John Cage
Colin Caulkins
4'33" does not have melody, harmony or rhythm. Without at least one
of those, how can it be considered music? A Cage defender might
respond that I'm not thinking in a Cagian way, that Cage rewrote the
rules as to what can be considered music. But why did Cage get to do
that? More to the point, why should I accept his rewrite? Is there
great reward to be had from listening to twelve radios tuned
simultaneously to different frequencies? From what I understand, Cage
admitted to being tone deaf. That being the case, mightn't we regard
his rewriting the rules as being merely a self-serving attempt to
compensate for his own aural deficiencies?
Colin
mike
news:271ea649.02092...@posting.google.com:
> Could someone please explain why John Cage gets taken seriously?
> 4'33" does not have melody, harmony or rhythm.
but, it has the most sublime rhythms! and the harmony!! it is the harmony
of the universe, flowing in the most delightful melody.
now, shlockstakovich? he's the one... i suppose the case is that the
Russian people are so musical that, before Napster, they needed a linear
compilation of various composer's sounds... shuckstakovich being able to
glue together Mozart and Local Talent into a constructivist affiche, keep
the melody folk-like and you won't get purged, for progress.
> Without at least one
> of those, how can it be considered music? A Cage defender might
> respond that I'm not thinking in a Cagian way, that Cage rewrote the
> rules as to what can be considered music. But why did Cage get to do
> that? More to the point, why should I accept his rewrite? Is there
> great reward to be had from listening to twelve radios tuned
> simultaneously to different frequencies? From what I understand, Cage
> admitted to being tone deaf. That being the case, mightn't we regard
> his rewriting the rules as being merely a self-serving attempt to
> compensate for his own aural deficiencies?
>
> Colin
>
by the way, colin, i recognize your style: weren't you the one who ran a
Shure stereo cartridge to a PA amplifier, and pissed on it as your "Splash-
Splash Symphony"?? -- for the Brugges Festival of 1962? i think you are
jealous of Cage's finesse with counterpoint.
Peter T. Daniels
Cage, for one, explained it at considerable length in his writings, such
as *Silence*. Why don't you see what he had to say?
And whether any particular performance of what he called "Four Pieces"
could very well have all of melody, harmony, and rhythm, depending on
what ambient sounds happened to impinge on the performing space -- which
was precisely the point.
There's no such thing as "tone-deafness," and it's unlikely that anyone
could compose his prepared-piano music, for one thing, who was
"tone-deaf."
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Colin Caulkins
> by the way, colin, i recognize your style: weren't you the one who ran a
> Shure stereo cartridge to a PA amplifier, and pissed on it as your "Splash-
> Splash Symphony"?? -- for the Brugges Festival of 1962?
Wasn't me, but it sounds about as valid as some of Cage's works.
Colin
Colin Caulkins
> And whether any particular performance of what he called "Four Pieces"
> could very well have all of melody, harmony, and rhythm, depending on
> what ambient sounds happened to impinge on the performing space -- which
> was precisely the point.
Unless those sounds are from a performance of a different Cage work, they
are nothing to do with anything Cage wrote and so no credit to him.
> There's no such thing as "tone-deafness," and it's unlikely that anyone
> could compose his prepared-piano music, for one thing, who was
> "tone-deaf."
The American Heritage Dictionary defines tone-deaf as "Unable to
distinguish differences in musical pitch." Do you deny there are such
people? When Cage died, a write-up I read said he had admitted that pitch
eluded him. How should I interpret that?
Colin
Brendan R. Wehrung
Cage once defined music as ambient sound (and proved it by playing
recordings of four different places, mostly traffic noise, at the same
time. That would make a performance of 4'33" music, not the score,
Brendan
mike
news:upctb3c...@corp.supernews.com:
but, i thought that you WERE one of his works!! why else would you be
talking about Cage so much?? i thought it was vanity.
John Harrington
at co...@caulkins.org wrote on 9/28/02 4:43 PM:
I'll answer your question as best I can below, but first a question of my
own: why do you care?
I can certainly understand why someone would not like Cage, but why his
music generates such responses as this is beyond me. Cage's music is known
mostly through hearsay, and 99% of that hearsay is about 4'33". The rest of
his music is practically unknown to the general public and there is almost
no way to accidentally hear it. Why it should bother you, then, is a
mystery. Some people like it. Some people don't. Beyond that, why should
you care? It's not as if it's being forced on you.
4'33" is an idea--mostly about listening to the world around you as "music",
and, as such, it's not a bad idea. I've often sat quietly on, say, a park
bench, and listened to the sounds around me with much pleasure. When I do
so, I'm in a sense performing Cage's work. Circumstantially, I find it
beautiful, and I find other works of Cage's beautiful, such as his sonatas
and interludes and even his more experimental works, such as Roaratorio. If
you don't like his music, why are you curious about why or whether others
do?
John
D.G. Porter
>
> When Cage died, a write-up I read said he had admitted that pitch
> eluded him. How should I interpret that?
That he wasn't very good at baseball.
You wouldn't like my tape pieces either.
Colin Caulkins
> I can certainly understand why someone would not like Cage, but why his
> music generates such responses as this is beyond me. Cage's music is
> known mostly through hearsay, and 99% of that hearsay is about 4'33".
> The rest of his music is practically unknown to the general public and
> there is almost no way to accidentally hear it. Why it should bother
> you, then, is a mystery. Some people like it. Some people don't.
> Beyond that, why should you care? It's not as if it's being forced on
> you.
Because I resent people gaining money and/or influence through sophistry.
Take, for example, the artist who put three shop-vacs in lucite. That
work required no real talent and minimal skill to create. It has
relatively little intrinsic value and is of dubious aesthetic value. But
because the artist was able to convince someone he had created something
profound, the work's value became artifically inflated. What that artist
is to sculpture, Cage is to music. Cage's explanations as to the supposed
significance of his pieces merely serve to draw attention away from the
fact that there's not really that much *to* the actual works he created.
Will Rogers said that an artist is the only thing you can say you are and
no one can say you ain't. Post-Cage, anyone can call himself a composer
as well.
Colin
mike
>
> Because I resent people gaining money and/or influence through
> sophistry.
>
resentment is a phorm of sophistry; but, i guess it's ok, cause you're
doing it to yourself for free. why don't you listen to some music? they say
that listening to Cage makes you smarter about music.
Samuel Vriezen
wrote:
>Could someone please explain why John Cage gets taken seriously?
Fantastic composer.
--
Samuel
http://concerten.free.fr/home.html
KRISE
Sept 25 Muenchen, Sept 29 Amsterdam, Sept 30 Den Haag, Oct 2 Den Bosch
Piano Possibile: Hirs/Van Eijden/Vriezen/Andriessen/Schneid/Bettendorf
Alles is verfilmbaar, _zelfs_ een roman.
- Anton Haakman, in 'Achter de Spiegel'
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > And whether any particular performance of what he called "Four Pieces"
> > could very well have all of melody, harmony, and rhythm, depending on
> > what ambient sounds happened to impinge on the performing space -- which
> > was precisely the point.
>
> Unless those sounds are from a performance of a different Cage work, they
> are nothing to do with anything Cage wrote and so no credit to him.
Cage wrote a work in which the audience is directed to pay attention to
the ambient sound.
> > There's no such thing as "tone-deafness," and it's unlikely that anyone
> > could compose his prepared-piano music, for one thing, who was
> > "tone-deaf."
>
> The American Heritage Dictionary defines tone-deaf as "Unable to
> distinguish differences in musical pitch." Do you deny there are such
> people? When Cage died, a write-up I read said he had admitted that pitch
> eluded him. How should I interpret that?
Never in the history of humankind has a case been identified of a person
who is unable to perceive and produce the pitch distinctions
constituting "intonation" in languages like English (where you go up in
a question? and down in a statement.) or "tone" in languages like
Chinese (where high, mid, low, rising, falling, or "dipping" pitch on a
syllable distinguishes the meanings of the words).
Thus "tone deafness" -- if it's supposed to mean an inability to
distinguish between pitches -- does not exist.
"A write-up I read" isn't a very convincing authority.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> John Harrington <bear...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I can certainly understand why someone would not like Cage, but why his
> > music generates such responses as this is beyond me. Cage's music is
> > known mostly through hearsay, and 99% of that hearsay is about 4'33".
> > The rest of his music is practically unknown to the general public and
> > there is almost no way to accidentally hear it. Why it should bother
> > you, then, is a mystery. Some people like it. Some people don't.
> > Beyond that, why should you care? It's not as if it's being forced on
> > you.
>
> Because I resent people gaining money and/or influence through sophistry.
> Take, for example, the artist who put three shop-vacs in lucite. That
> work required no real talent and minimal skill to create. It has
Really? Have you ever tried to encase something in Lucite?
I'm certainly not going to try to defend Jeff Koons, but lack of
craftsmanship is definitely not an attribute of his.
> relatively little intrinsic value and is of dubious aesthetic value. But
> because the artist was able to convince someone he had created something
> profound, the work's value became artifically inflated. What that artist
> is to sculpture, Cage is to music. Cage's explanations as to the supposed
> significance of his pieces merely serve to draw attention away from the
> fact that there's not really that much *to* the actual works he created.
> Will Rogers said that an artist is the only thing you can say you are and
> no one can say you ain't. Post-Cage, anyone can call himself a composer
> as well.
How many works by Cage have you heard? What's the database on which you
draw to say "there's not really that much *to* the actual works he
created"?
Does that hold also for Merce Cunningham's dances?
Marcello Penso
says...
evolved from Cage's study/development/creation of indeterminacy in music.
That 4'33" itself may not have much of 'Cage' in it doesn't mean that the
artist, Cage, did not have a sense of craft or did not know anything
about music. In fact, Cage, from what I've read, was fairly well
respected among peers. And, he was a prolific composer of note:
http://www.ibiblio.org/mal/MO/cage/cageworks.html
4'33" isn't meant to be a masterpiece. It is simply meant to be a piece
that shows a different way of approaching what music is. It is typical of
many other artistic 'firsts' during that time, when artists were
exploring the limits of 'art' in various modes (paintings, sculpture,
etc.) One of Cage's influences was in fact Rauschenberg's white canvases.
In order to properly judge Cage, you have to look at all of his works, or
at least a good portion of them, before judging him. I'm not familiar
with Koons so I can't say whether he demonstrates a good sense of craft
in other works. But, I once saw an illuminating retrospective on Mondrian
(I think it was at MOMA in 96) and there it was clear that Mondrian had
the craft, as was visible from his early works, but that his more famous
pieces evolved after a lot of development and experimentation in
particular direction. Interestingly with Mondrian, he kept tinkering with
his pieces quite a bit before he was satisfied.
Marcello
David Olen Baird
<co...@caulkins.org> wrote:
>John Harrington <bear...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I can certainly understand why someone would not like Cage, but why his
>> music generates such responses as this is beyond me. Cage's music is
>> known mostly through hearsay, and 99% of that hearsay is about 4'33".
>> The rest of his music is practically unknown to the general public and
>> there is almost no way to accidentally hear it. Why it should bother
>> you, then, is a mystery. Some people like it. Some people don't.
>> Beyond that, why should you care? It's not as if it's being forced on
>> you.
>
>Because I resent people gaining money and/or influence through sophistry.
All art is a sophistry to some extent.
>Take, for example, the artist who put three shop-vacs in lucite. That
>work required no real talent and minimal skill to create.
Would it have made a difference if the artist had acheived the same
effect by carefully sculpting the shop-vacs by hand using natural
materials?
>It has
>relatively little intrinsic value and is of dubious aesthetic value. But
>because the artist was able to convince someone he had created something
>profound, the work's value became artifically inflated.
And how do you feel about Thomas Kincade's work?
>What that artist
>is to sculpture, Cage is to music. Cage's explanations as to the supposed
>significance of his pieces merely serve to draw attention away from the
>fact that there's not really that much *to* the actual works he created.
>Will Rogers said that an artist is the only thing you can say you are and
>no one can say you ain't. Post-Cage, anyone can call himself a composer
>as well.
>
>Colin
PLease listen to some prepared piano pieces and re-visit this subject
after.
**************************** The Garden Suite **************************
*
* Make a tax-deductible contribution, and receive a CD donation premium
*
* http://www.symsonic.org/
*
**************************************************************************
David Olen Baird, Composer
mailto:davb...@tfs.net
http://www.tfs.net/~davbaird/
Tobias Persson
news:3D96ED...@worldnet.att.net...
> Never in the history of humankind has a case been identified of a person
> who is unable to perceive and produce the pitch distinctions
> constituting "intonation" in languages like English (where you go up in
> a question? and down in a statement.) or "tone" in languages like
> Chinese (where high, mid, low, rising, falling, or "dipping" pitch on a
> syllable distinguishes the meanings of the words).
>
> Thus "tone deafness" -- if it's supposed to mean an inability to
> distinguish between pitches -- does not exist.
I read an interesting newspaper article a few months ago. There was a woman
who could not hear the difference between two distinct melodies, but had no
problems with speech intonation.
The scientist interviewed in the article theorized that there are different
parts of the brain dedicated to processing pitch information in speech and
non-speech sound.
It's certainly possible.
mike
news:3D96ED...@worldnet.att.net:
> Colin Caulkins wrote:
>>
>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> > And whether any particular performance of what he called "Four
>> > Pieces" could very well have all of melody, harmony, and rhythm,
>> > depending on what ambient sounds happened to impinge on the
>> > performing space -- which was precisely the point.
>>
>> Unless those sounds are from a performance of a different Cage work,
>> they are nothing to do with anything Cage wrote and so no credit to
>> him.
>
> Cage wrote a work in which the audience is directed to pay attention to
> the ambient sound.
>
>> > There's no such thing as "tone-deafness," and it's unlikely that
>> > anyone could compose his prepared-piano music, for one thing, who
>> > was "tone-deaf."
>>
>> The American Heritage Dictionary defines tone-deaf as "Unable to
>> distinguish differences in musical pitch." Do you deny there are such
>> people? When Cage died, a write-up I read said he had admitted that
>> pitch eluded him. How should I interpret that?
>
> Never in the history of humankind has a case been identified of a
> person who is unable to perceive and produce the pitch distinctions
> constituting "intonation" in languages
=)
oh, sure! that's because they couldn't understand the researcher's
questions! the first (Sumarian) linguistics professors mistakenly counted
them as deaf.
> like English (where you go up in
> a question? and down in a statement.) or "tone" in languages like
> Chinese (where high, mid, low, rising, falling, or "dipping" pitch on a
> syllable distinguishes the meanings of the words).
>
> Thus "tone deafness" -- if it's supposed to mean an inability to
> distinguish between pitches -- does not exist.
>
> "A write-up I read" isn't a very convincing authority.
!!
John Harrington
co...@caulkins.org wrote on 9/29/02 12:36 AM:
> John Harrington <bear...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I can certainly understand why someone would not like Cage, but why his
>> music generates such responses as this is beyond me. Cage's music is
>> known mostly through hearsay, and 99% of that hearsay is about 4'33".
>> The rest of his music is practically unknown to the general public and
>> there is almost no way to accidentally hear it. Why it should bother
>> you, then, is a mystery. Some people like it. Some people don't.
>> Beyond that, why should you care? It's not as if it's being forced on
>> you.
>
> Because I resent people gaining money and/or influence through sophistry.
Irrelevant, since Cage is dead.
> Take, for example, the artist who put three shop-vacs in lucite. That
> work required no real talent and minimal skill to create. It has
> relatively little intrinsic value and is of dubious aesthetic value. But
> because the artist was able to convince someone he had created something
> profound, the work's value became artifically inflated. What that artist
> is to sculpture, Cage is to music. Cage's explanations as to the supposed
> significance of his pieces merely serve to draw attention away from the
> fact that there's not really that much *to* the actual works he created.
> Will Rogers said that an artist is the only thing you can say you are and
> no one can say you ain't. Post-Cage, anyone can call himself a composer
> as well.
Skill has nothing to do with beauty. A sunset, a field of wild flowers, the
swirl of foam in a cup of coffee, a starry night, all of these are
beautiful, and all are irrelevant to humanity or skill. Art must be
beautiful...that's not the same as saying art must exhibit skill. If you're
fascinated by skill, I suggest you stick to sports or circus high wire acts.
Both of those things evince plenty of skill.
Similarly, art cannot have "intrinsic" value. Art, to be art, must offer an
aesthetic experience. Aesthetic experiences are states of consciousness
that are entirely subjective. Subjective value is the opposite of intrinsic
value. Indeed, I don't believe anything has "intrinsic value" unless we're
talking about very simple concepts of value (such as "food has intrinsic
value as nourishment").
John
Nicolai P. Zwar
> Could someone please explain why John Cage gets taken seriously?
> 4'33" does not have melody, harmony or rhythm.
Awww.... You probably listened to a bad recording of it.
--
Nicolai P. Zwar
"The justice system is a scandal. Mimes and murderers are coddled.
Victims are abused. As a vigilante, I can make only one conclusion: all
judges are mental perverts and communists. Thank you."
(Opus)
Nicolai P. Zwar
>>relatively little intrinsic value and is of dubious aesthetic value. But
>>because the artist was able to convince someone he had created something
>>profound, the work's value became artifically inflated. What that artist
>>is to sculpture, Cage is to music. Cage's explanations as to the supposed
>>significance of his pieces merely serve to draw attention away from the
>>fact that there's not really that much *to* the actual works he created.
>>Will Rogers said that an artist is the only thing you can say you are and
>>no one can say you ain't. Post-Cage, anyone can call himself a composer
>>as well.
>>
>
> How many works by Cage have you heard? What's the database on which you
> draw to say "there's not really that much *to* the actual works he
> created"?
I have to admit that I honestly love Cage's compositions for prepared piano.
Beyond that, Cage's real claim to fame was that he inspired
conversations such as this. Cage forced people to think about music, to
rethink what might be called music, he was thought provoking. Very much
so. Whatever one may say about Cage: his works, his ideas, his offbeat
compositions, his humor, his approach to music per se, all of that
was... no, IS challenging and highly interesting even to those who don't
care for his music (as this thread proves). And that's worth a lot in my
book.
--
Nicolai P. Zwar
(now outed as a Cage fan, but what the heck, I don't care)
David Cleary
: John Harrington <bear...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> I can certainly understand why someone would not like Cage, but why his
:> music generates such responses as this is beyond me. Cage's music is
:> known mostly through hearsay, and 99% of that hearsay is about 4'33".
:> The rest of his music is practically unknown to the general public and
:> there is almost no way to accidentally hear it. Why it should bother
:> you, then, is a mystery. Some people like it. Some people don't.
:> Beyond that, why should you care? It's not as if it's being forced on
:> you.
: Because I resent people gaining money and/or influence through
: sophistry.
Then you're going to have to dislike more than Cage's music. One
can make the case that most anyone writing music is engaging in
sophistry.
: Take, for example, the artist who put three shop-vacs in lucite.
: That work required no real talent and minimal skill to create.
Says who? Try doing it.
: It has
: relatively little intrinsic value and is of dubious aesthetic value.
So here's the crux of the problem, it would seem. You don't like
it and you think no one else should either just because you don't.
When did you become the world's tastemeister?
: But
: because the artist was able to convince someone he had created
: something profound, the work's value became artifically inflated.
What's this "artificially inflated" stuff? You don't like it, so
its aesthetic worth is "artifically inflated?" Where do you get off?
: What that artist
: is to sculpture, Cage is to music. Cage's explanations as to the
: supposed significance of his pieces merely serve to draw attention
: away from the fact that there's not really that much *to* the actual
: works he created.
In that case, I recommend you actually listen to some of Cage's music.
What besides 4'33" have you actually heard? Assuming not much else, you
might start with any of the prepared piano pieces--especially the
"Sonatas and Interludes"--and the works for percussion ensemble.
: Will Rogers said that an artist is the only thing you can say you
: are and no one can say you ain't.
Right. So?
: Post-Cage, anyone can call himself a composer as well.
So what's wrong with that?
Dave
Brad Beyenhof
The way I understand it, Cage's intent was not to ascribe the qualities of
music to absolute silence. The piece is meant to be played in a large
concert hall, and the "music" that is generated is the shuffling of feet,
the coughing, etc. In a way, Cage turns it all around and lets the
*audience* create the sound.
4'33" was never intended to be a chamber piece, because it is less
interesting with fewer people present.
--
Brad Beyenhof
change "_" to "u" if you wish to reply by email
"mike" <orang...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92978DDF4DF39...@66.75.162.196...
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Brad Beyenhof
The "meaning" of art is whatever the observer ascribes to it. If a
performance of 4'33" gets you to think about life, or music, differently...
it has done its job.
--
Brad Beyenhof
change "_" to "u" if you wish to reply by email
"Colin Caulkins" <co...@caulkins.org> wrote in message
news:updbb0g...@corp.supernews.com...
Mark.D.
> The "meaning" of art is whatever the observer ascribes to it.
...Is the *wrong* answer...! But thanks for taking part; it was good to have
you on the show. Better luck next time, eh? Give him a round of applause,
ladies and gentlemen...
M.
mike
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> The way I understand it, Cage's intent was not to ascribe the qualities
> of music to absolute silence. The piece is meant to be played in a
> large concert hall, and the "music" that is generated is the shuffling
> of feet, the coughing, etc. In a way, Cage turns it all around and
> lets the *audience* create the sound.
>
> 4'33" was never intended to be a chamber piece, because it is less
> interesting with fewer people present.
>
> --
> Brad Beyenhof
> change "_" to "u" if you wish to reply by email
it's an idea. but, cage was trying to be pretty zen in those days; zen was
pretty much what we made of it. for cagemusic, the brain-space's decor is
plastic enough to harmonize the concept.
>
>
>
Mark.D.
No, it's a complete falsehood - and one which would not have been tolerated,
let alone taken seriously, as little as fifty years ago.
M.
Steven Forrest
>Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> And whether any particular performance of what he called "Four Pieces"
>> could very well have all of melody, harmony, and rhythm, depending on
>> what ambient sounds happened to impinge on the performing space -- which
>> was precisely the point.
>
>Unless those sounds are from a performance of a different Cage work, they
>are nothing to do with anything Cage wrote and so no credit to him.
You and Cage are in perfect agreement on this point.
>> There's no such thing as "tone-deafness," and it's unlikely that anyone
>> could compose his prepared-piano music, for one thing, who was
>> "tone-deaf."
>
>The American Heritage Dictionary defines tone-deaf as "Unable to
>distinguish differences in musical pitch." Do you deny there are such
>people? When Cage died, a write-up I read said he had admitted that pitch
>eluded him. How should I interpret that?
I'd have to read it myself in order to suggest an interpretation.
Can you provide a citation to said write-up?
-Steve
Brad Beyenhof
There's a *wrong* answer to art? Or are you just being judgmental and
dogmatically over-critical?
--
Brad Beyenhof
change "_" to "u" if you wish to reply by email
"Mark.D." <blo...@bigtrousers.com> wrote in message
news:3d9754dd$1...@news1.vip.uk.com...
Mark.D.
Yup. In fact, there are several.
> Or are you just being judgmental and
> dogmatically over-critical?
Nope. But thanks for asking.
M.
David Cleary
: Nicolai P. Zwar <NPZ...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
:>> Could someone please explain why John Cage gets taken seriously?
:>> 4'33" does not have melody, harmony or rhythm.
:> Awww.... You probably listened to a bad recording of it.
: I can't claim actually to have heard a recording of it (can anyone?)
I've heard live performances of the work. And anyway, your claim
that the piece "contains nothing" (assuming you mean "no sound
whatever") is not Cage's intention. What you will hear is the
environment under which a performance happens minus sounds emanating
from the performer(s), which can include everything from noise
seeping into the performance space from outside to hums from the
lighting to sounds from the heating/cooling system to your own
breathing and heartbeat. Something Cage was apparently aware of when
he produced this work, if what I've heard is accurate.
: although I have seen a CD in a record shop which supposedly had
: 4'33" on it. This leads me to wonder: Did the producers of the CD
: have to pay royalties for a 4 minute and 33 second track containing
: nothing?
One would assume royalties were paid to Cage or his estate to
include this piece. In fact, there was a rather noteworthy
infringement circumstance that occurred recently involving this work
that got settled out of court. There's been a good bit of discussion
recently in rec.music.classical.contemporary about it. Rather than
regurgitating the whole thing here, I suggest you read up on it in
Dejanews.
Besides, from what I've heard about the couple recordings of this
work, they're not silent at all. One apparently involves ambient
sounds, which would seem to be in keeping with the intentions
of the piece. Best thing to do, of course, would be to actually
listen to what's on the CD. Feel free to add that to your Cage
listening list.
: If so, what would happen if they didn't pay?
They'd get sued and would likely have to pay up.
: How would Cage (or his estate)
: prove the CD actually contained his work?
If it lists Cage and the piece, it would be very simple indeed.
See more in the aforementioned Dejanews discussion.
Dave
Mark.D.
And further, FYI:
Main Entry: soph·ist·ry
Pronunciation: 'sä-f&-strE
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
M.
D.G. Porter
>
> > All art is a sophistry to some extent.
>
> heavily on external justification for their perceived value, more so than
> most works in the classical canon. In the case of 4'33", the piece is
> nothing but external justification.
>
> >>Take, for example, the artist who put three shop-vacs in lucite. That
> >>work required no real talent and minimal skill to create.
>
> > Would it have made a difference if the artist had acheived the same
> > effect by carefully sculpting the shop-vacs by hand using natural
> > materials?
>
> the artist's part. The manner in which the shop-vacs were sculpted would
> reflect some level of artistic interpretation that is not present in
> found objects. I still wouldn't want it in my living room, though.
What a load of crap. Art is what I say it is when I make it. End of
discussion.
D.G. Porter
>
> Colin Caulkins <co...@caulkins.org> wrote:
> : John Harrington <bear...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> :> I can certainly understand why someone would not like Cage, but why his
> :> music generates such responses as this is beyond me. Cage's music is
> :> known mostly through hearsay, and 99% of that hearsay is about 4'33".
> :> The rest of his music is practically unknown to the general public and
> :> there is almost no way to accidentally hear it. Why it should bother
> :> you, then, is a mystery. Some people like it. Some people don't.
> :> Beyond that, why should you care? It's not as if it's being forced on
> :> you.
>
> : Because I resent people gaining money and/or influence through
> : sophistry.
>
> Then you're going to have to dislike more than Cage's music. One
> can make the case that most anyone writing music is engaging in
> sophistry.
>
> : Take, for example, the artist who put three shop-vacs in lucite.
> : That work required no real talent and minimal skill to create.
>
> Says who? Try doing it.
>
> : It has
> : relatively little intrinsic value and is of dubious aesthetic value.
>
> So here's the crux of the problem, it would seem. You don't like
> it and you think no one else should either just because you don't.
> When did you become the world's tastemeister?
Ever since he was told that "real" music has to be such-and-such or it
is NOT music, and he had that drummed into him that "real" music is only
music that can be analyzed to produce a scientific result, and he had to
study oh so so so hard to learn his row techniques and then someone
comes by and says "You don't need to do all that."
>
> : Post-Cage, anyone can call himself a composer as well.
>
> So what's wrong with that?
Seer above.
Peter T. Daniels
You wouldn't have a reference for that, would you?
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >>relatively little intrinsic value and is of dubious aesthetic value. But
> >>because the artist was able to convince someone he had created something
> >>profound, the work's value became artifically inflated. What that artist
> >>is to sculpture, Cage is to music. Cage's explanations as to the supposed
> >>significance of his pieces merely serve to draw attention away from the
> >>fact that there's not really that much *to* the actual works he created.
> >>Will Rogers said that an artist is the only thing you can say you are and
> >>no one can say you ain't. Post-Cage, anyone can call himself a composer
> >>as well.
> >>
> >
> > How many works by Cage have you heard? What's the database on which you
> > draw to say "there's not really that much *to* the actual works he
> > created"?
>
> I have to admit that I honestly love Cage's compositions for prepared piano.
> Beyond that, Cage's real claim to fame was that he inspired
> conversations such as this. Cage forced people to think about music, to
> rethink what might be called music, he was thought provoking. Very much
> so. Whatever one may say about Cage: his works, his ideas, his offbeat
> compositions, his humor, his approach to music per se, all of that
> was... no, IS challenging and highly interesting even to those who don't
> care for his music (as this thread proves). And that's worth a lot in my
> book.
I have to admit that I don't think I've ever heard more than one Cage
work ever (I've never even attended a performance of 4'33") -- but today
at Tower (I got the Cziffra Liszt box recommended yesterday, and all the
majors are on sale: the Universal (ex-Polygram) group _and_ the EMI
group, till the end of October) there was a big display of volume NINE
of the complete piano works, *Terres Australes* or something like that,
meaning there are some twenty disks just of his piano music already.
Where should one start? (I did like the prepared piano piece I heard so
long ago ...)
Peter T. Daniels
The Art Institute of Chicago had a huge, long-planned Warhol show that
turned out to be a memorial exhibition -- and from the very first room
it was clear that his reputation as a faker was totally unjustified.
Those dozens of Campbell's Soup Cans are _all different_ -- perfectly
delineated and as carefully executed as an Albers or a Newman. And
looking at some of everything he did, in sequence, it was clear how he
really did have an artistic vision, albeit one that was easy to mock.
Likewise Christo: he has "wrapped" several buildings, but he too has
never done the same thing twice, and he too has an overarching vision
that just happens to need larger "canvases" than most artists' do.
I don't think I'll ever say the same about Koons ...
A few years ago the Guggenheim did an Ellsworth Kelly retrospective, and
the MOMA a Jasper Johns, simultaneously. Johns is more variable, but I
still like Kelly better. And Pollock in between -- maybe because MOMA's
galleries were too small to effectively mount _his_ recent
retrospective!
Peter T. Daniels
> And how do you feel about Thomas Kincade's work?
He may be single-handedly responsible for lifting Norman Rockwell from
the category of Illustrator to the category of Artist (though I've never
managed to be in the same city as a major Rockwell exhibit; I suppose
someday I'll make it up to Stockbridge, is it, to view the canon).
Not to mention, there's a Kincade _cult_ out there (cf. a New Yorker
profile maybe two years ago).
Peter T. Daniels
Your antecedent is unclear -- WHAT is a complete falsehood? "All art"?
4'33", of course, was taken very seriously indeed, fifty years and one
month ago.
Peter T. Daniels
Is "Guernica" _beautiful_? Is "Klavierstück X" _beautiful_?
> Similarly, art cannot have "intrinsic" value. Art, to be art, must offer an
> aesthetic experience. Aesthetic experiences are states of consciousness
> that are entirely subjective. Subjective value is the opposite of intrinsic
> value. Indeed, I don't believe anything has "intrinsic value" unless we're
> talking about very simple concepts of value (such as "food has intrinsic
> value as nourishment").
A gold statue, for instance, has intrinsic value.
Peter T. Daniels
It was in the New Yorker this week or last week, too.
> Besides, from what I've heard about the couple recordings of this
> work, they're not silent at all. One apparently involves ambient
> sounds, which would seem to be in keeping with the intentions
> of the piece. Best thing to do, of course, would be to actually
> listen to what's on the CD. Feel free to add that to your Cage
> listening list.
>
> : If so, what would happen if they didn't pay?
>
> They'd get sued and would likely have to pay up.
>
> : How would Cage (or his estate)
> : prove the CD actually contained his work?
>
> If it lists Cage and the piece, it would be very simple indeed.
> See more in the aforementioned Dejanews discussion.
Samuel Vriezen
<bbey...@ptloma.ed_> wrote:
>*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>The "meaning" of art is whatever the observer ascribes to it. If a
>performance of 4'33" gets you to think about life, or music, differently...
>it has done its job.
I think a performance of that piece does its job simply if it gets you
to really listen to what's there, because that's what it is about.
--
Samuel
http://concerten.free.fr/home.html
KRISE
Sept 25 Muenchen, Sept 29 Amsterdam, Sept 30 Den Haag, Oct 2 Den Bosch
Piano Possibile: Hirs/Van Eijden/Vriezen/Andriessen/Schneid/Bettendorf
Alles is verfilmbaar, _zelfs_ een roman.
- Anton Haakman, in 'Achter de Spiegel'
Samuel Vriezen
Here's what a friend of mine wrote in her program notes:
ORNAMENT
Ornament: embellishment. The non-necessary. An embellishment is that,
without which all would fundamentally be completely equal, therefore
fundamentally superfluous.
Is this remarkable quality of superfluousness itself, too,
superfluous?
Ornament: a piece, that represents its own reason for existence.
Tobias Persson
> > I read an interesting newspaper article a few months ago. There was a
woman
> > who could not hear the difference between two distinct melodies, but had
no
> > problems with speech intonation.
> > The scientist interviewed in the article theorized that there are
different
> > parts of the brain dedicated to processing pitch information in speech
and
> > non-speech sound.
> > It's certainly possible.
>
> You wouldn't have a reference for that, would you?
Looked around a bit and this is the closest I could find:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1552449.stm
(not the same article, but it may be about the same study)
Quote:
"Dr Peretz said people who were tune-deaf did not seem to have problems
recognising changes in inflection of vocal tone, possibly because the shift
is large and obvious, or because different parts of the brain process speech
and music."
Samuel Vriezen
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>4'33", of course, was taken very seriously indeed, fifty years and one
>month ago.
At least by David Tudor and John Cage. Not so sure about the people
who attended the premiere. It was, in fact, taken quite seriously a
month ago in Amsterdam, by a crowded hall.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> skrev i meddelandet
> news:3D9780...@worldnet.att.net...
>
> > > I read an interesting newspaper article a few months ago. There was a
> woman
> > > who could not hear the difference between two distinct melodies, but had
> no
> > > problems with speech intonation.
> > > The scientist interviewed in the article theorized that there are
> different
> > > parts of the brain dedicated to processing pitch information in speech
> and
> > > non-speech sound.
> > > It's certainly possible.
> >
> > You wouldn't have a reference for that, would you?
>
> Looked around a bit and this is the closest I could find:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1552449.stm
> (not the same article, but it may be about the same study)
thanx
> Quote:
> "Dr Peretz said people who were tune-deaf did not seem to have problems
> recognising changes in inflection of vocal tone, possibly because the shift
> is large and obvious, or because different parts of the brain process speech
> and music."
The acoustic energy used in distinguishing among the vowels also
involves pitch differences that are considerably closer together than
notes in the diatonic scale ...
Marcello Penso
says...
> Tobias Persson wrote:
> >
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:3D96ED...@worldnet.att.net...
> > > Never in the history of humankind has a case been identified of a person
> > > who is unable to perceive and produce the pitch distinctions
> > > constituting "intonation" in languages like English (where you go up in
> > > a question? and down in a statement.) or "tone" in languages like
> > > Chinese (where high, mid, low, rising, falling, or "dipping" pitch on a
> > > syllable distinguishes the meanings of the words).
> > >
> > > Thus "tone deafness" -- if it's supposed to mean an inability to
> > > distinguish between pitches -- does not exist.
This is a bit incorrect. There are certain people who can't recognize a
wrong note, or distinguish different tunes.
> >
> > I read an interesting newspaper article a few months ago. There was a woman
> > who could not hear the difference between two distinct melodies, but had no
> > problems with speech intonation.
> > The scientist interviewed in the article theorized that there are different
> > parts of the brain dedicated to processing pitch information in speech and
> > non-speech sound.
> > It's certainly possible.
>
> You wouldn't have a reference for that, would you?
>
Music, as most natural non-speech sounds and animal sounds, is processed
typically in the auditory cortex of the right hemisphere. Speech sounds
are processed in the auditory cortex of the left hemisphere, near
Wernicke's and Broca's area. See Mapping the Mind by Carter, or Restak's
the Modular Brain.
In fact the process is a little more complex then that. Sound is broken
down into pitch (harmonic tones), melody, rhythm, location and loudness.
Part of this stream goes through the corpus callosum (which connects both
hemispheres) to the right auditory cortex. At the same time, sound input
is also processed through the limbic system (below and around the corpus
callosum), which underscores the emotional content.
Marcello
Marcello
John Harrington
gram...@worldnet.att.net wrote on 9/29/02 3:59 PM:
Mere depictions of suffering and mere dissonance, without beauty, are not
art. I have spoken.
J
John Harrington
wrote on 9/29/02 2:06 PM:
There was a time, oh perhaps 50 years ago, when educated people knew what
the word sophistry meant without having to look it up in a dictionary.
J
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: The way I understand it, Cage's intent was not to ascribe the qualities of
: music to absolute silence. The piece is meant to be played in a large
: concert hall, and the "music" that is generated is the shuffling of feet,
: the coughing, etc. In a way, Cage turns it all around and lets the
: *audience* create the sound.
When I was an undergraduate, way back in the early Pleistocene, I knew a
graduate student in music who told me that he had performed 4'33" more than
once. He said that every time he performed it, more or less the same
series of events occurred: first the people would quiet down as he came
to the piano. Brief silence. Then people would start fidgeting -- "when
is he going to start playing?" Then a second wave of whispering as people
started realizing "oh, he must be playing that piece by Cage." And *then*
a third and completely different set of sounds as it dawned on the audience
members that the "music" was in fact the sounds that *they* were making.
According to him, 4'33" is actually a quite effective piece.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You go on playing Bach your way, and I'll go on playing him *his* way."
-- Wanda Landowska
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: In the case of 4'33", the piece is nothing but external justification.
Speaking of sophistry -- just what is that supposed to mean?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: Post-Cage, anyone can call himself a composer as well.
If you believe that that was not true before John Cage, then you are either
extremely naive, or extremely poorly informed, or both.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
Vincent Leslie Carpenter, IV
> John Harrington <bear...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I can certainly understand why someone would not like Cage, but why his
> > music generates such responses as this is beyond me. Cage's music is
> > known mostly through hearsay, and 99% of that hearsay is about 4'33".
> > The rest of his music is practically unknown to the general public and
> > there is almost no way to accidentally hear it. Why it should bother
> > you, then, is a mystery. Some people like it. Some people don't.
> > Beyond that, why should you care? It's not as if it's being forced on
> > you.
>
> Because I resent people gaining money and/or influence through sophistry.
> work required no real talent and minimal skill to create. It has
> relatively little intrinsic value and is of dubious aesthetic value. But
> because the artist was able to convince someone he had created something
> profound, the work's value became artifically inflated. What that artist
> is to sculpture, Cage is to music. Cage's explanations as to the supposed
> significance of his pieces merely serve to draw attention away from the
> fact that there's not really that much *to* the actual works he created.
> Will Rogers said that an artist is the only thing you can say you are and
> as well.
>
> Colin
Then spoof him! (I enjoy Cage, but very few other "experimental"
composers or "postmodern" poets, and I absolutely despise modern
"art"!).
I am currently in the beginning stages of my satire of modern art; and
hell, if I can sell it, great!
Vincent Leslie Carpenter, IV
> But, I once saw an illuminating retrospective on Mondrian
> (I think it was at MOMA in 96) and there it was clear that Mondrian had
> the craft, as was visible from his early works, but that his more famous
> pieces evolved after a lot of development and experimentation in
> particular direction. Interestingly with Mondrian, he kept tinkering with
> his pieces quite a bit before he was satisfied.
>
I'm just paraphrasing an account I once heard:
A lady was on an airplane, travelling to NYC from LA, and the man next
to her was sketching some abstract art; she remarked that abstract art
didn't seem to take that much talent, it was just a bunch of randomly
placed squiggles, etc., and anyone could do it.
In reply, the man sketched a very detailed drawing of a hand in less
than a minute.
Vincent Leslie Carpenter, IV
> David Olen Baird <davb...@tfs.net> wrote:
> > Would it have made a difference if the artist had acheived the same
> > effect by carefully sculpting the shop-vacs by hand using natural
> > materials?
>
> Yes. This would demonstrate a greater application of skill and effort on
> the artist's part. The manner in which the shop-vacs were sculpted would
> reflect some level of artistic interpretation that is not present in
> found objects. I still wouldn't want it in my living room, though.
I prefer art to stand on its own; outside of explanation, but also
outside of how it was created (it makes no difference if the shop-vacs
were purchased or made; although credit should be given to the
manufacturers of what you didn't make if you wish to call the exhibit
art).
Mark.D.
news:B9BD1FC3.5BD%beartiger@
> >
> > And further, FYI:
> >
> > Main Entry: soph·ist·ry
> > Pronunciation: 'sä-f&-strE
> > Function: noun
> > Date: 14th century
> > 1 : subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
> >
> > M.
>
> There was a time, oh perhaps 50 years ago, when educated people knew what
> the word sophistry meant without having to look it up in a dictionary.
What a crap response, Harrington. 'FYI' doesn't mean 'for my own
information'.
M.
Vincent Leslie Carpenter, IV
> "Brad Beyenhof" <bbey...@ptloma.ed_> wrote in message news:3d974cde@post.
>
> > The "meaning" of art is whatever the observer ascribes to it.
>
> you on the show. Better luck next time, eh? Give him a round of applause,
> ladies and gentlemen...
>
> M.
Pray tell give me a "correct" answer to what art is?
Brendan R. Wehrung
> Nicolai P. Zwar <NPZ...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>> Could someone please explain why John Cage gets taken seriously?
>>> 4'33" does not have melody, harmony or rhythm.
>
>> Awww.... You probably listened to a bad recording of it.
>
> I can't claim actually to have heard a recording of it (can anyone?)
> it. This leads me to wonder: Did the producers of the CD have to pay
> what would happen if they didn't pay? How would Cage (or his estate)
>
The copyright would apply to the name, not the silence, since there is no
printed matter other than the instructions to apply for.
Brendan
Centaur
got to be a joke taking the sane world for a ride. I could quite as easilly
write a peice called "Variation on E" scored for full orchestra. all the
instruments remain silent but to have anticipation of expectation to play,
and then after a few seconds have an instrument chosen by the conductor play
E-Flat for a duration of 1.25 seconds, after a further period of silence the
peice concludes.
I once watched a documentary on John Cage and his composition "Jerusalem
Windows" it was as exciting as the recent National Geographic epic on the
latest discovery in a pyrimid - Yet another wall in a little passage. At one
point after claiming to have started the composition, he had to visit the
Jeruslem Windows to get more inspitration. On e of the people asked him if
he had written any of it yet, and quite seriously "I have written the first
bar" I wonder if it was a bar's rest, or whether it had to be re-written
after having seen the real thing.
Does every period of silence breach the copyright? Ok - lets not give this
time of day its not worth it.
Lets give our time to those who deserve it. I was going to send this email,
and then destroy oll my recordings of John Cage Music. And then I relaizes,
I havn't got any.
Best wishes all
Rod Mather
www.rodeby.net/music
Voice Training CDs and
Free Sheet Music
"Colin Caulkins" <co...@caulkins.org> wrote in message
news:271ea649.02092...@posting.google.com...
> Could someone please explain why John Cage gets taken seriously?
> 4'33" does not have melody, harmony or rhythm. Without at least one
> of those, how can it be considered music? A Cage defender might
> respond that I'm not thinking in a Cagian way, that Cage rewrote the
> rules as to what can be considered music. But why did Cage get to do
> that? More to the point, why should I accept his rewrite? Is there
> great reward to be had from listening to twelve radios tuned
> simultaneously to different frequencies? From what I understand, Cage
> admitted to being tone deaf. That being the case, mightn't we regard
> his rewriting the rules as being merely a self-serving attempt to
> compensate for his own aural deficiencies?
>
> Colin
Peter T. Daniels
That's just as dumb as "all RIC."
But now you will agree that an object made of gold does have intrinsic
value?
Peter T. Daniels
The joker who misappropriated Cage's name has, according to the New
Yorker story, applied for copyright(!) on every length of silence (it
didn't say up to how long), second by second, from 0'01" to 4'32" and
4'34" to somewhere.
Peter T. Daniels
>
> I don't care how educated a reply is in support of 4'33" the whole thing has
> got to be a joke taking the sane world for a ride. I could quite as easilly
> write a peice called "Variation on E" scored for full orchestra. all the
> instruments remain silent but to have anticipation of expectation to play,
> and then after a few seconds have an instrument chosen by the conductor play
> E-Flat for a duration of 1.25 seconds, after a further period of silence the
> peice concludes.
It would be awfully derivative and would quickly be exposed as the sham
that it is.
> I once watched a documentary on John Cage and his composition "Jerusalem
> Windows" it was as exciting as the recent National Geographic epic on the
> latest discovery in a pyrimid - Yet another wall in a little passage. At one
> point after claiming to have started the composition, he had to visit the
> Jeruslem Windows to get more inspitration. On e of the people asked him if
> he had written any of it yet, and quite seriously "I have written the first
> bar" I wonder if it was a bar's rest, or whether it had to be re-written
> after having seen the real thing.
>
> Does every period of silence breach the copyright? Ok - lets not give this
> time of day its not worth it.
>
> Lets give our time to those who deserve it. I was going to send this email,
> and then destroy oll my recordings of John Cage Music. And then I relaizes,
> I havn't got any.
Then you're really not qualified to comment, are you?
David Cleary
: I don't care how educated a reply is in support of 4'33"
Ah. Playing the anti-intellectual card. That'll help your
argument.
: the whole
: thing has got to be a joke taking the sane world for a ride.
Why? Because you think so? How about coming up with something a little
more substantial other than, "I think it's true, therefore it is."
Or did you come here just to whine and insult people?
: I could quite as easilly
: write a peice called "Variation on E" scored for full orchestra.
: all the instruments remain silent but to have anticipation of
: expectation to play, and then after a few seconds have an instrument
: chosen by the conductor play E-Flat for a duration of 1.25 seconds,
: after a further period of silence the peice concludes.
No one's stopping you, so feel free. No promises it will be a "peice"
anyone other than you will want to experience, though.
: I once watched a documentary on John Cage and his composition
: "Jerusalem Windows" it was as exciting as the recent National
: Geographic epic on the latest discovery in a pyrimid - Yet another
: wall in a little passage.
Looks like the anti-intellectual thing again. Look, if you want to
switch the channel over to watch Britney Spears, go right ahead.
: At one
: point after claiming to have started the composition, he had to
: visit the Jeruslem Windows to get more inspitration. On e of the
: people asked him if he had written any of it yet, and quite
: seriously "I have written the first bar" I wonder if it was a bar's
: rest, or whether it had to be re-written after having seen the real
: thing.
How presumptuous of you to assume what Cage did or did not have
written in that measure. Why does it matter, anyway? Mozart, from
what I've read, "wrote" some pieces in his head until they were
ready to scribble out in final form. Why could Cage not possibly have
been doing the same thing? Do you know?
And is a piece's worth proportionally commensurate with the
amount of time it takes to labor over it? If what I've read is
accurate, Mozart took six weeks to write his last three
symphonies. Are these works somehow sullied because of this?
: Does every period of silence breach the copyright? Ok - lets not
: give this time of day its not worth it.
Not necessarily. But if you ascribe Cage to it in some way, it
can certainly be construed as such a breach.
: Lets give our time to those who deserve it.
Like who? Name names, and make your case. Besides "I don't like
Cage and I do like so-and-so," that is.
: I was going to send this email, and then destroy oll my recordings
: of John Cage Music. And then I relaizes, I havn't got any.
Haven't heard any of Cage's music? Yup--that makes you an expert,
all righty.
: Best wishes all
Yeah, you too. And say howdy to the rest of the folks in troll
country.
Dave
David Cleary
: David Olen Baird <davb...@tfs.net> wrote:
:>>Because I resent people gaining money and/or influence through
:>>sophistry.
:> All art is a sophistry to some extent.
: But it's a matter of degrees.
How do you know how much "sophistry" was involved in one piece
versus another?
: Many of Cage's works seem to depend quite
: heavily on external justification for their perceived value, more
: so than most works in the classical canon. In the case of 4'33",
: the piece is nothing but external justification.
As far as I can see it, all you're saying here is, "I don't get
4'33". Therefore it depends heavily on external justification
to have its value perceived. Therefore it's just a bunch of
belly-button gazing and no one should value the work." Excuse me,
but who says it's all about you and what you're able to understand?
Pretty darned presumptuous, from all appearances.
:>>Take, for example, the artist who put three shop-vacs in lucite. That
:>>work required no real talent and minimal skill to create.
:> Would it have made a difference if the artist had acheived the same
:> effect by carefully sculpting the shop-vacs by hand using natural
:> materials?
: Yes. This would demonstrate a greater application of skill and effort on
: the artist's part. The manner in which the shop-vacs were sculpted would
: reflect some level of artistic interpretation that is not present in
: found objects. I still wouldn't want it in my living room, though.
So this is all about the "puritan work ethic" thing? If someone
slaves over it, that's fine? If they don't, it's not worth the
time and effort? I'd argue that this is hooey. It took Mozart
only six weeks to write his last three symphonies and one sitting
to write the overture to "Don Giovanni." Are they suspect as a result?
If they had taken longer to write, would it have mattered?
[snip]
:> PLease listen to some prepared piano pieces and re-visit this subject
:> after.
: I have heard some, though not recently.
So if you don't like Cage, that's your personal taste. Please
don't go running around casting aspersions on those who do,
thank you very much.
Dave
D.G. Porter
>
> I prefer art to stand on its own; outside of explanation, but also
> outside of how it was created (it makes no difference if the shop-vacs
> were purchased or made; although credit should be given to the
> manufacturers of what you didn't make if you wish to call the exhibit
> art).
Did Duchamp credit the urinal maker? Or the bottle rack maker?
J. Beer
> of those, how can it be considered music? A Cage defender might
> respond that I'm not thinking in a Cagian way, that Cage rewrote the
> rules as to what can be considered music. But why did Cage get to do
> that? More to the point, why should I accept his rewrite? Is there
> great reward to be had from listening to twelve radios tuned
> simultaneously to different frequencies? From what I understand, Cage
> admitted to being tone deaf. That being the case, mightn't we regard
> his rewriting the rules as being merely a self-serving attempt to
> compensate for his own aural deficiencies?
>
> Colin
Colin,
In your posts in this thread, you have a lot to say about 4'33" but have you
listened to his other works? Let us look at who recorded some of them.
Joshua Pierce has 4 CDs of piano works by Cage. Pierce has also recorded
Mozart and Listz, so why don't you ask Pierce why someone accomplished
enough to perform Mozart and Listz at a professional level would take Cage
seriously enough to prepare high quality recordings of Cage's music?
Arditti has at least 2 CDs of quartets. Arditti is a first rate ensemble
the last time I checked. The Chicago Symphony recorded "Atlas
exlipticalis". Ensemble Modern recorded 16 Dances. What about "The
Seasons"? "Cheap Imitation"? "Some of 'The Harmony of Maine'"?
You certainly have the right to reject Cage but it if you complain too
loudly it would be fair to ask what you know that these world-class
performers don't know.
Jeff
MarkZimmerman
>:> after.
>
>: I have heard some, though not recently.
>
>So if you don't like Cage, that's your personal taste. Please
>don't go running around casting aspersions on those who do,
>thank you very much.
>
>Dave
In the past few months I got 2 cds on Naxos of Cage's music for prepared piano
and love all of it. I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Best,
Mark Allen Zimmerman * Chicago
Mark.D.
> > > The "meaning" of art is whatever the observer ascribes to it.
> >
> > ...Is the *wrong* answer...! But thanks for taking part; it was good to
have
> > you on the show. Better luck next time, eh? Give him a round of
applause,
> > ladies and gentlemen...
>
This is a quite *fantastic* demonstration of how hysterical people get when
an element of the contemporary art catechism is denied. Dare oppose the
self-serving, nitwit notion that 'the "meaning" of art is whatever the
observer ascribes to it' [sic], and some people lose their grip: you get a
response which is not only illiterate ('pray tell give me'), but also
challenges you to answer a different question altogether ('what is art?').
Another one for the (bulging) file, I think.
M.
David Cleary
: "Vincent Leslie Carpenter, IV" <VGod...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >
So address the first statement instead of being evasive. If you think
"The meaning of art is whatever the observer ascribes to it" [sic or
not] is a "wrong" answer to the question "What is the meaning of art,"
it would suggest you know what the "right" answer is. What is the "right"
answer? And more importantly, why is your answer right?
Dave
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Centaur <Centa...@gmx.net> wrote:
> : At one
> : point after claiming to have started the composition, he had to
> : visit the Jeruslem Windows to get more inspitration. On e of the
> : people asked him if he had written any of it yet, and quite
> : seriously "I have written the first bar" I wonder if it was a bar's
> : rest, or whether it had to be re-written after having seen the real
> : thing.
>
> How presumptuous of you to assume what Cage did or did not have
> written in that measure. Why does it matter, anyway? Mozart, from
> what I've read, "wrote" some pieces in his head until they were
> ready to scribble out in final form. Why could Cage not possibly have
> been doing the same thing? Do you know?
Britten certainly did that. He went for walks along the seaside every
afternoon, and the following morning (and not at the piano) wrote down
what he had worked out in his head.
> And is a piece's worth proportionally commensurate with the
> amount of time it takes to labor over it? If what I've read is
> accurate, Mozart took six weeks to write his last three
> symphonies. Are these works somehow sullied because of this?
Schumann wrote *Dichterliebe* (16 songs) in 3 days.
Peter T. Daniels
> So this is all about the "puritan work ethic" thing? If someone
> slaves over it, that's fine? If they don't, it's not worth the
> time and effort? I'd argue that this is hooey. It took Mozart
> only six weeks to write his last three symphonies and one sitting
> to write the overture to "Don Giovanni." Are they suspect as a result?
> If they had taken longer to write, would it have mattered?
It was the night before the premiere. He didn't have much choice.
Peter T. Daniels
Yup, we definitely have Hilton Kramer stalking us.
John Harrington
gram...@worldnet.att.net wrote on 9/30/02 5:24 AM:
> That's just ... dumb
Aesthetic experience is not a "dumb" or "smart" thing. It merely exists,
and is a matter of personal revelation.
J
Ray Hall
news:3D9782...@worldnet.att.net...
| Nicolai P. Zwar wrote:
| >
| > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
| >
| > >>relatively little intrinsic value and is of dubious aesthetic value.
But
| > >>because the artist was able to convince someone he had created
something
| > >>profound, the work's value became artifically inflated. What that
artist
| > >>is to sculpture, Cage is to music. Cage's explanations as to the
supposed
| > >>significance of his pieces merely serve to draw attention away from
the
| > >>fact that there's not really that much *to* the actual works he
created.
| > >>Will Rogers said that an artist is the only thing you can say you are
and
| > >>no one can say you ain't. Post-Cage, anyone can call himself a
composer
| > >>as well.
| > >>
| > >
you
| > > draw to say "there's not really that much *to* the actual works he
| > > created"?
| >
| > I have to admit that I honestly love Cage's compositions for prepared
piano.
| > Beyond that, Cage's real claim to fame was that he inspired
| > conversations such as this. Cage forced people to think about music, to
| > rethink what might be called music, he was thought provoking. Very much
| > so. Whatever one may say about Cage: his works, his ideas, his offbeat
| > compositions, his humor, his approach to music per se, all of that
| > was... no, IS challenging and highly interesting even to those who don't
| > care for his music (as this thread proves). And that's worth a lot in my
| > book.
|
| I have to admit that I don't think I've ever heard more than one Cage
| work ever (I've never even attended a performance of 4'33") -- but today
| at Tower (I got the Cziffra Liszt box recommended yesterday, and all the
| majors are on sale: the Universal (ex-Polygram) group _and_ the EMI
| group, till the end of October) there was a big display of volume NINE
| of the complete piano works, *Terres Australes* or something like that,
| meaning there are some twenty disks just of his piano music already.
|
| Where should one start? (I did like the prepared piano piece I heard so
| long ago ...)
The two volumes on Naxos are a good start. Boris Berman does very well, and
the engineering is excellent. Vol I, although not called as such on my copy,
contains Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared piano (19 pieces in all on the
CD), whilst Vol II contains pieces (all composed between 1942 and 1947,
prior to 4' 33") and containing all titled works, such as The Perilous
Night, Tossed as it is Untroubled, Primitive, The Unavailable Memory of
(rhythmically very interesting), Totem Ancestor, Prelude for Meditation, and
others.
Well worth investigating, and solid proof that Cage was a *real* composer.
Highly interesting music, fully accessible, containing some very interesting
and unusual textural sounds. Easy on the ear, although there will be some
who will dismiss it out of hand. You could search for the appropriate
volumes in the sale at Tower, although Berman is very good.
Regards,
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
< NEW Doris Day TV series news >
VIVE LA KAREN, as endorsed by El Toro de Taree
Ray, Taree, NSW
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.386 / Virus Database: 218 - Release Date: 9/09/02
Marcello Penso
says...
version of Falling Water in a few hours, before meeting with Kaufmann.
But, he had visited the site several times over a period of several
months prior to the day of the meeting.
Marcello
Centaur
> You certainly have the right to reject Cage but it if you complain too
> loudly it would be fair to ask what you know that these world-class
> performers don't know.
>
wonder how high a score I would get for Artistic Interpretation, Delivery
etc. If the work has merit then I should be allowed to play it as my chosen
peice at my exam. Or would the world class performers think I am running a
scam.
Rod Mather
Brad Beyenhof
As previously stated, 4'33" is a _concert_ piece, and is only appreciable by
an _audience_. Therefore it would make no sense before a panel. It is a
piece of art, and in this art there is no technical skill demanded of the
"performer" (if you will call him that). The work is an attempt to get the
audience to think beyond the confines of what has previously been defined as
music.
However, the lack of technical skill required completely devoids this piece
of merit in an exam because the technical skill is precisely what they are
looking for. Don't necessarily try to call 4'33" music, but appreciate it
as a thought-provoking work of art.
The lengthiness of this thread fulfills Cage's mission (or what I assume his
mission to be)... to make people think, wonder, and discuss the properties
of music.
--
Brad Beyenhof
change "_" to "u" if you wish to reply by email
"Centaur" <Centa...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:3d991255$0$22176$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
J. Beer
Without knowing the guidelines of that exam, I would assume that there are
an abundance of Bach pieces that appear in any Level I piano textbook that
would also be not suited for this exam.
Plus if your instrument was violin, you could try the Freeman Etudes instead
of 4'33".
Jeff
Vincent Leslie Carpenter, IV
I suppose he didn't, but I also never judged his artwork ;). I WILL
rephrase my response; I actually don't care if artwork credits anyone;
art stands alone.
However, the point comes in our current society that credit must be
given, or you get the big fat lawsuit.
Samuel Vriezen
wrote:
>Mark.D. <blo...@bigtrousers.com> wrote:
>: This is a quite *fantastic* demonstration of how hysterical people
>: get when an element of the contemporary art catechism is denied. Dare
>: oppose the self-serving, nitwit notion that 'the "meaning" of art is
>: whatever the observer ascribes to it' [sic], and some people lose their
>: grip: you get a response which is not only illiterate ('pray tell give
>: me'), but also challenges you to answer a different question altogether
>: ('what is art?'). Another one for the (bulging) file, I think.
>
>So address the first statement instead of being evasive. If you think
>"The meaning of art is whatever the observer ascribes to it" [sic or
>not] is a "wrong" answer to the question "What is the meaning of art,"
>it would suggest you know what the "right" answer is. What is the "right"
>answer? And more importantly, why is your answer right?
I'm sorry, Dave, but Mark really can't afford to give free lectures on
these incredibly complicated topics here. Rest assured, however, that
Mark knows perfectly well what he's talking about.
--
Samuel
http://concerten.free.fr/home.html
KRISE
Sept 25 Muenchen, Sept 29 Amsterdam, Sept 30 Den Haag, Oct 2 Den Bosch
Piano Possibile: Hirs/Van Eijden/Vriezen/Andriessen/Schneid/Bettendorf
Alles is verfilmbaar, _zelfs_ een roman.
- Anton Haakman, in 'Achter de Spiegel'
Samuel Vriezen
wrote:
>> : Lets give our time to those who deserve it.
>>
>> Like who? Name names, and make your case. Besides "I don't like
>> Cage and I do like so-and-so," that is.
>
>
>The list is not exhaustive, but to name a few
Oooo! I'm a sucker for pedantry. ;-)
Well, I was going to skim through the list and see how many composers
on your list wouldn't have been the composers they became without
Cage's support, influence or without sharing a lot of the mentality,
and then I came across
>FELDMAN, Morton
If you think that Feldman deserves our attention and Cage doesn't, you
should think again. Perhaps study what material we have on the two of
them.
Your enormous list suggests a broad love for music and a generous
sense of history. Now in my opinion, Cage's work deserves to be
studied already because he played such a central part in the last
century's artistic history. Of course, I really think his work
deserves to be studied because he wrote such great works.
Samuel Vriezen
wrote:
>Colin,
>
>In your posts in this thread, you have a lot to say about 4'33" but have you
>listened to his other works? Let us look at who recorded some of them.
>Joshua Pierce has 4 CDs of piano works by Cage. Pierce has also recorded
>Mozart and Listz, so why don't you ask Pierce why someone accomplished
>enough to perform Mozart and Listz at a professional level would take Cage
>seriously enough to prepare high quality recordings of Cage's music?
>Arditti has at least 2 CDs of quartets. Arditti is a first rate ensemble
>the last time I checked. The Chicago Symphony recorded "Atlas
>exlipticalis". Ensemble Modern recorded 16 Dances. What about "The
>Seasons"? "Cheap Imitation"? "Some of 'The Harmony of Maine'"?
>
>You certainly have the right to reject Cage but it if you complain too
>loudly it would be fair to ask what you know that these world-class
>performers don't know.
I recommend especially any recording featuring Arditti; the disc with
'Music For Seventeen' & 'Quartets'; the Choral Works vol. I disc; the
Orchestral Works vol. I disc; and the ECM disc of the Composers
Orchestra playing 'The Seasons', 'Suite for Toy Piano' etc. Also
interesting: some volumes of the Schleiermacher complete piano music
edition, and the Hat Art '55 recording of David Tudor playing Music of
Changes.
Peter T. Daniels
> > > And is a piece's worth proportionally commensurate with the
> > > amount of time it takes to labor over it? If what I've read is
> > > accurate, Mozart took six weeks to write his last three
> > > symphonies. Are these works somehow sullied because of this?
> >
> > Schumann wrote *Dichterliebe* (16 songs) in 3 days.
> >
> For a completely Off-Topic example, F.L. Wright drew up a prelim
> version of Falling Water in a few hours, before meeting with Kaufmann.
> But, he had visited the site several times over a period of several
> months prior to the day of the meeting.
That was his S.O.P. Someone asked him when he did his actual work, since
during the day he was always shmoozing with (prospective) clients or
keeping the apprentices from doing their work; he told them he would
sneak into the office between 4 and 8 am and take advantage of the
solitude.
Peter T. Daniels
> Well worth investigating, and solid proof that Cage was a *real* composer.
> Highly interesting music, fully accessible, containing some very interesting
> and unusual textural sounds. Easy on the ear, although there will be some
> who will dismiss it out of hand. You could search for the appropriate
> volumes in the sale at Tower, although Berman is very good.
I don't know what label the big set is on.
Naxoses are now up to $6.99 (but a selection of them are at Tower Outlet
for $4.99).
Mark.D.
news:3d99963f.2048221@
>
> I'm sorry, Dave, but Mark really can't afford to give free lectures on
> these incredibly complicated topics here. Rest assured, however, that
> Mark knows perfectly well what he's talking about.
Samuel, you are like shit stuck on a shoe - except that shit is more
musical.
M.
Mark.D.
> >
> >So address the first statement instead of being evasive. If you think
> >"The meaning of art is whatever the observer ascribes to it" [sic or
> >not] is a "wrong" answer to the question "What is the meaning of art,"
> >it would suggest you know what the "right" answer is. What is the "right"
> >answer? And more importantly, why is your answer right?
People who have the intellectual and emotional strength really to ponder
this topic without falling victim to its religious aspects, can consider the
following. Anyone who wants not to know what I'm talking about is welcome to
do just that: I couldn't care less.
----------------
Cultural and Psychological Factors Which Favour the Generation and
Perpetuation of the
'A-Piece-Of-Music-Means-Whatever-The-Individual-Listener-Ascribes-To-It'[sic
]-Myth:
1) Impact of a dubious aesthetics which treats music (and 'art' in general)
as something which is about 'beauty' (to be subjectively 'appreciated')
rather than about unverbalisable communication (to be objectively
understood).
2) Refusal of a hyper-lexic (word-obsessed) civilisation to acknowledge (or
maybe even sense) the existence of unverbalisable communication.
3) Materialist, anti-religious reluctance to engage rationally with areas of
experience which have traditionally been labelled spiritual or metaphysical.
4) Anti-romantic, pseudo-democratic opposition to the image of the artist as
a 'unique individual' who bears a special 'message' and 'reveals' it to the
waiting masses.
5) Depressive reaction to disappointed over-optimism concerning the supposed
'universal', 'ennobling' and 'transcendent' qualities of art.
6) Pseudo-democratic reluctance to acknowledge the possible existence of
real and profound differences in capacity between individuals.
7) Sentimental over-estimation of the significance of purely
personal-associative ('listen-darling-they're-playing-our-tune' /
'that-piece-reminds-me-of-my-mother' / etc.) meanings.
8) Insufficiently analytic response to the existence of widely differing
reactions to and evaluations of the same work.
9) Widespread ignorance of analytic models which might begin to explain how
unambiguous meanings are communicated musically.
10) Widespread approbation of and reverence for 'art' and 'artists', which
causes people to insist that something they themselves make or do or enjoy
should be regarded and treated and valued as art: everyone 'wants in'.
11) Exploitative 'free-market' reaction to the fact that 'everyone wants
in': insist that you are an artist or/and that something you make or do or
enjoy is really 'art', and someone, somewhere will happily sell you a
reassuringly 'authoritative' pronouncement that you are quite correct.
12) The lack of agreement which inevitably results when even comprehending
subjects are required to use words to describe the experience of utterly
non-verbal thought-processes.
13) Serious decline of a participatory musical culture whose members can
demonstrate practically and intra-musically to each other the nature and
extent of their musical understanding.
14) Relativist, would-be 'humane' reluctance to suggest that certain people
may not have understood a given work.
15) Insecurity-driven attempt to create a climate in which one will not
oneself face the charge of having failed to understand a given work.
16) Opportunistic attempt by those in and around the 'art-world' to capture
the widest possible market by setting standards which are within the reach
of even the least-interested and least-able person.
17) Careerist and cowardly reluctance of humanities academics to risk
alienating students, peers and superiors by espousing a point of view which
may injure their vanity.
18) Neurotic attempt to defend oneself against artistic meanings and
experiences which are unflattering or which touch one's complexes in painful
ways.
19) Our civilisation's access to the art-objects of many centuries and
cultures, most of which cannot possibly be understood by any one
individual - who may therefore 'project' personal meanings to fill the
'cognition-gap'.
-------------------
Any reply to this which is posted after less than 24 hours' thought will be
bullshit: you won't have understood what you're moaning about.
M.
David Cleary
: On 30 Sep 2002 20:56:09 GMT, David Cleary <dcl...@fas.harvard.edu>
: wrote:
:>Mark.D. <blo...@bigtrousers.com> wrote:
:>: This is a quite *fantastic* demonstration of how hysterical people
:>: get when an element of the contemporary art catechism is denied. Dare
:>: oppose the self-serving, nitwit notion that 'the "meaning" of art is
:>: whatever the observer ascribes to it' [sic], and some people lose their
:>: grip: you get a response which is not only illiterate ('pray tell give
:>: me'), but also challenges you to answer a different question altogether
:>: ('what is art?'). Another one for the (bulging) file, I think.
:>
:>So address the first statement instead of being evasive. If you think
:>"The meaning of art is whatever the observer ascribes to it" [sic or
:>not] is a "wrong" answer to the question "What is the meaning of art,"
:>it would suggest you know what the "right" answer is. What is the "right"
:>answer? And more importantly, why is your answer right?
: I'm sorry, Dave, but Mark really can't afford to give free lectures on
: these incredibly complicated topics here. Rest assured, however, that
: Mark knows perfectly well what he's talking about.
I'll believe that when I see something from him that suggests he
indeed knows what he's talking about.
Dave
dancertm
wrote:
I read recently another composer, who I'd never heard of, took out a
copywrite for 4'32" and 4'34" so if a performer does not do the work
correctly, he gets the performance money.
I performed the work while in college, and during these regular
chamber concerts, the room was mostly empty, this one was filled to
over flowing :-)
David Cleary
: David Cleary <dcl...@fas.harvard.edu>
:> >
:> >So address the first statement instead of being evasive. If you think
:> >"The meaning of art is whatever the observer ascribes to it" [sic or
:> >not] is a "wrong" answer to the question "What is the meaning of art,"
:> >it would suggest you know what the "right" answer is. What is the "right"
:> >answer? And more importantly, why is your answer right?
: People who have the intellectual and emotional strength really to
: ponder this topic without falling victim to its religious aspects,
: can consider the following. Anyone who wants not to know what I'm
: talking about is welcome to do just that: I couldn't care less.
: ----------------
: Cultural and Psychological Factors Which Favour the Generation and
: Perpetuation of the
: 'A-Piece-Of-Music-Means-Whatever-The-Individual-Listener-Ascribes-To-It'[sic
: ]-Myth:
[snip]
None of which, as far as I can see, answer the specific questions
that were put to you. "Wanting to know what you're talking about"
is not the issue, but providing clear answers is. Try again:
1. "What is the meaning of art?"
You've clearly stated that you feel the answer "The meaning of art
is whatever the individual listener ascribes to it" [sic or not]
is the "wrong" answer. Whether I agree with this or not isn't
part of the question. Given this:
2. it would suggest you have the "right" answer to this question.
What is that "right" answer?
3. More importantly, why is your answer the "right" one?
Dave
Samuel Vriezen
wrote:
And a nice day to you, too, Mark.
Samuel Vriezen
<bbey...@ptloma.ed_> wrote:
>*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
>The way I understand it, Cage's intent was not to ascribe the qualities of
>music to absolute silence.
In Cageian folklore, silence doesn't exist because there are always
sounds, if only those of your own body.
>The piece is meant to be played in a large
>concert hall, and the "music" that is generated is the shuffling of feet,
>the coughing, etc.
No, you can perform it anywhere, for yourself or for an audience.
For the full story, let me again point out the invaluable site:
http://solo1.home.mindspring.com/4min33se.htm
David Cleary
: To Dave
:>
:> Ah. Playing the anti-intellectual card. That'll help your
:> argument.
: No I am not
You led off your post by saying, "I don't care how educated a
reply is in support of 4'33" the whole thing has got to be
a joke taking the sane world for a ride." [sic] (Which you've
snipped from your reply, by the way).
Sure looks like an anti-intellectual smart crack to me. In
fact, it seems to question the sanity of anyone who would
say something in support of the piece.
:> Or did you come here just to whine and insult people?
: No - certainly not whining
Uh huh. How about the piece you said you'd write that
involves a lot of silence, then a long held note, then more
silence? And you've snipped that part of your reply as well.
Still think you're not whining?
: and where was the insult? - I have not
: insulted anyone to my knowledge. The only insult to anyones
: intelligence is the so-called composition 4'33"
You've cast aspersions on anyone who happens to like or respect
this work and has said so in a fashion that you consider to be
intellectual. In fact, the last sentence you wrote directly above
does fundamentally the same thing; you did say it's an "insult to
anyones intelligence" [sic], not just yours. Also see above about
the sane/insane crack.
I'd say you have.
:> : I once watched a documentary on John Cage and his composition
:> : "Jerusalem Windows" it was as exciting as the recent National
:> : Geographic epic on the latest discovery in a pyrimid - Yet another
:> : wall in a little passage.
:>
:> Looks like the anti-intellectual thing again. Look, if you want to
:> switch the channel over to watch Britney Spears, go right ahead.
: certainly not - er Britney who - is she anything to do with music?
:> : At one
:> : point after claiming to have started the composition, he had to
:> : visit the Jeruslem Windows to get more inspitration. On e of the
:> : people asked him if he had written any of it yet, and quite
:> : seriously "I have written the first bar" I wonder if it was a bar's
:> : rest, or whether it had to be re-written after having seen the real
:> : thing.
:>
:> How presumptuous of you to assume what Cage did or did not have
:> written in that measure. Why does it matter, anyway? Mozart, from
:> what I've read, "wrote" some pieces in his head until they were
:> ready to scribble out in final form.
: As many of us do - this is nothing new
So how do you know Cage isn't doing the same thing? And as asked
before, why does it matter?
:> And is a piece's worth proportionally commensurate with the
:> amount of time it takes to labor over it?
: Who mentioned time - I didn't
But you did seem to take Cage to task about "having written the
first bar" only. Sure looks from here as if you're casting
aspersions on Cage for the amount of work he had done.
:> : Does every period of silence breach the copyright? Ok - lets not
:> : give this time of day its not worth it.
:>
:> Not necessarily. But if you ascribe Cage to it in some way, it
:> can certainly be construed as such a breach.
: What a really sad world
That's your opinion.
:> : Lets give our time to those who deserve it.
:>
:> Like who? Name names, and make your case. Besides "I don't like
:> Cage and I do like so-and-so," that is.
: The list is not exhaustive, but to name a few
[snip for space]
Names accepted.
: nuf said
Nope. How about making your case? Why do these people deserve
our time and Cage doesn't? Besides "I don't like Cage and I do
like all these other composers." You're after all not saying
"that's who I like," which is personal taste. You're saying
"Let's give our time to those who deserve it," which suggests
someone like me should agree with you.
:> : I was going to send this email, and then destroy oll my recordings
:> : of John Cage Music. And then I relaizes, I havn't got any.
:>
:> Haven't heard any of Cage's music? Yup--that makes you an expert,
:> all righty.
: You jump to conclusions too quickly, Yes I have heard,
Which pieces?
: but I do not need to justify to you or anyone.
If you're going to belittle other people who do like or respect this
music, I'd say you do. It's not just about you anymore.
: If I had not heard anything I would not have written.
It's happened before around here.
: Expert - who said expert - its merely an opinion that I expressed
: in answer to the orginal post.
It's more than that. See above.
: But quite clearly you must be an expert, so I
: must look up to your superior knowledge and bow to your
: interlectual status in this respect!
I'll happily settle for a live and let live attitude, thank you.
:> : Best wishes all
:>
:> Yeah, you too. And say howdy to the rest of the folks in troll
:> country.
:> Dave
: I really do believe that you must have a real chip on your shoulder,
Nope. But I don't take too kindly to people who badmouth my
sanity and taste in music. I find it pretty insulting, actually.
: to ascertain that I am whining or insulting when I did not.
You did indeed. See above. And what's more, you snipped the
examples from your reply. You won't get rid of the examples
that easily.
: Your closing
: statement could be misconstrued as an insult, but one cannot
: tell when you have been so elloquent in your previous comments.
Whatever.
Dave
John Harrington
Centa...@gmx.net wrote on 9/30/02 8:11 PM:
Presumably, the point of the exam is to demonstrate your skill on the
instrument, so 4'33" would be inappropriate, as would the first prelude from
WTC I, Chopin's 6th and 7th preludes and many other fine pieces.
John
John Harrington
wrote on 10/1/02 5:29 AM:
You're right. But you're like the pile the shoe stepped in.
J
John Harrington
gram...@worldnet.att.net wrote on 10/1/02 5:28 AM:
<snip>
> Naxoses are...
Naxoi are...
J
John Harrington
dcl...@fas.harvard.edu wrote on 10/1/02 6:40 AM:
Premise two is wrong. It would suggest that he simply doesn't believe that
art means "whatever individual ascribes to it". He could mean that a given
piece of art means a finite set of things, even if all those things can't be
enumerated. For example, _Moby-Dick_ certainly doesn't mean "Drink Pepsi!",
but it could conceivably mean "arrogance is punished by the gods," "Nature
is an ultimately indomitable force", "we are ruled by ineluctable fate", and
many other things not completely numerable.
I happen to think that questions of "meaning" are irrelevant to music.
Although music sometimes allegedly means things, what it means is vague and
is only the tip of the iceberg, if that, of its value as art.
John
John Harrington
sqv.remo...@xs4all.nl wrote on 10/1/02 5:55 AM:
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:56:42 +1000, "Centaur" <Centa...@gmx.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> : Lets give our time to those who deserve it.
>>>
>>> Like who? Name names, and make your case. Besides "I don't like
>>> Cage and I do like so-and-so," that is.
>>
>>
>> The list is not exhaustive, but to name a few
>
> Oooo! I'm a sucker for pedantry. ;-)
The list, I should mention, is not even his. He copied it from a website
called classical.net.
J
Samuel Vriezen
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I have to admit that I don't think I've ever heard more than one Cage
>work ever (I've never even attended a performance of 4'33") -- but today
>at Tower (I got the Cziffra Liszt box recommended yesterday, and all the
>majors are on sale: the Universal (ex-Polygram) group _and_ the EMI
>group, till the end of October) there was a big display of volume NINE
>of the complete piano works, *Terres Australes* or something like that,
>meaning there are some twenty disks just of his piano music already.
>
>Where should one start? (I did like the prepared piano piece I heard so
>long ago ...)
It's very unCageian to say this, but it may depend on your taste. The
discs are organized by 'theme'. I have three of them; the Music of
Changes, a great work in which chance was utilized extensively for the
first time; volume 6 has many of his late pieces that I like, but they
are quite austere, however it also includes an interesting, strange
Beatles-collage. You might like the 2-piano disc best; it has some
good earlier stuff for 2 prepared pianos as well as some beautiful
austere late pieces.
There's also his disc of Satie derivations that looks interesting, and
some collections of shorter works; these tend to be amusing.