Recently in the Sunday papers an article about Messiaen appeared in which a great virtue was made of his political "disengagement". Reading this article, we learn how deeply religious this composer is, how much he looks forward to his vacations in Switzerland, how proud he is of Boulez, and how involved he is with bird calls. Can we say this man is really disengaged? His chief occupation seems to be this very disengagement. There is something curiously official in the way his interests and views are described - as though nothing could now disturb all this. Events do, after all, enter into our lives, often take over our lives in fact. The impression one gets from this article is that of a living obituary, or a diary written in advance.

In contrast, let's take a man like Thoreau. A small town boy, he never felt it necessary to categorize his retreat into the woods as a "disengagement". And actuahy, he had no trouble at all finding a path from Walden right into jail on the big-time issue of his day: slavery.

At the risk of sounding chauvinistic, I want to point out that when an American like Thoreau acts - and there have been thousands of Thoreaus - he acts out of moral indignation, not political indignation. That is, he acts humanly, without the mythology of a system.

What I am really trying to say here is only that I feel we have been victimized. For centuries we have been victimized by European civilization. And all it has given us - including Kierkegaard - is an Either/Or situation, both in politics and in art. But suppose what we want is Neither/Nor? Suppose we want neither politics nor art? Suppose we want a human action that doesn't have to be legitimized by some type of holy water gesture of baptism? Why must we give it a name? What's wrong with leaving it nameless?

Perhaps I can make my point clearer. Some years ago a good friend who was a painter asked me to write the Forword to his new show. One of the things I remember writing was that he was the kind of artist who was content just to "breathe on the canvas". Which actually means that he was a beautiful artist with a very modest statement. As a result of this remark, my relations with this friend cooled considerably, and, needless to say, my article did not appear in the catalog of his show.

There are two subjects everyone gets excited about. One of them is politics, and the other is art. Both present themselves as all-encompassing. Both range themselves as opposed to all other interests. Given this type of situation, how could my painter friend not resent the implication that his artistic statement was modest? It must have seemed like saying he was not an artist at all. Yet a modest statement can be totally original, where the "grand scale" is, more often than not, merely eclectic.

zPasternak tells us that something false came into every Russian home when a man and his wife, in the privacy of their own household, would talk about such large and important things. Art can inject the same kind of lie into one's life. Like politics, it is dangerous insofar as it is Messianic. Nono wants everyone to be indignant. John Cage wants everyone to be happy. Both are forms of tyranny, though naturally, we prefer Cage's. At least I do. But if art must be Messianic, then I prefer my way - the insistence on the right to be esoteric. I confess to the fact that whatever describable beauties may arise from this esoteric art have always been useless.

But is this what was asked of me on this occasion? Supposedly, I am contributing a paper on "Art and Social Life". So far as I understand it, the question before us is, to what extent do the two belong together. Before determining just how much art should or should not infringe on social life, let us remember that social life never infringes on art. In fact, social life doesn't give a damn about art. Social life, as I see it, is a sort of vast digestive system that chews up whatever finds its way into its mouth. This vast appetite can swallow a Botticelli at a gulp, with a voraciousness frightening to everyone but a zoo custodian. Why is art so masochistic, so looking for punishment? Why is it so anxious to find its way into this huge maw?

To speak more seriously, we do recognize that the trend for many gifted composers right now is toward more and more of this "infringement". There is, in fact, a movement afoot to make an art that "sabotages" its own complacency, or, rather, that sabotages its own service to a complacent society. This idea is attractive to the politically oriented or the socially oriented artist, whether it be a Nono or a John Cage, though it will naturally be seen from different angles by two such very divergent personalities. Nono, who finds the social situation intolerable, wants art to change it. John Cage, who finds art intolerable, wants the social situation to change it. Both are trying to bridge the gulf, the distance between the two. The modern artist, whose tendency is to use everything at his disposal without any truly personal contribution, naturally reaches for salvation toward whatever he feels is real. But how can you bridge what is real with what is only a metaphor? Art is only a metaphor. It is solely the personal contribution -that "nameless" sensation mentioned earlier - that can give the artist those rare moments when art becomes its own deliverance.

Among my contemporaries, who knows this?

Have you, or has anyone ever used your music for political or social ends?

Not that I know of, no; however, I don't thingk that artists can stand around and scratch their nuts while people are being shot by police. I'm glad you're giving people the opportunity to express their views.

Have you, or has anyone ever used your music for political or social ends?

Well, I think that since I started working with the ONCE Group, and since I've become totally involved in theater, that every piece of mine has been either political or social or both. I decided some time ago, a few years ago, that I was not in accord with the idea that music should be abstract. I decided that my music had to be about something. That either means that it has to be about music, which would make it involved with procedures (that was reflected in the very first pieces I sent to Source [Ed. note: in memoriam, Source, Vol. 1, No. 1], written in 1963), or about political or social ends. I think the pieces I have done since then - especially the ones for the ONCE Group and in cooperation with the ONCE Group - have been increasingly toward the end of making them usable socially or politically. The nice thing about making that decision is that the problem keeps changing; in other words, you don't reach an end. As you do each piece, you may find that the piece is more or less effective for that moment. The demands of that moment, or the conditions of that moment, or the problems of that moment, or the reasons you did the piece may become obsolete in a few years, in which case, the piece probably becomes obsolete. Well, you can look back, and you might say, "That was a terrific piece, it was right on the ball, it was just where it should have been." Or, you might look back and say, "That piece was probably not too good, there were more important things happening then than what that piece dealt with." But in effect, you keep having new goals, I mean every day raises new issues, it makes your problem change; in other words, what the music is about keeps changing.

Do you think that this will go on for you in the future? This sort of attitude toward music?

I like it very much now.

Have you, or has anyone ever used your music for political or social ends?

Yes. Some people have seen them as anti-war pieces, as a specific war thing - like anti-Vietnam war, whereas I didn't plan them that way. An example is my orchestral theatre piece which was televised all over the country. One lady wrote me personally and said it was an outrageous piece. It had been shown just two weeks after the Democratic Convention, and so that colored the whole thing. She saw it as coming directly out of the convention, with all the ideas, revolution, and destruction, and everything. Other people said that obviously I was affected and infected by the use of strong drugs. I know the piece, simply from the materials I was using, would cause comment, but I tried to stay clear of deliberate anti-war statements because I wanted that to be up to the viewer. One woman came up after the premier in the Seattle Opera House, she told me she didn't understand it very well until the person sitting next to her explained all the sexual symbolism. That just wiped me out. I smiled and said, "Yes, yes, I'm glad you enjoyed it." But again, it blew my mind. I deliberately stayed clear of attaching symbols, and that's the way people were getting it.

What about other pieces of yours? What about Titus? [Ed. note: score appears in SOURCE, Vol. 2, No. 1]

The only thing that I thought about when I wrote that piece - it was a split-second occurance in my mind and something I've always had around me - was my extreme dislike for automobiles. All of a sudden I changed this thing about coming to grips with something you don't like and I thought that it would be a perfect sound source, an amplifier.

Have you, or has anyone ever used your music for political or social ends?

Political or social ends? No, not at all. Of course, you realize I have an advantage, because I don't often call myself a composer. No, I just don't think of it in those terms.

Have you, or has anyone ever used your music for political or social ends?

I think that Sur (Doctor) John Dee [Ed note: Score appears in SOURCE, Vol. 1, No. 2] was construed as an invitation to some kind of anarchic activity. I really don't think about it. I do sometimes, but only after the fact. Sometimes, ideas like that go through your mind, I guess they are there, but it's an unconscious thing, I don't start off that way. I've never sat down to organize something or work in a direction that you could say was political or social.

Have you, or has anyone ever used your music for political or social ends?

My music is not so, and I hope it is not used as such and is not interpreted as such. I really don't think that music can be all that useful in that direction. I think music which is topical to this degree tends to destroy itself. I think it tends to become dated and its topicality turns to musicological curiosity.

Have you, or has anyone ever used your music for political or social ends?

Not to my knowledge. I studied with Luigi Nono, whose recent music seems to be largely politically oriented. My experience has been of a dual nature. It can be very effective, but to base one's entire effort in this direction can be musically defeating. There's nothing wrong with it, it can work, and it cannot work, it all depends on the piece. I have nothing against it, and at the same time I wouldn't seek to devote myself entirely to it.

Have you, or has anyone ever used your music for political or social ends?

I would like my music to be very much more accessible to people, apart from those we usually call musicians. That does not mean that I want these things to be accessible to casual attention, it means that they should involve an intense kind of involvement for the player, the composers, the cooperator, the guests . . . and they should give him a sense of achievement which I believe comes from overcoming certain kinds of problematic conditions, inertia, and so on.

What about actual political implications?

I don't feel that my kind of abilities lend themselves well to effectively attacking, approaching, or making statements about my political position. I do not believe that this is a generally valid condition - aesthetic or moral. While I believe there are many composers that I know who can make marvelous kinds of political statements, it just doesn't strike me as being a forte of mine.

Have you, or has anyone ever used your music for political or social ends?

You mean the big politics in the sky? No, I don't think so.

Well, in a case like In C, which certainly is social, were the social elements of that piece a conscious part of its creation?

Yes, I was conscious of the fact that it was very democratic, no one had a lead part. everyone supposedly contributing an equal part. That was one of the main ideas. In that sense, I guess it's social. Everybody should have the same amount to say, if given a vehical to say it, regardless of their background.

Is Cage's music all social?

That's probably pretty much true. The last thing I went to of his was at the Electric Circus, the reunion thing (Duchamp and Cage), and it was very much like a cocktail party without anything to eat or drink, except that people were performing.

Have you, or has anyone ever used your music for political or social ends?

I am interested in social ends but not politicval ends, because politics deals with power, and society deals with numbers of individuals; and I'm interested both in single individuals and large numbers or medium numbers or any kinds of numbers of individuals. In other words, I'm interested in society, not for purposes of power, but for purposes of cooperation and enjoyment.

Have you, or has anyone ever used your music for political or social ends?

I think someone else probably has. I've never done it for that purpose. Certainly any kind of work of art that gets out into the public will be interpreted politically, if there is any possibility of doing it. I think that the politics are more successful when the music comes first.

Have you, or has anyone ever used your music for political or social ends?

Yes, I have. I can think of two compositions where there were political connotations. In both cases it was \ integral enogh to my idea of music for me to say that it was part of the whole thing. This is the way it should be used. One called Viet Flakes to go with a film, the other Fabric for Che.

Have you, or has anyone ever used your music for political or social ends?

No, not yet. I'm working on one now that might be. . . I don't want to talk about it, because it would make the performance difficult. This piece involves disrupting another performance, so revealing any of the details would make it difficult to arrange a performance.

Have you, or has anyone ever used your music for political or social ends?

I am afraid that my music can be used neither to make money, nor to make revolution. But some of my work has been interpreted in terms of social commentary. Echoi IV is, among other things, a commentary on total organization, an ode to the frustration resulting from total organization. Baroque Variations can be interpreted as a form of destruction of the past, of Bach, Handel, etc., more accurately destruction of my past (phoenix-from-the-ashes syndrome). Part of Paradigm is a lecture I once gave, set to music, a lecture on safeness containing sentences such as: "To take refuge in the past is to play safe, avoidance of the truth. To burn the past is to play safe, avoidance of knowledge. Wherever we turn safeness lurks. Give me dangerous music."

Dangerous to whome? Dangerous art would be, I suppose, art that has political consequences. "A weapon against the enemy" (Picasso). But did Guernica stop the Spanish War? No. It did however, help to create a climate against violence, a climate for social change. It did influence the more intelligent people, which makes it something other than propaganda. (Propaganda art is stupid art - art for the stupid). To influence the mind of the intelligent, this every artist wishes to do. I want my music to change me and to change the minds of others like me. But I consider music incapable of directly stimulating action of any kind. Martial music inciting to homicide? An old wives' tale passed on since Greek times. Put it to the test and you will find that martial music actually soothes the savage beast. It does not say, "fight," it says, " you'll win, you're winning, you've won: celebrate." Art celebrates. Celebration does not preceed action, it succeeds it. And the more violent the art, the more it celebrates non-violence. Art is a weapon which does no harm. L'accord qui tue has never been composed. Oh, we can amplify sound to deafening proportions, or produce sound waves so high, so piercing, that they shatter our nervous system, force defacation, kill - but that is technology, that is a realm of the engineer, not the composer. His kingdom lies elsewhere: I have written somewhere that composers today all work on one and the same piece (each from different angles, of course), that we all have a project in common. Your personality may differ from mine, my approach may be opposite to yours, but what we approach - mysteriously identical. What is this "what"? An order to be made out of chaos and disorder . . . a piece to be carved out of violence . . . a controlled situation which will set the participants free . . . audience participation, eventually audience liberation . . . everyone is the artist instead of I am the artist, you listen to me . . . our art in place of my art . . . an art free of rhetoric (unlike this essay), void of the intimate idiosyncracies of the 19th Century artist, that is, void of the anecdotal or biographical, void of the heroic and the notion of the imortal: a counterpart to a cathedral - many artisans whose names are know now but perhaps not for long, each putting stone upon stone - Pli selon Pli - not for God but for each other (we only have each other). Whether actually in a new kind of composer-performer-audience teamwork, unthinkable even 30 years ago, or whether laboring alone, we seem to be working out a solution for each other, for all the people in the same boat . . . in the same trouble: our new music, our art, which wants to help change us and become a weapon for peace.