<article_title>John_Cage</article_title>
<edit_user>Jashiin</edit_user>
<edit_time>Sunday, December 2, 2007 5:30:37 PM CET</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* See also */ removing [[As Slow As Possible]] (not that notable) and [[List of solo piano pieces, American]] (no point, since [[List of compositions by John Cage]] exists)</edit_comment>
<edit_text>Fluxus
<strong><strike>* [[List of solo piano pieces, American]] John Cage
</strike></strong>Sound art
List of custom-made instrument builders</edit_text>
<turn_user>Jashiin<turn_user>
<turn_time>Sunday, December 2, 2007 9:44:05 AM CET</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>Article structure</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>And another suggestion: to remove some of the descriptions of individual pieces and replace those with a "Style" section. My reasons: many works now have their own articles (see ), and there are more to come.
the discussion of some of the works doesn't add significantly to the article. For instance, I don't see how the information on Organ² / ASLSP (which has its own article) helps understand Cage's life and/or personality.
removing this information (and the long discussion of 4'33', see my post here above) will result in a lot of free space available, and we'll be able to discuss all major techniques Cage used, in detail. The "Style" section would then cover the following (in chronological order): rhythmic proportions and the subsequent nested proportions technique
gamut technique and the use of "magic square"-type charts
chance operations using the I Ching
improvisations (Child of Tree, Branches, Inlets)
time bracket technique
We'd be able to give examples (from the scores) for each technique, too. Alternatively, we could incorporate all this information into the biographical data, the way it is done now (although right now most of these are only covered briefly, if at all) and the way it is done in NG; I just feel that perhaps it sort of distracts the reader from the biography. Any opinions and/or suggestions welcome. Jashiin (talk) 12:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Jashiin, thank you. You are making big improvements, and I think your approach is sensible. I agree with your comment above that there is too much info about 4'33" (although it was seminal, it does have its own article). I think your idea of having articles about groups of compositions is logical (at least until we get so many contributions that those articles get too big and need splitting&amp;). I also agree with your moving content out of this article so that it can discuss his "style" more generally rather than concentrating too much on individual works. Composer articles I think work well with a "biography" followed by a more technical discussion of the music (although, obviously, the composer's creation of the music forms a significant part of their biography). Best regards, RobertG ♬ talk 17:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Thanks for the reply! I was starting to think that I'm completely alone at this :) I'll be doing what I planned, then, starting with changing things on this page. Jashiin 09:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)This looks good, and I agree, mostly. John Cage should be primarily about the composer and his style. I also see the logic in merging Cages “series” pieces into single articles. I think we should make an exception in the case of those pieces which are notable in their own right however. For instance we have a series article Imaginary Landscape which can (and should) be expanded to include a paragraph or so about each of the five works. We can then have an imbedded link directing readers to separate articles covering Imaginary Landscape No. 4 (nearly as notable as 4’33’’) and maybe Imaginary Landscape No. 1 (since it was one of the first electro-acoustic pieces). All in all, I think this approach gives the best balance between overview and detail, and allows the possible inclusion of more musical examples or photographs. See String Quartets Nos. 1 - 6, Opus 18 (Beethoven) for an example of sort of what I’m thinking of. If many works in a series are notable it would also be nice to hold them together with a template. What do you think? __S.dedalus (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Yeah, actually, you're right &amp; I sort of went overboard with this, after completing Music for Piano (Cage) I just forgot that maybe some works might require a separate article :) As for the template, I'm not sure - I don't think there are any series that contain notable works only. A template would be nice for articles on Cage's books, though (Silence: Lectures and Writings, Empty Words, etc. - because these don't link to each other and don't constitute a series which could have a separate page. Jashiin (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Done: Template:Cage books. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>Thanks for the reply! I was starting to think that I'm completely alone at this :) I'll be doing what I planned, then, starting with changing things on this page. </turn_text>