From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: JOHN CAGE
Summary: ...but is it art?
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 00:19:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.232926.21582@Princeton.EDU> roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <BtCst1.B7q@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>In article <qgRsPB3w164w@sys6626.bison.mb.ca> kevin@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (Kevin Scott) writes:

>>>In my mind, the point where the last bit of order is gone is 
>>>where is stops being music and starts becoming "performance art".

>>"Performance Art"?  What makes you think it's art at all?

>Because people experience it that way.  Some of them even find
>metaphysical value judgments in it.

Such as?  The only ones I see are only implicit and are all roughly along the
lines of "Nonsense is good." or "Nothing makes sense, so let's just be honest
about it." or "Look at those fine robes the emperor is wearing.".

You can't just assert that there's some kind of meaning in there without any
further explanation and hope to have anyone believe you.  When the sounds
are admittedly random (or non-existent), how can they express any kind
of judgements (aside from implicit ones as I mentioned)?

>>>However in the original message, I agree completely. Stuffy academics who 
>>>look down their noses at Cage and self-righteously say to one another "I 
>>>suppose he's INTERESTING..." while rolling their eyes in contempt, DO 
>>>need a good amount of Cage rammed down their throats. 

>>If you noticed, it is the "stuffy academics" who are ramming this stuff
>>down our throats (such a the ones who made me listen to it when I was
>>in school, and Mr. Lustig who is (presumably) an academic musicologist.

>As usual, you presume wrong.  I have no academic position.  I am a
>writer and consultant.  

Interesting.  With whom do you "consult"?  Are you affiliated with a 
university in any way?

>As for your teachers at school, I'm sorry they made you suffer so
>greatly, but I suspect they had no ulterior motive other than to get you
>to think about Cage.  Clearly it didn't work.

No, on the contrary, I THOUGHT about Cage, and the result of my thinking
was that what did was neither music, nor art, nor good.  Why is it that
you can't conceive of someone listening to Cage, thinking about it, and 
rejecting it as nonsense?

>>Look around this news group.  The way to rile up the academics is not by
>>praising people like Cage, but by pointing out that what he did was neither 
>>music nor art.

>In short, to speak nonsense.  You have never defended this assertion with
>anything other than invective and pseudo-philosophy built on
>hand-waving.

Astounding!  I have written message after message explaining my views on
art and music, and the amount of invective has been pretty small compared 
to your unending series of insults.  As for "pseudo-philosophy based on
hand-waving", that sounds more like G.E. Moore who is in YOUR camp, not mine.
I have explained my points based on reason and observation (whether you buy
my arguments or not, you can't say that they are based on hand-waving and
pseudo-philosophy).  Your responses have basically been emotional skepticism
of a pretty low order.  What do you think music is?  Well, you gave me several
completely different definitions (e.g. what people think it is, a kind of 
activity, an emotion, what artists do, etc.) and your "justifications for 
each were nothing but emotional tirades or appeals to authority.  Hand-waving
and pseudo-philosophy indeed!

>Yes, Brain, some of us do get riled up when you attack us with things
>that are patently false or nonsensical.  

It is not nonsensical to claim that music is something specific, and that 
contradictory statements about it cannot all be true. It is also not nonsensical
to point out that for something to have value, it must be associated with 
some purpose.  How can you sit there can deny these basic concepts and
call ME nonsensical?

>We're *still* waiting to hear
>what the metaphysical judgments in Beethoven's seventh are, and how you
>can tell.

I explained a bunch of these for you again and again.  What is it that you
are missing?

>>>Say what you like about Cage...at least he's never boring. Wish I could 
>>>say the same for Mozart.

>>Are you telling me that sitting in silence for 4'33" is something other 
>>than boring?  I can't imagine anything less exciting.

>Who said it would be silent?  I've never heard a silent performance of
>the piece.  Besides, there's always something to watch, too. 

Gee, really exciting.  You can watch people shift nervously in their chairs,
listen to the air conditioner come on, listen to flies buzzing around the
window...what an exciting feast for the senses!  


--Brian

Newsgroups: rec.music.classical