From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: John Cage is Dead
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 22:41:44 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.

Indeed I did not.  

However, I asked you many questions about your arguments, including
things about logical inconsistencies I perceived in them, factual
errors, and so on.  Your responses were few and far between, generally
used no proof or examples or even authority other than your own say-so,
and did not satisfy me.               

>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. 

Here we go again.  Instead of coprophagia or decorating with carrion,
it's poisoners this time.  Brian, this argument was nonsense the first
two times, and it's nonsense now.  Just shouting "icky-poo" is not an
argument.

>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.  That is a philosophical disagreement,

No, it is NOT where we differ.  We differ on the issue of what music is,
and on how one tells good music from bad.  Good medicine is universal;
good music is not.  Good music is good to some people in some
situations, and not ot other s in other situations.

This is not a philosophical disagreement, either, unless you can show
that standards of musical goodness *are* universal.  You tried that once
(I'll repost it if you really want), and fell down hard.

>not a lack of argument on my part.

Alas, that's just what it is.  You haven't come close to putting
together even a cogent justification of your analogy above.

>>Not that you know anything about John Cage; as far as I know, you can
>>only name two pieces by him, 

>Actually, I named a half dozen of them for you, and briefly described them.

Incorrectly, I might add.  As you may know by now, there are no pots and
pans in "Constructions in Metal," nor is 4'33" ( a highly atypical Cage
piece) "just sitting around in silence."

>>and have made numerous incorrect statements about both.  

>I never claimed to be an expert on Cage.  

Indeed, you claimed to be proud of your ignorance.  But if you would
make outlandish claims about his music, or tell us that he "Destroyed"
music, you'd better know at least a little about him and about what he
did.  As it is, you sound like someone who claims that Hitler invaded
Florida.

>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.  

Indeed: what you said about him means that what you said about him is
false.

--that he was a nihilist
--that he "destroyed" music
--that he wrote a piece that was "banging on pots and pans"
--that he claimed that discord was "As good as" concord, etc.
--That he claimed his music was "as good as" Beethoven.

The last of these is especially hilarious to anyone who knows *anything*
about Cage's thinking.  That's the *last* thing he would have said.

>One need not be an
>automotive engineer to tell that a car that runs is better than one that
>does not.

Unless you need a car that moves six passengers, in which case a
Lamborghini is worse than a Ford Explorer.  What a simplistic
application of "Better"!  All you know about a car that runs faster is
that it runs faster.  You might all a slower car better for a dozen
reasons, such as its gas mileage, its handling, its capacity,
reliability, etc.  It depends on what you want in a car.

The car itself is not better or worse UNTIL you come along and SET YOUR
OWN CRITERIA for "better" and "worse." You can't measure "better" and
"worse" on some gauge.

Similarly, if all you want is pretty tunes, then Cage is not for you.
If you want to do some other things with your listening, say, focus on
sounds in new contexts, then Cage may have something to offer you.  To
some, his music is better; to some, not.  If I want some music that will
give me lots of new things to think about wrt the nature of music, I'm
not going to go hear the Tchaikovsky Fifth for the 60th time.

Even though I like it.

>>Nor do you know anything about his admirers; who, pray
>>tell, has "fawned at his feet"?  

>Well, YOU for one.  

Really?  What have I said to make you think that?  

>Are you saying that he has no admirers?

Are you saying that "fawned at his feet" is what all admirers do?

Who, pray tell, has fawned at his feet?  Tell us how you know this?

>>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.  

What untruth did John Cage tell?  What law did he break?  What did he
take from you?  If you're going to make charges like this, do them
straightforwardly, and not by analogy.  Tell us the bad things that John
Cage did, and tell us how you know he did them.

>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.

And you have not given us any reason to believe that he did even as much
damage to the musical world as someone who gets a speeding ticket
damages public order.  You make your charges, but you cannot bakc them
up with anything.  

>>For someone who has accused
>>others of ad hominem argument, you have just made the ultimate one, and
>>the most disgusting one.  

>My comment was not an argument, it was merely an expression of my emotional
>state.  

And a horrific state it was, too.  I wonder why you felt you needed to
express it here.   

>I didn't say "His 'music' is bad because he's a weenie.", I said that
>because he had such a bad effect on the world, I am happy to see him gone.

Well, WHAT EFFECT, Brian?  We're still waiting for evidence.

>That's not an ad hominem argument...

No, it's merely a lie and an insult.  Not much to be proud of.

>>You are a pathetic, sniveling jerk, a coward

>...I'd say that THIS is more of an ad hominem argument, though.  See the
>difference?

Oh, sure.  I have evidence for my claim.    

>>who hasn't the guts to respond to queries that would demonstrate his
>>ignorance, 

>I have responded repeatedly.  You just have not been willing to accept 
>my answers.  That's YOUR problem, not mine.

No, Brian, you have *not* responded.  You made claims about what music
was, and I and many other people asked you to put your theories to the
test with regard to practically any piece of your choice.  You simply
shut up.  

You have made very strong, very serious claims about John Cage, and
failed to give a shred of evidence for them.  You have attributed
statements to him that he never made, attributed ideas to him that he
never expounded, and on and on and on.  When challenged on these
matters, you simply run and hide for a while.

>>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.

Yes, I think that.  And I have your statements about him to prove it.

>You think that 4'33" is "good" or "music" and call ME twisted?  Come on.

Again with the ad hominem, again with the universal standards based on
hot air.  Tell me, Brian, why *isn't* 4'33" music?  We've been waiting
months for an answer.

Roger

Newsgroups: rec.music.classical