From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: John Cage is Dead
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 22 Aug 92 18:33:13 GMT

In article <Bt941H.B39@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.060119.26503@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>
>>Of course, you've never demonstrated -- despite repeated requests -- that
>>Cage ever "destroyed" *any* music, good or bad.  Your claim is as
>>preposterous now as it was the first time you made it.
>
>I have demonstrated it again and again, you just refuse to acknowledge 
>my arguments.
>
>Look, if a bunch of sadists went around calling themselves "doctors" and
>as "treatment" amputated healthy limbs and poisoned patients, all the
>while insisting that their kind of "medicine" was no different than the
>kind that was in vogue a few years before, you could say that they were
>doing more than just attacking the patients with "bad medicine".  They
>would be damaging the practice of medicine in general by defining it
>out of existence, and in essence accusing the traditional doctors of being
>no better than butchers. 
>

This is not an argument.  It's in inappropriate analogy.  Medicine
has objective standards to determine whether treatment is correct or
not.  Does it cure? Does it relieve symptoms? Does the treatment
have unacceptable side-effects?  This argument is simply an attempt
(a poor one at that) at hyperbole.  It is not founded on reason.

>Where we differ is that you wouldn't accept this analogy on the grounds 
>(ultimately) medicine and music (in fact art in general) has no sort
>of goal or purpose and therefore cannot be said to be good or bad in the
>way that it can be said of medicine.  

Try this sentence one more time.  As written, your argument is unclear.

>That is a philosophical disagreement, not a lack of argument on my part.

So, far your argument is lacking.  You have an analogy (a very poor one
I might reiterate) that is not in any tangible way tied to music.

>
>I never claimed to be an expert on Cage.  I hate his "music" and as you 
>might expect don't spend a lot of time listening to to, but that doesn't
>mean that what I have said about him is false.  One need not be an
>automotive engineer to tell that a car that runs is better than one that
>does not.
>

But one must actually try to drive the car.  One must also know
what a car is.  

>>Nor do you know anything about his admirers; who, pray
>>tell, has "fawned at his feet"?  
>
>Well, YOU for one.  Are you saying that he has no admirers?
>

Obviously not.  He's asking what Cage admirers "fawn at [Cage's] feet.

>>But now you have gone even further in exposing your nature: you've told
>>us you're actually happy the man is dead.  
>
>On a certain level, I am.  In much the same way I am happy to see a liar
>or criminal die.  Of course, I would be happier to see such people reform
>themselves, but what can I say?  I think he was a bad guy who caused a lot
>of damage to the musical world.
>

Although, so far you cannot prove it.

>
>I have responded repeatedly.  You just have not been willing to accept 
>my answers.  That's YOUR problem, not mine.
>
>>a toad who rejoices in the death of peaceful human beings he
>>thought he disagreed with, while knowing nothing about the people he so
>>twistedly hates.
>
>So, you think I know nothing about Cage?  Gimme a break.

You do revel in your lack of expertise above.

John D.