From: ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: John Cage is Dead
Date: 26 Aug 92 10:12:59 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium


brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:

>In article <1992Aug22.231626.2025@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>In article <Bt958o.B6H@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>>In article <2A904248.26806@orion.oac.uci.edu> jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley) writes:

>>>How can you divide the two in a total evaluation of how you feel about his
>>>death?  

>>"I don't like Paul Newman's spaghetti sauce, so I'll be glad when he's
>>dead."  Huh?  What does a person's work have to do with personal like or
>>dislike?  

>That's the question I answered with the following analogy...

>>>Who knows, maybe Stalin was a really nice guy when he wasn't
>>>"at work", but that doesn't stop me from having contempt for him.  Since

>>Only because his work was evil.  

>So was Cage's!  He wasn't AS evil as Stalin, but evil none the less.

Maybe your problem (and few doubt that you have one) is that you seem to think
that it's always sufficient to answer questions by means of analogies, and then
claim that they're some sort of proof for your beliefs. The only real value
analogies have is in making your views clearer to others. Unfortunately yours
don't. Surely everybody has SOME evil in them anyway; does this mean you'd
rather everyone were dead except for, or possibly including, yourself, or do
you just use this as a grounds for picking and choosing who you like without
the mental strain of having to reason?

>>Tell us why you chose Stalin, the murderer of millions, the enslaver of
>>a nation, for an analogy of a man whose witty compositions fascinated
>>some, amused others, stimulated yet others to compose, and infuriated a
>>few.  

>I have explained it again and again.  Please refer to my "doctor analogy".
>Remember, the fact that I used "doctors" in my analogy is not meant to 
>imply that Cage used scalpels in his composition or wore a mask and 
>rubber gloves during his performances.

And I was assuming this was the common element! I couldn't make sense of it
otherwise.

>>Tell us who was harmed by all those activities, and why they have
>>anything to do with Stalin's criminality.

>It's very simple, Stalin's criminality was "bad", Cage's music was "bad",
>because of the "bad" things both did, I am glad they are both dead.  I am
>*more* glad that Stalin is dead, but my analogy was not meant to equate 
>the two, but to validate the principle involved.

It would be interesting to see what other "principles" could be "validated"
by such analogies. Implicit in your statement is the fact that men with "bad"
aspects of their characters (although you've still not proved that Cage had
one) are "bad" men. If you accept this, you could prove Hitler was a "good"
man, because he liked Wagner and so his musical taste was "good".

>>>the only "relationship" I have with Cage is through his work, that is the
>>>only grounds on which I can base my evaluations.  Even is he was a kindly
>>>gentleman, his effect on the music world makes his overall impact on the
>>>world (and me in particular) quite negative.

>>But you can ignore it without even trying.  Nobody holds a gun to your
>>head and forces you to listen to Cage.  

>On the contrary, I went to a compulsory-attendance school and had a teacher
>force me to listen.  If I had skipped class, I would have been breaking the
>law.  I had no choice.

Even in a school music class nobody can "force" you to listen to the music
and, even if you do, why can't you just say "Well, now I've listened and that
music just doesn't appeal to me, so I'll ignore it from now on"? Why do you
have to develop some malicious hatred for the composer, based on only one
particular aspect of his existence?

>>This is not the same as millions
>>killed, no matter how much you like such analogies.

>Until you can learn how to interpret analogies, maybe you should just 
>stop commenting on my posts.  Perhaps your utter inability to understand 
>analogies explains you inability to understand art...an interesting theory.

Perhaps your utter inability to draw useful analogies prevents you from
relating to the other posters on this column...

Martin Watts.
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical