From (one of) Google’s (many) Definition(s) of Chance:
verb /CHans/
- Do something by accident or without design
From Google’s Definition of Indeterminate:
adjective /ˌindiˈtərmənit/
- Not certain, known, or established
While reading John Cage’s Silence, one of his essays on Indeterminacy (so aptly titled) struck me as clarifying the difference between chance composition and indeterminate compositions. What interests me, is that for Cage, chance composition is by nature determinate. In speaking of his composition Music of Changes, he says:
That the Music of Changes was composed by means of chance operations identifies the composer with no matter what eventuality. But that its notation is in all respects determinate does not permit the performer any such identification: his work is specifically laid out before him. He is therefore not able to perform from his own center but must identify himself insofar as possible with the center of the work as written. The Music of Changes is an object more inhuman than human, since chance operation brought it into being. The fact that these things that constitute it, though only sounds, have come together to control a human being, the performer, gives the work the alarming aspect of a Frankenstein monster. This situation is of course characteristic of Western music, the masterpieces of which are its most frightening examples, which when concerned with humane communication only move over from Frankenstein monster to Dictator. (36, Cage)
What I think Cage means here is that even though the process that the composer used to create the work (in this case Music of Changes) is up to the chance of a die roll, the end result of the piece is still ultimately determined, and nothing at the heart of the piece changes from performance to performance. Indeterminacy on the other hand allows for the same piece to vary wildly from performance to performance:
The 4 Systems by Earle Brown is an example. This piece may be performed by one or several players. There is no core, either for the solo circumstance or for that of ensemble. The quality of indeterminacy is for this reason not removed from the performance even where a number of players are involved, since no fixed relation of the parts exists. The notation is a drawing of rectangles of various lengths and widths in ink on a single cardboard having four equal divisions (which are the systems). The vertical position of the rectangles refers to relative time. The width of the rectangles may be interpreted either as an interval where the drawing is read as two-dimensional, or as amplitude where the drawing is read as giving the illusion of a third dimension. Any of the interpretations of this material may be superimposed in any number and order and, with the addition or not of silences between them, may be used to produce a continuity of any time-length. In order to multiply the possible interpretations the composer gives a further permission-to read the cardboard in any of four positions: right side up, upside down, sideways, up and down. (37, Cage)
These are very different definitions of two compositional ideas that are often closely related and much of the time thought of as one in the same. I have a question though, is 4 Systems really indeterminate and not just a version of Cage’s “Masterpiece Dictator” with a little bit more leeway? Since the performance is mandated to be based off of Brown’s graphical score, whether it is up down, left or right, isn’t there some sort of limitation on the indeterminacy of the performance? Is it not, as Cage acknowledges about Music of Changes,
No two performances…will be identical, (each act is virgin, even the repeated one to refer to René Char’s thought), two performances will resemble one another closely? (36 Cage)
Is the difference between indeterminacy and all other styles of composition just a subjective consideration of how closely two different performances of the same piece sound alike?