# Is John Cage under-rated?



## Zauberberg (Feb 21, 2012)

Yeah, he's very famous (and infamous) and everybody spouts **** about 4'33", but why are the rest of his work being vastly ignored? lately I've been listening to many of his piano works, sonatas, the 44 harmonies... it's like nobody talks about him as a serious composer.

umm... my first topic "in the mould of TC". Next one will include the world "over-rated" and my final opus will be any of those "greatest" topics.

Perhaps: _Is John Cage underrated or overrated? is he THE GREATEST american composer of all time?_ :tiphat:


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Underrated, and no, not the greatest but one of the greats. There is a sizable number of classical music lovers (also on TC) who hate him with the heat of a thousand suns, but there are also plenty of us here who can appreciate his work. Personally, I love his work for prepared piano and several other compositions.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I think he probably is underrated by misrepresentation. I've only ever really heard two (and a fraction) peices by him: 4'33", Water Walk, and a small part of Organ²/ASLSP (As SLow aS Possible). I found all of them interesting, but have never pursued more, putting him off to explore on an ambiguous "someday." I'm probably the norm.

So my guess is there has to be a lot more going on than most people know about. I don't find overrating to be as comnmon in the art music world as in the more popular music realm. What would be the purpose? There is far more underrating.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

John Cage is the Andy Warhol of classical music.... Over exposed, very little going on under the surface, gave funny and catty interviews, more important as a symbol of something than for actually being something.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Zauberberg said:


> Yeah, he's very famous (and infamous) and everybody spouts **** about 4'33", but why are the rest of his work being vastly ignored?


John... who?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

bigshot said:


> John Cage is the Andy Warhol of classical music.... Over exposed, very little going on under the surface, gave funny and catty interviews, more important as a symbol of something than for actually being something.


I don't think he's shallow, but neither do I think Warhol (at his best) is shallow. He was not just a symbol, but an important catalyst in New York during the 1950s and 1960s. His correspondence with Boulez is now published, as are "Silence" and his other books.

Zauberberg asked "...why are the rest of his work being vastly ignored? lately I've been listening to many of his piano works, sonatas, the 44 harmonies... it's like nobody talks about him as a serious composer..."

_Well, no wonder!_ He turned Western classical music inside out! He changed the "precious paradigm" of powdered-wig Christian "church music" into a Zen awareness class! _Kill him! Kill him!!_:lol:

I can see how bigshot is skeptical, because Cage changed some basic paradigms about "classical music." Cage told Schoenberg "I have no feeling for harmony," which would seem to be a death-sentence for a composer, _so what does Cage do? _
He comes up with the prepared piano, harmonically strange, un-analyzable in terms of harmony, just a percussive weirdly-pitched array of sounds_...all done using a piano, the very symbol of Western classical harmony! How brilliant can you get after that?_ I'm still laughing on the way to the hardware store! :lol:


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

There are a handfull of fine works he composed that I think have qualities about them but unfortunately these (and the man) get overshadowed by his "conceptual" pieces. I would not consider him as a great 20th c. Composer nonetheless.


----------



## Guest (Jan 30, 2013)

In the q & a after a lecture, a student started out his question saying that Cage's ideas were the most important and influential and.... And Cage very gently interrupted him to say, "No. All those ideas were just in the air at the time." And went on to explain that many people were working on similar things during that time. An example of Zeitgeist.

The student kept saying "But... but... but..." To no avail.

I sympathized with both. It's true that those ideas were "in the air." But Cage was the most eloquent in expressing them and the most practical in carrying them out in compositions of anyone. (Cage was also the most humble person I have ever met, too, so what're ya gonna do?)

Fact is, the majority of people who downplay Cage's role do not know very much about his music. And have very little understanding of or sympathy with the ideas that underlie that music. There is a small minority of people who at least claim to have studied Cage's ideas and music both and who still reject them. But there are probably more people who have done the same with Richard Wagner and Hector Berlioz. So again, what're ya gonna do.

End result is that Cage changed the world forever. People who don't want the world to have changed will deny that until they're blue in the face, but the world has changed, anyway. And, if Cage was right that evening after his lecture, the world would have changed in the way it changed, _regardless._

Cage happened. Fluxus happened. Electronics happened. And the world that those things opened up is still vital and active and engaging. The only person you'll hurt by rejecting all that is yourself. So, what the hay? Go right ahead.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

He is still being talked about sixty some odd years after his period of strongest influence. So I'd say, "No."

Is he in the awareness of some in the shallowest of ways, as are Beethoven, Mozart, and many others, i.e. known of and for only a few works? Yes.

He is patently misunderstood by many, I believe. He had perhaps the greatest influence on musical thought and what was thought to be music, imho, in music history to date -- that is not going to change on the historic record at any rate.

I really liked a performance I heard of "the four seasons" piano concerto, from a 'composer's orchestra' recording from (I believe) the late 1950's - 1960's], the personnel involved I don't recall. What that had which the Amy Tan recording does not (including the orchestral playing) is elan, guts, and a serious drive, the Tan almost sounding delicate and precious, and inconsequential by comparison. As heard in the earlier recording, it is to me a 'good sounding piece.'

I find the variance in interpretation I mentioned of interest. 
I think that earlier performance was closer to 'what was in the air' and a general sensibility of 'how modern music went' which was current with the piece, and more as intended, i.e._ in appropriate period style_. The analogy would be to the later accretion of froo-frooery misdeeds done to Chopin vs. the stronger and more direct approach as Chopin intended.

Cage wrote a lot of conceptual pieces, which work superbly to demonstrate the concept,while I would be the first to agree that those need to be heard only once to make their point, challenge or change the ears of the audience.

Cage, in a deliberate and concentrated manner embraced things Buddhist, ergo somewhat successfully detached himself from 'ego' and that very Beethoven and post Beethoven notion of 'composer as hero.' 
He did compose a handful of more 'traditionally good sounding' pieces. Those may have been, with his personal lack of ego / hero self conceits combined with his self-admitted not 'getting' harmony, been somewhat 'accidental' -- but some of 'accidental' is also very much a part of Cage's aesthetic .

He is over-rated -- or perhaps more accurately, or notoriously misunderstood in a sort of disproportionately inflated manner -- on the conceptual front while much of that is at the same time wildly misunderstood, and some of the more 'traditionally listenable' oriented pieces get entirely overlooked.


----------



## Stargazer (Nov 9, 2011)

4:33 and "As Slow as Possible" epitomize all that I see wrong with modern art and music. Reminds me of the $25 million painting of a 1" black square that I saw at an art museum once. Other than that, I don't have too much of a problem with him .


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Is John Cage under-rated? Obviously not, as that would be quite impossible.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

The main problem is that his real music is obscured by conceptual art/performance art type pieces (eg. 4'33"). Other than that he wrote a good deal of actual music which some have mentioned here that I think a wide range of listeners can enjoy. Some of my favourites are:

- Sonatas and interludes for prepared piano
- In a Landscape
- Credo in Us
- Living Room Music
- Imaginary Landscape #1
- The Seasons

The other thing is he is one of the best known post 1945 composers in terms of those in alternative type rock and performing arts industries (eg. ballet, since Cage worked a lot with his gay partner Merce Cunningham, a choreographer). So his ideas have gone beyond just classical music, he's had wider impacts.

But he's not known to many classical listeners who maybe have not been exposed to much else but endless debates (and essays, interviews) about his conceptual art/happenings type things. He seems unique as a composer in that way. I mean most listeners would know a piece or two by say Schoenberg before forming an opinion on his music, and as unfairly demonised as he is Cage has received a much worse deal than he has (perhaps partly due to him being a kind of cult figure for those more heavily into experimental or philosophically based musics, a kind of guru and icon).


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Sid James said:


> The main problem is that his real music is obscured by conceptual art/performance art type pieces (eg. 4'33"). Other than that he wrote a good deal of actual music which some have mentioned here that I think a wide range of listeners can enjoy. Some of my favourites are:
> 
> - Sonatas and interludes for prepared piano
> - In a Landscape
> ...


I agree. He should have expanded his creativity along those pieces you listed, rather than the conceptual rubbish pieces, which he has become infamous for.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Definitely. 4'33 is one of my favorite pieces.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Definitely. 4'33 is one of my favorite pieces.


How about that! My favorite Schubert is his Symphony No. 8 in B minor (sometimes renumbered as Symphony No. 7), commonly known as the "Unfinished Symphony."


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

bigshot said:


> John Cage is the Andy Warhol of classical music.... Over exposed, very little going on under the surface, gave funny and catty interviews, more important as a symbol of something than for actually being something.


So much wrong with this -_-


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> How about that! My favorite Schubert is his Symphony No. 8 in B minor (sometimes renumbered as Symphony No. 7), commonly known as the "Unfinished Symphony."


Yeah how about that.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Too bad Cage couldn't expand his masterpiece to something like 12'54.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Stargazer said:


> 4:33 and "As Slow as Possible" epitomize all that I see wrong with modern art and music. Reminds me of the $25 million painting of a 1" black square that I saw at an art museum once. Other than that, I don't have too much of a problem with him .


A stupid rich person driving up the price of a piece of art is of no fault of the artist. So opening up possibilities and exploring new ideas is wrong? How dare something unusual exist. I don't get it, it must be pretentious nonsense!


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Also, I don't really think its proper to indiscriminately call Cage's indeterminate and chance works all "conceptual". Cage's compositions are all sound-based in some way or another. It is never in the manner of somebody like Nam Jun Paik, where the pieces are more visually oriented, or some of the Fluxus works which exist only as ideas, unless there is some piece I'm unaware of by Cage in such a fashion. Many of them may make you think, but so does Beethoven, so why not call his works "conceptual" too?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Cage and Warhol catered to the stupid elite by handing them "masterpieces" made of trumped up chewing gum and spit and making them jump through hoops for it. Maybe they were sly manipulators of stupid rich people, but if they were real artists, they would have spent their time working on real art.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Also, I don't really think its proper to indiscriminately call Cage's indeterminate and chance works all "conceptual"... Many of them may make you think, but so does Beethoven, so why not call his works "conceptual" too?


Well said.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The difference between Cage and Beethoven is that with Beethoven, there is some "there" there.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

bigshot said:


> The difference between Cage and Beethoven is that with Beethoven, there is some "there" there.


Still so much wrong XD and in less words. At least you have brevity, if nothin else


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I think Cage is underrated, yes. I would agree in part with Weston that it is a symptom of the general misrepresentation of his work, but there is also the issue that many people seem to think any music made with a sense of humour (a criterion which does apply to a considerable portion of Cage's work, as I see it) is bad. Monotonous seriousness must be the order of the day, because I'm a serious man, you know. Look at me being serious. Observe and admire the way I place my serious feet on the serious ground as though my every step were an essay on the human condition.

Conversely there are people who take Cage himself far too seriously, as if he was constantly and overtly "deep", and these people get wrapped up in trying to "get it" and end up missing the point entirely. The point being, I think, that understanding what you hear is not the important thing, paying attention is enough. I think that only a small number of people who don't care whether they understand it or not are the only people who actually enjoy Cage's music, they're not trying to perform intellectual gymnastics at every possible juncture and so they are free to simply listen.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2013)

bigshot said:


> ...trumped up chewing gum


Now _that_ I'd like to see.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

some guy said:


> Now _that_ I'd like to see.


Lift the lid and see what he jammed in that piano!


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I can't take the works with irrationally long duration (days, weeks, months) seriously.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2013)

My comment was about your words. 

"Trumped up chewing gum" doesn't make any sense.

Or only as much as, say, "fricasseed asphalt" or "argumentative whirligigs."

As for your crack about the prepared piano, that might have worked when no one really knew what that involved. Sixty years ago, maybe. But now? Nah.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2013)

Arsakes said:


> I can't take the works with irrationally long duration (days, weeks, months) seriously.


Which works would that be? (You're referring to works by Cage?)

And anyway, why not? Easy to say you can't take this or that seriously. But explaining why? That takes a little more effort, eh?


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Definitely. 4'33 is one of my favorite pieces.


:lol: See? Everytime we mention Cage, the man simply gets overshadowed by his "conceptual" pieces like _4'33"_. Too bad for Cage, too bad for his legacy; it must be his "punishment" for these conceptual things that springs the trap for his longer term doom. Other than those, I don't mind his real music here and there (not that I am too familiar with his entire oeuvre). Some that I have come across are enjoyable.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2013)

All of Cage's music is real.

And all of it was made by a person who had ideas.

Ideas are real.

If you were familiar with his entire oeuvre, I would hope that you would not fall into the trap of dividing his output into "real" and "conceptual."

As someone who is familiar with at least examples from each of his phases, I would say that that division is not a useful or descriptive one. In fact, it is more a conceptual division, which artificially divides his output according to how it fits some pre-Cagean idea of music. Sorry to disappoint y'all, but however many times Cage reinvented himself--and it was several--his entire oeuvre is all of a piece. At least from 1939 on. That there are pieces that some people can enjoy similarly to how they enjoy older music--Debussy or Mahler or Grieg--might be interesting to a psychologist of human perception, but it doesn't really account for what Cage was up to in his compositional methods.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

some guy said:


> All of Cage's music is real.
> 
> And all of it was made by a person who had ideas.
> 
> ...


Real comedy, as follows,






Music, as follows,






The difference between the two above is real. "Sorry to disappoint y'all"


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Lift the lid and see what he jammed in that piano!


Cage really gave the piano a good SCREWING for his Sonatas and Interludes, thats for sure 

*giggle*

PS: This is the level of maturity that your comment warrants


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2013)

Rapide said:


> Real comedy, as follows,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Both of your examples use the idea of composing by means of units of time. The actual sounds that occur in each chunk of time could be anything. And as Cage developed this idea, the actual sounds became more and more unpredictable from one performance to the next. In these two, he was still making situations in which the sounds that occur are more or less the same for each performance and at precisely the same time relative to the other sounds.

This is equally true for the _Sonatas and Interludes_ and _Water Walk,_ whatever their differences. (Beethoven's WoO 59 and opus 111 are very different from each other, too. One is not more real than the other, though.)

I mean "more or less" as description, not hedging, by the way. It was his practical experience with preparing (which itself was a practical solution to a real world problem--a commission to write percussion music for dance in a space not large enough to accomodate a percussion ensemble) that led to the more and more indeterminate pieces. Why? Because no matter how precisely one prepared a piano (and the instructions are very precise), one got different results from different pianos and different preparers. Rather than fight against that--a reality of all performed music everywhere at all times--Cage decided to embrace it. Accept the "accidents," the unpredictable. All the things outside the composer's control.

That even people antagonistic to Cage generally can hear the Sonatas and Interludes as normal or "real" music is a tribute to the success of Cage's ideas. That those people still struggle with hearing the theatrical pieces of the fifties as equally real is an indication of how far those ideas have to go to achieve universal acceptance.

There are people, not Rapide or bigshot or arsakes, but real genuine people with years of experience listening to music, who hear all of Cage's music as real, who hear all of Cage's music as musical. It's not your great grandfather's music, but why would anyone want it to be, anyway?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

lol at the real genuine people crack.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> ...That even people antagonistic to Cage generally can hear the Sonatas and Interludes as normal or "real" music is a tribute to the success of Cage's ideas. That those people still struggle with hearing the theatrical pieces of the fifties as equally real is an indication of how far those ideas have to go to achieve universal acceptance......There are people, not Rapide or bigshot or arsakes, but real genuine people with years of experience listening to music, who hear all of Cage's music as real, who hear all of Cage's music as musical. It's not your great grandfather's music, but why would anyone want it to be, anyway?


I agree, and note that this appearance of *John Cage* on *"I've Got a Secret"* is very similar to *Frank Zappa's *apperance on the *Steve Allen Show *later in that same era, 1963. Zappa "played" a spinning bicycle wheel with a metal rod, closely-miked.

The eventual results of this "bicycle-spoke music" can be heard on Zappa's 1968 *Mothers of Invention* album *We're Only In It For The Money* during the final musique concréte track *Nasal Retentive Calliope Music.*

These kinds of "publicity stunts" were part of the promotion process back then (note Zappa's mention of the film "The World's Greatest Sinner"). These TV show appearances should be seen in that context, and not taken so seriously.
------------------------


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

some guy said:


> Or only as much as, say, "fricasseed asphalt" or "argumentative whirligigs."


Which of Cage's pieces do those describe?


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Interesting discussion. One of a billion on the ideas thing and genuine people thing understand Cage....


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

The way I divide Cage's actual music from his conceptual pieces is this. If I can enjoy it in a recording without having to be there live to get the full picture of it so to speak, its actual music. But if its a conceptual or happening art piece (like 4'33" or 0'00" for example) there is not much use in a recording - either video or audio - of these events. I can only experience it fully live, being there in the moment, in that EXACT moment. This is what is one of Cage's big contributions to music, that every performance of his works can be very different. In terms of recordings, Harry Partch also said that they are like 50 cents in the dollar, only half the picture (or half the fun?) as being at a live performance of his works. For me, that's where the division between art and life comes in. Not everyone believes art = life. I enjoy what I see as Cage's actual music, while his conecptual pieces for me are not interesting in terms of recordings. I went to an all Cage concert last year, and only his actual works where performed, none of his conceptual works. So I think its fair to say there is a boundary but it is not a strict one and depends on what each listener thinks, how he sees music, etc.

The composer Ligeti saw some boundary between the two at least. Cage saw no boundary. In the thread I made a while back below, I contrasted their differing views on this, and there's quotes in the opening post:
http://www.talkclassical.com/17557-art-life-discussion.html

I hate it when people lecture me when I'm saying something that has validity if basic critical thinking is applied. Ligeti certainly implies that in his quote:

"At the end of the '50s and the beginning of the '60s came the happening movement from America. I was interested in an ambiguous way. I made some happenings--you know my piece for 100 metromonomes?--but I had the feeling I am not a happening person. You know the Fluxus group? I am not belonging there. After a time I had the feeling they take their job too seriously. And I am not serious like people like LaMonte Young and Geroge Brecht or even Cage. I will tell you exactly what is between me and these happening people. They believe that life is art and art is life. I appreciate very much Cage and many people, but my artistic credo is that art--every art--is not life. It is something artificial. And for me all the happenings are too dilletante. You see, I want, if I am the audience, to see a perfect music, or a perfect painting. I don't want to take part in it. I don't want that this fence between the piece and the audience be abolished. I don't want to get involved. It's the feeling of distance. I am not saying that my opinion is for everybody." 
Source - http://www.artnotart.com/fluxus/gligeti-comments01.html


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Some guy, a question: when one applies Cagian "listening principles"(don't know if this is a misnomer by your book or not) to just about any music can't you see the value in it all(you cite not liking Telemann, Chopin or Bax sometimes for example, and while we are all human with our prejudices, theoretically, doesn't that mean these could be allowed to speak to people just as well as anything)? I mean, 4'33" is the most "conceptual"(for lack of a better word) of them all. Cage thought of the idea and it has opened a lot of doors for people, but now that it has been done, what value does it retain beyond this and the precise 4'33" seconds to give an audience that space to listen how they will? And there are mvts aren't there(within that time frame?)? What is the purpose of all this precision? Do you believe you would have adjusted to the idea differently(in that the end result is markedly different) if another person wrote 7'17" first but also at an opportune time to make an impact? Or maybe they thought of a different way entirely to open the doors to more open minded listening and composing? 

These are some premises I work with in trying to understand Cage. I write this without having recently listened to any of his works in entirety, so respond how you see fit. I have not been able to find that raw musical pleasure in any of his works really, at least not of "the level" of composers and compositions I really like. Neither have I been able to for much early music(I keep my ears open for gems), but for me there is a draw of learning about how music developed in those days and the basic pleasure of seeing how music works that is easy to comprehend for me in these works. The second half of 20th, modern era is still not a more than theoretical big picture thing for me yet, if that makes sense.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Erwin Schulhoff In futurum*

In 1919 Erwin Schulhoff composed _Fünf Pittoresken_ for piano. One movement, "In futurum", is a silent piece composed entirely of rests.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2013)

Interesting what you say about early music, clavichorder, because many new music friends of mine report as liking early music next after new music. 

Cage's point about listening, eventually, was about listening to sounds. The sounds of the world as it is. I found an anecdote once in a book of Irish Fairy Tales about Fionn sitting around a fire at night with his sons. One son asks "What is the most beautiful music in the world?" 

"The belling of a stag," says one. "The clash of a spear against a shield," says another. "The voice of your beloved in your ear," says a third.

"And what do you think, oh mighty Fionn?"

"The music of what happens."

That's Cage in a nutshell.

While I don't think that that listening would necessarily lead to better appreciation of what Ricardo Mandolini called narcissistic music (music that tells us about the composer), I have indeed myself found in practice that it does.

Otherwise, whatever period of Cage one is looking at, that idea about listening to sound is there, however nascent. To divide Cage's oeuvre into real and conceptual or "actual" and conceptual as Sid would have it, is really to reject all of Cage's ideas about music, the ideas that produced all the music, from the thirties to the early nineties, notated or graphic, theatrical or not, indeterminate of performance, of composition, or of neither. From early on, there is this interest in noise and in sounds that had not been traditionally thought of as musical. And one can watch the idea of indeterminacy growing out of that interest in noise as well as out of his experiences with prepared piano and with splicing tape for Williams Mix and Fontana Mix.

It's all of a piece, as it were. There's no piece that's more or less real than any other piece. There's no purpose served in dividing his work into conceptual and real/actual except as to reject the fundamental contribution of Cage to redefining music itself. That so many people report as liking some pieces but not others, of liking the more traditionally notated more than the less traditionally notated, is really not terribly surprising. The less traditional pieces are the ones that present the more complete idea that all sound is music. And listening to pieces that don't push you and pull you like older music does is going to seem less satisfying at first. And why not? It's different. It doesn't have certain qualities that older music has.

That it has qualities of its own, some of them that older music does not have, some of them that all music has, and that these qualities can be enjoyed, if not by you then by someone, is truly inarguable.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> That it has qualities of its own, some of them that older music does not have, some of them that all music has, and that these qualities can be enjoyed, if not by you then by someone, is truly inarguable.


Oh, let me try!:lol: It's nice to hear someone wax eloquent about John Cage without getting run over by a Mack truck! Oh, wait...I hear something coming...


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I much prefer listen to music than sounds.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I've read a number of writers on music who refer to what they see as a split between Cage's conceptual pieces and his actual music. I won't labour the point but this article talks to this issue strongly:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/tomserviceblog/2012/aug/13/john-cage-contemporary-music-guide
The article refers to Schoenberg's famous quote that his one time student Cage was less a composer and more of an "inventor of genius." I think Cage was both & much more than that. To claim that not being a fan of his conceptual works or even his concepts means a listener can't enjoy his actual music is wierd, considering how this forum has a strong formalist bias last time I checked (I did a poll on it myself to find out).
http://www.talkclassical.com/21483-formalism-contextualism.html
But I am interested in Cage's concepts, however not in pieces like 4'33". But it doesn't stop me from enjoying pieces where there is actual recordable music and I listed several works by him I like on my first post in this thread. I don't go for all or nothing type attitude with him, and not with most composers actually. I got my limitations as a listener but so what? Since thats the case I am loathe to point out the limitations of other listeners. I think we all have them. Isn't that just part of being human?

& ironic aint it - irony of ironies? - that a man whose ideas where for liberating music from its confines becomes a kind of dogma. But its the same with many things (serialism being the biggest example of before, Schoenberg was apalled at Adorno's fanaticism). But who cares?


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2013)

Sid James said:


> I've read a number of writers on music


Me too.



Sid James said:


> I won't labour the point


:lol::lol:

Too late!!



Sid James said:


> becomes a kind of dogma.


Nice smear. But getting it right and establishing a dogma are two different things. And getting it wrong is no excuse for accusing others of being dogmatic. What about the dogmatism of the two Cages? One actual and one conceptual.



Sid James said:


> But who cares?


We do, obviously, or we wouldn't be having this exchange.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I can see where you are coming from, with the quote about "narcissistic music." The thought of listening to sound and enjoying it and understanding it, tickles my fancy both on a scientific level and an artistic level. So many different viewpoints to reconcile, its both interesting and exhausting. The concept and execution of Cage's work does demystify music and mystify it all over again. But it inspires me more to listen to sounds more than Cage's work itself. I suppose it is a useful thing he does in offering a controlled an acceptable way for people to realize a broader view of sound. Only more experience with it would tell, so that's where my commentary ends.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

some guy said:


> ...
> 
> ...getting it wrong is no excuse for accusing others of being dogmatic. ...
> ...


Reminds me of what ol' Comrade Stalin says in my signature. But anyway, this will be my last "smear" of you. Like another member that got up my nose a few days ago, now I'll put you on my ignore list too. I don't see the point of conversing with you anymore. But doesn't matter, most people here I can have some sort of civil conversation with, or just generally address or counter their points, without it going down to the level of this. I did this thread yesterday in response to these types of all or nothing attitudes. Its had a good response, an insteresting response sans dogma. I should have kept it at that and shut my mouth. No use talking to people who, whatever you say, they will twist it and turn it against you. Well both people who have time and time again indirectly and gutlessly insulted me on this forum are now on my ignore list.

http://www.talkclassical.com/23606-man-can-do-no.html

In any case, to others out there who don't see a distinction between Cage's actual and concept works, think about this. Two other composers who experimented with techniques of chance - & other similar things to Cage - decades before where Satie and Percy Grainger. Of course Satie influenced Cage greatly. But no matter how 'wierd' some of their works may have been, they still composed music - whether it be things like Satie not using bar lines in his piano works, or his ballet _Relache_ which pushed the boundaries of the genre, or Grainger's employment of chance in _The Warriors_ or his _free music machines _that came towards the end of his career. Basic thing is they are seen as composers, not conceptual artists.

With Cage, there was a split between him as a composer and a conceptual artist. That's how I see it, its why I think of his _Sonatas and Interludes for prepared piano, _for example, as actual music, unlike _4'33" _which I see as a concept piece. In some other pieces this 'boundary' may well be more blurry and subtle. But I think my point stands, no composer before Cage had these dual personalities in terms of music versus other things, questioning that separation between art and life.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

John Cage's music is a Godsend for first year art students in love with the sound of their own voice, and music reviewers who have a half page column to write an hour before the deadline. He has a lot less to offer people who enjoy listening to music.

Q: How many monkeys at grand pianos would it take to come up with John Cage's 4:33?
A: None!


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

So I finally listened to 4'33" ... I heard nothing!
It was not even an unpleasant kind of music, it was a joke...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Arsakes said:


> So I finally listened to 4'33" ... I heard nothing!
> It was not even an unpleasant kind of music, it was a joke...


Then you weren't listening.

The common misconception concerning John Cage's _4'33"_ is that it is a "silent" piece, or intended as a joke. While this is true in the sense that the performer does not play, it's not about silence. It's a serious piece about listening to the sounds occurring around you at that time.

_4'33"_ instructs the performer, not the audience. Perhaps John Cage should have included an explanation for the audience, since most listeners seem to be unable to grasp the essence of this piece.

East and West thinking are opposites, like yin and yang. 
Yin (Western) is active, and yang (Eastern) is passive, or receptive. John Cage turns the idea of a "performer making music actively" (a "yin" action) into a "yang" or passive reception (listening) to the sounds around you.

However, if more Western listeners understood this, they would probably dislike the piece even more, as it brings ideas about eastern thinking into the concert hall. Perhaps John Cage placed too much faith in Westerners. Like a fish out of water, John Cage was always an anomaly, an outsider, and _4'33"_ seems to have permanently 'sealed the deal.'

American concert-goers in Nebraska and Idaho "don't need no Eastern religion shoved down our throats by some artsy pansy from New York City! That is beyond offensive!"


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Arsakes said:


> So I finally listened to 4'33" ... I heard nothing!
> It was not even an unpleasant kind of music, it was a joke...


That's why it's his best piece. Better no music than unpleasant music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

If it's unpleasant you're going for, then try Cage's Variations II, performed by scraping a contact microphone (a type of mic which does not pick up sound, but only vibration) across the strings of a piano. I used to put this record on when all my friends were stoned.:lol:






Or how about a piece from Cage's period when he was hanging large, thin pieces of sheet metal, and making all sorts of noise, disturbing his neighbors?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> That's why it's his best piece. Better no music than unpleasant music.


Clearly much of Cage's music is difficult/unpleasant/a challenge for many people, and you may not want to explore any more than you've already heard. I am not so thrilled with many of his works as well, but there are some lovely ones also. There is a CD of piano music "In a Landscape" which includes that piece. I suspect many who think they dislike all of Cage's work would find many of those pieces nice to even beautiful.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2013)

Sometimes after a long, stressful day at work and kids screaming at home, I like to sit down and listen to 4'33" on infinite loop until I fall asleep.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2013)

I sampled some of his music for prepared piano before, out of curiosity. Some of it wasn't that bad, but none of it piqued my interest enough that I ever see myself purchasing a recording. Who knows, maybe at some point that might change, but for the time being, I don't see it happening.

I'll leave the whole over/under-rated judgment up to people that have more experience with his works.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

bigshot said:


> John Cage's music is a Godsend for first year art students in love with the sound of their own voice, and music reviewers who have a half page column to write an hour before the deadline. _*(...and internet forum members who have no ideas to share-Ed.)*_ He has a lot less to offer people who enjoy listening to music._*(You called it music, not me; but I like noise, especially when it's part of the Western classical tradition.-Ed.)*_
> 
> Q: How many monkeys at grand pianos would it take to come up with John Cage's 4:33?
> A: None!


Technically, that's not correct, as monkeys could not read and follow the score instructions, which involve opening and closing the piano cover, without human assistance.

However, several hundred monkeys could be substituted as the audience, and the reaction would be identical to a typical conservative concert audience in Idaho or Nebraska.:lol:


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Arsakes said:


> So I finally listened to 4'33" ... I heard nothing!
> It was not even an unpleasant kind of music, it was a joke...


Sadly, it is not a joke, it is far worse than that.

But, when I think about it, I have to admit that while it is not music, it is the best thing Cage ever wrote.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Truckload said:


> Sadly, it is not a joke, it is far worse than that.
> 
> But, when I think about it, I have to admit that while it is not music, it is the best thing Cage ever wrote.


Please share what other Cage works you have listened to. Thanks.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

For those unfamiliar with the idea (pun) of "conceptual art," these are works which are simply sets of instructions, which require no skill. Here is an example of one of Yoko Ono's conceptual works, called "Hide and Seek."

_*"Hide and seek Piece: Hide until everybody goes home. Hide until everybody forgets about you. Hide until everybody dies." *_

:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

BurningDesire said:


> A stupid rich person driving up the price of a piece of art is of no fault of the artist. So opening up possibilities and exploring new ideas is wrong? How dare something unusual exist. I don't get it, it must be pretentious nonsense!


a stupid rich person driving up the price of art is indeed no fault of the artist but it puts the artist and art in an awkward place. If we agree (and our society at large certainly does) that price = value then the taste of a stupid rich person reshapes the values of said society, including the aesthetic ones. What is the artist to do, then? And from here on we get into the power of celebrity, with which an artist with anything innovative to say is forced to work thereafter. It's a very uncomfortable position (although certainly not for all artists).

on the subject of Cage, I do like his Sonatas and Interludes for prepared piano quite a bit; will explore further although the showy stunts _do_ put me off.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> If it's unpleasant you're going for, then try Cage's Variations II, performed by scraping a contact microphone (a type of mic which does not pick up sound, but only vibration) across the strings of a piano. I used to put this record on when all my friends were stoned.:lol:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


see, I find stuff like this brilliant. I just don't think that having a bunch of very serious folks pay to "listen to the sounds around them for 4 minutes" will give them any kind of awakening; however, it will make them look rather silly. I mean it's basically the musical version of the sound of one hand clapping. I get the Zen ideology but anybody who's ever come around Eastern philosophy has figured all this out on their own (hopefully? and if they haven't, who's to say that listening to 4'33 is going to actually make them? this reminds me of all the people who, when meeting any given "guru" will invariably ask them if feeling like this or that during meditation means they have achieved nirvana ). In fact, you don't even need to have encountered Zen and all that; you just have to have a slightly poetic bent to enjoy sitting at home or in your garden or basement or midtown or wherever and just soak in the aural atmosphere around. I don't know, maybe the history of music needed this, but to me it just feels like an overly intellectual exercise when it needn't be so.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> In 1919 Erwin Schulhoff composed _Fünf Pittoresken_ for piano. One movement, "In futurum", is a silent piece composed entirely of rests.


I suppose one could and should say with all honesty, "if you've heard one silent piece . . . (wait for it) . . . you've heard them all."

Gee, Cage should have been sued for plagarism, huh?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> For those unfamiliar with the idea (pun) of "conceptual art," these are works which are simply sets of instructions, which require no skill. Here is an example of one of Yoko Ono's conceptual works, called "Hide and Seek."
> 
> _*"Hide and seek Piece: Hide until everybody goes home. Hide until everybody forgets about you. Hide until everybody dies." *_


If only Yoko had actually performed that piece!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Technically, that's not correct, as monkeys could not read and follow the score instructions, which involve opening and closing the piano cover, without human assistance.


The score specifies no human assistance?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Truckload said:


> Gee, Cage should have been sued for plagarism, huh?


Maybe on more than one ground: "W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) devised an aleatoric system called Musikalisches Würfelspiel (Musical Dice), published 1793 by J. J. Hummel in Berlin-Amsterdam, to compose waltzes with a pair of dice and a set of written bars on paper cards. The combination of all the 16 cards and transitions, of which there are theoretically 10 to the 29th combinations, constitutes a minuet."


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2013)

deggial said:


> a stupid rich person driving up the price of art is indeed no fault of the artist but it puts the artist and art in an awkward place. If we agree (and our society at large certainly does) that price = value then the taste of a stupid rich person reshapes the values of said society, including the aesthetic ones. What is the artist to do, then? And from here on we get into the power of celebrity, with which an artist with anything innovative to say is forced to work thereafter. It's a very uncomfortable position (although certainly not for all artists).
> 
> on the subject of Cage, I do like his Sonatas and Interludes for prepared piano quite a bit; will explore further although the showy stunts _do_ put me off.


No, value and price need not be the same. The rich person willing to pay a certain amount of money for something has only set the price for it. Whether that price, then, reflects the actual value depends on whether anybody else is willing to pay the same amount. I don't really think that, if a "stupid" rich person were to pay $1 million for a hypothetical piece of art, and the majority of the art community says that the work is crap, than anybody would value it at $1 million. All you would have is someone with a very expensive curiosity on their hands. As they say, a fool and his wealth are soon parted. The expensive works of art that everybody recognizes typically have such a high value because a significant number of people value it so highly. One random person doesn't set the value.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Like Dada, Cage and Warhol focused their attention on the establishment to see what they could get away with. They encoraged critics to publish reams of pseudo-intellectual nonsense to justify their "work" while maintaining a Cheshire Cat persona, only speaking in soundbites designed to incite more pseudo-intellectual justifications. The playing of the system was the art of it. The physical works were just the by product.

Looking at a Warhol painting today is like following the spoor of an animal that is long dead.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2013)

You all will forgive me for my lack of sophistication and failure to grasp the value of conceptual art, but I simply find no originality in the modern notion of "challenging the definition of . . ." What is art? What is music? From a layman's perspective, these are banalities trumpeted by individuals who don't seem to have the ability to produce things in which other people see any worth, and turn the onus back on the audience for simply not "getting" what the "artist" is trying to accomplish. You see, whether or not the work is clever (like Cage's 4'33"), the inherent worth of the work seems minimal. It takes no skill to compose a work in which there is silence for 4 minutes and 33 seconds. In contrast, a work like Bach's Art of Fugue clearly requires definite skill to create. Or consider art. On the one hand, you can have something like "**** Christ," in which the artist has simply immersed a crucifix in a jar of his own urine. Argue all you want about the meaning behind it, but it requires no more skill than being able to master the basic bodily functions - something that we all very naturally can do from day one. In contrast, you have the Mona Lisa, which clearly requires skills that are not common to all.

From an outsider's perspective, these attempts to "challenge the definition of . . ." seem like nothing more than devaluing and dumbing down art and music to some least common denominator of any thing anybody chooses to call art or music. Were I an architect, would anybody take seriously my proposing to place a cardboard box on the street and calling it a house, claiming that I was merely "challenging the definition of what a house is?"


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Maybe on more than one ground: "W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) devised an aleatoric system called Musikalisches Würfelspiel (Musical Dice), published 1793 by J. J. Hummel in Berlin-Amsterdam, to compose waltzes with a pair of dice and a set of written bars on paper cards. The combination of all the 16 cards and transitions, of which there are theoretically 10 to the 29th combinations, constitutes a minuet."


Oh yes, I have read about that, but never seen it. I would love to see a reprint!


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Like Dada, Cage and Warhol focused their attention on the establishment to see what they could get away with. They encoraged critics to publish reams of pseudo-intellectual nonsense to justify their "work" while maintaining a Cheshire Cat persona, only speaking in soundbites designed to incite more pseudo-intellectual justifications. The playing of the system was the art of it. The physical works were just the by product.
> 
> Looking at a Warhol painting today is like following the spoor of an animal that is long dead.


Wow, that was really, really well said. I would like to add something, but you pretty much said it all.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Truckload said:


> Oh yes, I have read about that, but never seen it. I would love to see a reprint!


There seems to have been a bit of a surge in aleatoric composition in the Viennese classical period: "Austrian composer Maximilian Johann Karl Dominik Stadler, also known as Maximilian Stadler (1748-1833), created a table to compose minuets and trios with a pair of dice. In the case of the minuet version, there are 16 cards with one bar each and preconceived transitions between certain musical measures."


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DrMike said:


> You see, whether or not the work is clever (like Cage's 4'33"), the inherent worth of the work seems minimal. It takes no skill to compose a work in which there is silence for 4 minutes and 33 seconds. In contrast, a work like Bach's Art of Fugue clearly requires definite skill to create. Or consider art. On the one hand, you can have something like "**** Christ," in which the artist has simply immersed a crucifix in a jar of his own urine. Argue all you want about the meaning behind it, but it requires no more skill than being able to master the basic bodily functions - something that we all very naturally can do from day one. In contrast, you have the Mona Lisa, which clearly requires skills that are not common to all.


To play the devil's advocate here, the skill required to create something is not tantamount to its value as art, although it may be related. The average composer could not write something like Wellington's Victory. Its trashiness and lack of value are not due to a lack of craft on Beethoven's part, but rather an application of that craft hastily and haphazardly to material that is worthless from a musical perspective. Remember, it still sounds like Beethoven, but he took no care whatsoever with the concept behind the piece, and it shows immediately in the piece's famed inanity.

Likewise, Erik Satie's famous piano pieces are comprised entirely of simple and commonplace materials that could be found anywhere, put together in a simple and straightforward way. They are not valued because of the difficulty it took to put them together, but for the conception (to write the most "blank" music possible) and the result.

(Let it be known that I have mixed feelings about John Cage and the "experimental" movement in music in general, although I like the idea of the prepared piano and some of the music written for it.)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> In 1919 Erwin Schulhoff composed _Fünf Pittoresken_ for piano. One movement, "In futurum", is a silent piece composed entirely of rests.


Alphonse Allais beat him by 22 years with his 1897 "Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man," nine blank measures. Instructions from the composer: "Great sorrows being mute, the performers should occupy themselves with the sole task of counting the bars, instead of indulging in the kind of indecent row that destroys the august character of the best obsequies."

BTW, anxious to follow up on his popular and artistic success, John Cage wrote "4'33" No. 2" in 1962.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

After all of these years I still do not understand what the anti-Cage faction is trying to prove by constantly reminding the world that they dislike Cage.  If a person likes Cage I seriously doubt that winning a rhetorical argument is magically going to change his mind.

I dislike Cage. I seriously doubt if a fan a Cage is magically going to change my mind, although I have been introduced to a few pieces that I have found interesting.

I have only one Cage work in my entire CD library. It was on a CD that had other music I was interested in.

For me disliking Cage it is not a problem. I simply do not listen to him and leave the pro-Cage people alone.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> After all of these years I still do not understand what the anti-Cage faction is trying to prove by constantly reminding the world that they dislike Cage.  If a person likes Cage I seriously doubt that winning a rhetorical argument is magically going to change his mind.
> 
> I dislike Cage. I seriously doubt if a fan a Cage is magically going to change my mind, although I have been introduced to a few pieces that I have found interesting.
> 
> ...


Except it's more like the other way around in this thread. Maybe a retaliation but still quite disrespectful. The pro-Cage crowd are saying we are not real genuine people since we don't support Cage. lol


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> In 1919 Erwin Schulhoff composed _Fünf Pittoresken_ for piano. One movement, "In futurum", is a silent piece composed entirely of rests.





Truckload said:


> I suppose one could and should say with all honesty, "if you've heard one silent piece . . . (wait for it) . . . you've heard them all."
> 
> Gee, Cage should have been sued for plagarism, huh?


_Technically, no, because 4'33" is not "actively composed silence" like Schulhoff's piano piece. Cage's piece is a passive receiving of sound._


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Except it's more like the other way around in this thread. Maybe a retaliation but still quite disrespectful. The pro-Cage crowd are saying we are not real genuine people since we don't support Cage. lol


I never said that, so leave me out of it.

SNOW PIECE

Think that snow is falling. Think that snow is falling
everywhere all the time. When you talk with a person, think
that snow is falling between you and on the person.
Stop conversing when you think the person is covered by snow.

-ONO


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> _Technically, no, because 4'33" is not "actively composed silence" like Schulhoff's piano piece. Cage's piece is a passive receiving of sound._


Why does this remind me of Karlheinz Kloppweiser? "...German silence which is of course structural, as opposed to French silence which is ornamental." :lol:


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Likewise, Erik Satie's famous piano pieces are comprised entirely of simple and commonplace materials that could be found anywhere, put together in a simple and straightforward way. They are not valued because of the difficulty it took to put them together, but for the conception (to write the most "blank" music possible) and the result.


Satie was a bum too. He was the first classical composer I know of that took the lazy way out. It was probably due to the bad influence of dadaists, who also were lazy bums.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Why does this remind me of Karlheinz Kloppweiser? "...German silence which is of course structural, as opposed to French silence which is ornamental." :lol:
> 
> Plus, French silence smells like armpits. ~giggle~


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Satie was a bum too. He was the first classical composer I know of that took the lazy way out. It was probably due to the bad influence of dadaists, who also were lazy bums.


Was Satie...nevermind. He probably started drinking in those cabarets he played in. Absinthe, opium...him & TooLoose LaTrek...Go get him, I mean, use that tough love stuff. He deserves it. Get Dr. Phil on his case.~giggle!~


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Maybe on more than one ground: "W.A. Mozart (1756-1791) devised an aleatoric system called Musikalisches Würfelspiel (Musical Dice), published 1793 by J. J. Hummel in Berlin-Amsterdam, to compose waltzes with a pair of dice and a set of written bars on paper cards. The combination of all the 16 cards and transitions, of which there are theoretically 10 to the 29th combinations, constitutes a minuet."


Its debated as to whether this actually was the work of Mozart, and regardless, your point makes no sense. By this logic, anybody using diatonic scales is just copying ancient composers who developed those modes. Anybody using the 12-tone system is plagiarizing Schoenberg? *rolls eyes*


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Except it's more like the other way around in this thread. Maybe a retaliation but still quite disrespectful. The pro-Cage crowd are saying we are not real genuine people since we don't support Cage. lol


Uh, who said that? I never did, and I haven't read anybody else saying that either. I do find alot of the complaints against Cage to be very mean and presumptuous, and most involve ad hominem attacks on the composer himself, which really doesn't inspire much respect for the opinion being given.

I will say that the people insulting him don't get it. They may think they understand in some respects, but they don't really get Cage. They assume he is either just completely joking, or that he is some greedy or egotistical person, or a combination of those, and they just don't understand him or his music. Doesn't make them "not real genuine" people. They just don't get it X3


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Its debated as to whether this actually was the work of Mozart, and regardless, your point makes no sense. By this logic, anybody using diatonic scales is just copying ancient composers who developed those modes. Anybody using the 12-tone system is plagiarizing Schoenberg? *rolls eyes*


Your sense of humor is mildly impaired today! In any event, I was suggesting that Mozart plagiarized Cage. In advance.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Alphonse Allais beat him by 22 years with his 1897 "Funeral March for the Obsequies of a Deaf Man," nine blank measures. Instructions from the composer: "Great sorrows being mute, the performers should occupy themselves with the sole task of counting the bars, instead of indulging in the kind of indecent row that destroys the august character of the best obsequies."
> 
> BTW, anxious to follow up on his popular and artistic success, John Cage wrote "4'33" No. 2" in 1962.


Anxious? Popular success? Cage lost friends over that piece. Most people scoffed at it and him. He was scared about presenting the piece because he knew that people would react badly. Also, 10 years later isn't really an anxious follow-up.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I'm not interested in the person himself. I'm interested in the music he produced. And to my opinion, it wasn't to my satisfaction.  And it seems the same way to many here. No idea how he felt when he wrote these things. Just don't care tbh.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

BurningDesire said:


> Uh, who said that? I never did, and I haven't read anybody else saying that either. I do find alot of the complaints against Cage to be very mean and presumptuous, and most involve ad hominem attacks on the composer himself, which really doesn't inspire much respect for the opinion being given.
> ...


Well it goes both ways. The person who insulted me yet again was saying he's right and I'm wrong. Even if I like Cage's music, or at least the stuff I see as actual music. The issue is not being right or wrong but just being able to have an opinion without being howled down. An equally valid opinion to his I might add, I'm not saying he's wrong, its his attitude that is.

But that conversation with some guy will be the final one I have, that was the nail in the coffin so to speak. Should have done it ages ago. I'd advise people to do the same thing if you have the same fruitless experience. Its like going back to school with the 'games' people played in the schoolyard. Well I'm not 6 years old anymore. Sorry.



> ...
> I will say that the people insulting him don't get it. They may think they understand in some respects, but they don't really get Cage. They assume he is either just completely joking, or that he is some greedy or egotistical person, or a combination of those, and they just don't understand him or his music. Doesn't make them "not real genuine" people. They just don't get it X3


I'm not saying that, I would not say he's greedy for example. Its about one's view on what he did, not what he ostensibly was. Even people who don't know his music know he's 'that guy who did the silent piece.' What I'm saying to people is listen to his real music, I have a number of his works that I count as among my favourites.

& 4'33" is near to silent as you can get. In modern concert halls, when lights and air con (everything) turns off when sensors sense 'dead air' (eg. no sound or movement), they have to kind of turn off those sensors when this piece is being performed. I am no expert on this but I remember reading about this re when this was done in some venue in London in recent years. So its not totally silent but nearly. So no use in having a recording of it, its about being there live, that's how I see it.

Btw, the playwright I'd compare Cage to is Beckett, his _Waiting for Godot _is like an equivalent in dramatic form of Cage's conceptual works (& stuff like Satie's Relache where basically nothing of much consequence happens, that's the 'point' eg. that there is no 'point').

& if that piece Cage devised to be played for eternity isn't conceptual, I don't know what is. Is anyone going to be around to hear it 100 years later, or hundreds of years after that? Nope. So?


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2013)

neoshredder said:


> I'm interested in the music he produced. And to my opinion, it wasn't to my satisfaction.


And there are other opinions. In my experience, Cage's music has been very satisfying, especially the "conceptual" ones. (And by the way, my "real genuine people" was a mildly humorous attempt to counter the anti-Cage faction's suggestion that perceptions of the anti's are the only genuine perceptions.)



Sid James said:


> & 4'33" is near to silent as you can get.


For about the ten trillionth time, 4' 33" does two things, it opens up music to all sounds, and it opens up compositions to things outside the composer's control. So for the audience, it is about listening. For the composer (and for subsequent composers, if they like), it is about accepting things outside your control.

(If you performed 4' 33" near a functioning factory, that would be a very noisy performance indeed.)



Sid James said:


> & if that piece Cage devised to be played for eternity isn't conceptual, I don't know what is. Is anyone going to be around to hear it 100 years later, or hundreds of years after that? Nope. So?


If you're referring to Organ2/ASLSP, it is not a piece devised to be played for eternity. It is a piece without any strict timing (see "outside your control" above). Most performances of it (and of the version for piano) take about an hour, which, if you're bored might _seem_ like an eternity....

There is a performance going on in Halberstadt that was designed to take 639 years to play, hardly eternity (and in a country where there's a bakery that's been in the same family for over 800 years, just for some perspective). But it was designed that way by the people in Halberstadt, about ten years after Cage had died, to commemorate their oldest organ (the oldest organ in Europe) which at the time was 639 years old. So Cage is responsible for devising something that was designed by someone else after he'd been dead for almost a decade? That's a heck of a lot of responsibility!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> I will say that the people insulting him don't get it. They may think they understand in some respects, but they don't really get Cage. They assume he is either just completely joking, or that he is some greedy or egotistical person, or a combination of those, and they just don't understand him or his music. Doesn't make them "not real genuine" people. They just don't get it X3


I don't get his music. But it doesn't matter because the music is secondary to the sound. I get all the sound I need from the world around me. I require composers to organize that sound into meaningful music.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> I don't get his music. But it doesn't matter because the music is secondary to the sound. I get all the sound I need from the world around me. I require composers to organize that sound into meaningful music.


Yeah I'm a fan of structure. Baroque-Romanticism is especially structured. Some 20th Century music isn't so.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2013)

No one's paying the slightest bit of attention to your requirements, though, are they?

Some dead composers have done some things that please you. Well, you lucked out. They were not thinking of you and your requirements at all.

Some living composers might be doing things that please you. Hey, lucked out again. Because they are not thinking of you and your requirements at all.

So your having these magisterial requirements, without any powers of enforcement, I am sure, is completely ineffectual and beside the point. But OK. Whatever helps you sleep at night....

And word in your beautiful, shell-like ears, everything that every human makes/perceives has structure. Cage has an anecdote about searching for mushrooms one day. Some deer came crashing suddenly through the clearing. Then he went back to searching for mushrooms.

The perfect ABA structure.

Or, if you're in the mood for just blasting the whole notion of structure, and who isn't now and again, then there's another anecdote, this one about Morton Feldman. A student, so it goes, comes into his office with a new piece. But he's not sure about "the structure." "Structure?" Feldman exclaims, placing sheet after sheet on his office floor and walking on them. "This is a piece of music. Structure is for bridges."


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Except it's more like the other way around in this thread. Maybe a retaliation but still quite disrespectful. The pro-Cage crowd are saying we are not real genuine people since we don't support Cage. lol


I do not believe that. The vast majority of people that I know who like Cage do not believe that, but they are constantly being accused of thinking this. Are there some snobs who like Cage? Of course there are. There are also snobs who hate Mozart.

Even if 90% of the pro-Cage people where as evil as you claim they are, so what. I seriously doubt that Western Civilization as we know it is going to come to an end.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

The amount of blatant trolling from the anti-Cage crowd in this thread is astounding and I'm sick of it. I already reported one of you for attempting to stifle the conversation by ridiculing the subject, though apparently nothing has been done about it and the rest of you are continuing to behave like this and debasing the entire thread as a result.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Respect*



Crudblud said:


> The amount of blatant trolling from the anti-Cage crowd in this thread is astounding and I'm sick of it. I already reported one of you for attempting to stifle the conversation by ridiculing the subject, though apparently nothing has been done about it and the rest of you are continuing to behave like this and debasing the entire thread as a result.


It appears that some of the anti-Cage rhetoric is coming from new members who do not understand that here at TC we try to be civilize. Even those of us who dislike Cage still try to respect the views of the pro-Cage crowd and _vice versa_.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> It appears that some of the anti-Cage rhetoric is coming from new members who do not understand that here at TC we try to be civilize. Even those of us who dislike Cage still try to respect the views of the pro-Cage crowd and _vice versa_.


I have yet to see any members insulted in this thread with the exception of that supposed joke about real genuine people like Cage. That is the only comment I find offensive in this thread. Insulting a Composer (more like different taste) and insulting a member are 2 different things. Obviously, the latter is worse.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> I have yet to see any members insulted in this thread with the exception of that supposed joke about real genuine people like Cage. That is the only comment I find offensive in this thread. Insulting a Composer (more like different taste) and insulting a member are 2 different things. Obviously, the latter is worse.


Members? Who said anything about members? The thing we're talking about is a genuine attempt from certain people to derail the thread by ridiculing the subject. They're not interested in discussing Cage, only ridiculing him. I think that is highly disrespectful.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> Members? Who said anything about members? The thing we're talking about is a genuine attempt from certain people to derail the thread by ridiculing the subject. They're not interested in discussing Cage, only ridiculing him. I think that is highly disrespectful.


Disrespectufl? Yes. Report worthy? No And why does every Composer have to be respected all the time?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Disrespectufl? Yes. Report worthy? No And why does every Composer have to be respected all the time?


I'm saying that ridiculing the subject of the thread is disrespectful to the people who are honestly participating in it. And yes, I do believe that trolling and juvenile attempts to stifle discussion are report-worthy.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Your definition of trolling and juvenile attemps are different than mine then. But I'll look through the thread again to see what you are talking about. So far, nothing too bad after 2 pages.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> I'm saying that ridiculing the subject of the thread is disrespectful to the people who are honestly participating in it.


Wow. And people who don't care for Cage's music are "dishonestly" participating? Seems an odd way of looking at things.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

Crudblud said:


> I'm saying that ridiculing the subject of the thread is disrespectful to the people who are honestly participating in it. And yes, I do believe that trolling and juvenile attempts to stifle discussion are report-worthy.


lighten up, mate.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Wow. And people who don't care for Cage's music are "dishonestly" participating? Seems an odd way of looking at things.


That isn't what I said and you know it, but I know how much you enjoy using that tactic. Ridicule is not honest participation. If someone doesn't like Cage then I respect their opinion and will gladly discuss it, but when someone starts ridiculing him in an obvious and childish attempt to stifle actual discussion, then it becomes a problem. The same applies to *any thread*, whether it's about Cage, Mozart or whoever else you care to think of.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

DrMike said:


> The expensive works of art that everybody recognizes typically have such a high value because a significant number of people value it so highly.


not a significant number as much as _the right_ people (critics + collectors + artists, who tend to be in cahoots for obvious material reasons).


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> That isn't what I said, and you know it, but I know how much you enjoy using that tactic. Ridicule is not honest participation. If someone doesn't like Cage then I respect their opinion and will gladly discuss it, but when someone starts ridiculing him in an obvious and childish attempt to stifle actual discussion, then it becomes a problem. The same applies to *any thread*, whether it's about Cage, Mozart or whoever else you care to think of.


Yes since Mozart and Cage should be on equal terms of appreciation.  All I find is some good humor jokes. Sorry if it offends the Cage fans.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> That isn't what I said, and you know it, but I know how much you enjoy using that tactic. Ridicule is not honest participation. If someone doesn't like Cage then I respect their opinion and will gladly discuss it, but when someone starts ridiculing him in an obvious and childish attempt to stifle actual discussion, then it becomes a problem. The same applies to *any thread*, whether it's about Cage, Mozart or whoever else you care to think of.


I'm being perfectly straightforward (if that's possible). If you think there's been reportable abuse in this thread, it would be helpful to provide the particulars. Who, when, etc.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

All I want to say in a thread like this is I much prefer music by other composers than Cage's music.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

some guy said:


> And there are other opinions. In my experience, Cage's music has been very satisfying, especially the "conceptual" ones. (And by the way, my "real genuine people" was a mildly humorous attempt to counter the anti-Cage faction's suggestion that perceptions of the anti's are the only genuine perceptions.)
> 
> For about the ten trillionth time, 4' 33" does two things, it opens up music to all sounds, and it opens up compositions to things outside the composer's control. So for the audience, it is about listening. For the composer (and for subsequent composers, if they like), it is about accepting things outside your control.
> 
> ...


OK, Cage wrote the silent piece, other conceptual pieces, other sound music pieces, this piece you mentioned. But so what? There is just a difference in blind defence of the composer versus realising the implications of his conceptual pieces. The latter I don't think really matters a big deal. I get the concept. Many students that I know also do. And we walk away saying "so what"?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Yes since Mozart and Cage should be on equal terms of appreciation.  All I find is some good humor jokes. Sorry if it offends the Cage fans.


Well, it's not surprising that you don't see it as being directly opposed to actual discussion since you admit an open bias against Cage on an objective basis.



KenOC said:


> I'm being perfectly straightforward (if that's possible). If you think there's been reportable abuse in this thread, it would be helpful to provide the particulars. Who, when, etc.


Public naming and shaming is not my duty, and it will only serve to cause more problems than it solves. I have reported the offending parties to the moderators, and from there it's up to them.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2013)

neoshredder said:


> Yes since Mozart and Cage should be on equal terms of appreciation.  All I find is some good humor jokes. Sorry if it offends the Cage fans.


Please please please do not start channelling the member you are channelling.

And here are some extracts from the thread, in order. They are all examples, I guess, of good humor jokes.

John... who?

Is John Cage under-rated? Obviously not, as that would be quite impossible.

conceptual rubbish pieces

Cage and Warhol catered to the stupid elite by handing them "masterpieces" made of trumped up chewing gum and spit and making them jump through hoops for it. Maybe they were sly manipulators of stupid rich people, but if they were real artists, they would have spent their time working on real art.

The difference between Cage and Beethoven is that with Beethoven, there is some "there" there.

John Cage's music is a Godsend for first year art students in love with the sound of their own voice, and music reviewers who have a half page column to write an hour before the deadline. He has a lot less to offer people who enjoy listening to music.

Q: How many monkeys at grand pianos would it take to come up with John Cage's 4:33?
A: None!

So I finally listened to 4'33" ... I heard nothing!
It was not even an unpleasant kind of music, it was a joke...

Sadly, it is not a joke, it is far worse than that.

But, when I think about it, I have to admit that while it is not music, it is the best thing Cage ever wrote.

"Hide and seek Piece: Hide until everybody goes home. Hide until everybody forgets about you. Hide until everybody dies."
If only Yoko had actually performed that piece!

Like Dada, Cage and Warhol focused their attention on the establishment to see what they could get away with. They encoraged critics to publish reams of pseudo-intellectual nonsense to justify their "work" while maintaining a Cheshire Cat persona, only speaking in soundbites designed to incite more pseudo-intellectual justifications. The playing of the system was the art of it. The physical works were just the by product.

Looking at a Warhol painting today is like following the spoor of an animal that is long dead.

The pro-Cage crowd are saying we are not real genuine people since we don't support Cage. [OK, this one is not a "good humor joke," it's just a false accusation. Come to think of it, looking back over what I have just copied and pasted, it all seems rather lacking somehow in good humor. Snarky, sure. Humorous, um, not so much. Anyway, still more "good humor" ahead!]

Satie was a bum too. He was the first classical composer I know of that took the lazy way out. It was probably due to the bad influence of dadaists, who also were lazy bums.

So there you have it. Good humor or humorless trolling?

If you hate Cage (with the exception of arpeggio), it's good humor. If you want to have a civilized conversation about Cage, however (which would include arpeggio), then you're out of luck.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

It's called different taste. Everyone has a bias in music. Most people don't share the same appreciation for Cage compared to Mozart. Some would find humorous with the comparison. Why is this so hard to grasp why Mozart and Cage are not comparable? Insulting Mozart's music wouldn't be reportable either imo. But that's a good way to get the whole site against you.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> It's called different taste. Everyone has a bias in music. Most people don't share the same appreciation for Cage compared to Mozart. Some would find humorous with the comparison. Why is this so hard to grasp why Mozart and Cage are not comparable? Insulting Mozart's music wouldn't be reportable either imo. But that's a good way to get the whole site against you.


Everyone has a bias, yes, but some people recognise that their bias is an opinion and not a fact. Mozart is observably more popular than Cage, that's a fair statement and one which isn't arguable, however, it is foolish to suggest that one is better than the other on an objective basis, because it is not demonstrably true. If you don't like Cage, that's fine, but don't try to tell me that Cage makes bad or inferior music or that his fans are snobs or idiots (not you, but some have done this) simply because you don't like it. That's just childish.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

This thread concerns the composer John Cage and whether his music is underrated. It is not an open invitation to comment negatively on other members. Please remember our Terms of Service:



> Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«.


You may believe that John Cage wrote horrible music or was a wonderful music innovator or isn't worthy of being called a composer or is the greatest composer in the known universe. Fine. Argue and discuss those things _about John Cage_. But, please leave comments about members out of that discussion.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> Everyone has a bias, yes, but some people recognise that their bias is an opinion and not a fact. Mozart is observably more popular than Cage, that's a fair statement and one which isn't arguable, however, it is foolish to suggest that one is better than the other on an objective basis, because it is not demonstrably true. If you don't like Cage, that's fine, but don't try to tell me that Cage makes bad or inferior music or that his fans are snobs or idiots (not you, but some have done this) simply because you don't like it. That's just childish.


I missed that comment. Fair enough to report someone for that. Just saying it is alright to share your dislike for Cage's music. Even in a joke. Unfortunately, one forgets the boundaries of taking it too far and breaking the ToS. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Personally, I think mentioning Cage and Mozart together is absurd. They are a million miles away from being equals. It's like equating Richard Simmons and Laurence Olivier. It's perfectly fine to enjoy Richard Simmons. He is very funny. But he's in a different league, just as Cage is.

Is John Cage underrated? I think he's given way more attention than his work deserves, and I believe his influence is detrimental to contemporary classical music. Richard Simmons can't be accused of anything like that.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Personally, I think mentioning Cage and Mozart together is absurd. They are a million miles away from being equals.


Yeah. Cage is waaaaaay more awesome


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

BurningDesire said:


> Yeah. Cage is waaaaaay more awesome


What are your favourites by Cage?


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Cage was well known to Schoenberg. I believe Cage attempted to study with Schoenberg but was either expelled or flunked, I can't remember the details. Schoenberg, who certainly can not be objectively called "childish" said Cage was "no composer."

Like many others, I believe that Cage did more to damage the public image and perception of art music than any other person, ever. By bringing the entire art into disrepute he did incalcuable damage to everyone who loves music, he deserves ridicule. 

Is Cage under-rated? That is the subject of this thread, so the OP obviously wants a discussion "rating" Cage. It would be impossible to under-rate Cage. As Schoenberg so aptly said Cage was "no composer", so even the lowest rating would be too high for Cage.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> What are your favourites by Cage?


hmmm, probably Sonatas and Interludes, and The Seasons. I also love Souvenir, and Child of Tree and Water Walk have alot of charm X3

Music of Changes and In the Name of the Holocaust are also awesome


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Truckload said:


> It seems to me that there is someone attacking other members and attempting to ridicule MEMBERS for their realisticly low opinion of the stuff created by Cage. Labeling other members as CHILDISH, is clearly an insult.
> 
> Please leave comments about members out of the discussion.


What a truckload of nonsense.

:B


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Truckload said:


> Cage was well known to Schoenberg. I believe Cage attempted to study with Schoenberg but was either expelled or flunked, I can't remember the details. Schoenberg, who certainly can not be objectively called "childish" said Cage was "no composer."


This is far more negative than the reality, and far less interesting.

Cage did study with Schoenberg in California, but he struggled with harmony, particularly, I believe, the long range implications of short term harmonic events. Schoenberg told his student that he had no affinity for harmony, and that if he wanted to compose, he would run up against a brick wall. The student told his teacher that he would therefore hit his head upon that brick wall.

The comment to which you refer is something to the effect of: he is my best student, but he is not a composer. He is an inventor, and one of genius.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Here is an appropriate gif for this thread - a train wreck, and not an impressive one.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

I could watch that all day.  But it might be more minimalism than Cagean.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> What are your favourites by Cage?


I would personally recommend _The City Wears a Slouch Hat_, which he wrote in collaboration with Kenneth Patchen, who wrote the script/libretto. It's sort of a surrealist drama following a man who, through a series of bizarre events, ends up on a small island off the coast of New York City, where he and a homeless man sit and listen to the waves crashing against the shore.

The best recording I know of is on an album called _The Lost Works of John Cage_, the other pieces aren't quite so interesting for me, but it's worth getting for _Slouch Hat_ alone.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> The amount of blatant trolling from the anti-Cage crowd in this thread is astounding and I'm sick of it. I already reported one of you for attempting to stifle the conversation by ridiculing the subject, though apparently nothing has been done about it and the rest of you are continuing to behave like this and debasing the entire thread as a result.


This could be intentional, Crudblud. Proceed with extreme caution.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Truckload said:


> Cage was well known to Schoenberg. I believe Cage attempted to study with Schoenberg but was either expelled or flunked, I can't remember the details. Schoenberg...said Cage was "no composer."





Mahlerian said:


> This is far more negative than the reality, and far less interesting.
> 
> Cage did study with Schoenberg in California, but he struggled with harmony, particularly, I believe, the long range implications of short term harmonic events. Schoenberg told his student that he had no affinity for harmony, and that if he wanted to compose, he would run up against a brick wall. The student told his teacher that he would therefore hit his head upon that brick wall.
> 
> The comment to which you refer is something to the effect of: he is my best student, but he is not a composer. He is an inventor, and one of genius.


[Peter Yates told Cage that he had once asked Schoenberg if any of his pupils in America had been interesting. In a letter, he had named Lou Harrison among others, but not Cage. To Yates, Schoenberg's immediate reply was that there were none, *but then he had smiled and mentioned Cage, saying, "Of course he's not a composer, but an inventor - of genius."*]

_-The Roaring Silence: John Cage: A Life by David Revill, p. 49_


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Truckload said:


> Like many others, I believe that Cage did more to damage the public image and perception of art music than any other person, ever. By bringing the entire art into disrepute he did incalcuable damage to everyone who loves music, he deserves ridicule.


It's possible that your first statement is essentially correct. The majority of people who know of Cage may indeed view him as a charlatan and his music as silly, worthless, or junk. But I think your second statement does not follow.

Roughly half the people in the US view Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory as garbage, but further, many believe it's partly responsible for society's drift toward a host of horrible conditions (they would include socialism, godlessness, drug addiction, etc.). So they believe Darwin's work is not just worthless but much worse - a contributor towards the destruction of human souls. In their view ridicule is much too mild for Mr. Darwin.

Darwin and Cage are different, but both men were profoundly misunderstood by many. Within science Darwin is considered one of the 2 or 3 greatest scientists ever - a man whose work revolutionized a whole field and enormously influenced future science. Every book or article I have read about Cage or modern music has emphasized the positive impact Cage had on music, and each viewed Cage as an important figure in classical music history. I do not mean to equate Cage's influence or greatness with Darwin but simply to say that he is overwhelmingly viewed positively by those who have studied his work.

It's also true that both men's works are hated by many. I do not believe either should be ridiculed.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> It's possible that your first statement is essentially correct. The majority of people who know of Cage may indeed view him as a charlatan and his music as silly, worthless, or junk. But I think your second statement does not follow.
> 
> Roughly half the people in the US view Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory as garbage, but further, many believe it's partly responsible for society's drift toward a host of horrible conditions (they would include socialism, godlessness, drug addiction, etc.). So they believe Darwin's work is not just worthless but much worse - a contributor towards the destruction of human souls. In their view ridicule is much too mild for Mr. Darwin.
> 
> ...


Though you fail to mention that Darwin and his work are hated by stupid people. I would not call somebody who hate's Cage or his music stupid.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Truckload said:


> Like many others, I believe that Cage did more to damage the public image and perception of art music than any other person, ever. By bringing the entire art into disrepute he did incalcuable damage to everyone who loves music, he deserves ridicule.


What did he do, exactly?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> It's possible that your first statement is essentially correct. The majority of people who know of Cage may indeed view him as a charlatan and his music as silly, worthless, or junk. But I think your second statement does not follow.
> 
> Roughly half the people in the US view Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory as garbage, but further, many believe it's partly responsible for society's drift toward a host of horrible conditions (they would include socialism, godlessness, drug addiction, etc.). So they believe Darwin's work is not just worthless but much worse - a contributor towards the destruction of human souls. In their view ridicule is much too mild for Mr. Darwin.
> 
> ...


I would respond to this if the situation were not so heated, and I felt I could respond freely without fear of being cited for a violation once again.

Some of the points brought up by this post are certainly provocative in nature, citing politics (socialism) and religion (godlessness, destruction of human souls), and invoking descriptors such as "garbage."

I'm at a loss to explain the "drug addiction" reference as it concerns Cage or Darwin.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> It's possible that your first statement is essentially correct. The majority of people who know of Cage may indeed view him as a charlatan and his music as silly, worthless, or junk. But I think your second statement does not follow.
> 
> Roughly half the people in the US view Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory as garbage, but further, many believe it's partly responsible for society's drift toward a host of horrible conditions (they would include socialism, godlessness, drug addiction, etc.). So they believe Darwin's work is not just worthless but much worse - a contributor towards the destruction of human souls. In their view ridicule is much too mild for Mr. Darwin.
> 
> ...


I suppose I see your general point, but I do not agree. You could make much the same argument conscerning any controversial figure. You could throw in a lot of different names. For example Stalin, he was hated by many and loved by many. There were even appologists for him here in the USA in the 1950's. Do you think a comparison between Cage and Stalin would add any insight?

Regarding harm to the art of music, it is so obvious to me, that I suppose I take it for granted everyone else sees it. So here is the line of thinking. For better or worse art music depends upon money and the support of an audience. In the US and Europe a great deal of funding is received for schools, universities, orchestras, chamber groups, and classical radio stations from the government. If the public can not see the value in art music, funding becomes an issue.

In America, funding for music programs has been steadily eroding. Especially if you look at funding per capita. Without shool music programs, where will the future audience for art music come from? Sometimes I wonder that if it were not for football half-time shows if we would have any school music at all. Do I really need to go through the rest of the explanation? Do you think someone like Cage helps build rapport and support within the community that is paying the bills? In affluent neighborhoods, even the person uninterested in art music is extremely receptive to traditional music. Think of the movie "Fantasia". You let the non-music loving school-board member or state legislator (they control University funding) get some exposure to Cage and his ilk, and the mildly uninterested are likely to become openly hostile. Trying to get $9,000 for a new tuba for the marching band is difficult, but thanks to football, not too hard. Trying to get $7,000 for a new basoon for the orchestra?

And I really can't blame the money people. There are so many people with their hands out for money, how do you pick who gets it and who doesn't? Throw Cage into that mix, and can you honestly say you don't believe Cage has harmed the entire art music community?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Truckload said:


> And I really can't blame the money people. There are so many people with their hands out for money, how do you pick who gets it and who doesn't? Throw Cage into that mix, and can you honestly say you don't believe Cage has harmed the entire art music community?


I think it's wrong to blame Cage. Blame instead the "music community" itself, for putting itself in the position of appearing to many to be pretentious poseurs.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Truckload said:


> In affluent neighborhoods, even the person uninterested in art music is extremely receptive to traditional music. Think of the movie "Fantasia".


This just isn't true. The potential for exposure exists today more than ever before, via the internet, and a good many people are hostile to the very idea of "art music" in all of its forms. Many more are completely apathetic.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Truckload said:


> Regarding harm to the art of music, it is so obvious to me, that I suppose I take it for granted everyone else sees it. So here is the line of thinking. For better or worse art music depends upon money and the support of an audience. In the US and Europe a great deal of funding is received for schools, universities, orchestras, chamber groups, and classical radio stations from the government. If the public can not see the value in art music, funding becomes an issue.
> 
> In America, funding for music programs has been steadily eroding. Especially if you look at funding per capita. Without shool music programs, where will the future audience for art music come from? Sometimes I wonder that if it were not for football half-time shows if we would have any school music at all. Do I really need to go through the rest of the explanation? Do you think someone like Cage helps build rapport and support within the community that is paying the bills? Even in affluent neighborhoods, the person uninterested in art music is extremely receptive to traditional music. Think of the movie "Fantasia". You let the non-music loving school-board member or state legislator (they control University funding) get some exposure to Cage and his ilk, and the mildly uninterested are likely to become openly hostile. Trying to get $9,000 for a new tuba for the marching band is difficult, but thanks to football, not too hard. Trying to get $7,000 for a new basoon for the orchestra?
> 
> And I really can't blame the money people. There are so many people with their hands out for money, how do you pick who gets it and who doesn't? Throw Cage into that mix, and can you honestly say you don't believe Cage has harmed the entire art music community?


You've explained that there is a declining interest in art music in western culture, which is quite observably true. I wrote a post of some length on the matter in The Desire for Tonality* which explains my take on exactly this phenomenon. I disagree with you that it is Cage's fault, and I would go so far as to say that he has very little to do with it.

*It is quite a dense post which doesn't flow very well, my only excuse being that I was quite tired when I wrote it. I feel I should apologise for that in advance.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> This just isn't true. The potential for exposure exists today more than ever before, via the internet, and a good many people are hostile to the very idea of "art music" in all of its forms. Many more are completely apathetic.


I'm not sure what you are saying "isn't true". Thankfully, there are still many, many people who see the value in art music, even if they are not themsevles consumers of art music. Many people who have no interest in art music fully support music programs, giving money, volunteering time, paying for private lessons and encouraging their children to appreciate the fine arts. I know this to be true, I have lived it.

Yes there are many people hostile to the very idea of "art music" in all of its forms, many are completely apathetic. I do not see how those statements prove something was not true. What are you saying isn't true?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Truckload said:


> Yes there are many people hostile to the very idea of "art music" in all of its forms, many are completely apathetic. I do not see how those statements prove something was not true. What are you saying isn't true?


You said that "In affluent neighborhoods, even the person uninterested in art music is extremely receptive to traditional music."

This statement at least seems to say that most people, or the average people, in a well-off neighborhood, are "receptive" to art music. If this is so, why has the proportion of support not increased in proportion to relative well-being? There are many people who will put themselves in a position to "try out" art music if they are not familiar with it. They are already receptive. Most people pay no attention. Some react with strong negativity. Your statement is, at the least, utterly simplistic and not supported by more than anecdotal evidence.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2013)

Truckload said:


> Regarding harm to the art of music, it is so obvious to me, that I suppose I take it for granted everyone else sees it.


Yes, that explains a lot. "My ideas are so obviously right that everyone agrees with them. (And those who don't are simply wrong.)" That's something all of us should always be aware of, I think.

I think that Cage's positive contribution to music is incalculable. (But I have never been under any illusion that everyone else sees it that way, boy howdy!!) And while it's true that he has enraged a lot of people who feel entitled, people who don't ordinarily pay any attention to contemporary music except to complain about their local symphony playing Britten, I fail to see how annoying those people (who would still be annoyed, note, had Cage never existed) can be taken as equivalent to harming the art of music. (That that claim can be made makes me think the sense of entitlement is even stronger than I had thought. And I have always thought that it was pretty freakin' strong.)



Truckload said:


> For better or worse art music depends upon money and the support of an audience.


What a persistent notion this is, to be sure. And I think I know why. Not because it's in any way true, but because it's an easy way to support (to appear to be supporting) what is merely an irrational antagonism. You see something you don't like. You want it to stop. You accuse it of taking money, "a great deal of" money. And of course, "a great deal of" is never specified, probably because however much any government anywhere spends on the arts, that amount is negligible in comparison to other expenditures. Make a pie chart of any country's funding. The arts wedge will always be the slimmest. I doubt if you could even see it for the U.S. chart unless you made a really, really big chart. No, I think the funding argument is a non-starter. Try corporate bailouts and military and tax loopholes for the extremely wealthy. Now those are some fat wedges!

Art music has never had any significant share of the market. It's not that kind of thing. Barry Truax explains it like this to his students who repine that avant garde is not as financially robust as pop music. Those two types of music represent two completely different economic models that are not comparable. In the pop model, 90% of the effort goes into marketing, leaving about 10% for the actual making of music. In the classical/avant garde model, however, 90% of the effort goes into making the music. And 10% into marketing, if even that.

Otherwise, there's that audience thing again. Another what one might call a zombie idea. It's not alive, but it never dies, plus it likes to suck on people's brains.

Never mind that new music does have an audience, a dedicated, passionate, engaged audience. But because the existence of those people does not support the irrational idea that new music alienates its audience, they are simply ignored by this argument.



Truckload said:


> In America, funding for music programs has been steadily eroding.


From tiny to miniscule? In America, funding for music programs has always been microscopic. Music programs have never been a high priority for funding. And I doubt if John Cage's baleful influence has had any effect on that whatsoever. America is not a place that values music in any noticable way.



Truckload said:


> Without shool music programs, where will the future audience for art music come from?


From where it's always come from, from people. The school I went to (in the fifties and sixties) had little or no music. No art, no sculpture, no literature. Nothing. Lots of math and something that passed for history and some biology and chemistry. By high school, there was enough music and literature to notice. Still not all that much. But I had developed a taste for the arts long before that. And my people had no interest in any of that crap, either. How did I get it? It was a miracle, I think. But I got it. And so will other people, regardless of music programs in schools, which always come way too late and offer way to little. If anyone were to fall in love with the arts as a result of some high school music program--someone not already in love, that is--that would be an even greater miracle than mine!



Truckload said:


> Do you think someone like Cage helps build rapport and support within the community that is paying the bills?


Is this question even germane? Cage was not a fund-raiser. Cage was a composer. Never mind the throwaway crack of Schoenberg's. (His crack about the mailman whistling his music in fifty years is universally excoriated, but his crack about Cage is universally praised. Make up yer minds, buckos!!)



Truckload said:


> Even in affluent neighborhoods, the person uninterested in art music is extremely receptive to traditional music.


Whoa, Nelly!! A wee bit defining of the terms would be welcome here. What are these categories? What do they include? Pieces, composers, bands, whatever.



Truckload said:


> You let the non-music loving school-board member or state legislator (they control University funding) get some exposure to Cage and his ilk, and the mildly uninterested are likely to become openly hostile.


Your non-music loving board member or legistator is not already openly hostile to music generally? You characterized them already as "non-music loving" after all. And how would exposure to Cage change that?

Board member doesn't like music.
Board member votes to buy tubas for football games.
Board member is exposed to Cage's music.
Board member votes against buying bassoons for the orchestra.

Really? Is this really a logical progression? According to what you have argued elsewhere, this board member would probably vote down the bassoon regardless. According to your argument, the only reason the tuba gets in in any case is because of football. Nothing to do with Cage or even any of his ilks. The non-music loving person is not going to spend money on music, whether he or she has ever heard of Cage or not.



Truckload said:


> There are so many people with their hands out for money, how do you pick who gets it and who doesn't?


I dunno. Get the trillions back from the 1% who got their trillions by cheating? By risking other people's money? By tax evasion? By getting bailouts from the government they cheated? Well, good luck with that one, too.

But seriously, is this picture of people with their hands out for money an accurate one? Does money only get distributed by other people picking who gets it and who doesn't? This a vastly over-simplified picture at best (and an extremely distorted one at worst), made primarily (see above about market share) to have some argument, any argument, against something you hate but can't really justify your hate. And what better way to bolster a weak argument than get people all worked up about where their money is going.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

My personal specialty is art. And I can tell you that conceptualism and commercial gaming that was exploited by Warhol and others is a major detrimental influence on fine art. The leading art frauds, Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst would not exist without the lead set by Warhol. They have effectively muscled out more worthy artists and caused most of them who have talent and skill into illustration and commercial art. But the most detrimental effect is on schools. Art schools around the country are populated with instructors who can't really draw and paint who infect their students with the idea that conceptualism is a good field for young artists to work in. Instead of getting the classical skill based training that artists got back in the 30s and 40s, they get educated in cheats and composing justification manifestos. It's a lot easier to teach students to come up with clever little devious ideas than to teach them to draw. They are deluded into thinking they are getting an education, but when they graduate, they get the rude awakening that they were robbed of their tuition. They end up without any skills and graduate from cap and gown to Starbucks apron with massive student debt to boot. Art schools are perpetrating a cruel scam on a monumental scale, and hippie conceptualist professors and greedy school administrators are the ones to blame.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*1812 Overture and the Fourth of July*

'some guy'

Your comments about boards reminded me about a story I told in the 'other' forum concerning the _1812 Overture_ and the Fourth of July. By any chance do you remember it?

"We had an interesting situation concerning our community band. We play at the annual 4th of July celebration. A few years ago the 4th of July committee was complaining that the music we were playing was too pop oriented and they wanted more patriotic music like STARS AND STRIPES FOREVER and the _1812 OVERTURE _(?) Many of the committee did not know the background of _1812_. They had no idea that it was composed by a gay Russian in 1880 to commemorate the Russian defeat of Napoleon when he invaded Russia. According to a friend who attended the meeting, they back down when our director made the point that if we recognized their criteria, we would have to eliminate 1812 from the program." (Quote from my post.)

Orchestra board members are not always the brightest bulbs.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> You said that "In affluent neighborhoods, even the person uninterested in art music is extremely receptive to traditional music."
> 
> This statement at least seems to say that most people, or the average people, in a well-off neighborhood, are "receptive" to art music. If this is so, why has the proportion of support not increased in proportion to relative well-being? There are many people who will put themselves in a position to "try out" art music if they are not familiar with it. They are already receptive. Most people pay no attention. Some react with strong negativity. Your statement is, at the least, utterly simplistic and not supported by more than anecdotal evidence.


I have taught in both affluent and under-privaledged schools. Interestingly, in my experience the less affluent but engaged parent is even more determined than some affluent parents that their children have the opportunity to appreciate fine art. They may not have money to give, or they may work two jobs and have no time to volunteer, but they want their children to have the best education available, including exposure to the finer things in life, like classical music. I specifically referenced affluent schools, because in these areas the support is the most visible and tangible.

I do believe that the majority of people, more than 50%, are receptive to art music as valuable, even if they do not listen to art music peronally,at least until you start to include the avante-guarde, of which Cage is the most prominent example. You ask why support has not increased with relative well-being? I am not equating well-being or affluence with support. I am not sure that well-being has increased in Europe and the US, but that is economics, not music. Support is most visible in affluent areas because people have the time and money to demonstrate support. There are potential cultural issues in play as well, but that is sociology, not music.

*The basic assumption made by enough of the populace to keep the funding flowing, is that art music is valuable to our culture, *and that young people should be exposed to art music as part of a well-rounded liberal arts education. Also, because of this same assumption, public money should be spent on orchestras, classical radio, etc.

What happens when people start to question the basic assumption that art music is valuable to our culture? The funding declines, support declines, fewer volunteers, fewer parents engaged in bring preassure with the board of education and the legislature to protect music funding.

Since in a democracy or republic the majority rule (theoretically) and since clearly less than a majority are personally interested in art music. Why do you think we continue to have funding for art music?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I find some aspects of this discussion little short of disgusting. Insulting orchestra board members? At most municipal orchestras:

1. Board members love classical music (though they may not be deeply educated in it).
2. They are expected to be major donors to the orchestra.
3. Their work, although time consuming and often difficult, receives no pay. This is, quite simply, volunteer work.

Their reward? To be called nekulturny boors because, like 99% of people in their community they're not deeply read in music and they'll change the station when something by Cage is played, even without knowing the composer.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

bigshot said:


> My personal specialty is art. And I can tell you that conceptualism and commercial gaming that was exploited by Warhol and others is a major detrimental influence on fine art. The leading art frauds, Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst would not exist without the lead set by Warhol. They have effectively muscled out more worthy artists and caused most of them who have talent and skill into illustration and commercial art. But the most detrimental effect is on schools. Art schools around the country are populated with instructors who can't really draw and paint who infect their students with the idea that conceptualism is a good field for young artists to work in. Instead of getting the classical skill based training that artists got back in the 30s and 40s, they get educated in cheats and composing justification manifestos. It's a lot easier to teach students to come up with clever little devious ideas than to teach them to draw. They are deluded into thinking they are getting an education, but when they graduate, they get the rude awakening that they were robbed of their tuition. They end up without any skills and graduate from cap and gown to Starbucks apron with massive student debt to boot. Art schools are perpetrating a cruel scam on a monumental scale, and hippie conceptualist professors and greedy school administrators are the ones to blame.


Ummm what does this have at all to do with John Cage? I think thats no good if the students want to learn drawing and painting techniques, and build those skills, but what about young artists who are genuinely interested and enthusiastic about conceptual art? Also, I've never heard of a school where they don't have any proper visual arts courses. At my uni, there's a huge variety of visual art styles being explored by students, that range from very traditional to very conceptual, and everywhere inbetween, often combining new and old ideas. I don't see alot of students not being taught to paint and draw beautifully here. I think you might be arguing against some fictional art school system that doesn't really exist o3o


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> 'some guy'
> 
> Your comments about boards reminded me about a story I told in the 'other' forum concerning the _1812 Overture_ and the Fourth of July. By any chance do you remember it?
> 
> ...


Having attended thousands of such meetings (that is an exageration, in reality a few dozen, but it seems like thousands), I can certainly picture that happening.

A friend of mine who taught in community college had established tenure and created a very nice music program that centered around a very active and enthusiastic adult community band. His contract set his pay by the number of pupils taught, because his primary activities were adult education oriented. He was really into avante-guard music. But he had built up a great communtiy band program based on performing the usual band repetoire (this program needs spell check). I participated in the band myself, as did many local music educators.

He decided that he was going to start including an avante-guarde piece in each concert. He felt that he had developed a sufficient personal following and personal loyalty that he could "educate" the audience and the band to appreciate the avate-guarde. I tried to warn him, as did many others, and it cost me our friendship. He has not spoken to me since.

In the first concert, half the audience got up and left. In the next concert he put the piece at the end of the concert, and there was only two or three people left at the end. At that point I quit the band. By the end of the season, about 75% of the band had quit. When it came time for people to sign up for the next season, he could not get enough people to sign up to seat a traditional concert band. Without his core course, the administration cancelled his contract.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*The Adverse Influence of Cage?*



bigshot said:


> My personal specialty is art. And I can tell you that conceptualism and commercial gaming that was exploited by Warhol and others is a major detrimental influence on fine art.


I am not an authority on art so I do not have the expertise to respond to you statement concerning the art world.

Base on my experiences as an amateur musician who has been involved with commissioning new music I found that the assertion that Cage has had a negative effect on art music is a gross exaggeration. In spite of the evil modernists, traditional tonality still thrives. The following are samples of posts that I have made that addressed this issue in other threads:

http://www.talkclassical.com/23002-putative-properties-modern-music-13.html#post399876

(Note: In the above link reference is made to W. Francis McBeth's _Of Sailors and Whales_, a piece based on Moby Dick. Mcbeth is a very traditional composer who employed aleatoric sections in the work.)

http://www.talkclassical.com/23100-do-composers-have-any-3.html#post399371

http://www.talkclassical.com/22834-george-lloyd-100-years.html


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

bigshot said:


> ...conceptualism and commercial gaming that was exploited by Warhol and others is a major detrimental influence on fine art. The leading art frauds, Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst would not exist without the lead set by Warhol.


I think it's a mistake to target Warhol and Pop art, because they saw the previous in-power Abstract Expressionists as being "pretentious gamers" who called their paintings "art" with "deeper meaning." At least Warhol and the Pop artists painted things that people could relate to, like Marilyn Monroe and portraits.
From what you are saying about Koons, and I suppose that includes Frank Stella and the Minimalists Donald Judd and Carl Andre who followed, I don't think you exhibit any affinity for 20th century art, and should be an art historian or museum curator, not a writer on art.

:tiphat:


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*It Works Both Ways*



Truckload said:


> Having attended thousands of such meetings (that is an exageration, in reality hundreds, but it seems like thousands), I can certainly picture that happening.
> 
> A friend of mine who taught in community college had established tenure and created a very nice music program that centered around a very active and enthusiastic adult community band. His contract set his pay by the number of pupils taught, because his primary activities were adult education oriented. He was really into avante-guard music. But he had built up a great communtiy band program based on performing the usual band repetoire (this program needs spell check). I participated in the band myself, as did many local music educators.
> 
> ...


It works both ways.

In the band that I play with, I have had similar experiences. You would fit in with this group. But the community orchestra I play with is the opposite. The orchestra has frequently performed modernistic works that the musicians and members of the audience enjoyed. I have a friend who plays with another community band where the conductor has gone to playing more light classical and pop music. In that group he had a revolt among the musicians that went the other way.

When Timothy Foley became the director of the United States Marine Corps Band he changed the programming of the Band so it would play more adventurous music (Note: After a successful run, Foley retired a few year age). At first the audience balked. But the audience started to change. I have twice heard the band perform Hindemith's _Symphony in Bb_. The first time when Foley conducted it. Many of the audience disliked it. Last year I attended a performance that was conducted my Lt. Michelle Rakers, one of the assistants. This time they got a thunderous standing ovation.

I was at a concert with the Boston symphony where they performed a work by Elliott Carter where he got a standing ovation and I was at concert with the National Symphony where they performed Messiaen's _Turangalîla-Symphonie_ where 1/3 of the audience walked out.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> It works both ways.
> 
> In the band that I play with, I have had similar experiences. You would fit in with this group. But the community orchestra I play with is the opposite. The orchestra has frequently performed modernistic works that the musicians and members of the audience enjoyed. I have a friend who plays with another community band where the conductor has gone to playing more light classical and pop music. In that group he had a revolt among the musicians that went the other way.
> 
> ...


Yes, things are a mess in the world of art music, by which I mean no unity, and a declining sense of a community of common values. I can easily see all of those things happening. By the way, I do not put Cage in the same category with any of the composers mentioned.

Thinking about this on a larger stage, what would happen if you played Barry Manilo at an Acid Rock concert? What if you played traditional Chinese court music at a Country Music Concert? What if you played Gregorian Chant at the latest hip hop concert?

In order to have a community, there have to be a certain minimum level of shared values. Once the level of shared values has fallen too low, there is no more community.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> You've explained that there is a declining interest in art music in western culture, which is quite observably true. I wrote a post of some length on the matter in The Desire for Tonality* which explains my take on exactly this phenomenon. I disagree with you that it is Cage's fault, and I would go so far as to say that he has very little to do with it.
> 
> *It is quite a dense post which doesn't flow very well, my only excuse being that I was quite tired when I wrote it. I feel I should apologise for that in advance.


I just reread your referenced post and found much there of interest. I do not disagree with any of the points you made, or even with your conclusions, as far as they go. Your points are just as applicable to the music of Mozart or Mahler as they are to any atonal composer. Art music requires active listening to appreciate. Yes. Our culture is into instant gratification, which is abetted by improvements in technology. Yes. All very excellent points.

So is there then no future for the art music community?

Are we destined to become extinct like the Mastadon?

Is there something about art music that makes it worthy of attention and survival?

If art music is worthy of survival, how can the community help make that happen?

Are there things the community, or some of its members, might be doing to make it harder for art music to survive?


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

bigshot said:


> My personal specialty is art. And I can tell you that conceptualism and commercial gaming that was exploited by Warhol and others is a major detrimental influence on fine art. The leading art frauds, Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst would not exist without the lead set by Warhol. They have effectively muscled out more worthy artists and caused most of them who have talent and skill into illustration and commercial art. But the most detrimental effect is on schools. Art schools around the country are populated with instructors who can't really draw and paint who infect their students with the idea that conceptualism is a good field for young artists to work in. Instead of getting the classical skill based training that artists got back in the 30s and 40s, they get educated in cheats and composing justification manifestos. It's a lot easier to teach students to come up with clever little devious ideas than to teach them to draw. They are deluded into thinking they are getting an education, but when they graduate, they get the rude awakening that they were robbed of their tuition. They end up without any skills and graduate from cap and gown to Starbucks apron with massive student debt to boot. Art schools are perpetrating a cruel scam on a monumental scale, and hippie conceptualist professors and greedy school administrators are the ones to blame.


:cheers: :cheers: :cheers:


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Some of the points brought up by this post are certainly provocative in nature, citing politics (socialism) and religion (godlessness, destruction of human souls), and invoking descriptors such as "garbage."
> 
> I'm at a loss to explain the "drug addiction" reference as it concerns Cage or Darwin.


My basic point was that people have ridiculed both Darwin and Cage, and I think they do so because they misunderstand their work. I think neither should be ridiculed, and perhaps if people understood the works better, they would not be.

Those descriptors have been used against Darwin's works (as in "Belief in evolution leads to drug addiction and those other things". Yes, it is bizarre.). My point in adding those was that people not only ridicule Darwin, but they go much further. I was simply trying to show that people can denigrate and place enormous blame on others when they do not understand what the others have accomplished.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2013)

Truckload said:


> Thinking about this on a larger stage, what would happen if you played Barry Manilo at an Acid Rock concert? What if you played traditional Chinese court music at a Country Music Concert? What if you played Gregorian Chant at the latest hip hop concert?


In the eighteenth century, this is exactly what you got. The concerts were called miscellanies, and the principle they illustrate is collegiality.

And the value expressed in them was that each member of "the" audience has different tastes. To satisfy everyone's tastes in the 18th century, one created concerts in which every member of the audience would find something to their taste. And the other things? Well, whatever one thinks about the value of exposing oneself to things one does not enjoy (yet)--and I think it's very valuable indeed--the audiences accepted the miscellany as normal. They also accepted new music--a person in Haydn's time would expect to hear something new and to hear something that he or she did not particularly care for but which she or he knew that the person next to them did care for. And everyone was good with that.

Then comes the 19th century, and the nascent and quickly maturing idea that some music is better than other music. That listening to the better music makes you a better person. That the sign of a good person is that they have good taste. And good taste? Why, circularly enough, it's what good people have!! In music, the nineteenth century is a war between the traditional notion of collegiality and the new idea of exclusivity.

I fail to see how the Balkanization of music can be said to have any good effects. All you get is isolated little audiences composed of people who don't talk to people in other audiences and probably don't even know of the others' existence. So now, sure, if you put together a miscellany concert, you'd outrage everyone. But that's only because each audience thinks itself the only audience that matters, that its music is the only music worth listening to. Each audience has a sense of entitlement that excludes other audiences.

The only exception to that is probably the new music audience, many members of which continue to enjoy, promote, and purchase older musics. Of my last three most recent purchases, one was of a new Kairos disc of Cerha (central European instrumental avant garde), Saint-Saens (his Requiem Mass), and Bérangère Maximin's _No one is an island_ (electroacoustic). Before that, I had bought some Monteverdi madrigals and attended a concert of Bach's Brandenburg concerto #6. And even more recently, I downloaded "Run Solarbeam!" by Shrubbery, but since that's my (middle) son, it maybe doesn't count.

But it's tags are electronic footwork future beats future juke idm portland ambient bass music breakcore copacod electronic electronica experimental pmm shrubbery Rotterdam. If anyone cares.

The world of music is large and various and, I believe, valuable.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2013)

Truckload said:


> Are there things the community, or some of its members, might be doing to make it harder for art music to survive?


The constant Cage bashing?


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

some guy said:


> The constant Cage bashing?


I read your post. I do not want you to think I am ignoring you. You and I fundamentally differ in our paradigm of the art of music. I don't see any point in argueing with you, because I know that I will not change my assesment of the avante-guarde (and yes I have read the books, participated in performances, attended too many performances by others, understand exactly what was intended, understand the man, understand the artistic intention, etc.) and I do not believe anything I can say will change your assesment. So why continue to argue.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2013)

Truckload, I did not realize how much we actually have in common. I have read the books, too, and participated in performances, and attended performances by others. I too understand what was intended, understand the man (knew the man personally, actually). And for why would you want to change my assessment? It's a positive one. So it's fine just as it is. (As well try to change my taste for grapefruit or habaneros.)

But of course I would want to try to change your assessment. It's negative. It means that you're missing out (as I would put it) on all sorts of wonderful things. I'm a human, i.e. social (remember?), and so I like to share things with other humans. But I wouldn't expend too much effort. As well try to convince you to eat brussels sprouts,* for instance. What I do think worth expending effort on, however, is the idea that your assessment of the avant garde is somehow privileged, that it is somehow more valid, more intellectually significant, more morally pure than mine. Or even just experientially more accurate.

It's not. Except for wanting the people I like to all like the same things I like (just as a social thing, you know), I could really care less how much you get out of listening to avant garde music. I do care how you talk about it, though. I do care if you seem to be suggesting that the music I love is somehow destructive and so should be at least argued against if not destroyed itself. I care about that very much indeed, yes.

In any case, is the point of arguing to win? Is the point of arguing to convince? Or is the point of arguing to produce logical and valid support for one's positions, hoping only for understanding, not necessarily assent. If it's the latter, then for you and I to argue makes perfect sense and should continue to happen.

*substitute some food item here that you really dislike. Brussels sprouts was just a guess.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

No point arguing really. If you like Cage's music, that's good for you. And if you don't, then join the majority of listeners who don't. What I didn't like to read was that those who do, are "genuine" listeners.

I don't see much of Cage's music in recitals and concert, at all. It's nt the kind of music most people want to pay money and attend live performances of, not in the long term anyway.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

As a listener, it isn't encouraging quality by accepting mediocrity. You have to demand better.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

My oh my - another John Cage the charlatan thread. I wrote this a few moons ago:-



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> In my opinion, John Cage was a very superficial composer; which is actually using too strong a word as "composer" to describe him. His was a sound/noise experimentalist appealing to fringe group listeners, and perhaps to some university music students and professors trained in understanding the mechanics of sound void of emotions. Anyone trained in music these days could come up with the level of nooise and label it as music as he did, but to bring that to a level which the old masters did, which was certainly something that Cage never did (either because he didn't care to and or lacked the talent anyway), was his greatest shortfall. Like his music, there was nothing particular deep about his "philosophies". Intelligent listeners will ultimately judge for themselves what his output meant in the context of different cultures and time, and likely conclude that his music is about as relevant at best, the few minutes of life's precious moments wasted upon by listening to it.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> but what about young artists who are genuinely interested and enthusiastic about conceptual art?


A school that allows a student to go along that route is doing the student a serious disservice. Students should focus on learning fundamental core skills, not creating conceptual art. After they acquire their skills and understand the fundamentals and graduate, THEN they can decide what they want to create. Students should go to school to learn.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

In Australia, I have not come across a concert with significant amounts of Cage's music. I remember I attended a student recital featuring one piece many moons ago (entry to concert by donation of a "gold coin", i.e. Aust$1 or Aust$2). That's about it.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Yeah I'm a fan of structure.


well then you must like the apparent structure in Cage's pieces, which dominate a lot of his perception on organizing sound


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

There is really no point in criticizing the music of John Cage. Yes, it's an amusing pastime; but Cage wrote what he felt moved to write, and he has clearly found an audience -- outside the mainstream, to be sure.

What I object to are the implications that those who dislike his music are somehow impaired in taste, objectivity, or character. This seems to be a constant theme in these threads.

(signed) An unserious listener


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

oogabooha said:


> well then you must like the apparent structure in Cage's pieces, which dominate a lot of his perception on organizing sound


Ah he's not that bad. I just prefer almost every other Composer out there in the Current Listening thread.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2013)

KenOC said:


> What I object to are the implications that those who dislike his music are somehow impaired in taste, objectivity, or character. This seems to be a constant theme in these threads.


What you object to, then, is a phantasm, an illusion, a strawman, a figment.

Those who dislike his music are nothing like what you're claiming is being claimed about them. Remember, if you will, member arpeggio, who has clearly stated that he does not like the music of John Cage. But do any of the people who do have any trouble with arpeggio, ever?

Never.

So what gives? What gives is that some (most) of the people who report as disliking Cage do so with inflammatory language (garbage, crap, charlatan and so forth), who claim even that his music is a bad influence, that it's damaging the reputation of art music.

OK. People have opinions. On TC, people express their opinions. Only thing is, the people who bash Cage seem to desire very strongly that they be able to do so without any consequences. And that, dear Ken, as you really and truly already know, is what is going on here.

You dislike Cage? Fine. I dislike Chopin. We are both missing out, but "oh, well."

Bashing Cage, however? Bashing him even for things he never did. That is going to get a reaction. It's not that you are a bad person for disliking Cage. I think everyone here who likes Cage considers arpeggio a good friend and a good person. But then, arpeggio never ever says anything stupid or inaccurate or inflammatory about Cage.

The reactions are not to the people but to the things that are said.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Arpeggio and everyone else in this thread didn't say anything stupid or inaccurate about Cage. Maybe a slight exaggeration but who doesn't like to mountains out of mohills when discussing things.  And thanks for the Chopin suggestion. I need to listen more to him. So tonal.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> Only thing is, the people who bash Cage seem to desire very strongly that they be able to do so without any consequences. And that, dear Ken, as you really and truly already know, is what is going on here.


More of the same. Negative opinions about Cage's music (not even made in this case!) being answered by personal attacks. Most instructive. Nothing to do with the music of course. :lol:


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

some guy said:


> You dislike Cage? Fine. I dislike Chopin. We are both missing out, but "oh, well..


I feel much more sorry for you than you do for me.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> And thanks for the Chopin suggestion. I need to listen more to him. So tonal.


The best thing about Chopin is sincerity and passion.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2013)

neoshredder said:


> Arpeggio and everyone else in this thread didn't say anything stupid or inaccurate about Cage.


Well, "stupid" might get me in hot water with the mods, so I'll let that pass. (You could have given me "inflammatory" rather than "stupid," then I could have used this: "By bringing the entire art into disrepute he did incalcuable damage to everyone who loves music, he deserves ridicule.")

Here are some inaccuracies for you:

Truckload: "I believe Cage attempted to study with Schoenberg but was either expelled or flunked." Cage did indeed succeed in studying with Schoenberg.

Sid James: "that piece Cage devised to be played for eternity." Cage devised no pieces to be played for eternity.

bigshot: "Cage and Warhol focused their attention on the establishment to see what they could get away with." This is a matter of interpretation, it's true, but one could show that it's an inaccurate interpretation by looking at the documents of the time. I don't know that much about Warhol. I know nothing about what either of them thought except through what they've written. I've seen nothing of Cage's writing or in any interviews that would suggest even remotely that he focussed his attention on the establishment to see what he could get away with.

bigshot: "Cage and Warhol catered to the stupid elite by handing them "masterpieces" made of trumped up chewing gum and spit and making them jump through hoops for it." Cage, at least, never used chewing gum and spit in any of his pieces. Certainly not in the prepared piano pieces, which is what bigshot was referring to. (I don't know of any pieces where he did, anyway. But I also don't know of any pieces of Stockhausen's that use chewing gum and spit. Or Beethoven, for that matter. Until bigshot can document this, it gets a provision fail on the factual front.)

Arsakes: "I can't take the works with irrationally long duration (days, weeks, months) seriously." This statement is, as a statement, outside our purview, but it does contain a factual inaccuracy. Cage didn't write any works that would take days, weeks, or months. There are some works that could be performed over long stretches of time, but that's because in those pieces Cage simply didn't specify any particular duration at all, long or short.

Please stop trying to rewrite history, neo, by simply denying what's right there in the record for everyone to see.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Ha! That is a remarkably literal interpretation of what I said. Read it again and see what I meant.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

KenOC said:


> There is really no point in criticizing the music of John Cage. Yes, it's an amusing pastime; but Cage wrote what he felt moved to write, and he has clearly found an audience -- outside the mainstream, to be sure.
> 
> What I object to are the implications that those who dislike his music are somehow impaired in taste, objectivity, or character. This seems to be a constant theme in these threads.
> 
> (signed) An unserious listener


Very true. The constant attacks on anyone who values beauty and even the very idea of having values, is demoralizing to say the least.

Avant-guarde music is like a house of mirrors. The only thing in the mirror is what the listener brings to it, not the maker of the mirror. It is an illusion of art, without art.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

bigshot said:


> I feel much more sorry for you than you do for me.


Such unearned condescension. Truly you are an admirable member of this forum.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

bigshot said:


> The best thing about Chopin is sincerity and passion.


The best thing about Cage is also sincerity and passion


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Truckload said:


> Very true. The constant attacks on anyone who values beauty and even the very idea of having values, is demoralizing to say the least.
> 
> Avant-guarde music is like a house of mirrors. The only thing in the mirror is what the listener brings to it, not the maker of the mirror. It is an illusion of art, without art.


I just love these really mean passive-aggressive posts of yours. Insinuating that somebody who likes Cage doesn't value beauty or have ANY values. You know nothing about avant-garde music.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

BurningDesire said:


> I just love these really mean passive-aggressive posts of yours. Insinuating that somebody who likes Cage doesn't value beauty or have ANY values. You know nothing about avant-garde music.


I am glad you love my posts. That's encouraging. Despite your personal attack, exactly as my post described, I would be glad to read about your conception of beauty and values in music. And, if there is a concept of beauty, there must be its antithesis, ugliness. Or at the very least without beauty or ugliness we are left with some sort of nothingness.

So what do you find beautiful in music, and what do you find ugly? Is something beautiful of more value than something without beauty? Why? If value exists, as I believe it does, some things have more value and some less value. If all music is of equal value than the concept of value has no utility and becomes meaningless.

If value has meaning to you, how do you decide what has more value and what less?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> What I object to are the implications that those who dislike his music are somehow impaired in taste, objectivity, or character. This seems to be a constant theme in these threads.


Really? What I object to is the idea "that the assessment of the avant garde by those who dislike his music is somehow privileged, that it is somehow more valid, more intellectually significant, more morally pure than mine, or even just experientially more accurate," which also seems to be a constant theme in these threads, as someguy so eloquently put it.

God! We're so lucky to have him here!


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Stats check:

Mozart thread: 139 posts in 6 days
Cage thread: 176 posts in 5 days

Possible conclusion: Mozart is less overrated than Cage is underrated?


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

The definitive work on Cage's alleged studies with Schoenberg was published by Michael Hicks in "American Music". Because Cage liked to present himself as a student of Schoenberg, there have been numerous attempts by musicologists to confirm the facts of the matter. Hicks presents what actual evidence there is, which isn't much, in a very dry, factual manner, drawing no conclusions. 

It is a fact that Cage lied about studying with Schoenberg in 1934 since it is documented that he only arrived in California in December of that year.

It is a fact that Cage was never enrolled, nor paid any tuition, in any class taught by Schoenberg at USC or UCLA. College records prove that.

Schoenberg often allowed students to audit his courses, sitting in on lectures without payment. Many students did this, and Cage could certainly be one of these. But even according to Cage's own account, Schoenberg showed no interest in closely examining anything written by Cage. The only documented evidence is that Cage's name and address appears in Schoenbergs address book for one year.

There is absolutely no evidence to support or suggest that Cage completed a course of study with Schoenberg.

In later years Schoenberg often wrote complements about many of his former students. Not just one or two students but many. In these writings of Schoenberg, Cage is never mentioned.

Yates, a personal friend and promoter of Cage's music, is the single and sole source for an alleged verbal remark by Schoenberg that Cage was "an inventor of genius."

Draw your own conlcusions.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> The best thing about Cage is also sincerity and passion


Ha! As if!


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2013)

KenOC said:


> some guy: "Only thing is, the people who bash Cage seem to desire very strongly that they be able to do so without any consequences. And that, dear Ken, as you really and truly already know, is what is going on here."
> 
> More of the same. Negative opinions about Cage's music (not even made in this case!) being answered by personal attacks. Most instructive. Nothing to do with the music of course. :lol:


Well, methinks I could say the same. More of the same from you as well. Any Cage bashing is protected speech, protected from any responses except agreement. Any other response just gets defined as "personal attacks."

Cage bashers must be very sensitive if any disagreements with what they _say_ are taken as attacks of themselves.

And, as well, nothing to do with the music!! Very instructive, indeed.

There are legitimate ways of talking about polarizing figures like Cage, and there are illegitimate ways. The differences are the same as in any other context, of course. The illegitimate ways include name-calling and other abusive or derisory language. Calling Cage a charlatan or his music crap, for instance. The legitimate ways include any of the things arpeggio, for instance, have said, as well as many of the things that Sid James has said. I disagree with Sid's division of Cage's oeuvre into real and conceptual, but that's not an illegitimate way to talk about Cage.

I think that that division clearly distorts Cage's mission as well as what he actually accomplished, so I will always argue against it. But there is an idea there, an idea which can be articulated without abuse or derision, and which can be defended with examples.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Truckload said:


> Yates, a personal friend and promoter of Cage's music, is the single and sole source for an alleged verbal remark by Schoenberg that Cage was "an inventor of genius." Draw your own conlcusions.


That quote is a little off. It should read, "Cage invented his own genius."


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

bigshot said:


> That quote is a little off. It should read, "Cage invented his own genius."


Chill, bigshot. As moderator, I advise you to let people tell their opinions, and if you don't like it, be kinder about expressing that, or don't express it at all. Not all expression of opinions is profitable or for the betterment of a thread...


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I am talking about John Cage and I stand behind that comment. It was directly related to the comment I was replying to and the topic of this thread. I'm not talking about anyone else. If I think chicken liver tastes horrible and it makes me retch, it's no comment on someone who happens to appreciate chicken liver. We are all grownups living in the real world. If we can't take disagreement, we shouldn't be in an internet forum.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Truckload said:


> I just reread your referenced post and found much there of interest. I do not disagree with any of the points you made, or even with your conclusions, as far as they go. Your points are just as applicable to the music of Mozart or Mahler as they are to any atonal composer. Art music requires active listening to appreciate. Yes. Our culture is into instant gratification, which is abetted by improvements in technology. Yes. All very excellent points.
> 
> So is there then no future for the art music community?
> 
> ...


You present some good and difficult questions here. I hope my time spent thinking them over has paid off to some extent.

In our utilitarian society everything is only the way it is until something "better" comes along, in the west "better" is a measure of how much money something can make and how efficiently it can make it, so it's no surprise to me that art music is not the dominant musical culture in Europe or the US anymore, it's an artisan craft which takes time and patience, the assembly line is much more efficient and it produces a much more homogenised result. What is important is that we're still here discussing it, that new works are commissioned, recorded and performed to this day. Yes, the mere fact that you and I care enough to have this discussion is sure proof to me that the community isn't going anywhere, and I dare say that as long as the community is here, the music both old and new will also remain. I doubt this will cheer you up at all, but I at least feel that the tradition and the community still have a very long way to go before they are done.

The professional community is in a difficult situation. Education is expensive, instruments are very expensive, and the extensive amount of study involved without much promise of a good career upon finishing probably isn't a very enticing prospect for most people, especially not in our current economic climate. It is perhaps for this reason that it seems to appeal to people from wealthy families or who otherwise have large amounts of disposable income or savings, which leads also to its reputation as a largely frivolous pursuit for the elite and thus off limits to the average person who doesn't have that kind of money. I don't particularly want to get in to economics, not least of all because I know very little about the subject, but I think it's worth noting that the disparity between the rich who are able and the poor who are not may influence a lot of people's opinions of the community and the music itself.

There also seems to be a general feeling that people get in to this field of work because they want to be lazy. I'm not sure if this image rings true or if it's just conservative propaganda, but I often hear from American media of all kinds about "lazy trust fund hippies" who get in to "liberal arts programs" so that they don't have to get "real jobs" and so on. The sentiment appears to be echoed here in the UK (I am not educated and do not consider myself part of the western art music tradition, but I do write music seriously and believe that I am a composer) and people tend to assume that I am lazy when I respond to the question "what do you do?" when in fact on average I'd say I work just as much as I have done in various office jobs and the like, if not more. I can also recall several extended work sessions nearing 24 hours in length with only a few short breaks. I'm sure the same is true of the average educated professional composer, when they are not occupied with teaching engagements (I assume), but the image that I recognise in myself and the many hard working musicians and composers I count among my friends seems to bear little or no resemblance to the image of the modern composer in the public consciousness, if there is one at all.

I'm not exactly sure where I'm going with all this. Every time I think I've found an answer to your questions a new question occurs to me and I feel like I could go on forever, and would probably end up going in circles before long. So I'll end this with this (potentially cheesy) summary: yes, the community is fringe; yes, the economic situation is bad; yes, the common public perception is probably bad, but we have to stand strong in defence of what we love and keep supporting it, as long as we do that I don't think art music is going anywhere, no matter what anyone else thinks. So, Truckload, I hope you'll continue doing your part to preserve the tradition, I know I will.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Not Guilty*



ArtMusic said:


> No point arguing really. If you like Cage's music, that's good for you. And if you don't, then join the majority of listeners who don't. What I didn't like to read was that those who do, are "genuine" listeners.
> 
> I don't see much of Cage's music in recitals and concert, at all. It's nt the kind of music most people want to pay money and attend live performances of, not in the long term anyway.


I agree with some of your statement that the debate is meaningless.

Although I occasionally see a post where the author implies that pro-modernist are "genuine" listeners, the vast majority of us do not believe this. Yet no matter how often we profess our innocence in this matter, the anti-modernists keep employing the argument that we think we are "genuine" listeners to justify their assaults.

Yet the anti-modernist also employ some salacious arguments. For example, one is that John Cage is a "fraud". The implication there is that anyone who performs Cage is a con artist and anyone who listens to him is a mindless dupe.

I checked out bachtrek and found over the next few months there will be thirteen performances that include or feature the music of Cage. I refuse to believe that all of these performers are con artists or dupes.

It is wrong for anyone to think 'my' ears are better than yours because I like to listen to Mozart or Cage or Wagner or Stockhausen or Stan Getz or Glen Gould. It is equally wrong for the anti-modernist crowd to think that they have a greater appreciation for beauty because they dislike Cage.

It is disingenuous to condemn one side without condemning the other. It would be better if we stopped all of the finger pointing.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Crudblub,

That was an awesome post! I found it very inspiring, seriously, inspiring.

The idea of the struggling artist is not new. At least for now we don't have to starve to death for art (I hope). Your post made me think of Pucinni's "La Boheme".

Great post, thank you.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> I agree with some of your statement that the debate is meaningless.
> 
> Although I occasionally see a post where the author implies that pro-modernist are "genuine" listeners, the vast majority of us do not believe this. Yet no matter how often we profess our innocence in this matter, the anti-modernists keep employing the argument that we think we are "genuine" listeners to justify their assaults.
> 
> ...


Yes, of course I see your point, and on the surface it seems perfectly reasonable, fair, tolerant and justifiable. And I am certain that you yourself are a fair, reasonable, tolerant person. Your argument is in fact so good, that is has carried the day for many, many years now in the world of art music. Live and let live, dont judge, etc.

The end result of your argument however, is that there are no standards at all. If you are teaching basoon, you can judge the quality of the students efforts. If you have 10 students it is not too dificult to rank them in order of skill from highest to lowest. Should we expect less from a composer? First however, we need a common set of standards. For bassoon you can judge based on tone quality, fingering, range, musicality, etc. If we are a community, we need a common set of standards to judge a composer. If we do not have standards, then all output is equal and my little granddaughters musings on the toy piano become equal with the Strauss "Alpine Symphony".

I also want to make it clear that I do not accuse you, or anyone who has performed Cage or who likes Cage, of being a fraud. I DO accuse Cage of being a fraud. I believe that if you have much musicallity within you, than you bring your own musicallity to the music of Cage. I believe that what you find to like is the beauty that is within you, that is reflected in the music by you. Cage didnt put in there. It is you who have the musical beauty in your soul.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2013)

Speaking of standards, the term for music at the forefront is spelled either avant garde or avant-garde.

Not avant-guarde or avaunt gard or avante-guard or any other variant that I've seen. As an old linguist of the descriptive type (and a huge fan of Chaucer and Shakespeare), I'm not a huge fan of regularized orthography. But if someone's going to mention standards, that someone had better get even the simple things (especially the simple things?) right, or face coming across as having no standards themselves.

And the instrument is spelled bassoon, not basoon. (One out of two is only 50%. Not a passing grade.)

As for the beauty within us, if it's Cage that elicits that, I hardly see how that qualifies him as fraudulent. Perhaps there's another standard there. What does the word fraud mean? Is there anything in Cage's life or work that would justify calling him a fraud? Other than you just don't like him? All art involves a dynamic relationship between the art work and the receiver. The upshot of the inherency argument is to devalue that relationship. And the only reason for devaluing something vital, crucial, and unavoidable--far as I can see--is to justify one's own personal distaste. Every musical piece, whatever its putative value, requires a listener. No listener, no effect. No effect, no value. Performers bring their own musicality to every piece they play. Some composers respect that musicality more than others. Seems you have just argued yourself into the position that the ones with the most respect are the most fraudulent.

Personal distaste is all well and good. I have a fair amount of it myself. But it's just personal. It's not the ultimate truth about the universe, valid and applicable to everyone in the universe, now and forever, world without end, amen.

It should be so easy. You hate Cage. OK. I love Cage. Fine. What is the implication of you hating Cage? That Cage is a fraud? That he is a destructive influence? Naw. It's just you. 

What is the implication of me loving Cage? Simply this, that Cage is obviously lovable. The end.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Truckload said:


> The definitive work on Cage's alleged studies with Schoenberg was published by Michael Hicks in "American Music".


I think David Revill's biography is the definitive book.



Truckload said:


> It is a fact that Cage lied about studying with Schoenberg in 1934 since it is documented that he only arrived in California in December of that year.


The timing of Cage's studies with Schoenberg is not clear. Cage once claimed that he studied with Schoenberg in 1933, which is certainly not true. (Revill,p.47)
It was not 1934, as Calvin Tomkins suggests. 
David Nicholls suggests that it was June or July of 1935. (Revill, p. 47) The nature and extent of their contact is not formally documented.



Truckload said:


> It is a fact that Cage was never enrolled, nor paid any tuition, in any class taught by Schoenberg at USC or UCLA. College records prove that.


Schoenberg agreed to accept Cage for no payment. (Revill, p. 47)

Cage said "I studied counterpoint at his home and attended all his courses at USC and later at UCLA when he moved there."

I wonder if they played ping-pong? :lol:











Truckload said:


> Schoenberg often allowed students to audit his courses, sitting in on lectures without payment. Many students did this, and Cage could certainly be one of these.


Yes, yes, go on...



Truckload said:


> But even according to Cage's own account, Schoenberg showed no interest in closely examining anything written by Cage.


Schoenberg didn't look at *any *student writing.(Revill, p. 49)



Truckload said:


> The only documented evidence is that Cage's name and address appears in Schoenbergs address book for one year.


That's good evidence right there, but the nature and extent of their contact is not formally documented.



Truckload said:


> There is absolutely no evidence to support or suggest that Cage completed a course of study with Schoenberg.


The lessons must have been informal and off-the-record, because the nature and extent of their contact is not formally documented.



Truckload said:


> In later years Schoenberg often wrote complements about many of his former students. Not just one or two students but many. In these writings of Schoenberg, Cage is never mentioned.


The nature and extent of their contact is not formally documented.



Truckload said:


> Yates, a personal friend and promoter of Cage's music, is the single and sole source for an alleged verbal remark by Schoenberg that Cage was "an inventor of genius." Draw your own conlcusions.


I believe this statement by Yates, which he conveyed to Cage later.

BTW, Cage's early piano works use the 12-tone method in a very distinctive way. These can be heard on this recording:

---------------


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2013)

What's been missing so far in this historical exchange is the rest of Truckload's claim, namely, that Cage was "either expelled or flunked."

So if he never in fact studied with Schoenberg (and I too accept that he did), then how in God's name could he have been either expelled or flunked?

The attempt to get the historical facts straight is all well and good. Logic is also nice.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Truckload said:


> Yes, of course I see your point, and on the surface it seems perfectly reasonable, fair, tolerant and justifiable. And I am certain that you yourself are a fair, reasonable, tolerant person. Your argument is in fact so good, that is has carried the day for many, many years now in the world of art music. Live and let live, dont judge, etc.
> 
> *The end result of your argument however, is that there are no standards at all.* If you are teaching basoon, you can judge the quality of the students efforts. If you have 10 students it is not too dificult to rank them in order of skill from highest to lowest. Should we expect less from a composer? First however, we need a common set of standards. For bassoon you can judge based on tone quality, fingering, range, musicality, etc. If we are a community, we need a common set of standards to judge a composer. If we do not have standards, then all output is equal and my little granddaughters musings on the toy piano become equal with the Strauss "Alpine Symphony".
> 
> I also want to make it clear that I do not accuse you, or anyone who has performed Cage or who likes Cage, of being a fraud. I DO accuse Cage of being a fraud. I believe that if you have much musicallity within you, than you bring your own musicallity to the music of Cage. I believe that what you find to like is the beauty that is within you, that is reflected in the music by you. Cage didnt put in there. It is you who have the musical beauty in your soul.


Spare us from the person who does not care for or like what the other does, and then who aims the well worn canard about "standards." Anyone other than the one tooting, "Standards," in liking what they like, is then part of the demonic slippery slope leading to "No standards at all."

The simple slipping in of that line, "The end result of your argument however, is that there are no standards at all." is utterly dismissive, yet the post is swathed in condescending, "oooh, I see your points" sort of filler.

"The end result of your argument however, is that there are no standards at all." implies that your standards are THE standards, and I find that a titch more than just a bit petty autocratic / monstrous.

Rather, perhaps you just have not developed any standards for material about as unlike Richard Strauss as it gets -- which is fine until you wade in to weigh into non-Straussian waters, leading you to holler 'fraud' where many think there is none.

The example of how well student instrumentalists play as illustration of standards is ten thousand banalities away and apart from a discussion of 'standards' on the aesthetics of a piece of music.

All I got from this post is someone thinks they have, re: "standards." an exclusive on 'the truth,' which speaks oceans about the poster more than any hoped to be conveyed point.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

some guy said:


> What's been missing so far in this historical exchange is the rest of Truckload's claim, namely, that Cage was "either expelled or flunked."
> 
> So if he never in fact studied with Schoenberg (and I too accept that he did), then how in God's name could he have been either expelled or flunked?
> 
> The attempt to get the historical facts straight is all well and good. Logic is also nice.


Well, for God's sake quote it before it disappears!:lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Truckload said:


> Cage was well known to Schoenberg. I believe Cage attempted to study with Schoenberg but was either expelled or flunked, I can't remember the details. Schoenberg, who certainly can not be objectively called "childish" said Cage was "no composer."
> 
> Like many others, I believe that Cage did more to damage the public image and perception of art music than any other person, ever. By bringing the entire art into disrepute he did incalcuable damage to everyone who loves music, he deserves ridicule.
> 
> Is Cage under-rated? That is the subject of this thread, so the OP obviously wants a discussion "rating" Cage. It would be impossible to under-rate Cage. As Schoenberg so aptly said Cage was "no composer", so even the lowest rating would be too high for Cage.


There! Now it's safe for posterity. "It belongs to history now...":lol:


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Ask me if I care whether John Cage was formally trained or attended Schoenberg classes - I think you would know the answer but ask anyway if you must.....


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> There! Now it's safe for posterity. "It belongs to history now...":lol:


Cage did not complete any course of study with Schoenberg. He never even registered for a course. He left. Did he just give up? flunk? expelled? I dont know. I never claimed to know the exact details. I have heard a number of accounts over the years, many very unflatering.

The point which you are trying to obscure, is that any connection with Schoenberg was tenuous at best, yet Cage represented himself as a student of Schoenberg. If you represented yourself as a student of John Williams in order to get a job, get published, get funding, but it turned out that you never "officially" studied with John Williams, you just sat in on a few lectures, maybe, do you think you might get into a bit of trouble?


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Spare us from the person who does not care for or like what the other does, and then aims the well worn canard about "standards," and that anyone, liking what they like, but with whom that person does not agree, is then part of the demonic slippery slope leading to "No standards at all."
> 
> The simple slipping in of that line, "The end result of your argument however, is that there are no standards at all." is utterly *dismissive*, yet the post is swathed in *condescending*, "oooh, I see your points" sort of filler.
> 
> ...


A very emotional attack, very offensive towards me personally, message received, you hate me for bringing up these points, but you never address the actual issue. The lack of standards and a common understanding of values. Instead of getting so angry and insulting, why not think about the actual issue?

No one yet has challenged the actual points I am making. Nothing you or any of the people attacking my views has posted offers any logical rebuttal.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Ask me if I care whether John Cage was formally trained or attended Schoenberg classes - I think you would know the answer but ask anyway if you must.....


Do you care enough to comment on those early 12-tone works of his? Personally, I find them to be totally unique and "Cage-ian," and that's no easy feat on a piano.

The pieces I'm referring to are Two Pieces (1935), written when Cage was twenty-three and studying in Los Angeles with Schoenberg (sorry, I can't produce documentation to prove it-:lol,_ Metamorphosis (1938), Bacchanale (1940), The Perilous Night (1944), Tossed as It Is Untroubled (1943), A Valentine Out of Season (1944), Root of an Unfocus (1944), Two Pieces for Piano (1946), Prelude for Meditation (1944), Music for Marcel Duchamp (1947), Suite for Toy Piano (1948), and Dream (1948)._

If you can't comment on the subject of whether John Cage was formally trained or attended Schoenberg classes in relation to hearing these piano works, I feel your opinion is unqualified, but feel free to share with us; we will not criticize your posting style.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Well, for God's sake quote it before it disappears!:lol:


Einstein failed maths in middle or high school.

Faure flunked Ravel.

Big Whup.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2013)

Truckload said:


> Cage did not complete any course of study with Schoenberg. He never even registered for a course. He left. Did he just give up? flunk? expelled? I dont know. I never claimed to know the exact details. I have heard a number of accounts over the years, many very unflatering.


Gossip has no place in an intellectually high-powered discussion in which the topic of standards has come up.



Truckload said:


> The point which you are trying to obscure, is that any connection with Schoenberg was tenuous at best, yet Cage represented himself as a student of Schoenberg.


OK, we get it. You've got nothing. So instead of just leaving the conversation, you spin this ad hominem against Cage.

I cannot speak for million, but I haven't been trying to obscure anything. Cage says he studied with Schoenberg for two years. He never claimed to have taken any university courses with him. Schoenberg was teaching at USC at the time, but once Cage had dropped out of college (and this is years after that), he never returned formally, no. But he still studied with Schoenberg. I have no reason to doubt that. Nor did any other people at the time.

Relying on gossip and innuendo and smears are not altogether consistent with having high standards, I don't think. And neither are conflations of "never completed a course of study with" and "a student of." Cage says that he studied with Schoenberg. There was no suggestion that this was part of any university course. He was a private student of Schoenberg's. Of course, that is mere hearsay, you will say. Well, the say that I'm hearing is from Cage himself. There is nothing in any of his life or work that makes me think he was lying.

Try to demonize the man, and you will quickly come up against people who knew him personally. Like myself. We're not about to let you get away with slamming our friend. You understand, I'm sure.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Einstein failed maths in middle or high school. Faure flunked Ravel.


Of course Einstein and Ravel went on to create something of value.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Of course Einstein and Ravel went on to create something of value.


And considering I, a musician with pretty badass taste own 5 CDs of Cage music, we can objectively see that Cage created something of supreme value as well :3


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Truckload said:


> A very emotional attack, very offensive towards me personally, message received, you hate me for bringing up these points, but you never address the actual issue. The lack of standards and a common understanding of values. Instead of getting so angry and insulting, why not think about the actual issue?
> 
> No one yet has challenged the actual points I am making. Nothing you or any of the people attacking my views has posted offers any logical rebuttal.


If you're offended, maybe you should change the character of your online presentation? :3 Perhaps don't constantly include thinly veiled attacks on groups of people in this thread, and then try to tell on them when they call you out on it? (what a mature adult thing to do, I might add, amirite?)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Truckload said:


> Cage did not complete any course of study with Schoenberg. He never even registered for a course. He left. Did he just give up? flunk? expelled? (sic) I dont know. I never claimed to know the exact details. I have heard a number of accounts over the years, many very unflatering (sic).
> 
> The point which you are trying to *obscure,* is that any connection with Schoenberg was tenuous at best, yet Cage represented himself as a student of Schoenberg. If you represented yourself as a student of John Williams in order to get a job, get published, get funding, but it turned out that you never "officially" studied with John Williams, you just sat in on a few lectures, maybe, do you think you might get into a bit of trouble? (sic)


This poster's apparent dislike for John Cage is distorting this issue. I've already covered these points in detail, but will create an extensive "paste" which I can insert in response to any distortions I see, thereby sparing myself the effort of having to repeat these details. In response to these immediate allegations:
---------------------------
The point which is here being *emphasized* distortedly is that "Cage's connection with Schoenberg was tenuous," as the above posting characterizes it.

This is a distortion made in order to sever Cage's connection to the Western classical tradition. The fact is, the nature and extent of Cage's contact with Schoenberg is not formally documented.

Additionally, I find the insinuation that John Cage was a liar to be even more disturbing and grievous.

A crucial piece of information has been left out, and one must accept and understand the Eastern notion of the "master-disciple" relationship to grasp this.

*[Having decided on Schoenberg as his master - a puzzling choice, as will become increasingly clear - study with him became hugely important to Cage. In a revealing observation made to William Duckworth, Cage noted a pattern in his life of devotion to masters: "I didn't study music with just anybody; I studied with Schoenberg. . . . I've always gone, insofar as I could, to the president of the company."

When they first met, Schoenberg told Cage, "You probably can't afford my price." Cage told him there was no question of affording his price as he had absolutely no money.

Schoenberg asked him if he would devote his life to music. Cage, who had been unable to dedicate his life to architecture, said yes. It is a promise which has never been far from his mind since. "In that case," Schoenberg concluded, "I will teach you free of charge."] (Revill, p. 47)*

Hello Kim Beazley.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Of course Einstein and Ravel went on to create something of value.


...unlike so many posits and retorts on internet fora.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Truckload said:


> A very emotional attack, very offensive towards me personally, message received, you hate me for bringing up these points, but you never address the actual issue. The lack of standards and a common understanding of values. Instead of getting so angry and insulting, why not think about the actual issue?
> 
> No one yet has challenged the actual points I am making. Nothing you or any of the people attacking my views has posted offers any logical rebuttal.


You're mistaken, utterly. I don't 'hate you for bringing up these points.'

"Your views" are just that, 'views,' i.e. 'an opinion.' You stated your opinion, then stated it again, and again, and from my perspective, you might as well say 'this is my opinion and I don't get the rest.'

I think you are severely limited in your listening habits, severely dislike or 'do not get' a good deal of 'non-tonal' contemporary music, and feel 'offended' by the fact others around you do like, care for, love, and / or 'claim to understand' and evaluate those areas of music beyond your caring as "valuable."

Ergo, posting about Cage, trying to take it all down as 'fraud,' I see as more a matter of protecting the walls of your listening habits -- and that is highly psychologically and emotionally charged -- is 'where you are coming from' all through this series of posts.

Anyone else less upset would have simply said, "It is my opinion Cage is a fraud." and left it to that one posting... but nooooooo, the good sir has something far greater at stake, something personal, or a personal belief that sir is the guardian of decency or tonality in music, or some such.

You are the same Truckload who gushed in this thread
http://www.talkclassical.com/23615-new-violin-concerto.html#post414573
that the Allevi Violin Concerto in F minor was a masterwork? That if Allevi "...keeps this up, he could become the most significant composer of our time!" ???

Well, fine. But I get a whiff that you would most care that your taste be _the criteria_ , and you _an authority_. Even the 'authorities' on this board tend to know, as pros who are thought of more as real 'authorities,' that their opinions are 'just opinions.'


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Ask me if I care whether John Cage was formally trained or attended Schoenberg classes - I think you would know the answer but ask anyway if you must.....


_Ask further if it became concrete that Cage had so many lessons, or attended X amount of classes with Schoenberg as teacher, if that becomes moot because the only diploma Schoenberg ever had was an honorary one given well after the fact of his first being a conservatorium teacher of theory and harmony in Germany._

I'm sure that little tid-bit would qualify enough for his detractors to then call both Schoenberg and Cage, 'frauds.'

In fact, it was that very California Institution where Schoenberg did teach who awarded him the honorary degree -- can't have the Profs in an accredited state school teaching without diplomas on their CV's, now can we?

Since both Schoenberg and Cage have no _real_ academic qualifications as musicians or composers, we can just dismiss both of them as fakes


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Since both Schoenberg and Cage have no _real_ academic qualifications as musicians or composers, we can just dismiss both of them as fakes


Just like Beethoven, who quickly bailed out on his so-called "studies" with Haydn and ended up taking lessons from Albrechtsberger -- a man whose main claim to fame is a set of concertos for jaw harp. No, Beethoven never came close to earning a degree, and small wonder!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Ergo, posting about Cage, trying to take it all down as 'fraud,' I see as more a matter of protecting the walls of your listening habits -- and that is highly psychologically and emotionally charged -- is 'where you are coming from' all through this series of posts.'


Just a friendly reminder... It's best to discuss the music and composers, not the posters and their personal tastes. Someone behind the scenes has stirred up the mods' hornet's nest and they're out to nip this thread in the bud. I don't personally care. I'm a grownup and can take it, but evidently someone is upset and got their feelings hurt and felt the need to go to the mods with it.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Just like Beethoven, who quickly bailed out on his so-called "studies" with Haydn and ended up taking lessons from Albrechtsberger -- a man whose main claim to fame is a set of concertos for jaw harp. No, Beethoven never came close to earning a degree, and small wonder!


List could end up as quite some list- who would be left, that's not dismissed as fakes ?????

I would like to clear this up for me - So someone who has not studied at some institution and been lectured (taught) by someone who probably was not good enough to "make it", in the real world as a composer (apart from those who grovelled for patronage with no talent- just covering bases here, not all but just some), we would say is a fake...... interesting


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Thread temporarily closed.


----------

