From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: JOHN CAGE
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 02:58:30 GMT

In article <BtEu9B.y5@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.232926.21582@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>In article <BtCst1.B7q@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>>In article <qgRsPB3w164w@sys6626.bison.mb.ca> kevin@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (Kevin Scott) writes:

>>>>In my mind, the point where the last bit of order is gone is 
>>>>where is stops being music and starts becoming "performance art".

>>>"Performance Art"?  What makes you think it's art at all?

>>Because people experience it that way.  Some of them even find
>>metaphysical value judgments in it.

>Such as?  The only ones I see are only implicit and are all roughly along the
>lines of "Nonsense is good." or "Nothing makes sense, so let's just be honest
>about it." or "Look at those fine robes the emperor is wearing.".

Well, *all* metaphysical value judgments that are within works of art,
whether inherently or immanently, are implicit.  I've never seen one on
the label, and I take care not to give them away in the liner notes.

Now, since the only ones *you've* ever proposed for a work of art are
equally vague as the ones you derisively suggest above (I recall "life
is worth living," which could be the message of almost any work of art),
and since the label "metaphysical" is a stretch for something like that,
and since one really doesn't need a work of art in order to be informed
of, or even convinced of, such judgments, I don't really understand
whatyour problem is.

As for "nonsense is good," well, isn't it?  At times, it can be a heck
of a lot of fun, as with Edward Lear or Lewis Carroll.  Some performance
art is a good deal more sophisticated than Lear, but has a similar sense
of play, of taking fresh looks, some of them quite silly, at ordinary or
supposedly "sacred" objects.  This can be quite refreshing, don't you
think?  Nonsense like that is good indeed, unless you have such a
broomstick up your posterior that you can't learn anything from play.

Now, lots of performance art has many other messages, and all the good
stuff has messages that can't be summarized in neat little slogans.
Moreover, people's takes on a good piece will differ, and that's
obviously true for Beethoven's 5th as well as a Laurie Anderson shtick.
The judgments one extracts from a piece are not necessarily the ones the
composer thought of when they went in.  

Do you disagree with any of this?

>You can't just assert that there's some kind of meaning in there without any
>further explanation and hope to have anyone believe you.

Indeed you cannot.  One must also see and hear the piece in question.

>  When the sounds
>are admittedly random (or non-existent), how can they express any kind
>of judgements (aside from implicit ones as I mentioned)?

a) What's wrong with implicit judgments?
b) Chance operations don't necessarily make for completely random
sounds.  
c) Lots of other things are going on in your typical Cage piece that
uses random sounds.
d) Even a piece that doesn't have the performer making noise will allow
one to draw conclusions, have ideas, suspect things -- depending on
where, when ,and with what other music it is performed.  This has been a
basic tenet of rhetoric for millennia; see under "locus topicus."
e) Instrumental music of the kind I'm sure  you'll agree is music (e.g.,
a Brahms piano trio) doesn't have explicit judgments in it either.  Is
this not art?

>>>>However in the original message, I agree completely. Stuffy academics who 
>>>>look down their noses at Cage and self-righteously say to one another "I 
>>>>suppose he's INTERESTING..." while rolling their eyes in contempt, DO 
>>>>need a good amount of Cage rammed down their throats. 

>>>If you noticed, it is the "stuffy academics" who are ramming this stuff
>>>down our throats (such a the ones who made me listen to it when I was
>>>in school, and Mr. Lustig who is (presumably) an academic musicologist.

>>As usual, you presume wrong.  I have no academic position.  I am a
>>writer and consultant.  

>Interesting.  With whom do you "consult"?  Are you affiliated with a 
>university in any way?

I use the computer at Princeton, and my files toward a Ph.D. are still
active at the University of Chicago.  However, I rarely talk with people
there.  Basically, I work here and send them money on occasion.

With whom do I consult?  A research firm here in town, a management
group in Maryland.  I write for a record company, and translate for an
academic press (aha!) in Cambridge, MA.

>>As for your teachers at school, I'm sorry they made you suffer so
>>greatly, but I suspect they had no ulterior motive other than to get you
>>to think about Cage.  Clearly it didn't work.

>No, on the contrary, I THOUGHT about Cage, and the result of my thinking
>was that what did was neither music, nor art, nor good.

Too bad you don't have definitions that back this up.  Or at least, not
coherent ones.

>  Why is it that
>you can't conceive of someone listening to Cage, thinking about it, and 
>rejecting it as nonsense?

Are you kidding?  *Most* people do that.  But few go so far to rejoice
in the man's death, or to call him a destroyer of music, and to
misrepresent what he did and said, all the while proclaiming their lack
of expertise.

>>>Look around this news group.  The way to rile up the academics is not by
>>>praising people like Cage, but by pointing out that what he did was neither 
>>>music nor art.

>>In short, to speak nonsense.  You have never defended this assertion with
>>anything other than invective and pseudo-philosophy built on
>>hand-waving.

>Astounding!  I have written message after message explaining my views on
>art and music,

And very few that respond to basic questions about what you say.  There
are grave inconsistencies and baseless assertions all over what you have
said (my offer to repost it stands); when challenged, you have nothing
to say.  You've *never* addressed the basic problem of determining the
"judgments" inherent in a piece of instrumental music.

> and the amount of invective has been pretty small compared 
>to your unending series of insults. 

I repeat myself only when you do.  And only in response to your
impudence, your misrepresentations, your outright lies, your disgusting
similes, your hateful glee.

> As for "pseudo-philosophy based on
>hand-waving", that sounds more like G.E. Moore who is in YOUR camp, not mine.

No, Brian, it's you.  You talk of "metaphysical value judgments," but
you can never show us what they are, or why you think that they are what
they are, or how you can tell.  You simply stick up your nose at things
you don't like, sniff, and say, "not music."  Other than your not liking
something, you have no yardstick (so far as you've shown us) for
rejecting a thing as art.

>I have explained my points based on reason and observation 

Observation?  I recall a discussion of only one piece of music in detail
(the 1812 Overture); and your misinformation about it rendered your
analysis problematic.  What else did you observe?

Reason?  Your basic line of reasoning is, "It's not music because I
don't like it."  Occasionally, you go for "it's not music because Ayn
Rand says it's not."  Neither one is much of a theorem.

>(whether you buy
>my arguments or not, you can't say that they are based on hand-waving and
>pseudo-philosophy).

I can say it, and if you wish, I can prove it.  Just say the word.

>  Your responses have basically been emotional skepticism
>of a pretty low order.  

Point by point refutation is "emotional"?

>What do you think music is?  Well, you gave me several
>completely different definitions (e.g. what people think it is, a kind of 
>activity, an emotion, what artists do, etc.)

indeed.  And I also supplied contexts within which each of those
definitions operates.

> and your "justifications for 
>each were nothing but emotional tirades or appeals to authority.  

Really?  I spent a good deal of time showing why other definitions would
not work, and then showed the utility of the definition.  What more do
you want?  How do *you* make definitions?

>Hand-waving and pseudo-philosophy indeed!

Indeed?  Show me where I did the things you claim.

>>Yes, Brain, some of us do get riled up when you attack us with things
>>that are patently false or nonsensical.  

>It is not nonsensical to claim that music is something specific, and that 
>contradictory statements about it cannot all be true.

So why does nobody accept your definition of the specific things music
is?  Why is there such a need to include other things?  

> It is also not nonsensical
>to point out that for something to have value, it must be associated with 
>some purpose.  

Enjoyment, stimulation to thought, ritual, dance, accompaniment to work,
etc.  These aren't purposes?  

>How can you sit there can deny these basic concepts and
>call ME nonsensical?

Who's denied that?

On the other hand, who says that John Cage's music has "value" in your
strict sense?  Some people come along, do one of the things above, and
thus *attach* value to it.  What about it?

>>We're *still* waiting to hear
>>what the metaphysical judgments in Beethoven's seventh are, and how you
>>can tell.

>I explained a bunch of these for you again and again.  What is it that you
>are missing?

You explained three of them, once.  In one case, you misconstrued the
obvious, pre-set meaning of a borrowed tune (the opening of the 1812
Overture); in the other two cases, you discussed the words to a song.
Tell me about a piece of instrumental music *not* associated with
words.

>>>>Say what you like about Cage...at least he's never boring. Wish I could 
>>>>say the same for Mozart.

>>>Are you telling me that sitting in silence for 4'33" is something other 
>>>than boring?  I can't imagine anything less exciting.

>>Who said it would be silent?  I've never heard a silent performance of
>>the piece.  Besides, there's always something to watch, too. 

>Gee, really exciting.  You can watch people shift nervously in their chairs,

More than that, believe me.  You just gotta be there.  

(Of course, there are good nights and bad ones, as with any other
piece.)

>listen to the air conditioner come on, listen to flies buzzing around the
>window...what an exciting feast for the senses!  

Oh, heck -- look at the performer!  Or performers... see all kinds of
things.  Hear people talking.  Imagine what others are thinking.  Play a
little game with yourself -- try not to be cynical for just 30 seconds.
Best of all, treat the sounds as *sounds.*  

Roger

Newsgroups: rec.music.classical