage rather than write, even when Cage was in New York City and
Tudor was in Stony Point, is probably the simplest explanation. In fact,
many of the later letters relate precisely to practical considerations: those
from 1965 principally to do with tours with Cunningham, those in 1967
mainly relating to Cages work with Lejaren A. Hiller, and later on notes
of thanks regarding Tudors help with Roaratorio and Rozart Mix. Yet, if
those letters were to oer any impression that Cages commitment and
devotion to Tudor had diminished, businesslike as they are, his ante-
penultimate letter should give the lie to it. Cage had plans for a volume
entirely devoted to Tudor, which would have contained autobiograph-
ical statements from Tudor, other statements from those who knew
him well at various points in his life, and Cages own mesostics on
Tudors name, all presented in a variety of typefaces, presumably
mirroring Cages own Diary: How to Improve the World (You Will
Only Make Matters Worse). Though the project never came to fruition,
it is clear from his enthusiasm that Cage would dearly have wished
that it had.
[188]
John Cage to David Tudor September 29, 1965 189
40
Saskatchewan [c. August/September 1965]
Dear David,
Enclosed is check for Variations IV recording. I enjoyed Toronto, Lowell,
+ Ciamaga + have proposed our doing two jobs there (the Guggenheim one,
+ the percussion piece for whistle piece).1 Have arranged to meet Dr. Walter,2
Miss Binney etc after our Ann Arbor deal.3 Hope you are free then (Sept 20, 21,
etc.). This place is glorious + the people are ne. Canadas O.K.
Yrs.,
J.
41
Stony Point, September 29, 1965
Dear David,
Spent day in Windsor airport (had missed plane), but also met Marshall
McLuhan that evening and saw him frequently. Also met Dr. Arnold Walter
and we got along very well, talking about Schoenberg. He was very pleasant and
agreed to our working in the Studio for two dierent periods this coming
academic year. I am now searching for funds so that if this work is done we
would be paid for doing it. Ive asked the Rockefellers for one thousand for each
of us. Will let you know if it comes through.
I had lunch with Gerd yesterday and Michael Callahan and Judy Wilson.4
They showed me their equipment and oered its use whenever we want it. I am
1
Gustav Ciamaga (b. April 10, 1930, London, Canada; d. June 11, 2011, Toronto, Canada) was
a Canadian composer of electronic and computer music, who was based at the University of
Toronto for the largest part of his academic career. Lowell Cross is an American composer of
electronic music and, probably most famously, intermedia work involving lasers. He studied
composition with Ciamaga in Toronto between 1964 and 1968, and was responsible for the
electronic preparation of the chessboard for Cages Reunion (1968).
2
Arnold Walter (b. August 30, 1902, Hannsdorf, Austria-Hungary; d. October 6, 1973,
Toronto, Canada), was a Canadian musicologist, who also founded the Canadian Opera
Company.
3
Edith Binney was a faculty administrator at the University of Toronto.
4
Meant is the poet Gerd Stern. Stern and Michael Callahan (b. 1944, San Francisco, CA) were
involved in the San Francisco-based USCO (The US Company), which worked in
going to try to join this together with Tenney in Brooklyn, and if that fails to
nd support for the establishing of a center there in the Church.5
The project of my being at the Univ. of Illinois has fallen through due to
determined opposition. But they hope to get over that nxt year.
Moog brought 6 antennae and two boxes for them; he will in a week or so bring
the remaining 6 and the percussion deal.6 He proposes making a lter which
would give variety to the percussion, and I asked him what that would cost and
how much one of the oscillator deals would cost. Dont have that information
yet. I have asked him for a drawing of the circuits, but your guess is as good as
mine whether he will come through. I made an elementary notation regarding
the controls.
I hope that things go well for you, and that if there is anything you want me to
do for you that you will let me know what it is.
As ever,
[John]
42
John Cage to David Tudor, typewritten,
Dear David,
The most recent dance arrangements seem to be Nov. 10 University of Utah,

Salt Lake City and Nov. 2328 (Chicago). Since the Salt lake deal doesnt net
multimedia elds, inuenced by Marshall McLuhan, under the slogan We Are All One.
Callahan had previously worked with Pauline Oliveros and Morton Subotnick at the San
Francisco Tape Music Center. Though I am unable to trace any precise details, Judi Wilson
also seems to have been involved with similar activities in the 1960s in San Francisco.
5
James Tenney (b. August 10, 1934, Silver City, NM; d. August 24, 2006, Valencia, CA) was
an American composer of experimental music, particularly interested in cognition and
perception, tuning systems, and stochastics. Much inuenced by Cage, Tenney dedicated
his Ergodos series to the older composer.
6
Robert Moog (b. May 23, 1934, New York City, NY; d. August 21, 2005, Asheville, NC) was,
at the time, in the process of nishing his doctorate. This discussion must have focused on
one of Moogs earliest synthesizer designs, since it was only in 1965 that he turned toward
such designs on a commercial basis. Presumably these discussions arose from the use of
Moogs electronics used in early performances of Variations V (1965). The antennae were
used to allow dancers motions to trigger electronic sound.
John Cage to David Tudor October 13, 1965 191
the expenses, the plan is to do something as simple as possible, probably no

electronics. I will let you know the program as soon as I know it.
Other engagements begin Jan. 31 continuing to middle of February. Then we

have concert in Hartford on March 22.
Brooklyn (Dance) on April 23, Trenton on April 14.
Theres Europe in the air for July Aug. and Sept.
Havent heard yet whether were getting subsidy for Toronto.

Hope things go well for you.
[As ever,
J]
43
Dear David,
Just another note to keep you informed. Youve probably heard from David
Vaughan that the Salt Lake deal is being done at a loss and everything is being
reduced in terms of expenses so that the musics done by just one person, and
Ive agreed to do it.7
Lukas called to get a telephone number for you and I simply gave him the
Divisadero address.8 If you have a number and address where you can be
reached, do send it to me. He wants to invite you for a residence in Bualo.
I had a pleasant talk with Tenney re Gerd et al and Brooklyn (the possibility of
setting up a studio etc. Nothing denite yet.
Rockefeller Foundation refused my request to subsidize our work in Toronto.

Have not yet settled on the next step in the direction.
[As ever,
J]
7
David Vaughan has worked with the Merce Cunningham Dance Company since 1959,
when he joined the company as Cunninghams studio administrator. He is now the
companys archivist, as well as the author of books on Cunningham and Frederick Ashton.
8
This indicates that Tudor was still in San Francisco and working at the Tape Music Center,
which was based at 321 Divisadero Street.
44
Champaign, IL, September 18, 1967
Enclosed card was sent to me but will be more useful to you, I imagine. Guess
what? Speks here!9 Was given job by Hiller this morning.10 Had auto wreck in
Wyoming. He did, not I. Is already greatly in debt, so hell be here working it
o. Probably will help me, though he has other things to do.
[As ever,
John]
45
Champaign, IL, September 20, 1967
Wish you were here. Looks like it may be interesting. Am taking a course with
Jerry Hiller, Mondays and Weds., getting a survey of computer music etc. Spek
will work with me on the thunderclap piece and is enthusiastic abt. it. In this
connection, do we have the description of the mixer Mathews designed?11 And
could you send me one of the pre-amps? This wd. help Spek in his designing of
components to modulate the strings and vocal sounds. Also, if you have ideas
abt. desirable changes in that mixer, now, I believe, is the chance to have them
put in eect. Spek can enjoy making things, he said. Am also believe it or
not working on the Mozart deal: bought a copy of Helmholtz today!12
[As ever,
John]
9
Jaap (Jacob) Spek (b. July 28, 1914, Woerden, Netherlands; d. October 3, 1998, Salt Lake
City, UT), Dutch composer, sound engineer, and philosopher.
10
Lejaren A. Hiller (b. February 23, 1924, New York City, NY; d. January 26, 1994, Bualo, NY)
founded the Experimental Music Studio at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in
1958, having worked with Leonard Isaacson in 1957 on the Iliac Suite, which, though scored
for string quartet, was the rst substantial piece composed using electronic and algorithmic
means. Hiller and Cage worked together on the composition of HPSCHD (196769).
11
This is the mixer that Max Mathews (b. November 13, 1926, Columbus, NE; d. April 21,
2011, San Francisco, CA) designed for Variations V, although he is much better known as a
pioneer in the eld of computer music, becoming the de facto dedicatee of half of the software
program Max/MSP (Miller Puckette, who wrote the program, is represented by MSP).
12
This refers to Cages work on HPSCHD, which utilizes ideas drawn from the Musikalisches
Wrfelspiel, attributed to Mozart. Of the seven solo harpsichord parts within HPSCHD, Solos
IIIVI begin with a single realization of this dice game, and Solo II consists of twenty
realizations of the game. Moreover, passages from Mozart make up the materials for Solos
III, IV, and VII.
John Cage to David Tudor October 17, 1967 193
46
Champaign, IL, October 13, 1967
May miss you unfortunately. Please send tech. data re mixer and pre amps to
me in Illinois. Looks like we can do (along with many things) an interesting
evening (music) at Illinois when Dance Co. is there too in a big cattle place. All
the di. kinds of music going at once. Maybe cattle too! I told Gordon abt it.13
See you. Best as ever, John
47
Champaign, IL, October 17, 1967
Had a note from Charles Boone at Mills, so its settled for the 13th.14 Also here,
theyre excited about the musical circus in the cow place. I thought that you
and Gordon and Toshi and I cd. do as we did for the country shindig. If you
have another idea, whistle. People will be all over the place making music all at
once. Ive suggested gathering it all together and enabling the public to
manipulate mixers at some point. ICHING still doesnt work in its new sub-
routine role, but as Jerry says there are just a few bugs.15 Machine is working on
new touches this very minute. Please let me know your whereabouts and plans;
I have no clear idea what they are.
[As ever, J.]
13
The American-born (now resident in Canada) composer Gordon Mumma (b. March 30,
1935, Framingham, MA) had begun performing alongside Tudor and Cage for the Merce
Cunningham Dance Company in 1966, and would continue regularly in that role until
1974. He contributed the music for Cunninghams Place (1966), and TV Rerun (1972).
Mummas scores were entitled Mesa (1966) and Telepos (1971). The music for
Cunninghams dances Signals (1970) and Landrover (1972) was jointly composed by
Cage, Tudor, and Mumma. The music for Signals was given the title of the week in
which the performance occurred (so, for instance, the Paris performance on October 27,
1972 was entitled 4me semaine doctobre). Landrovers music was entitled 52/3 (1972), the
title denoting the pieces duration of fty-two minutes and its three performers.
14
The San Francisco composer Charles Boone was amongst the performers (alongside Cage,
Tudor, Lowell Cross, and many others) of Cages Variations III (196263) on May 13,
1968, at Mills College Concert Hall in Oakland, CA.
15
ICHING was one of the subroutines in the computer program HPSCHD, developed for
the composition of the piece of the same name.
48
[c. October, 1979]
this is Just
to thAnk you for having been one being one
of Many
who hElped
uS
with our proJect

(rOaratorio on nnegans wake).
we are verY grateful:
your reCording
is in thE work + the work is nished!
Klaus Schning,16 John Cage
First broadcast WDR3 Hrspiel Studio, Kln, 22 October 2015
49
New York City, March 23, 1984
What I propose is not a conventional biography but a togetherness of a variety of
materials: 1) autobiographical statements or sections recorded by you without
the prompting of questions, then made into a typescript by a secretary (I propose
Essie Borden), reviewed by you, nally existing as material for the book;
2biographical statements (not 2 statements, but secondly) by other people whom
I would like you to name or approve, e.g. M.C., your sister, the saxophonist you
toured with if hes still alive, hopefully someone who knew you as an organist, a
teacher? (I would like this list to have at least twelve names, preferably twenty-
four or even thirty-two, and to cover the points in your life where you have
16
Schning (b. February 24, 1936, Rastenburg, then East Prussia, Germany, now Ktrzyn, Poland)
developed the Westdeutscher Rundfunks HrSpielStudio from 1968 onwards, and was respon-
sible there for the production of numerous radio plays, particularly those of an experimental
nature. The disparity between the breadth of work that might be conceived of under the German
rubric Hrspiel as distinct from the English radio play may be, to some degree, hinted at by the
fact that Roaratorio (1979) is denitively Hrspiel, while almost certainly not a radio play. That
Schning went beyond the boundaries of Hrspiel is reected in the ultimate renaming of his
department at WDR as Studio Akustische Kunst (Studio of Acoustic Art) in 1991. Schnings
name is signed in his own handwriting, while the rest of the letter is in Cages.
given your attention: i.e. anthroposophy, various aspects of music performance

and composition, cooking (Manorama?), health (perhaps the anthroposophic
doctor in the country); and 3, mesostics on your name by me. I would not limit
my contributions to the book to these mesostics; I would also include stories.
Some of which are already written. If you come up with a list of people for 2)
please send it to me with addresses and if convenient, telephone numbers. For 1)
I would be willing to guide you through the recordings of autobiographic
materials, or leave you free to do this by yourself, whichever you wish. It could be
chronological. Try, for instance, to nd your earliest memories. Then when they
get thick, go year by year. In any case, I look forward to the process of bringing
this work about you into existence. [Let me know whether you approve of the
plan generally. The various dierent materials wd have di. typefaces. Plethora of
photos e.g. Peter Moore + musical examples.17
As ever, John]
50
January 2, 1987
I enclose a letter from the Librarian at Northwestern where I have deposited
my collection of Notations. What shall I do? Would you consider his acquiring
them?
Happy N. Year (kitty recovered miraculously)

as ever J
51
New York City, June 16, 1989
Dear David,
Thank you so much for making an audiotape loop for the Rozart Mix which
was performed at the Pierre Hotel in New York City on May 25th, 1989. I
enjoyed the evening very much. I think everybody else did too.
Sincerely,
[John Hope alls well]
John Cage
17
Peter Moore (b. 1932, London; d. September 28, 1993) was famed for his photographs of
dance and performance art, most especially of Fluxus events.
8 Late realizations
After 1961, Tudors involvement in new Cage projects became sparser.

This is hardly to say that Tudor ceased to work with Cage. This is, in truth,
far from the case: Cage and Tudor toured together widely and regularly
with the Merce Cunningham Dance Company, and Tudor continued to
perform many of the Cage scores that he had worked on in the 1950s in
just this context. Few new items were added to the store of Cage pieces
written for Tudor after this point, however. That is hardly to say that there
were none, but it is also the case that it is after Variations II that the
archival trail largely goes cold. Though Tudor certainly performed in, for
instance, the premiere of Cages HPSCHD at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign on May 16, 1969, the materials in the David Tudor
Papers at the Getty Research Institute do not provide enough information
to make any denitive statement about Tudors approach to the piece.
Tudors work in respect of later Variations pieces is similarly dicult to
establish. In the case of another project, Reunion (1968), which involved
another conguration of Tudors electronic circuitry, there is, again, no
obvious way of reconstructing his actions, nor is there in this case any
score to which to make reference. This is not, however, to say that there is
nothing that can be said regarding Tudors later work. Documentation
survives which is suggestive of what Tudor may have done with two later
pieces, both performed alongside Merce Cunninghams choreography:
Telephones and Birds and Five Stone Wind. I also, nally, consider the
last piece by Cage brought into Tudors repertoire, Four3, itself one of
the last pieces Cage wrote. In this case, there are also no details within
Tudors papers of his performance, though the score is simple enough that
a reconstruction of sorts may be imagined via the lm Beach Birds
for Camera (1993), which includes Tudors performance, alongside
Cunninghams dance Beach Birds (1991).1 Perhaps more pertinently,
this last piece also hints at issues relating to the broader sweep of the
CageTudor partnership.
1
The other performers on the lm are John D. S. Adams, Takehisa Kosugi, and Michael
[196] Pugliese.
Late realizations 197
Telephones and Birds (1977)

In a sense, certain aspects of Telephones and Birds suggest that it is itself a
variation on Variations VII (1966). Like Cartridge Music, to some degree,
Variations VII had made use of forms of amplication to demonstrate that
there is a great deal of activity going on even in apparently inactive situa-
tions, as Pritchett puts it (Pritchett 1993, 153), by amplifying the hearts,
brains, lungs, and stomachs of four technical assistants. The relation to
Telephones and Birds, however, came through the use of other devices
alongside radios and televisions to pick up transmissions in Variations
VII: the piece contained, at its premiere at least, ten telephone lines. While
in Variations VII the telephone lines were part of an attempt to broadcast
just what happened to be in the air at the moment of performance, the
situation was, if anything, more complex in the case of Telephones and Birds,
though the solution to practical diculties was, in truth, ultimately simpler.
Telephones and Birds was designed to accompany Cunninghams piece
Travelogue (1976) and, as such, was also intended to tour, as was the norm
with the Merce Cunningham Dance Company. Many other pieces existed in
more pragmatic versions in order to account for the demands of touring,
not least Earle Browns Indices, which Tudor performed in a piano reduc-
tion to accompany Cunninghams Springweather and People (1955) from
1957 onwards, although the original version for chamber ensemble was not
premiered until April 16, 2010, when it was performed in Rottenburg, in
Germany, by Ensemble work-in-progress. In this sense, Telephones and
Birds oered some sort of touring solution to the problems thrown up by
Variations VII, since while on tour Cage and Tudor could hardly simply dial
random numbers and hope to get an answer; even once they had dealt with
the diculty of ensuring that each venue they visited on the tour had
actually provided the number of telephone lines stipulated in their rider,
doubtless even if an answer was forthcoming the response might well have
been very negative indeed as the responder discovered themselves part of a
performance. Instead, Cages instructions asked the performers to nd local
telephone announcements which could be relied upon to provide the same
information on every occasion a call was made. Unlike the ten lines (or so)
of Variations VII, only three lines were required for Telephones and Birds,
one for each of the three players who, at the premiere at the Minsko
Theatre in New York City on January 18, 1977, were Tudor, David
Behrman, and Joseph Kubera. Both the sound of dialing and the call itself
were to be amplied. These announcements were thus perforce determined
before a performance and an indicative list of potential calls might be the
198 Late realizations
one used for two performances of Telephones and Birds with Travelogue at
the Festival dAutomne at the Thtre de la Ville in Paris on October 9 and
10, 1979, which begins thus:
1 463 84 00 Time
x 260 84 00 Financial
783 84 00 ?
2 555 95 90 Weather-Paris
3 555 91 09 Weather outside Paris
4 705 97 39 Tele. Co. message pas en service
5 463 1 Information
6 555 92 22 TV programs
7 255 66 77 Recipes
8 627 34 60 Bonne nouvelle
9 285 57 00 Inf. Pays Bas Military music
As well as the telephones element of the title where the calls were
made live, albeit to reliable sources there was a tape element. In the
original conception of the piece this was to be constructed from recordings
of birds made by Frank Norman Robinson as a part of his work with
the Commonwealth Scientic and Industrial Research Organization,
Australias national science agency, almost certainly including birds such
as Australias native lyrebird, the particular qualities of which may have
attracted Cage. As McCarthys anecdotal report of Robinsons activity
suggests, if recordings of lyrebirds were within the material Cage used, the
recordings may even have had additional referential qualities, given the
lyrebirds talent for mimicry:
In 1969, park ranger Neville Fenton recorded a lyrebird in the New England
National Park in New South Wales, with a very odd utelike song in his
repertoire. Asking around, Fenton was eventually told that in the 1930s a ute
player living on a nearby farm had a pet lyrebird to whom he played. The bird
learned tunes from him and added them to his song. Eventually the bird was
released. Fenton sent the recording to sound expert, Norman Robinson.
Knowing that lyrebirds can sing two tunes at once, Robinson ltered the
recording appropriately and discovered that the local lyrebirds were singing a
combination of two tunes from the 1930s, Mosquito Dance and The Keel
Row modied, but recognizable. (McCarthy 2004, 108)
Cages instructions allow recordings other than birdsong, as long as all of

the recordings are of a similar type and as long as this is recognized in the
title of the piece. Thus, if recordings of train, plane, or bus departures were
used, in Cages own example, the piece title would become Telephones and
Birds (not Birds, but Departures). Despite this possibility, in Tudors per-
formances, it seems to have been Robinsons recordings which were used,
and Silvermans description of the piece, in general a boisterous hubbub,
is evocative:
Cunninghams lively choreography [. . .] included a cakewalk, a soloist

performing with tin cans attached to his legs, and Cunningham playing dead
while dancers jumped over his body. Cages no less surprising accompaniment
called for three musicians, each with a tape player and telephone. The tapes
held bird songs. The musicians used their telephones to dial out from the
orchestra pit, transmitting to the audience the amplied sound of their dialing
and the messages they received. So while watching Cunninghams cakewalks,
the audience heard not only bird songs but also updated time and weather
bulletins and the recorded announcements of Pan Am Airways, New York
Telephone, O-Track Betting, Dial-a-Joke, and Dial-a-Prayer. (Silverman
2010, 289)
As a stand-alone piece, the total duration of any performance was to be

decided upon by the performers in advance. Though this had, in eect, been
Cages practice since the 1950s, by this stage he explicitly stated that, if the
piece were to accompany dance, its length would be determined simply
according to the length of the dance. Events themselves either a recording
or a telephone call were to be allocated an I Ching number, equally divided
between both types of material. If fewer than thirty-two recordings or
telephone numbers were available, as was always the case according to
Tudors materials, then each event would receive a range of numbers.2 A
further set of I Ching castings was to be made for each event, determining
whether an event would be a recording or a call, how long the event would
last for, how loud it would be, whether the timbre would be changed during
the event, how many loudspeakers two, three, or four would relay it, and
when the event would take place. Before making any of these determina-
tions, however, a rst I Ching determination was to decide whether a
particular action should be prepared which is to say written out in a
realization copy in advance of the performance or not. If it was not, Cage
also stressed that the determination of events by tossing coins should take
place during the performance and might also be amplied, again with this
decision being made by a further coin toss.
In Tudors realization, the birdsong recordings were transferred onto
cassette tape. Tudor appears to have made several dierent tapes, which
2
It does not appear that Tudor ever had to deal with this problem; if the number of events for
a particular material type was greater than thirty-two, a chance-determined procedure was
to eliminate the excess.
were performed in stereo on either a Marantz CD-302A or a Sony TC-126

cassette deck or in mono on a Sony TC-110 or TC-150 cassette deck. These
decks had counters which ran from 000 to 999, and it was against these
numbers that Tudor noted the points that recordings began. What seems
clear from the materials in Tudors papers is that, although determinations
of what the events would be were made ahead of a performance, he made no
notes of when an event would occur, or of duration, volume, timbre, or
spatialization. His note sheet for the performance of Telephones and Birds
with Cunninghams Travelogue at the Tarrant Convention Center, Fort
Worth, Texas, on February 19, 1977, is the fullest realization which survives,
and is indicative of the total information Tudor had available to him before
a performance (Fig. 8.1).
Although Silvermans description of Telephones and Birds makes no
mention of coin tosses, Tudors materials strongly suggest that such deci-
sions were made in the moment of performance. One might even speculate
that Tudor actually largely ignored the requirements for additional I Ching
determinations and, for the most part, improvised the points of occurrence
of events, as well as their other sonic characteristics. This said, there are
numerous performances of Telephones and Birds for which no preparatory
materials survive, presumably having been lost while on tour with
Cunningham.3 Though it seems unlikely that, if Tudor made preparations
in advance for these parameters, not a single sheet remains extant, it is
plausible that these materials too once existed but are lost.
Five Stone Wind (1988) and Haiku (1958/87)

Arguably, to regard Five Stone Wind as a Cage composition is erroneous.
Even though one might argue that the dividing line between what counts as
Cages work and what as Tudors is thin in the case, especially, of the later
realizations, Five Stone Wind is certainly a collaborative piece.4 On pro-
grams for performances with the Merce Cunningham Dance Company, the
3
Nothing remains, for instance, to show what Tudor did at performances in Iowa City,
Grand Forks, Minneapolis, or at the premiere in New York City, to consider only perform-
ances in 1977. In the case of the performance at Iowa State University on March 9, 1977,
though none of Tudors performance materials as such survive, there is a campus phone list,
with some potential numbers marked, including those for the Committee on Racism and
Sexism, the Oce of Minority Student Programs, and the Black Cultural Center, suggesting
a potentially politicized edge to the performance there. There are also materials suggesting a
performance of Telephones and Birds in Detroit, though there is nothing in Tudors
extensive record of performance, to indicate that any such performance took place.
4
It is worth remembering that, in Pritchetts view, Tudors realization of Variations II already
makes of Tudor a co-composer of the piece, at least in the case of his own performances.
Fig. 8.1 Tudors realization sheet for Telephones and Birds, Forth Worth, TX,
February 19, 1977
piece was usually credited jointly to Cage and two of its performers, Tudor
and Takehisa Kosugi. In truth, Five Stone Wind is really two separate pieces:
Five Stone and Wind, with Wind only beginning about thirty minutes into
what is, in Cages notation, a piece of just over sixty minutes.5
There are therefore multiple elements which make up a performance of
Five Stone Wind. Wind itself is a piece conceived by and for Kosugi,
containing violin pizzicati, a bamboo ute, and a sound transducer. For
this piece, according to Cages own recollection, Kosugi received no direc-
tion for what he should play, beyond time brackets which indicated a range
in which he ought to begin playing each event and a range in which he ought
to cease. The timbral decisions, and the actual actions carried out, were thus
Kosugis own. The parts for Five Stone were divided between Tudor and
Michael Pugliese. Puglieses part was performed on clay pot drums. As
Pugliese describes them in his liner notes for Modes recording of Five
Stone Wind: There are nine drums in all, varying in size and pitch. Oval
in shape with a jug-like opening, each drum has a hole in its side for tone
production. Either hole can be struck, rubbed or slapped with hands or
ngers to produce a jug-like sound. When the body of the drum is hit, a
ceramic sound is made. Cage and Pugliese appear to have worked jointly
on the planning of how these timbral materials would be used, at least so far
as Cage helping to determine the ways in which the chance operations
would function. Tudors part, however, was wholly determined by Tudor
alone, as in the case of Kosugis Wind, with the exception of Tudors use of
Cages time brackets to determine beginnings and ends of actions.
In point of fact, if Tudor did use Cages time brackets to decide when
things happened, he must have read directly from Cages own sheet of
them, making reference to a stopwatch, since his notes give no indication of
any predetermination of the specic moments at which a particular event
would begin or end. The time bracket notation is certainly simple enough
5
The recording on Mode Recordss Music for Merce Cunningham release, the best source for
any concrete sense of what Five Stone Wind might sound like, lasts only just over fty-ve
minutes. One must presume that here, as so often, the music was cut in order to align with
the length of Cunninghams dance, which shared the pieces title. Indeed, on Tudors copy
of the score, Cage appears to have written notes which suggest that some performances
would end at thirty minutes and some at fty-ve minutes: Cages two notes read: Berlin
ends circa 300 00 and Avignon ends circa 55. These notes refer to performances of Five
Stone at the Freie Volksbhne in Berlin between June 16 and 19, 1988, and of Five Stone
Wind at the Palais des Papes in Avignon between July 30 and August 4, 1988. These were
the premiere performances of both versions of the piece, with Wind thus not performed in
Berlin. There is also a note at the top, also in Cages handwriting, which suggests that
between three and ve of the given time brackets should be omitted for a thirty-minute
performance.
for him to have done this, yet one might speculate, given the increased level
of freedom of action with respect to Cages instructions that Tudors
realizations of Telephones and Birds and, even more so, the subsequent
Four3 suggest, that Tudor essentially improvised in this respect. Nicolas
Hodges suspected much the same in reviewing the Mode release in his
suggestion that Cage writes out a part [. . .], while the music suggests that
Kosugi improvises, while Tudor lies somewhere between the two (Hodges
1994, 52). Tudors musical contribution to Five Stone Wind was, in any
case, much more closely related to his own practice as a composer of live
electronic music than it was to any of his earlier work with Cage. Hodgess
description of the sonic results is very close to the mark:
Working with recordings of earth-vibrations (as distinct from earthquakes),

Tudor makes noises which could be described as a cross between pitched
static and the noise of bubbles bursting. This may not sound particularly
prepossessing, but believe you me, he invests these sounds with energy like you
have never heard before. It makes Sonic Arts sound like a school outing [. . .]
(Hodges 1994, 52)
Tudors treatment of those recordings of earth-vibrations was principally a

function of passing them through electronic gates, the functioning of which
he had devised largely himself. The gates functioned as equalizers, such that
specic frequencies could be selected or removed. They also, in the rst
half-hour of a complete performance, controlled the attack which is to say
the length of time the processor would take to go from closed to open of a
recording; in the second half-hour, this situation was reversed, such that the
gate controlled instead the release of a recording, Tudors notes suggesting
that this would allow the sounds of the second half of the piece to have a
more continuous character.
That any individual performance of Five Stone Wind, at least in terms of
what Tudor did, is directly related to his own electronic work is highlighted
strikingly by DArcy Philip Grays examination of Tudors electronic setup.
He identies that though the source material the recordings which passed
through the electronic setup was dierent, the electronics themselves were
identical in both Five Stone Wind and Tudors own Web for John Cage
(1987), as well as the subsequent iterations of the latter piece in Web II for
John Cage (1988) and Web III for John Cage (1988) (Gray 2004, 43), as well
as in a further piece, Haiku, to which I return below. In all these pieces, after
sounds had passed through the gate, which would typically be separating
louder sounds from quieter ones according to a dened frequency band,
they would pass through two further levels of processing: an envelope-
controlled lter and a phaser. Finally, the resulting sounds were spatialized
within the performance space. The electronic setup was, as in the case of
Variations II, one which Tudor was able to control only to a limited extent.
As Gray has it, Tudors goal was always to try to control the situation. If he
ever fully achieved this goal, he would change the parameters of the setup to
force himself once again into a new level of complexity. Yet despite the fact
that the material was selected by Tudor and processed through the same live
electronics he used for several of his own pieces, albeit ones dedicated to
Cage, Gray is surely also right to conclude that: Tudors performances took
on a Cagean aesthetic. Tudor himself was very concerned about creating
interesting sounds sounds that would surprise him in performance. [. . .]
In Tudors words: If I like something, I tend to let it run itself or see what is
behind it that could be released (Gray 2004, 45).
The piece Haiku, which also made use of the same electronic system, is in
many respects curious. It appears to have received only one performance,
that by Tudor on September 6 , 1987, at the Los Angeles Festival (although
Tudor had previously performed sections from Cages earlier Haiku (1951)
at a performance on November 17, 1957, at The Nonagen in New York
City). The Los Angeles performance was given simultaneously with
Kosugis performance of 0 0 00 and Puglieses reading of 45 0 for a
Speaker. Tudors performance, according to the program, was not on the
piano but, again, on his electronic web, used for the three Web pieces and
Five Stone Wind. The notations for Haiku, though, date from January 1958
and are essentially xed versions of the notation from Variations I. Each of
the three sheets contains lines and points, with perpendiculars dropped
from those lines to points to take readings. It appears that the meanings of
each line were determined by Cage rather than by Tudor, since a sheet in his
hand is also within Tudors materials, reading:
P = pitch close = low far = high
D = duration " = long " = short
O = Ov. Str.6 " = sine " = noise
T = Period of time " = soon " = late
A = amplitude " = loud " = soft
These letters are written at the beginning of each line on the three score
pages, thus xing their meaning. Tudor took ve readings for each page,
presumably using dierent perpendiculars for each reading, though retain-
ing the determinations of which line referred to which parameter: there is
evidence of rubbing out of the perpendiculars, but not of the letters. The rst
event that Tudor notated, then, was sketched out thus:
6
Overtone Structure.
P med. hi
D short
O very noisy
A very soft
T fairly soon
However, there is nothing to indicate what source material was fed into the
electronic circuitry of Tudors web, even though it seems unlikely that he
generated that material at the piano. It is also impossible to be sure that any
of the determinations which Cage himself seems to have written those
indicated by single letters are contemporaneous with the scores January
1958 dating. If they were, then it might suggest that Tudors own work on
Variations II, which treated parameters in just this way, was informed by
Cages thoughts on Haiku. Yet the handwriting used to write out that sheet,
even though it too bears that 1958 date, looks closer to Cages later script,
which would by contrast suggest that his opinion of Haiku, by 1987 at least,
was instead informed by Tudors realizations. Given the level of interplay
and interaction between the two, perhaps it is appropriate that it is impos-
sible to disentangle securely whose work inuenced whom in this case.
Four3 (1991)
Four3 was the last piece Cage wrote for the Merce Cunningham Dance
Company, for the dance Beach Birds. The score comprises a set of time
brackets, which determine ranges in which a performer begins and ends a
certain activity, up to a total duration of thirty-four-and-a-half minutes.
Within each time bracket each of the four performers may choose to do
nothing or to tilt a rainstick, each performer having three of these. One
performer may also choose to create the C three octaves above middle C,
either with a sine wave or via a violin harmonic, played without vibrato. One
or two performers are situated at pianos; if two pianists are used, one is to be
within the performance space and one outside it, each performing excerpts
from Cages Extended Lullaby, itself made up of chance-derived variations
on Saties Vexations.7 The Extended Lullaby is notated across twelve pages,
each containing four staves, each of which, in turn, contains a single reading
of the material of Vexations, retaining the rhythm, such that each line of
Cages score lasts for thirteen quarter notes, but making monophonic
selections from the pitch content. Cages instructions state that a performer
may use any excerpt from the material, but that no individual excerpt
7
The Extended Lullaby would be used again by Cage, to similar purpose, in Two6.
should last for more than twelve eighth notes. It seems to be the implication
of Cages instructions that in a performance with two pianists, one pianist
should make use of the rst six pages of Extended Lullaby while the other
should take the second six pages, though the instructions are certainly open
enough to aord other interpretations.
In Tudors papers no indication is given of any particular approach to
performing the score, indeed there are no materials which survive which
give any indication at all of how Tudor went about deciding to perform the
aimless lines, as Pritchett describes them, of the extended lullaby which
comprised Tudors part within Four3 (Pritchett 1993, 202). Nevertheless,
some impression is given from the lmed version of Cunninghams
choreography for Four3, Beach Birds for Camera, the rst and probably
most notable aspect of which is that Cages restriction on the duration of
an extract from the Extended Lullaby is ignored from the outset. Beginning
at 10 03, and lasting until 10 42 into the lm, Tudor plays the complete
third line of the rst page of the Extended Lullaby. This is followed,
between two minutes and forty-two seconds and three-and-a-half
minutes, by the complete fourth line of the rst page. By contrast, the
second pianist, Michael Pugliese, much fainter on the recording, outside
the studio space in which Beach Birds for Camera was lmed, complies
with Cages instructions: the second fragment played by Tudor is inter-
sected (between 20 48 and 30 07) by a excerpt of the third line of page eight
of the score, from the second note, lasting for twelve eighth notes, though
the last pitch is therefore abbreviated to an eighth note; it is given in the
score as a quarter note. At other points in the lm, however, Pugliese, too,
plays complete lines from the Extended Lullaby. It is worth noting, how-
ever, that if the passage of time in the piece is taken to begin at the
beginning of the lm, the second pianist plays according to Cages time
brackets consistently, whereas Tudor is sometimes found to have been
playing at a point where the strict letter of the score says he ought not to
have been.8 In any case, Tudors performance certainly violates the letter
of Cages instructions, though it would be hard to claim that it goes against
their spirit. However, though it is straightforward enough to establish
from his performance that there was surely no reason for Tudor to have
done anything beyond play directly from the score a simple explanation
8
Comparison with the sine wave oscillator part, performed by Takehisa Kosugi, suggests that
matters may not be quite so simple, since this part only roughly approximates to the time
brackets in the score if the part is held to have begun at the start of the lm and with the rst
time bracket. Cages instructions allow for a player to begin at any point, as long as they
have the appropriate stopwatches to allow them to do this, making it dicult to be certain
where an individual performer may have begun.
for the fact that no realization, nor even a copy of the score itself, appears
in his papers because of this there is also no reason to presume that
Tudor only ever played Four3 exactly as he did within Beach Birds for
Camera. It would, at least, have been simple for him to have chosen other
lines from the Extended Lullaby to have played on each occasion.
Perhaps surprisingly, given that the focus of this examination has tried to
be on establishing what Tudors procedures were and what impact they had
on Cages music both within a particular piece and in respect of subsequent
pieces, in truth it is not ultimately what Tudor did in performing Four3 that
is important, not least because, even though Cage could probably not have
been certain of this, it was both the last piece he wrote for Tudor and the last
piece he wrote for Cunningham.9 Cunninghams choreography was, for the
most part, deantly non-representational, at least in any traditional sense,
though there were some exceptions, as in the case of Macaulays evocative
description of Inlets 2 (1983): those at rhythms of Cunningham dance can
catch the very essence of animal life. I see birds oating, taking wing,
hovering, resettling; rodents scuttling and then freezing (Macaulay 1992,
175). Yet even in the eld of those odd occasions in which Cunninghams
choreography takes on an animalistic bent, Beach Birds is an exceptional
case. Copeland regards it, too, as the best of Cunninghams choreography in
this vein, with its port de bras that evokes swooping wings (accented by
dark stripes on the arms of the leotards). The illusion of wings was furthered
by the fact that the dancers ngers very uncharacteristically were
concealed by black gloves (Copeland 2004, 199).
One might wonder whether both Cage and Cunningham somehow
associated Tudor directly with birds, giving an added signicance both to
this, the last piece of Cages on which Tudor directly worked, and
Telephones and Birds. In Cages Themes and Variations mesostics, sections
devoted to Tudor come back to birds (and ying) on several occasions:
we Dont know
At dawn
what i haVe
zen Is zen
all i neeD
9
Though Cage might well have been reasonably sure, so late in life, that further pieces for
Tudor were relatively unlikely, at the time of his death he was working on Ocean for
Cunningham. The degree of Tudors involvement in Ocean, had Cage lived to complete it,
can only be speculation to be sure, but Tudor did complete his own electronic piece
Soundings: Ocean Diary (1994) for the project. The projects orchestral music, conceived
by Cage before his death, was completed by his assistant, Andrew Culver.
mounTain
for yoU
south sea islanD
Of
mountain bReeze
sounDs of birds
A way
and Valley
zen Is zen
herDed ox
whaT dierence
walked throUgh
nD a dierence
wOuld you say
youR feet
are a little o the grounD
sAy
to leaVe no traces
Important
to have your heaD
To fall
bUt
no one Disturbed him he slept
nO one knew
aRe sure your feet
anD legs
reAdy
leaVe
posItions
a Dance
a vacaTion
zen is no longer confUsing
after stuDying
frOm time to time
put the otheR back on the hook
he saiD
rengA
because of the Very great
dIerences
Drive
Than
yoU
in my minD
i shOuld
spRingweather springweather (Cage 1993 [1980], 13032)
we Dont
mountAin
well haVe
when we f Inish
to Do
whaT were doing
for yoU
Duality
they y abOve
mountain bReeze
Desert
lAke
whereVer theyre
a lIttle value
Dierence
whaT dierence
it mUst have been
it seemeD
nO
coveRing
are a little o the grounD
As she said
but Very much
In
snow continueD
in socieTy
Up it is to bolivia
your boDy
by fOod
aRms
are still on the grounD
one of them Answered
conVoluted
posItions
your heaD(Cage 1993 [1980], 15254)
the white birDs

reheArse together
they haVe
zen Is zen
while stuDying
sTill am
bUt
Duality
Odd
River (Cage 1993 [1980], 171)
Moreover, Cage stated in The Future of Music in 1974 that, [b]eginning

with my Music of Changes, and continuing through Variations VI, my
music always had David Tudor in mind. I notice now that many composers
in their work have not a person but a place (environment) in mind (Cage
1981 [1974], 185). In For the Birds, his interviews with Daniel Charles,
published long after they were completed between 1968 and 1972, he
stressed yet more strongly that [i]n all my works since 1952, I have tried
to achieve what would seem interesting and vibrant to David Tudor.
Whatever succeeds in the works I have done has been determined in
relationship to him [. . .] David Tudor was present in everything I was
doing. Cage was clear in these conversations that he meant by this that
he wrote his music for Tudor, regardless of whether it was music which
Tudor would ever play: in the case of writing the Song Books (1970), for
instance, he stated that he composed with David Tudor in mind, even
though the performers would be Cathy Berberian and Simone Rist (Cage
and Charles 1981, 178).
The title of the volume, For the Birds, thus becomes doubly playful as it
signals that Cages music is both for the birds in the idiomatic sense that
it is meaningless or trivial (or regarded as such), and also that it is, quite
literally, for Tudor.10 Indeed, if this association appears plausible, then Bird
Cage (1972) might be worth examining as a piece which specically deals
with the CageTudor relationship from Cages perspective. That Cage had
very recently come to know Tudor in 1951 might even lead one to consider a
possible relationship between Tudor and birds leading back that far, given
Cunninghams solo choreography Boy Who Wanted to be a Bird, danced
with no musical accompaniment, which was premiered in the summer of
that year at Marthas Vineyard.11 Though such a link can remain only a
10
As Cage notes, his French publisher, Pierre Belfond, thought that the title then, in French,
Pour les oiseaux was a joke. Cages response was to state that he was for the birds, not for
the cages in which people sometimes place them (Cage and Charles 1981, 11). In certain
contexts, of course, oiseau can refer familiarly to an individual, particularly in the case of
an odd person (un drle doiseau). Translating that idiom into English is probably best
achieved through the expression a queer sh, a collocation the signicance of which was
unlikely to have been lost on Cage. In a rich set of signication, it is probably worth noting
that for Belfond and Charles the most likely immediate reference point for the expression
would have been Louis Beydts popular Chansons pour les oiseaux (1935).
11
Plausibly, this might even shed further light on statements made by Cage which appear
cryptic or elliptical, such as that in Rhythm Etc., where Cage stated, The thing that was
irrelevant to the structures we formerly made, and this was what kept us breathing, was
what took place within them. Their emptiness we took for what it was a place where
anything could happen. That was one of the reasons we were able when circumstances
became inviting (changes in consciousness, etc.) to go outside, where breathing is childs
play: no walls, not even glass ones which, though we could see through them, killed the
birds while they were ying (Cage 1968l, 122). An interpretation of this, then, might
propose that the measurements and structures Cage used in, for instance, Music of Changes
or 340 46.776 in some respects killed Tudors freedom as a performer, which became
liberated when Cage moved toward freer notational resources in the later 1950s. Another
potential origin might be found in M. C. Richardss poem Hands Birds the two words
of its title also make up the complete poem written according to Richardss own
recollection in light of a performance Tudor gave at Black Mountain College. Shaking
his hand afterwards, Richards noted, It was hot! His hand was hot! And so soft, so
amazingly soft like a bird! (Brown 2007, 602, note 17.1). This may well be the case, but it
is surely also not too fanciful to note that, if the identity of Tudor as a bird was recognized
through the Cage circle, the centrality of hands to the work of Richards who was a potter
as well as a poet might turn Hands Birds into a private love poem between Richards
and Tudor. The repetition of springweather within one of the Cage mesostics on David
Tudor above brings together many from the Cage circle of the 1950s: the music for
Cunninghams Springweather and People was Earle Browns Indices, in a piano arrange-
ment only played by Tudor (with the ensemble version of the piece remaining unpre-
miered until after Browns death). The dance Hands Birds, its title drawn from Richardss
poem, too, had music by Brown, and was danced by his then wife, Carolyn; the music was
Tudors realization of Browns December 1952.
speculative one, there is nevertheless something satisfying about the idea

that birds, as expressed in Cunninghams choreography, somehow frame
the CageTudor collaboration. Though it, too, may be coincidental, it is also
notable that, of Cages number pieces, Four3 bears the title with closest
possible linguistic relationship to one of the dening pieces and perform-
ances too of Tudors career, that of 40 33.
There is no real reason to suppose that Cage knew the poetry of Seamus
Heaney, nor that Heaney knew Cages music, despite Cages very particular
interest in Irish literature and, indeed, in Ireland more generally, most in
evidence in Roaratorio. Yet Heaneys description of the rain stick in his
poem of the same name might very well stand both for Four3 and, in truth,
for Cages output as a whole:
Up-end the stick and what happens next

Is a music you never would have thought
To listen for.
(Heaney 2001 [1996], 3)
9 Praxis and poiesis in indeterminate music
Agamben opines that man has on earth a poetic, that is a pro-ductive,

status (Agamben 1999 [1994], 59). By this, he suggests an essentially
Socratic conception of artistic production, a leading of a something out
of a nothing, following Platos formulation in his Symposium that any
cause that brings into existence something that was not there before is
[poiesis] (Plato, quoted in Agamben 1999 [1994], 59). Agamben
describes this succinctly:
Every time that something is pro-duced, that is, brought from concealment
and nonbeing into the light of presence, there is poiesis, pro-duction, poetry. In
this broad original sense of the word, every artnot only the verbal kindis
poetry, pro-duction into presence, and the activity of a craftsman who makes
an object is [poiesis] as well. To the extent that in it everything brings
itself spontaneously into presence, even nature, [physis], has the
character of [poiesis]. (Agamben 1999 [1994], 5960)
Yet doing, as Agamben suggests,
is understood, in our time, as praxis. According to current opinion, all of mans

doingthat of the artist and the craftsman as well as that of the workman and
the politicianis praxis, that is, manifestation of a will that produces a
concrete eect. When we say that man has a productive status on earth, we
mean, then, that the status of his dwelling on earth is a practical one. (Agamben
1999 [1994], 68)
This distinction, between poiesis and praxis, was one which was already
recognizable to the Socratic and post-Socratic Greek thinkers. The essential
character of poiesis had little, if anything, to do with practical activity, but
rather to do with a sort of truth process, an unveiling what Heidegger
would later conceive as aletheia of a mode of truth which would, even if
only in minor fashion, change the world. Praxis, by contrast, was to do with
the will to acquire, whether through need or desire, and was an expression of
the human as animal, rather than the transcendent unveilings of poiesis.
Over the course of time, Agamben proposes, the central experience of
poiesis, pro-duction into presence, is replaced by the question of the how,
that is, of the process through which the object has been produced, which is
[213] to say, too, that the emphasis shifts from an examination of the opening of
214 Praxis and poiesis in indeterminate music
truths to the creative genius and the particular characteristics of the artistic
process in which it nds expression (Agamben 1999 [1994], 70). In this
sense, the telos of praxis is already contained within the activity undertaken:
praxis reaches its limit in action, remains enclosed in its circle. It wants
only itself through action; thus it is not pro-ductive, and brings only itself
into presence (Agamben 1999 [1994], 76). By contrast, poiesis is not an
end in itself and does not contain its own limit, because it does not bring
itself into presence in the work (Agamben 1999 [1994], 73). Poiesis, in
Agambens terms at least, is the unveiling that reveals the new truth of the
work; it is not that which is unveiled.
Of course the truth or not of Agambens implicit claim that poiesis is
closer to the origin of what art is or could be is hardly signicant here. Nor
is his claim that prior aesthetic writings which seem to express a certain
return to poiesis do little more than blur the distinction between poiesis
and praxis, that is, [. . .] the interpretation of art as a mode of praxis and of
praxis as the expression of a will and a creative force (Agamben 1999
[1994], 71). Instead, I conclude by leaving something of an open question,
asking whether the distinction between composer and performer is not
necessarily particularly helpful in thinking about what Cage and Tudor
achieved, either individually or together. As I have demonstrated above,
Tudor certainly undertook work which might often be thought of as
compositional activity (and, indeed, just this apparent blurring of whose
job is whose has been a convenient stick with which to beat Cage). Indeed
the commonsense solution certainly would simply argue that what David
Tudors activities in respect of Cages scores resemble, more or less accu-
rately, is compositional work, traditionally conceived (or, in Agambens
terms, according to a nineteenth-century aesthetic model of production).
Following this trajectory, one might propose that in these realizations there
exist two composers, as well as one performer, with Cage completing the
sketch work for pieces, before handing them over to Tudor for completion.
This seems to me to be unsatisfying, and not merely on aesthetic grounds: in
the rst place, the to-and-fro of activities between Cage and Tudor is much
more sophisticated than this would suggest and, more than this, as Tudor
increasingly found ways of creating multiple realizations of individual
scores, arguably the centrality of Cages scores, as originals, became height-
ened. In the light of Agambens suggestions that praxis and poiesis might be
conceived as two distinct spheres of artistic activity, it may be possible
instead to see a wholly dierent, and hopefully more satisfying, distinction
between Cage and Tudor.
Cages scores across the 1950s, or at least those scores worked on by
Tudor, increasingly demand praxis, but neither contain that praxis, nor its
Praxis and poiesis in indeterminate music 215
limits, at least not by the point of Cages later scores, such as Variations II.
Instead, they allow, which is to say they reveal, a poietic space, within which
truthful forms of praxis can in turn be revealed. If Agamben is right that
aesthetics from Baumgarten (and, more pertinently, Kant) onward took a
radically dierent view of the art object from that of the Greeks, and that
that distinction can be described in terms of just this division into praxis and
poiesis, then it is hardly surprising that Cage caused the sort of controversy
he did. To a great degree, Cage is arguably not recognizable as a composer at
all, at least not in the modern sense. Increasingly, Cage stripped away those
aspects of his work which produced the concrete eects which Agamben
suggests characterize praxis, specically seeking notations, with increasing
precision, which fail to contain their own limits. Indeed, the degree to which
Cages music is, or remains, art, is ultimately intertwined with the situations
he created, in which a certain unveiling of the possibilities beyond the frame
of what his score describes is precisely what the score demands. That is to
say, Cages score reveals possibilities for realization which the score itself
does not (or cannot) wholly determine, while Tudors workings do, just as
Agamben might have predicted, bring only themselves into being, at least
until the case of Variations II. Nevertheless, in order that Cages music may
become recognizable as music (or art, for that matter), it requires the praxis
of a Tudor; in the world in which Cage and Tudor lived, it was necessary
that Cage had someone who was prepared to close the circle, to frame a
particular form of unveiling of possibilities at a particular moment. In short,
Tudors activity was to create just the concrete results which were absent
from Cages scores. It is, in just this way, little surprise that, once Tudor
introduced electronics in the piano in his realizations of Variations II, thus
releasing the realization from the limits of his own notation, he turned
rapidly to becoming a composer in his own right, with the rst piece under
his own name, Fluorescent Sound, premiering in 1964.
Bibliography
Agamben, Giorgio (1999 [1994]), The Man without Content, tr. Georgia Albert
(Stanford University Press).
Artaud, Antonin (1958 [1938]), The Theater and Its Double (New York: Grove).
Auster, Paul (1991), The Music of Chance (London: Faber).
(1995 [198990]), Interview with Larry McCarey and Sinda Gregory, The Red
Notebook (London: Faber), 11654.
Beal, Amy C. (2006), New Music, New Allies: American Experimental Music in West
Germany from the Zero Hour to Reunication (Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press).
(2008), Experimentalists and Independents Are Favored: John Edmunds in
Conversation with Peter Yates and John Cage, 195961, Notes, vol. 64, no. 4
(June), 65987.
Benson, Bruce Ellis (2003), The Improvisation of Musical Dialogue: A
Phenomenology of Music (Cambridge University Press).
Bernard, Jonathan W. (2002), Feldmans Painters, in Steven Johnson (ed.), The
New York Schools of Music and Visual Arts (London: Routledge), 173215.
Bernstein, David (2002), Cage and High Modernism, in David Nicholls (ed.), The
Cambridge Companion to John Cage (Cambridge University Press), 186213.
Blumrder, Christoph von (1993), Die Grundlegung der Musik Karlheinz
Stockhausens (Stuttgart: Steiner).
Borio, Gianmario and Hermann Danuse (1997), Im Zenit der Moderne: die
Internationalen Ferienkurse fr neue Musik Darmstadt, 19461966, vol. III
(Freiburg-im-Breisgau: Rombach), 592.
Boulez, Pierre, Morton Feldman, John Cage, and Christian Wol (1952), Four
Musicians at Work, Transformation: Arts, Communication, Environment, vol.
1, no. 3, 16872.
Brooks, William (2002a), Music II: From the Last 1960s, in David Nicholls (ed.),
The Cambridge Companion to John Cage (Cambridge University Press),
12847.
(2002b), Music and Society, in David Nicholls (ed.), The Cambridge
Companion to John Cage (Cambridge University Press), 21426.
Brown, Carolyn (2007), Chance and Circumstance: Twenty Years with Cage and
Cunningham (New York, NY: Knopf ).
Brown, Earle and Peter Dickinson (2006 [1987]), Earle Brown: Interview with
Peter Dickinson, Rye, New York, July 1, 1987, in Peter Dickinson (ed.),
CageTalk: Dialogues with & about John Cage (Rochester, NY: University of
Rochester Press), 13645.
[216]
Bibliography 217
Brown, Kathan, Visual Art, in David Nicholls (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to
John Cage (Cambridge University Press, 2002), 10927.
Cage, John (1968a [1957]), Experimental Music, Silence: Lectures and Writings
(London: Marion Boyars), 712.
(1968b [1955]), Experimental Music: Doctrine, Silence: Lectures and Writings
(1968c [1958]), Composition as Process, Silence: Lectures and Writings
(1968d [1959]), History of Experimental Music in the United States, Silence:
Lectures and Writings (London: Marion Boyars), 6775.
(1968e [1961]), On Robert Rauschenberg, Artist, and His Work, Silence:
(1968f [1959]), Lecture on Something, Silence: Lectures and Writings (London:
Marion Boyars), 12845.
(1968g [1954]), 450 for a Speaker, Silence: Lectures and Writings (London:
(1968h [1958]), Indeterminacy, Silence: Lectures and Writings (London:
(1968i [1966]), Seriously Comma, A Year From Monday: Lectures and Writings
(1968j [1964]), Jasper Johns: Stories and Ideas, A Year From Monday: Lectures
and Writings (London: Marion Boyars), 7384.
(1968k [1965]), How to Pass, Kick, Fall, and Run, A Year From Monday:
(1968l [1961]), Rhythm Etc., A Year from Monday: Lectures and Writings
(1981 [1974]), The Future of Music, Empty Words (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan
University Press), 17787.
(1993 [1980]), Themes and Variations, Composition in Retrospect (New York,
NY: Exact Change), 55171.
Cage, John and Daniel Charles (1981), For the Birds: John Cage in Conversation with
Daniel Charles (London: Marion Boyars).
Cage, John and Morton Feldman (1993 [196667]), Radio Happenings:
ConversationsGesprche, tr. Gisela Gronemeyer (Cologne: MusikTexte).
Cage, John and Richard Kostelanetz (2003 [1987]), Conversing with Cage, second
edn. (London: Routledge).
Cage, John and Joan Retallack (1996), Musicage: Cage Muses on Words, Art, Music
(Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press).
Campana, Deborah (2001), As Time Passes, in David W. Bernstein and
Christopher Hatch (eds.), Writings through John Cages Music, Poetry, and
Art (University of Chicago Press), 12036.
Cardew, Cornelius (1974), Stockhausen Serves Imperialism (London: Latimer New
Dimensions).
218 Bibliography
Clarkson, Austin (2004), David Tudors Apprenticeship: The Years with Irma and
Stefan Wolpe, Leonardo Music Journal, vol. 14, 510.
Copeland, Roger (2004), Merce Cunningham: The Modernizing of Modern Dance
(London: Routledge).
Cowell, Henry (1952), Current Chronicle: United States: New York, The Musical
Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 1 (January), 12336.
Cunningham, Merce (1982), A Collaborative Process Between Music and Dance,
Triquarterly, no. 54 (Spring), 17386.
Duberman, Martin (1993 [1972]), Black Mountain: An Exploration in Community
(New York, NY: Norton).
Everett, Yayoi Uno (2009), Scream against the Sky: Japanese Avant-garde Music
in the Sixties, in Robert Adlington (ed.), Sound Commitments: Avant-garde
Music and the Sixties (London: Routledge), 187208.
Farmer, Fannie Merritt (1918), The Boston Cooking-School Cook Book (Boston, MA:
Little, Brown, and Co.), available online at: www.bartleby.com/87/ (accessed
May 23, 2012).
Fetterman, William (1996), John Cages Theatre Pieces: Notations and Performances
(Chur: Harwood Academic Publishers).
Gray, DArcy Philip (2004), David Tudor in the Late 1980s: Understanding a Secret
Voice, Leonardo Music Journal, vol. 14, 4147.
Heaney, Seamus (2001 [1996]), The Rain Stick, The Spirit Level (London: Faber), 3.
Hilberg, Frank (1996), David Tudors Konzept des Elektrizierten Klaviers und
seine Interpretation von John Cages Variations II (1961) (Saarbrcken: Pfau).
Hines, Thomas S. (1994), Then Not Yet Cage: The Los Angeles Years, 1912
1938, in Marjorie Perlo and Charles Junkerman (eds.), John Cage: Composed
in America (University of Chicago Press), 6599.
Hodges, Nicolas (1994), Review: More Cage, Tempo, no. 188 (March 1994), 5152.
Holzaepfel, John (1994), David Tudor and the Performance of American
Experimental Music, 19501959, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, City
University of New York.
(2001), David Tudor and the Solo for Piano, in David W. Bernstein and
Christopher Hatch (eds.), Writings through John Cages Music, Poetry, and
Art (University of Chicago Press), 13756.
(2002a), Painting by Numbers: The Intersection of Morton Feldman and David
Tudor, in Steven Johnson (ed.), The New York Schools of Music and Visual
Arts (London: Routledge), 15972.
(2002b), Cage and Tudor, in David Nicholls (ed.), The Cambridge Companion
to John Cage (Cambridge University Press), 16985.
Iddon, Martin (2007), Gained in Translation: Words about Cage in Late 1950s
Germany, Other Darmstadts, special issue of Contemporary Music Review,
vol. 26, no. 1, 89104.
Johnson, Tom (2006 [1987]), Remembrance, 19671969, in Chris Villars (ed.),
Morton Feldman Says: Selected Interviews and Lectures 19641987 (London:
Hyphen), 3536.
Bibliography 219
Johnston, Jill (2003), Dance Quote Unquote, in Sally Banes (ed.), Reinventing
Dance in the 1960s: Everything Was Possible (Madison, WI: University of
Wisconsin Press), 98104.
Kim, Rebecca Y. (2011 [2008]), The Formalization of Indeterminacy in 1958: John
Cage and Experimental Composition at the New School, in Julia Robinson
(ed.), John Cage (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 14170.
Kisselgo, Anna (1985), Dance: A Survey of Jean Erdman Choreography since 42,
New York Times, 8 December.
Kostelanetz, Richard (ed.) (1970), John Cage (New York, NY: Praeger).
Kuivila, Ronald (2001), Open Sources: Words, Circuits, and the Notation-
Realization Relation in the Music of David Tudor, paper presented at The
Art of David Tudor symposium, May 1719, Getty Research Institute (online
at: www.getty.edu/research/exhibitions_events/events/davidtudorsymposium/
pdf/kuivila.pdf ), last accessed: 3 April 2012.
(2004), Open Sources: Words, Circuits, and the NotationRealization Relation
in the Music of David Tudor, Leonardo Music Journal, vol. 14, 1723.
Luening, Otto and Peter Dickinson (2006 [1987]), Otto Luening: Interview with
Peter Dickinson, New York City, July 2, 1987, in Peter Dickinson (ed.),
CageTalk: Dialogues with & about John Cage (Rochester, NY: University of
Rochester Press), 12226.
Macaulay, Alastair (1992 [1988]), The Merce Experience, in Richard Kostelanetz
(ed.), Merce Cunningham: Dancing in Space and Time (Pennington, NJ: A
Capella), 17378.
Malina, Judith (1984), The Diaries of Judith Malina (New York, NY: Grove).
McCarthy, Susan (2004), Becoming a Tiger: How Baby Animals Learn to Live in the
Wild (New York, NY: HarperCollins).
Metzger, Heinz-Klaus and and Rainer Riehn (eds.) (1999), Darmstadt-Dokumente I
(Munich: text+kritik).
Miller, Leta E. (2006), Henry Cowell and John Cage: Intersections and Inuences,
19331941, Journal of the American Musicological Society, vol. 59, no. 1
(Spring), 47112.
Nattiez, Jean-Jacques (ed.) (1993), The BoulezCage Correspondence, tr. and ed.
Robert Samuels (Cambridge University Press).
Nicholls, David (2002), Towards Innity: Cage in the 1950s and 1960s, in
David Nicholls (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to John Cage (Cambridge
University Press), 10008.
(2007), John Cage (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press).
Nyman, Michael (1999 [1974]), Experimental Music: Cage and Beyond, second edn.
(Cambridge University Press).
Peyser, Joan (1977 [1976]), Boulez: Composer, Conductor, Enigma (London: Cassell).
Piekut, Benjamin (2011), Experimentalism Otherwise: The New York Avant-Garde
and Its Limits (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
Pollack, Howard (2000), Aaron Copland: The Life and Work of an Uncommon Man
(New York, NY: Henry Holt).
220 Bibliography
Pritchett, James (1993), The Music of John Cage (Cambridge University Press).
(2004), David Tudor as Composer/Performer in Cages Variations II, Leonardo
Music Journal, vol. 14, 1116.
Quine, Willard van Orman (1960), Word and Object (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Retallack, Joan (1994), Poetics of a Complex Realism, in Marjorie Perlo and
Charles Junkerman (eds.), John Cage: Composed in America (University of
Chicago Press), 24273.
Revill, David (1992), The Roaring Silence (New York, NY: Arcade).
Richards, Sam (1996), John Cage as . . . (Oxford: Amber Lane).
Schutz, Alfred (2004), Making Music Together, in Simon Frith (ed.), Popular
Music: Critical Concepts in Media and Cultural Studies (Abingdon: Routledge).
Sell, Mike (2000), Bad Memory: Text, Commodity, Happenings, in James
M. Harding (ed.), Contours of the Theatrical Avant-garde: Performance and
Textuality (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2000), 15775.
Shultis, Christopher (2002), Cage and Europe, in David Nicholls (ed.), The
Cambridge Companion to John Cage (Cambridge University Press).
Silverman, Kenneth (2010), Begin Again: A Biography of John Cage (New York, NY:
Knopf ).
Switala, Kristin A. (1994), A Postmodern Musicological Approach to the Authentic
Performance Debate, in Arleen B. Dallery and Stephen H. Watson (eds.),
Transitions in Continental Philosophy (Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press), 15568.
Williams, Alastair (2002), Cage and Postmodernism, in David Nicholls (ed.), The
Cambridge Companion to John Cage (Cambridge University Press), 22741.
Wol, Christian (1998a [1968]), Whole New Areas of Unpredictability: Electricity
and Music, in Gisela Gronemeyer and Reinhard Oehlschlgel (eds.), Cues:
Writings & Conversations (Cologne: MusikTexte), 5665.
(1998b [1997]), . . . how he made all the dierence: Thinking of David Tudor,
in Gisela Gronemeyer and Reinhard Oehlschlgel (eds.), Cues: Writings &
Conversations (Cologne: MusikTexte), 37885.
Wrner, Karl H. (1973 [1963]), Stockhausen: Life and Work (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press).
Yates, Peter (1967), Twentieth Century Music: Its Evolution from the End of the
Harmonic Era into the Present Era of Sound (New York, NY: Pantheon).
Index
Adams, John D. S. 196 Brown, Carolyn 13, 28, 32, 34, 63, 82, 99, 107,
Adler, Stella 108 108, 109, 112, 115, 116, 122, 126, 128, 147,
Agamben, Giorgio 21315 148, 158, 211
Ajemian, Anahid 6, 8, 12 Brown, Earle 13, 28, 31, 32, 34, 46, 50, 82, 99,
Ajemian, Maro 5, 6, 8, 9, 12 104, 106, 107, 109, 115, 119, 124, 147
Amey, Frank, 95, 111, 112, 114, 116, 121, December 1952 110, 211
128, 129 Four Systems (195254) 93
Amey, Nikky 111, 114 Indices (1954) 197, 211
Antheil, George 26, 34 Trio for 5 dancers (1953) 32
Antonio, Emile de 96 Brcher, Ernst 113, 116, 119
Artaud, Antonin 13, 29 Buhlig, Richard 25
Auster, Paul 1 Bussotti, Sylvano 96, 104, 105, 106, 107, 112
5 Piano Pieces for David Tudor 96, 113
Babbitt, Milton 133 Buttereld, Don 81, 82, 158
Composition for Viola and Piano (1950) 16
Bach, Johann Sebastian 30 Cage, John
Barab, Seymour 4, 6, 8, 9, 34 000 (1962) 114, 140, 204
Barber, George 8 15 for a String Player (1953) 32
Barrault, Jean-Louis 27, 29 261.1499 for a string player (1955) 45
Bauermeister, Mary 113, 118, 126, 131, 166 2710.554 for a percussionist (1956) 45
Bauman, Alvin 16 31.57.9864 for a pianist (1954) 45, 46, 48
Baumgarten, Alexander Gottlieb 215 331/3 (1969) 156
Becker, John 31 3446.776 for a pianist (1954) 19, 4547, 48,
Beethoven, Ludwig van 114, 175 80, 160, 173, 211
Behrman, David 197 433 (1952) 7, 19, 32, 41, 4345, 46, 47, 48,
Berberian, Cathy 100, 104, 106, 108, 111, 112, 49, 212
115, 121, 126, 127, 128, 210 45 for a Speaker 204
Berg, Cherney 15 59 for a String Player (1952) 34
Berger, Arthur 9, 10 Amores (1943) 99, 124
Berio, Luciano 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 126, 127 Aria (1958) 83, 98
Bernstein, Leonard 120, 136 Atlas Eclipticalis (196162) 63, 82, 132, 136
Biel, Michael von 135 Cartridge Music (1960) 70, 80, 110, 112, 119,
Binney, Edith 189 124, 126, 129, 138, 140, 16675, 176, 184,
Bird, Bonnie 2 185, 18687, 197
Black Mountain College 13, 15, 18, 23, Concerto for Prepared Piano and Orchestra
24, 25 (1951) 9, 10, 11, 41
Bode, Arnold 106 Credo in Us (1942) 2, 43
Boone, Charles 193 Daughters of the Lonesome Isle (1945) 4
Borden, Essie 194 Duet for Cymbal (1960) 119, 124
Boulez, Pierre 3, 4, 9, 13, 15, 16, 1718, 19, 21, Extended Lullaby (1991) 205, 206, 207
27, 29, 31, 34, 105, 106, 122 Five Stone Wind (1988) 63, 175, 187, 196,
Flute Sonatine 81 20004
Second Piano Sonata (194748) 3, 5, 27, 31 Fontana Mix (1958) 65, 66, 82, 83, 98, 103,
Structures, book 1 (1952) 27, 36 104, 106, 107, 112, 115, 124, 127, 133, 149,
Brant, Henry 108 159, 160, 161
Bratman, Carroll C. 8 Four3(1991) 175, 196, 203, 20512
Brecht, George For M.C. and D.T. (1952) 32
Card Piece 114 Haiku (195051) 12, 204
Candle Piece 114 Haiku (1958/87) 83, 203, 20405
[221] Brooklyn Academy of Music 56 HPSCHD (196769) 192, 196
222 Index
Cage, John (cont.) WBAI (1960) 83

Imaginary Landscape No. 4 (1951) 16, 140 Williams Mix (195153) 40, 41, 81, 102, 133
Lecture on Nothing 109 Winter Music (1956) 50, 5664, 65, 66, 67, 74,
Marriage at the Eiel Tower (1939) 43 75, 77, 79, 83, 84, 85, 86, 89, 92, 93,
Music for The Marrying Maiden (1960) 133 107, 110, 135, 138, 144, 149, 150, 159,
Music for Amplied Toy Pianos (1960) 83, 174, 177
112, 131, 138, 15967, 169, 174, 176, 184, Cage, Xenia 2, 4, 26
185 Callahan, Michael 189
Music for Carillon No. 1 (1952) 81 Campbell, Joseph 12, 13, 16
Music for Carillon No. 4 (1961) 130 Cardew, Cornelius 95, 96, 98, 106, 111, 112, 114,
Music for Piano series (195256) 41, 4755, 124, 135, 139, 166
56, 59, 62, 64, 68, 74, 80, 92, 93, 110, 146, Piano Sonata No. 3 (195758) 106
174, 182 Two Books of Study for Pianists (1958) 106
Music of Changes (1951) 5, 7, 12, 13, 14, 16, Cardini, Giancarlo 185
18, 1921, 24, 28, 30, 31, 3640, 41, 44, 45, Carmen, Arline 100, 108, 157, 158
46, 48, 55, 57, 66, 90, 123, 124, 128, 129, Carnegie Hall 3, 4, 133
151, 210, 211 Caskel, Christoph 95, 102, 106, 111, 132
Music Walk (1958) 65, 83, 102, 110, 128, Castelli, Ileana see Schapira, Ileana
13848, 149, 157, 159, 160, 168, 171, 182, Cbron, Jean 135
183 Central High School of Needle Trades 4
Ocean (unnished) 207 Cerha, Friedrich 104, 105, 108, 113
Ophelia (1946) 4 Cernovitch, Nicola 158
Reunion (1968) 196 Cherry Lane Theatre 31, 34
Roaratorio (1979) 188, 194, 212 Copland, Aaron 123, 127
Rozart Mix (1965) 188, 195 Cornish School 1, 2, 63, 97
Seven Haiku (195152) 12, 45, 123, 131 Cowell, Henry 1, 17, 21, 28, 30, 31, 42, 43, 124
Sixteen Dance (1951) 8, 9, 10 Aeolian Harp (1923) 30
Solo for Piano/Concert for Piano and Cramer, Hazel Witman 102
Orchestra (195758) 48, 51, 56, 6482, 83, Crane, Louise 13
84, 85, 90, 92, 93, 97, 99, 102, 104, 112, 123, Crawford, Ruth 31
124, 129, 131, 138, 139, 141, 144, 147, 149, Cross, Lowell 189
156, 159, 164, 175, 176, 18384 Culver, Andrew 207
Solo for Voice 1 (1958) 83 Cunningham, Merce 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 32, 34, 50, 73,
Solo for Voice 2 (1960) 83, 126, 166 98, 99, 105, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 115,
Sonatas and Interludes (1948) 41 116, 117, 121, 122, 126, 127, 128, 136, 139,
Song Books (1970) 210 147, 148, 149, 156, 157, 158, 173, 188, 196,
Sounds of Venice (1959) 80, 98, 99, 159 197, 200, 206, 207
String Quartet in Four Parts (1950) 123 Aeon (1961) 6264
Telephones and Birds (1977) 196, 197200, Antic Meet (1958) 48, 7980, 82, 83
203, 207 Beach Birds (1991) 196, 205
The City Wears a Slouch Hat (1942) 2 Beach Birds for Camera (1993) 196, 206, 207
Theatre Piece (1960) 40, 80, 81, 83, 91, 98, Boy Who Wanted to Be a Bird (1951) 211
115, 125, 126, 128, 135, 138, 146, 14859, Changeling (1957) 110
160, 167, 170, 175, 182, 183, 185 Hands Birds (1960) 110, 211
Two Pastorales (195152) 31, 4042, 44, 46, Inlets 2 (1983) 207
48, 55, 91 Lavish Escapade (1956) 110
Untitled Black Mountain Event (1952) 14849 Minutiae (1954) 48
Variations I (1958) 51, 56, 65, 66, 67, 8294, Music Walk with Dancers (1960) 110, 145,
107, 110, 113, 138, 139, 14243, 144, 159, 14748
160, 168, 175, 176, 204 Nightwandering (1958) 110
Variations II (1961) 63, 67, 81, 93, 159, 167, Rune (1959) 116
172, 173, 17587, 196, 204, 205, 215 Septet (1953) 116
Variations III (1962) 185 Solo Suite in Space and Time (1953) 48, 116
Variations IV (1963) 185, 189 Springweather and People (1955) 197, 211
Variations V (1965) 190 Suite by Change (1952) 157
Variations VI (1966) 185, 210 Suite for Five in Space and Time (1956)
Variations VII (1966) 197 4849
Water Music (1952) 32, 41, 4243, 44, 45, 46, Suite for Two (1956) 48, 110
80, 91, 92, 113, 138, 185, 186 Travelogue (1976) 197, 198, 200
Water Walk (1959) 80, 98, 99, 103, 138, Untitled Solo (1953) 110
148, 159 Waka (1960) 110
Index 223
Dahl, Ingolf 26 Helmholtz, Hermann von 192

Dallapiccola, Luigi 9 Helms, Hans G. 107, 114, 130, 166
Daniel ne Lederman, Minna 9 Helms, Khris 114, 130
Davidovsky, Mario 133 Hidalgo, Juan 100
Darmstadt New Music Courses 36, 93, 96, 105, Higgins, Dick 120
106, 109, 119, 135, 139, 166, 168 Hiller, Lejaren A. 188, 192, 193
Debussy, Claude 29, 30 Hinrichsen, Walter 117, 122
Dennison, Doris 26 Horton, Lester 26
Dienes, Sari 34 Hoyer, Dore 104
Donaueschinger Musiktage 4647, 126 Hbner, Herbert 113
Dunn, Robert 116, 117, 127, 133 Hunter Playhouse 8
Huxley, Aldous 99
Erdman, Jean 25, 12, 13, 16
Creature on a Journey (1942) 3 Ichiyanagi, Toshi 133, 135, 137, 193
Erle, Broadus 10, 14, 32 Music for Piano 2 110, 113
Everding, August 125, 128
Jansen, Margaret 26
Farber, Viola 107 Jayakar, Pupul 137
Feldman, Morton 1, 35, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, Johns, Jasper 107, 116, 134
15, 1718, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, Johnson, Ray 32
33, 34, 46, 99, 104, 107, 124, 133, 146 Johnston, Ben 157
4 Songs to e.e.cummings (1951) 13 Johnston, Jill 147
Intersection #2 (1951) 31, 60 Jones, Joe 119
Intersection #3 (1952) 60 Jouvet, Louis 29
Marginal Intersection (1951) 15 Julliard School of Music 9, 27, 29
Projection #2 (1951) 8
Two Pianos (1958) 93 Kagel, Mauricio 95, 105, 106, 107, 108, 112, 121,
Fonaratoo, Carmine 8 131, 132, 135
Ford, Gordon Onslow 26 Sonant (1960/ . . . ) 132
Foss, Lukas 137, 191 String Sextet (1953/1957) 81
Fromm, Paul 127 Transicin II (195859) 106
Fylkingen 96, 108, 10910, 111, 122, 123, Kagel, Ursula 114
128, 139 Kant, Immanuel 215
Kendergi, Maryvonne 119, 121
Gazzelloni, Severino 101, 106 Kiessler, Frederick 29
Glanville-Hicks, Peggy 97 Knowles, Alison 120
Goeyvaerts, Karel Kosugi, Takehisa 196, 202, 204, 206
Sonata for Two Pianos 36 Wind 202
Goldowski Renner, Natasha 23 Koussevitzky, Olga 127
Goldowski, Madame 23 Kremen, Irwin 44
Gould, Ronald 8 Krenek, Ernst 9
Graham, Martha 2 Hexaeder (1958) 81
Graves, Morris, 27 Kubera, Joseph 197
Grimaud, Yvette 27
Guggenheim, Peggy 2, 95, 103, 112, 116, Lauhus, Haro 131, 132
128, 137 Lederman, Minna see Daniel, Minna
Lippold, Richard 32
Hger, Bengt 109, 118 Litz, Katherine 4, 13, 23
Halpern, Doris 3 Loft, Abram 16
Halprin, Anna 118 Long, Lois 101, 107, 136
Hambraeus, Bengt 109, 110, 111, 118, 129 Luening, Otto 16, 133
Harich-Schneider, Eta 33
Harrison, Lou 1, 10, 15, 23, 24, 26, 31, 114 Maderna, Bruno 100, 101, 103, 105, 127
Canticle No. 1 (1939) Piano Concerto (1959), 96
Tributes to Charon: Counterdance in the Magnes, Frances 4
Spring (1939) 3 Malina, Judith 15
Harrison, Lou and John Cage Marchetti, Walter 100
Double Music (1941) 124 Marsicano, Merle 31
Hawke, H. William 2 Masselos, William 3
Heaney, Seamus 212 Mathews, Max 192
Heidegger, Martin 213 Matter, Herbert 23, 24
224 Index
Maxeld, Richard 133 Russell, William 124

McKay, George 43 March Suite (1936) 97
McLaren, Norman 22, 31 Rzewski, Frederic 185
McLuhan, Marshall 189
McPhee, Colin 30 Saint Phalle, Niki de 134
Mercenier, Marcelle 101 Sarabhai, Gautam 137
Metzger, Heinz-Klaus 99, 107, 122 Sarabhai, Gira 137
Miller, Henry 26 Sarabhai, Gita 137
Mills College 26, 118, 125, 193 Sarabhai, Materama 120
Moog, Robert 190 Satie, Erik 17, 34, 127, 132
Moore, Peter 195 Socrate (191718/1920) 14
Morris, Simone 134 Vexations 30, 31, 205
Motherwell, Robert 23, 33 Schapira, Ileana 116
Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus 192 Schillinger, Joseph 106, 120
Mumma, Gordon 193 Schindler, Pauline 26
Schoenberg, Arnold 13, 25, 26, 189
National Institute of Arts and Letters 3 Drei Klavierstcke, Op. 11 17
Nele, E. R. 106 Moses und Aron (1930/1932) 104
Nelson, Richard 116 Schoenberg-Nono, Nuria 95
Nemiro, Isaac 10, 14, 15 Schning, Klaus 194
Nemiro, Joy 15, 194 Schwertsik, Kurt 74, 104, 113, 114,
New School, The 56, 113, 119, 133, 183 135, 166
Nilsson, Bo Shaw, Artie 28
Bewegungen 110 Shearer, Sybil 13
Quantitten 110 Smith, Alexander H. 119
Schlagguren 110 Spek, Jaap 192
Nono, Luigi 95, 101, 106, 109 Stable Gallery 98
Steinecke, Wolfgang 166
Oliveros, Pauline 118 Stern, Daniel 28
Olson, Charles 24, 149 Stern, Gerd 189, 191
Ono, Yoko 133, 137, 145 Stockhausen, Karlheinz 17, 95, 96, 101, 106,
Ornstein, Martin 8 111, 112, 114, 121, 131, 132, 166
Otte, Hans 130, 135, 136 Gesang der Jnglinge 161
Klavierstck XI (1956) 81, 87, 94, 117
Paik, Nam Jun 166 Originale (1961) 136
Patterson, Benjamin 166 Refrain (1959) 104, 107
Patterson, Malcolm 114 Studie II (1954) 135
Pearson, William, 166 Stockhausen-Andrae, Doris 132
Pimsleur, Susan 110, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, Strang, Gerard 30
126, 128 Strauss, Richard 127
Plato 213 Stravinsky, Igor 9, 17, 23
Pousseur, Henri 113, 122, 128, 135 Le Sacre du printemps 81
Press, Arthur 8 Strobel, Heinrich 46
Pugliese, Michael 196, 202, 204, 206 Subotnick, Morton 118
Sultan, Grete 25
Rademacher, Hans 38 Suziki, DaisetsuTeitaro 9, 13
Rainier, Priaulx 128
Rascher, Sigurd, 3, 194 Tamada, Kitaro Nyohyo 30
Rauschenberg, Robert 23, 33, 106, 107, 116, Tanglewood Music Festival 123, 125, 126, 127,
134, 149 128, 129
Rehank, Frank 158 Tenney, James 190, 191
Reynolds, Lloyd 27 Thomson, Virgil 9, 10, 14
Richards, Mary Caroline 13, 25, 27, 29, 96, 99, Tilbury, John 185
100, 102, 125, 126, 128, 132, 136, 149, Tinguely, Jean 134
188, 194 Tobey, Mark 27
Hands Birds 211 Tomek, Otto 101, 126
Rist, Simone 210 Tremblay, George 25
Robinson, Frank Norman 198 Tudor, David
Rochberg, George 121 Fluorescent Sound (1964) 215
Roldn, Amadeo 124 Soundings: Ocean Diary (1994) 207
Rose, Grith 135 Web for John Cage (1987) 203
Index 225
Web II for John Cage (1988) 203 Wol, Christian 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16,
Web III for John Cage (1988) 203 17, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 46, 97, 99,
104, 106, 107, 108, 111, 133, 134, 137,
Ussachevsky, Vladimir 133 168, 181
Duo for Pianists II (1958) 93
Varda, Jean 27 For Magnetic Tape (1952), 157
Varse, Edgard 31 For Piano I (1952) 110
Ionisation (192931) 9 For Piano II (1953) 110
Vaughan, David 191 For Pianist, 1959 113
For Prepared Piano (1951) 31
Walter, Arnold 189 Music for Merce Cunningham (1959) 105
Watts, Alan 12, 26, 27, 29 Suite (1954) 110
Weber, Ben 4 Trio (1951) 8
Ballet, Op. 26 45 Wolpe, Irma 23
Webern, Anton von 17 Wolpe, Stefan 23, 15, 17, 133
Symphony, Op. 21 3 Sonata for Violin and Piano (1949) 4
Weiss, Adolph 26 Toccata (1941) 2
Weiss, Paul 129 Worono, Wladmir 18, 23
Welin, Karl-Erik 111, 125, 126, 128, 129
Wheeler, Monroe 33 Yates, Frances 25
Wilder, Thornton 130 Yates, Peter 25, 127
Wilkinson, Marc 16 Young, La Monte 118, 120, 132, 133
Willauer, Marguerite 129 Poem 113
Williams, Emmett 131
Wilson, Judi 189 Zuccheri, Marino 98

John Cage and David Tudor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

John Cage and David Tudor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

more information www.cambridge.

M A R T I N I D D O N is Associate Professor of Music at the University of Leeds. He

general editor Arnold Whittall

Titles in the series

Cambridge University Press

Martin Iddon 2013

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

First published 2013

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data

ISBN 978-1-107-01432-9 Hardback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or

List of gures and table page viii

1 The music of chance 1

Fig. 3.1 Tudors realization of Music for Piano 18 page 52

Table 4.1 Tudors table of point types in Variations I 86

In one of John Cages nal letters to David Tudor, he discusses the

in numerous respects, most especially in terms of pitch content. Second,

poiesis, following a model proposed by Agamben (Holzaepfel 1994, 6566).

It is striking with what regularity seemingly random chains of events, perhaps

[c]hance is part of reality: we are continually shaped by the forces of

Without just such a sequence of coincidences, contingencies, and chance

the piece in order to complete his choreography.8 Enquiring of Jean Erdman

In reading Cages recollections of his compositional life, one might often

As I go on with Concerto, I think only of you playing it and hope ^your

My pleasure in returning to the concerto is the pleasure of not being

What shall I do about my age perplexing you? Shall I grow a beard?

And how fat are you now?

Miss you, David, very much,

Hope alls well with thee. J.

I continue and it is a marvelous adventure; Have an evening coming up with

Oh, David, I miss you

Theres thunder + lightening;

JESPERE QUE TOUT VA BIEN POUR TOI30

Always yours, John

(another note wk. or so later)

Repeated D ( ) pg. 1. 5 s. (If passage is really pp leave it in; repetition does

B pg. 2 (On my piano it works without a restroke; pianos vary however).

B pg. 3 is an absurd nesse (belongs to the groups A, B, C, B, B removed

Graces D + A pg. 5 4s. (not D + A, only D ( ) included in pedal)40

Grace A immediately following is to be included in its

Cluster end pg 7 is C D F A (bringing about repeated D)

I remember also being sad about 25 harmonic D E pg. 9 1m.

Signicance ^last - pg. 9, 4 s is just to reinforce ppp E.

With regard to pedalling + the use of una corda. My knowledge of pedalling is

Re Henry Cowell and statement on the nature of my research. It

I Making music within small areas of pitches (3, 4, 5, 8, 7 pitches have

II Making music in a structure which xes sound in a preconceived space

In the above this pattern is a smaller square of nine measures. Four of

I have re-persuaded Morty to send you the Intersection. He promises to copy it

Je te manque, mon cher, inniment47

If hes good it would be marvelous; in dire need of poetry.

If youre playing this Saturday (Lous report), my best wishes.49 Have a

Cant wait to hear you playing Mortys Intersection; must be magnicent.

Yours always changing,

Henry Cowells article on X. Morty + yrs truly in Oct. issue of Quarterly.72

What is your attitude towards Earles piece?

Music of Changes (1951)

underlying rhythmic structures to which he had become accustomed,3

For a static tempo:

III. 27 ; = 100 (static)

Two Pastorales, Water Music, and 40 33 (1952)

Merle Marsicano, the pieces dedicatee. Labor-intensive though the repeated

and idiomatic pedal markings), as the piece continues, increasing levels of

1952, is one of the key moments in Cages compositional career.