From: diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott)
Subject: Re: Manners, children please...
Organization: University of Western Australia
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:46:00 GMT

Please note that this is the longer version of a reply - it contains the
witty repartee that is the caper in the olive of netting, but bores the
pants off of people who aren't involved. There is howevever an advert
half-way through for the curious...

maverick@cs.berkeley.edu (Vance Maverick) writes:
: In article <1992Aug25.042342.25193@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>, diarmuid@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (Diarmuid Pigott) writes:
: |> [I echoed, in puzzlement, of Cage:]
: |> : Did his aesthetic have bounds?
: |> 
: |> Yes - he could not have sat down and written a serious, tonally
: |> unambiguous, conventionally orchestrated, popular symphony.
: 
: My instinct is divided between about 17 possible responses, of which a
: few, in no particular order:

Instinct? Inadmissable, m'lud. Case dismissed. 

: * How do you know?

Because I have worked my way through the great majority of the Cage
opus, assisted by a dear friend who is besotted with the man - who had a
rather marvellous installation in Perth at PICA dedicated to the man,
to whom (rather tragically) he had finally gotten around to writing with
a cassette of the Installation.
[brief pause for advert: James Coleman the man and the piece "Drone
Piano for John Cage" done under the auspices of Chris Mann during his
tour at PICA. Bees were put into a sealed grand piano with the dampers
off. The bees flew around in an indeterminate state, occasionally
hitting strings and making a buzz. It worked very well, and I believe a
tape of the performance will be broadcast on ABC radio in Australia this
year. Tapes can also be otained by politely requesting one from me, and
I will pass all requests on to James.]

So to blatant ignorance I must plead not guilty. To particular instance
I am willing to admit, as is evinced by my asking in the first place! 

So - is there one?

: 
: * Why does it matter?
 
Because I want to know. That's why it matters. If you just stick out
your tongue, it isn't exactly creative dialogue.

: * Yeah, and he probably couldn't have painted like G.F. Watts, either,
: or built a hot-dog stand in the shape of a hot dog, or written _The
: Fountainhead_.  

Are you saying that (eg) Simpson 9th or 10th Symphonies are like any of these?
What are you trying to say - the choices are between Cage or Lloyd Webber?

: 
: * Have you ever heard _In a Landscape_?

Yes, why?

: 
: * There's a difference between one's taste in listening and one's
: habit of composition: much music of Mozart works great for my
: aesthetic, but I don't try to write like that.

This is not a rejoinder at all. What do you write like, anyway?


: 
: |> He probably
: |> wouldn't have wanted to, but his aesthetic was bounded by the neophiliac.
: 

: Broader bounds than the necrophiliac!

No -  only broader logical bounds - infinite possibilities, but only the
twin probabilities of gazing at navels or fundaments.

:  
: |> : Did he ever tell people how to "evaluate" his pieces? 

Of course he did - he wrote books on the subjects! Why ask when we both know?

: |> 
: |> He threw a pebble into the well of the audience, but he knew it would
: |> make a splash. 
: 
: I have trouble parsing this ("but"?), let alone applying it to my
: question or your original statement.
: 
: 	Vance

This was a trick -  I thought I'd be ambiguous. Who knows what it means?
Meaning? You want meaning? That's art, Schmuck!



Newsgroups: rec.music.classical