verb<\/em>\u2003\/CHans\/<\/p>\n From Google’s Definition of Indeterminate:<\/p>\n adjective<\/em>\u2003\/\u02ccindi\u02c8t\u0259rm\u0259nit\/<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
From (one of) Google’s (many) Definition(s) of Chance:<\/p>\n
verb<\/em>\u2003\/CHans\/<\/p>\n
\n
- Do something by accident or without design<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/blockquote>\n
From Google’s Definition of Indeterminate:<\/p>\n
adjective<\/em>\u2003\/\u02ccindi\u02c8t\u0259rm\u0259nit\/<\/p>\n
\n\n
- Not certain, known, or established<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
While reading John Cage’s Silence,<\/em>\u00a0one of his essays on Indeterminacy (so aptly titled) struck me as clarifying the difference between chance composition and indeterminate compositions<\/strong>. \u00a0What interests me, is that for Cage, chance composition is by nature determinate. \u00a0In speaking of his composition Music of Changes,<\/em>\u00a0he says:<\/div>\n\nThat the Music of Changes<\/em>\u00a0was composed by means of chance operations\u00a0identifies\u00a0the composer with no matter what\u00a0eventuality. \u00a0But that its notation is in all respects determinate does not permit the performer any such identification: his work is specifically laid out before him. \u00a0He 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. \u00a0The\u00a0Music of Changes<\/em>\u00a0is an object more inhuman than human, since chance operation brought it into being. \u00a0The 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. \u00a0This situation is of course characteristic of Western music, the masterpieces of which are its most frightening\u00a0examples, which when concerned with humane communication only move over from Frankenstein monster to Dictator. \u00a0(36, Cage)<\/em><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nWhat I think Cage means here is that even though the process that the\u00a0composer\u00a0used to create the work (in this case Music of Changes<\/em>) 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. \u00a0Indeterminacy on the\u00a0other hand\u00a0allows for the same piece to vary wildly from performance to performance:<\/div>\n\nThe 4 Systems<\/em>\u00a0by Earle Brown is an example. \u00a0This piece may be performed by one or several players. \u00a0There is no core, either for the solo circumstance or for that of ensemble. \u00a0The 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. \u00a0The\u00a0notation\u00a0is a drawing of rectangles of various lengths and widths in ink on a single cardboard having four equal divisions (which are the systems). \u00a0The vertical position of the rectangles refers to relative time. \u00a0The 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. \u00a0Any 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. \u00a0In 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. \u00a0(37,\u00a0Cage)<\/em><\/div>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.earle-brown.org\/media\/scores\/full.12.jpg\" "\\"4")
<\/a><\/em><\/div>\n