From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: John Cage is Dead
Summary: Value and purpose in Music
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 08:18:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.133427.5441@cs.rochester.edu> steyn@cs.rochester.edu (Gavin Steyn) writes:
>In article <BtMGLz.1Js@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>Because ANYTHING with value must be associated with a purpose.  Value is a
>>value FOR some purpose, BY some valuer.  Would you mind explaining how something
>>can be valuable without advancing a purpose?

>This definition of value is so broad as to be pretty useless.  (Now if only
>we get you to take the same approach to music :-) )

What do you mean?  It is quite useful!  Actually, what I gave was not a 
definition of the word "value", but rather, some attributes of them.

>  After all, ny this definition, music does NOT have to have a message to
>be good; it only has to have some value.  

This is certainly true as you said it, but there are plenty of "good" things
which are not music.  I was merely pointing out that for music to have
value (ie. to be "good) it must be associated with a purpose.  Purpose
is necessary, but not sufficient for a thing to be "music".

>Cage's music ovbviously
>has value to some people--it relaxes them, it makes them think, maybe it
>influences their music, and so on.  

I don't agree that listening to Cage has good effects on thought or composition
ability, but that's beside the point.  To have a purpose is not sufficient
to make a thing music.  Screwdrivers have a purpose too, but they aren't
music.

Tell me...just what thoughts so you think a Cage listener is supposed to have?
Do you think they are good/true thoughts?

>Now, it may not have any value to
>Brian Yoder, but that's no crime.  (Heck, I find Mahler doesn't do anything
>for me--I certainly wouldn't call his work "not music" :-) ).  

There is certainly such a thing as music I consider to be "bad".  There is
also such a thing as "good": music that I don't like as much as certain other
"good" music.  Can you tell me just what sorts of good ideas Cage is
trying to express?

>Actually,
>by the losse defintion above, Cage's music does have value for Brian Yoder; 
>it gives him an example to point at to show how degenerate modern music is.

I have always said that there's a certain kind of implicit message and
value in Cage's music, but it's not artistic value.

OK, let's play a little game.  Tell me what is alike about the following 
things: Apples, Stop signs, bloodshot eyes, the flag of China, and blood.
The concept you are deriving is that of "Red things".  If I also said that
some particular beach ball belonged to that class, what could you say about it?

Here's an interesting exercise:  Do you think that music is a kind of art?
If so, what would you say al of the various kinds of art have in common?
In other words, tell me what is ALIKE about music, painting, sculpture,
literature, and dance.  Perhaps your answer will allow you to better understand
where I get my definition from.

Perhaps Roger Lustig would like to try his hand at this one too?!?

--Brian
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical,rec.music.compose,rec.music.makers,rec.music.marketplace,rec.music.misc