A Stranger in Paradise? John Cage and the Darmstadt New Music Courses

The research focuses on what was almost certainly the most significant institutional bastion of new music in Europe after World War II: the Darmstadt New Music Courses. More particularly, the project examines the impact that was made upon the European musical avant-garde by the arrival there in 1958 of the most famous (or notorious) of all post-war composers, John Cage.

The final output of the project, a monograph of ca. 90,000 words, is divided into three large parts. The first examines the Darmstadt courses from their foundation in 1946 until 1955, by which point the young composers of the European avant-garde-particularly Bruno Maderna, Luigi Nono, and Karlheinz Stockhausen-had achieved positions of prominence both within the musical culture of Europe and within the Darmstadt institution itself. This section has several aims. Archival sources show how each acquired institutional power, while analysis of scores and presentations suggests that ideas of a unified, monolithic 'Darmstadt style' has much more to do with the presentation of compositional work than the actuality of musical material. Thus, composers were complicit in giving the (inaccurate) impression of scientistic rigour in their music.

The second part of the volume, examining the period around Cage's 1958 visit to Darmstadt (from 1956-59), continues a similar line of argument. It is often held that the arrival of Cage, whose music and stance emphasised indeterminacy and chance as compositional resources, was directly at odds with the Darmstadt ideology of quasi-mathematical predetermination. This part suggests instead that, on a musical level, ideas close to those Cage presented were already being developed in Europe, especially by Boulez and Henri Pousseur. I do not debate that, as Carl Dahlhaus put it, Cage's arrival 'swept across the European avant-garde like a natural disaster'. I suggest, though, that the reasons for Cage's impact are related more to what he said and how he said it than to his music. Of particular importance is how Cage was, quite literally, translated into German and how his principal translator, Heinz-Klaus Metzger, reconceived Cage for the German context as a class warrior, unlike the playful interrogator of Cage's English text.

The third part of the volume considers the long-term impact of Cage's visit. Though ideas of indeterminacy and chance were developing in Europe before Cage's 1958 Darmstadt visit, this section will suggest that, on certain levels (especially to do with the graphic score and a devolution of responsibility away from the composer to the performer) Cage's ideas took centre stage, but peculiarly inflected by the way 'Cage' was constructed in Europe. The third part will also examine the responses at Darmstadt to those composers closest to Cage who visited in between 1958 and Cage's final return to the courses in 1990: Earle Brown in the 1960s, Christian Wolff in the 1970s, and Morton Feldman in the 1980s.

Underlying the above, I suggest that Cage represents a 'stranger' in the European scene, in the sense suggested by Zygmunt Bauman. Bauman suggests that the modern stranger is either 'vomited' from the orderly world (as Nono and, later, Boulez responded) or is 'assimilated' such that the stranger is changed into something indistinguishable from that orderly world (Metzger's translations and Stockhausen's appropriations of Cageian ideas function in this way). The conclusion will suggest that Cage ultimately, by his return in 1990, becomes a 'postmodern stranger', 'joyfully or grudgingly, but by common consent, here to stay'.

Since the primary archival research is already complete (having been funded by the British Academy) and the collation of sources gathered from that archival research has been carried out in the time between then and the proposal of this, the final stage of the project, the work 'proper' of the proposed work will consist entirely of the writing of the monograph outlined above.

Outside academia, there are three main groups for whom the research is directly pertinent:

1. Composers;
2. Promoters of new and/or contemporary music;
3. More broadly, institutions devoted to the contemporary arts.

For many composers the term Darmstadt still has meaning, even if that is often a negative one, an example right-thinking composition tutors might want to hold up to their students as a sort of 'serial bogeyman': what they might turn into if they aren't 'good' composers. In any case, it remains a compositional touchstone, though increasingly only one amongst many. In this sense it is vital to have an accurate understanding of what activities (both compositional and social) went on at Darmstadt, to address both negative stereotypes and any thinking that there once really was a 'golden age' for new music in Darmstadt. I will use already developed informal networks to ensure that composers, especially young composers, are aware of the final research output, through direct links with composers and performers based, principally, across North America, in France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Poland, Sweden, Ireland, and Spain. As well as these personal links, I will take advantage of the various virtual forums for wider generation of awareness, particularly the various interest groups on social networking sites like Facebook.

Though many of the insights generated by the research project are geographically and historically specific, the ways in which Darmstadt was able to be (relatively) successful in promoting 'difficult' contemporary music are potentially relevant to those involved in equivalent activities today (including the current, continuing Darmstadt courses). As an example, the two directors (Wolfgang Steinecke and Friedrich Hommel) who were most open to taking risks and allowed participants a great degree of freedom to determine the courses' direction have received the greatest praise, both from Darmstadt participants and the press. By contrast, the two directors who sought to restrict activities according to preconceived notions of what Darmstadt 'meant' and what music it 'ought' to promote (Ernst Thomas and Solf Schaefer) have been perceived as significantly less successful. I have close relationships with the current administration of the Darmstadt courses and will utilise that link to promote the research more widely in Germany. Similarly, I am a shortlisted composer of Sound & Music in the UK and will pursue similar links there. Though I have less strong links with Ircam in France, I have spoken with them and with Pierre Boulez regarding the project and feel confident that they, too, would be receptive to learning more about the research's final outcomes. These three institutions represent the International Society for Contemporary Music (ISCM) in their respective countries. Through all three, I will endeavour to generate broader international links with the ISCM as a whole.

Links to institutions devoted to the contemporary arts more broadly will be less easy to generate. In the UK, I hope to pursue this in particular through my existing close links with Sound & Music, especially since Sound & Music has regularly promoted new music in collaboration with other arts organisations, including the British Film Institute and Tate Modern. It may seem surprising to suggest that an institution promoting new music-almost certainly the least successful of the contemporary arts in 'capturing hearts and minds'-might provide insights for such successful institutions as the two mentioned above. Nevertheless, Darmstadt has endured, thus far, sixty-three years, despite occasional periods of crisis and near-collapse. Its example, then, may be useful in a broader cultural sense for what it can show about how it is possible for (comparatively) unpopular and difficult arts to survive in hard times as well as in good.