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: 25 Aug 92 20:02:37 GMT

In article <BtGxsA.BKG@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <2A968869.14207@orion.oac.uci.edu> jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley) writes:
>>In article <Bt941H.B39@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>
>>>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
>>> ...  <rest of "analogy" deleted>  ....
>
>>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.
>
>As I pointed out in the upcoming paragraph, the reason Roger (and you) can't
>accept my analogy is that you can't accept that art exists for an objective
>purpose.  The problem is not that I have not made an argument

Au contraire ... you do not make an argument.  You try to draw an
analogy that is not appropriate.

>, but rather,
>that you don't accept my argument because one of it's premises is that
>art must have a purpose in order to be valuable, and that purposeless art
>is of necessity valueless, and according to my definition of art, not even 
>art.  How do you know that there are no objective standards for evaluating
>art? 

I don't know what those "objective" standards are.  I don't know who
has the power to determine them.  In the movie "Dead Poet's Society",
Robin Williams has his students rip up the "objective" standards a
textbook suggests for evaluating the value of poetry.  I believe that
is the best solution for any set of "objective" standards.  Evaluating
art inherently requires "subjective" judgement.  What is meaningful to
me may have no meaning to you.  

> I think one can evaluate art just as objectively as one can evaluate 
>a medicine.
>
>What I am saying is that my fundamental disagreement with Roger (and you)
>is that I think there are objective ways to evaluate art and he doesn't.
>That's why I used an analogy in which even a pretty radical moral skeptic
>like Roger can't say there is no objective way to evaluate a certain kind
>of activity.
>

Well, so far, I'm convinced that medicine can be evaluated 
objectively.  Neither your analogy nor any of your other 
attempts at argument show that music can be evaluated objectively.

(Aside:  And, what ever gave you the idea that Roger does not think
   that medicine cannot be evaluated in an objective way?)

>Another thing that follows from this line of reasoning is that I can 
>rationally conclude that music has value (in reference to a goal which it
>seeks to advance) whereas Roger (and you) cannot consistently say so.

Actually, in reference to an element which *you* seek to find.

And I can play the same game you do if I want.  I hate "so-so"
because I'm "objective".  I celebrate his death due to my objectivity.
That you like him or defend those who do means you are irrational.

>Think of it this way, if no sounds are any more musical than any others,
>then why bother having musicians?  CDs?  Composers?  Why not just listen
>to the dryer spin?  Cage answered this by saying "Sure, that follows, so go
>ahead and listen to the dryer spinning instead of harmonies, melodies, etc."
>

Is this a direct quote or more hyperbole?

>>>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.
>
>Actually, this is a long exchange between Roger and me.  In brief, my argument 
>is that art exists for a purpose and that purpose is the source of any
>value it may have (that goes for any man-made product too).  Additionally,
>that purpose is to express metaphysical value judgements by way of recreating
>some aspect of reality.  

Well, I'm so happy you chose a tangible purpose for music.  Metaphysics!
Now there's a real basis for objective analysis.

>This applies to all art: painting, sculpture, music,
>poetry, literature, or what have you.  Regarding music in particular, the 
>sounds can by their harmonic relationships, repetition, rhythm, etc. express
>certain judgements.  

Now it's getting sillier all the time.  Of course, to you, some music
might express that ... but it does not have to "express ... judgements"
about anything in order to be music.

>A random stream of notes is like these two in the sense that
>they are all sounds, but unlike them in the sense that random sounds convey no
>content, and serves no purpose.  Therefore, it can have no value either.
>

Your definition now is getting awfully close to Cage's.  If all I need
is for a sound to convey content and serve a purpose, the following are
"non-random" sounds that are by your definition music:

1. Emergency vehicle siren  content:  "Get outta the road".  
   purpose:  "Encourage motorists to pull over."
2. Washing machine   content:  "The clothes are cleaning".
   purpose:  "Let S.O. know that s/he can breathe easily when going out
   with you tonight."
3. Microwave fan  content:  "Be patient I'm a-cooking".
   purpose  "Remind you that hunger is a tragedy that we all must work
   to end."

>
>But I have listened to Cage and I DO know what music is.  Do you?  Can you 
>give me a definition?  Or do you think that no definition is possible?  If
>so, can you prove that?

Webster's can give you probably give you 5 or 6 definitions of music.  
I will say that no single, universal definition of music exists that
provides a foundation for "objective" evaluation of the value of every
sound to determine if it's music, or the quality of that sound.

>>>>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.
>
>Would you agree that doctors of the type I described would be "causing damage
>to the medical world"?  If so, then our disagreement is REALLY about whether 
>or not there are objective standards by which one can judge (or identify) art
>and whether or not Cage's "music" is good by those standards.  

Whose objective standards?  Yours!!!!!  I would say that celebrating
a man's death (a man who has committed no heinous offense to either you
or society) is good evidence that you are not objective.

>If there are
>objective standards, and if Cage fails to meet them, then wouldn't you say
>that he has been a destructive influence?  

No.  I'd say he's been a failure.

>Just what particular point is 
>our most fundamental disagreement?  Only after we have located that, can we 
>rationally discuss this issue.
>

Our most fundamental disagreement are not about art or how art is
evaluated.  (I could care less what you think of John Cage's music.  
I could care less about your strange habit of claiming your opinions 
are somehow more "objective" than those of people who *you* admit no 
more about the music of John Cage than you do.)  

Our most fundamental disagreement is not about the music of John Cage.
I state quite frankly that I disagree with anyone who suggests you
listen to Cage's music.  I think it would be much better if you never
listened to his music, never thought about his music, never worried
about his music again.

Our most fundamental disagreement is not even that you chose to 
argue your points solely by stating that two things are analogous,
when it is easily shown that they are not.

Our initial disagreement stemmed from your celebration of a man's death
simply because you do not like his music or his philosophy of music.

The disagreement has been compounded by your offensive use of 
mass-murderers and Nazi doctors as figures of comparison with John
Cage.  I'm offended because your comparisons are an implicit slander 
of a recently deceased man, because they offend people who lost
loved ones during these catastrophes and because they have
the effect of dulling our senses (almost 1/2 a century later)
to the evils perpetuated by Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.
I consider this our most fundamental disagreement.

John D.

Newsgroups: rec.music.classical