# Lets discuss music



## Dont (Oct 3, 2010)

I find this set of words very meaningful whom John Cage formed together:

Nothing is accomplished by writing a piece of music
Nothing is accomplished by hearing a piece of music
Nothing is accomplished by playing a piece of music

And they are my favorite.
Please tell your opinions.


----------



## Wicked_one (Aug 18, 2010)

Well, in the 1st place I think you should state your opinion  Why are they your favorites and what do they mean to you? 

Cheers


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

Dont has expressed an opinion. Two of them, in fact.

What you're asking for is for Dont to justify the opinions. Fair enough. But Dont is just starting a thread; perhaps the reasons for the opinions will come later.

Here is my opinion, that in three short assertions, Cage has deftly skewered the illusion of purpose in the arts. So much talk about the arts relies on the assumption that art means something, that there's a message to be received, that the receivers are somehow improved by receiving it.

Of course, art does mean something, but it's not the facile generalizations like "depicts the horrors of war" or "expresses the love of a mother for her children" or "paints a picture of the bleak northern landscape" or any of a number of other fanciful musings that substitute for listening to the sounds themselves and letting them speak--as sounds, not as cinema or poetry or polemic.

Who was it? Aldous Huxley? Who said that music expresses the inexpressible. If we take that conclusion seriously, we won't try to express whatever music is expressing with words, that's for sure!!


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

But if what you assert is true, then what we have is a man, acknowledging that his chosen profession, and his role in it, accomplishes nothing. What "some guy" says may possibly be true, but the words of Cage, as quoted, don't give that implication. He is not saying that music, whether in its creation, performance, or reception, accomplishes nothing tangible, but that it accomplishes nothing. Ironically, following along that logic, then if nothing else associated with music accomplishes anything, then surely commenting on music accomplishes nothing.

I tend to disagree with Cage. I think that music does accomplish something - it provides a part of the record of what humanity is and can accomplish. The contemporary music of an age provides important insights into the people of that age. Perhaps it is true that no music can actually convey a war or the love of a mother, but it tells us something that those things were sought after by the composer. I think looking at the type of music that predominates at any given time speaks volumes to where a society is at. The fact that so much European music conveyed down from the medieval period is of a religious nature gives us some insight as to how dominant Christianity was at that place and time. Or the preponderance of more secular music beginning with the Renaissance. Or the expansion in musical types, as well as the size of musical groups, as a society becomes more affluent. What types of music predominate as the society becomes more affluent. 

Music tells a part of the story of history. It provides a soundtrack.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Dont said:


> Nothing is accomplished by hearing a piece of music


Not so very many months ago I was in hospital following an operation, worried sick, unable to sleep, and in continual pain. I had with me a box of Mozart piano concertos, a pair of headphones, and a portable player. Mozart made endurance tolerable, perhaps even possible, simply by communicating, hour after hour, night after night, his enthusiasm for life in all its ups and downs, as expressed through his music.

If such a solid and dependable activity counts as 'accomplishing nothing', then I can't imagine what would count as 'accomplishing _something_'.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Dont said:


> Nothing is accomplished by writing a piece of music
> Nothing is accomplished by hearing a piece of music


well, often music is useful to make people feel better. Beauty matters, as Roger Scruton says. The most uneseful thing is actually the most useful.
Now it would be interesting to know why John Cage decided one day to make music, if he thought that nothing is accomplished by hearing a piece of music.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2010)

Perhaps this quote attributed to Cage has been taken out of context, and he was referring, specifically, to his own 4'33". If that is the context by which we examine his statements, then he is most definitely correct. In considering 4'33", nothing was accomplished by writing it. Nothing is accomplished by hearing it. Nothing is accomplished by "performing" it.:devil:


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

some guy said:


> Who was it? Aldous Huxley? Who said that music expresses the inexpressible. If we take that conclusion seriously, we won't try to express whatever music is expressing with words, that's for sure!!


'Tis the truth. Alternatively, we can think about Wittgenstein's distinction between the things that can be said, and the things that can be shown. Seems to me that one of the chief purposes of art is to show the things that can't be said.

The point is that art isn't a sterile activity. Its origins lie so deep in our history that they can't be fathomed. Art can't even be separated from our 'normal' lives as a thing apart. So I'm suspicious of those 'zero accomplishment' statements. They don't seem to have any bearing on art-as-we-experience-it (which for me is the only bearing worth thinking about).


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Here I agree with John Cage. We don't accomplish anything by doing anything, I think; it's only what our perceptions tell us that make us think we've accomplished something.

Example: Somebody becomes president of the US or something similar. That in itself is not an accomplishment, it's just a fact of life. The only "accomplishment" is what you and others tell yourself that accomplishment is and means; it has no absolute inherent value.

So it is with music. If you hear a piece of music, you hear a piece of music, and that's all there is to it. Doesn't matter if your life is changed because of it; if listening to it has changed your life, it's you who has changed your own life by perceiving the piece in such a way.

Hopefully I'm not making a fool of myself and/or not making absolutely no sense whatsoever (yes, I used a double negative. accomplishment?).
:devil:


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

World Violist said:


> We don't accomplish anything by doing anything, I think; it's only what our perceptions tell us that make us think we've accomplished something.


Isn't that a tautology though? It seems to hang on the meaning of the words 'doing' and 'accomplishment' (all accomplishments have to be perceived as accomplishments, to be regarded as accomplishments). In that sense his statements would have nothing specifically to do with music at all, and become even less valuable, because self-refuting:

Nothing is accomplished by writing these statements
Nothing is accomplished by reading these statements
Nothing is accomplished by speaking these statements

This is starting to look like one of those absurd postmodern entanglements, like asserting that all statements exist only for purposes of deconstruction, including this one ....


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Nothing is accomplished by listening to the music of John Cage.

Nothing is accomplished by listening to the music of John Cage.

Nothing is accomplished by listening to the music of John Cage.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Elgarian said:


> Isn't that a tautology though? It seems to hang on the meaning of the words 'doing' and 'accomplishment' (all accomplishments have to be perceived as accomplishments, to be regarded as accomplishments). In that sense his statements would have nothing specifically to do with music at all, and become even less valuable, because self-refuting:
> 
> Nothing is accomplished by writing these statements
> Nothing is accomplished by reading these statements
> ...


I take it as saying that milestones are only what one makes of them; the milestones themselves have no meaning, it's what the result is that really matters. Nothing is achieved by listening to music etc. strictly because saying that something is achieved by listening to music would insert a nonexistent sense of objectivity into what is a subjective experience. Saying that nothing is achieved still allows for personal reaction to the piece without denying that it has some effect on the listener. "Achievement" is, after all, a milestone, and milestones only exist because we say they do. A minute would not be a minute without human intervention. Thus Cage is basically saying that anybody's achieving anything upon listening to music (or whatever) has no purpose, but a person's reaction to and growth from hearing said music does have purpose. It's not deconstructionism, it's simply removing hackneyed human thought from the equation.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

World Violist said:


> a nonexistent sense of objectivity


There is an subjective element caused by different experiences, but to say that there's no objectivity is to say that music isn't an universal language where major chords are perceived as happy, fast tempos as exciting etc. The music is the object, there are different point of view of this object but with persons with similar cultural background and experiences most of the people think that bach is a superior musicians than britney spears. If a sense of objectivity don't exists at all, then comunication and art would be meaningless terms.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

norman bates said:


> There is an subjective element caused by different experiences, but to say that there's no objectivity is to say that music isn't an universal language where major chords are perceived as happy, fast tempos as exciting etc. The music is the object, there are different point of view of this object but with persons with similar cultural background and experiences most of the people think that bach is a superior musicians than britney spears. If a sense of objectivity don't exists at all, then comunication and art would be meaningless terms.


Ok, maybe not nonexistent, but still not as overblown as people tend to make it.


----------



## AlphabetG (Oct 4, 2010)

I think it is a ridiculous statement made by an, at times, thoughtful person, but never much of a composer in his own right.

If he could hear my compositions, it would set him straight in his thinking, and probably would have changed the course of both his life and musical history.

Of course there potential for accomplishment exists in composing music, but only by the accomplished composer. Sorry to have to correct you on this mate, but Cage was all wet on this one.

Listen to this String Quartet, and tell me nothing was accomplished. In fact, try to deny that it's the most accomplished music you have ever heard.

http://composersforum.ning.com/profile/SimonGodden


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

In his Preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde wrote:

The artist is the creator of beautiful things. 
To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim. 
The critic is he who can translate into another
manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things.

Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.

Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope. 
They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty.

There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book.
Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.

The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality
of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium.

No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved.

The artist can express everything.

Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art.

Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art.

All art is at once surface and symbol.

Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril.

Those who read the symbol do so at their peril.

It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.

Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work
is new, complex, and vital.

We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it.

The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.

All art is quite useless.

Long before Wilde, the Roman poet said as much when he declared, "Nothing is more useful to man than those arts which have no utility."

Art and music may be without clear defined meaning or utilitarian worth... but this does not make them "meaningless" or "worthless". Life and much in life which we most value... LOVE?... has no clearly definable "meaning"... but ultimately it has far more "meaning" than most utilitarian aspects of life.

If art has any "worth" or "purpose" I imagine it being as expressed by Walter Pater in the Conclusion from his book, _The Renaissance: Studies in Art and Poetry_:

Every moment some form grows perfect in hand or face; some tone on the hills or the sea is choicer than the rest; some mood of passion or insight or intellectual excitement is irresistibly real and attractive to us,-for that moment only. *Not the fruit of experience, but experience itself, is the end.* A counted number of pulses only is given to us of a variegated, dramatic life. How may we see in them all that is to seen in them by the finest senses? How shall we pass most swiftly from point to point, and be present always at the focus where the greatest number of vital forces unite in their purest energy?

To burn always with this hard, gemlike flame, to maintain this ecstasy, is success in life. In a sense it might even be said that our failure is to form habits... While all melts under our feet, we may well grasp at any exquisite passion, or any contribution to knowledge that seems by a lifted horizon to set the spirit free for a moment, or any stirring of the senses, strange dyes, strange colours, and curious odours, or work of the artist's hands, or the face of one's friend. Not to discriminate every moment some passionate attitude in those about us, and in the very brilliancy of their gifts some tragic dividing of forces on their ways, is, on this short day of frost and sun, to sleep before evening.

With this sense of the splendour of our experience and of its awful brevity, gathering all we are into one desperate effort to see and touch, we shall hardly have time to make theories about the things we see and touch. What we have to do is to be for ever curiously testing new opinions and courting new impressions, never acquiescing in a facile orthodoxy of Comte, or of Hegel, or of our own... The theory or idea or system which requires of us the sacrifice of any part of this experience, in consideration of some interest into which we cannot enter, or some abstract theory we have not identified with ourselves, or of what is only conventional, has no real claim upon us.

One of the most beautiful passages of Rousseau is that in the sixth book of the _Confessions,_ where he describes the awakening in him of the literary sense. An undefinable taint of death had clung always about him, and now in early manhood he believed himself smitten by mortal disease. He asked himself how he might make as much as possible of the interval that remained; and he was not biassed by anything in his previous life when he decided that it must be by intellectual excitement, which he found just then in the clear, fresh writings of Voltaire.

Well! we are all condamnes, as Victor Hugo says: we are all under sentence of death but with a sort of indefinite reprieve-_les hommes sont tous condamnes a mort avec des sursis indefinis_: we have an interval, and then our place knows us no more. Some spend this interval in listlessness, some in high passions, the wisest, at least among "the children of this world," in art and song. For our one chance lies in expanding that interval, in getting as many pulsations as possible into the given time. Great passions may give us this quickened sense of life, ecstasy and sorrow of love, the various forms of enthusiastic activity, disinterested or otherwise, which come naturally to many of us. Only be sure it is passion-that it does yield you this fruit of a quickened, multiplied consciousness. Of such wisdom, the poetic passion, the desire of beauty, the love of art for its own sake, has most. For art comes to you proposing frankly to give nothing but the highest quality to your moments as they pass, and simply for those moments' sake.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Dont said:


> I find this set of words very meaningful whom John Cage formed together:
> 
> Nothing is accomplished by writing a piece of music
> Nothing is accomplished by hearing a piece of music
> ...


Well, as you did ask for my opinion. Cage was all about mediocrity. His music and his quotes. And he knew it all along. There was no other way he could have made a decent living otherwise. Yes, composers do need sustenance and a roof over their heads.


----------



## Dont (Oct 3, 2010)

Thank you everyone, for your valuable opinions.

The first thing I want to tell is, John Cage is a composer, and his works should respected as such. You may find his works distasteful for your taste, but dont make the mistake to think that his works are unthoughful, simple or lack of meaning.

To make things easier for you, you can accept him as a philosopher instead of a musician.
But which composer is not a philosopher really?
He is a musician alright.

For John Cage, art is created when the thought process seized and there is no boundaries between artist and the real art. I cant speak for all of the composers but I like to believe that -actually I feel it- when they make music, they just make it, maybe free from everything or maybe adding all their life and experiences together(doesnt matter which one you think), but they do it just freely.

I think it would be unjust to say that composers composed music to accomplish anything, therefor it is unjust to say that they accomplished anything by doing it.

Actually I think we want to believe that they accomplish anything because we respect them.
But is this thought might go in the way our understanding of the music?

The beautiful thing about the quote I burrowed was it has many meanings, not just one. Great sayings have always more than one meaning.

In this saying he puts writing, playing and hearing in the same category.
I think when writing, playing and hearing a music, to think whether it accomplishes anything or not, it just gets in the way.

I'm sure when listening music, many of you wont just think if that music is an accomplished composition or not. Even if you think like that, I'm sure there are times when you just enjoy music and let go everything, so why not let it continue like that?

Its the same for playing and composing too.

And there is one more aspect I want to share but I want to listen more first.


----------



## Dont (Oct 3, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> Not so very many months ago I was in hospital following an operation, worried sick, unable to sleep, and in continual pain. I had with me a box of Mozart piano concertos, a pair of headphones, and a portable player. Mozart made endurance tolerable, perhaps even possible, simply by communicating, hour after hour, night after night, his enthusiasm for life in all its ups and downs, as expressed through his music.
> 
> If such a solid and dependable activity counts as 'accomplishing nothing', then I can't imagine what would count as 'accomplishing _something_'.


I think to be hospitalized, going out with pain and thinking positively like that afterwards is a great accomplishment!
I might be using this word just to show my appreciation and understanding but dont think poorly of it 
I know about being sick and being in pain, some times it gets really hard.

About this matter, I think there is a connection and a level of understanding with you and I dont think what we name it really matters. We can call it achievement, connection or anything else(couldnt think many) but its just a play of words.

I think being a commander is an achievement. Its just a ranking system in humans. I think what you are trying to say is different than that, more than that.

And I think you still can appreciate his music without thinking him as a commander.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

World Violist said:


> Nothing is achieved by listening to music etc. strictly because saying that something is achieved by listening to music would insert a nonexistent sense of objectivity into what is a subjective experience.


I think this confirms my previous suspicion that this _is_ a tautology that Cage is involved with. Once we define 'achievements' or 'accomplishments' as terms with no objective significance, they necessarily become descriptors of the purely subjective. How could it be otherwise? So I think those statements are not actually about 'accomplishments' at all - they're about the way we choose to define words.

It also still seems to me a set of statements arising from a philosophy of _life_, rather than a series of comments arising from the contemplation specifically of music. Depending on one's world view, the rise and fall of civilisations can be considered to have no objective significance; alternatively, every sneeze can be seen as having consequences for the entire universe. Isn't Cage telling us something about his personal philosophy, rather than about music, as such?



> It's not deconstructionism, it's simply removing hackneyed human thought from the equation.


Sorry, my fault for not being clear. I wasn't implying it had anything to do with deconstructionism; I was trying to draw a parallel (not very well, clearly!) between this present situation, and the kind of paradoxical impasse that postmodern thought often leads us into.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Dont said:


> About this matter, I think there is a connection and a level of understanding with you and I dont think what we name it really matters. We can call it achievement, connection or anything else(couldnt think many) but its just a play of words.


Yes, that's close to what I'm trying to say. Those connections are among the most significant things that ever happen to us: subjectively experienced, with objectively observable outcomes.

Cage's sentences appear to undermine that. If the word 'accomplish' is to be defined in such a way that it drives us to conclude that composing, playing, and listening to music accomplish nothing, then we're only a step away from concluding that _everything_ we do accomplishes nothing. We're characters in "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." And maybe that's so - but why single out music, among all other life activities, for such a comment?


----------



## Dont (Oct 3, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> Yes, that's close to what I'm trying to say. Those connections are among the most significant things that ever happen to us: subjectively experienced, with objectively observable outcomes.
> 
> Cage's sentences appear to undermine that. If the word 'accomplish' is to be defined in such a way that *it drives us to conclude that composing, playing, and listening to music accomplish nothing, then we're only a step away from concluding that everything we do accomplishes nothing*. We're characters in "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." And maybe that's so - but why single out music, among all other life activities, for such a comment?


Composers doesnt accomplish anything, so any note that they write signifies nothing. Do you really thing this is what he is trying to say?

If it is not an accomplishment than it is meaningless, is that it?

Its a riddle more than an argument. You should work on it more to understand the true meaning. He singled out music for a good reason.


----------



## Comus (Sep 20, 2010)

How generally is 'accomplished' being defined here? 

One of Webster's definitions:
accomplish- to bring about (a result) by effort

In an objective sense you do accomplish something through each of these activities. By playing music you produce vibrations in the air. By hearing music you receive a stimulus via your vibrating ear drum. This stimulus, once perceived by the brain, becomes information to be interpreted. By writing music, you transfer ideas to the page and onwards to performance. I would consider these all accomplishments, or results brought about by effort.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

To take pleasure in composing, playing or listening to music is accomplishment enough.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Nothing will be achieved by reading this thread, rather the opposite that it will tend to irritate most people who have at least an ounce of common sense. 

Isn't it time the regulars on this Board thought twice before responding to very dubious assertions made by complete newbies, with no previous "form", especially when they're simply lobbed in for debate without any clear supporting comments, whether initially or as the "discussion" proceeds. This is typically how "trolls" work.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Dont said:


> I find this set of words very meaningful whom John Cage formed together:
> 
> Nothing is accomplished by writing a piece of music
> Nothing is accomplished by hearing a piece of music
> ...


Nothing practical is accomplished by writing, hearing or playing a piece of music. You can't live off music or any art for that matter. A doctor who saves lives or even the local greengrocer serves more practical purpose than any musician.

However, art is not within the realm of the practical. It means nothing to those who don't like it and means everything to those who do. It's both worthless and priceless. I imagine much of Cage's music seems worthless to a lot of people, but then again, so was Mozart's in his day.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Dont said:


> Do you really thing this is what he is trying to say?


I don't _know_ what he's trying to say. I took my best shot at trying to understand what he might have meant, and responded accordingly.



> You should work on it more to understand the true meaning.


I think I've 'worked on it' enough for now. I found it interesting in the first instance to consider what he might have meant, but I think it would probably 'accomplish nothing' if I were to pursue the matter any further.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Very Senior Member said:


> This is typically how "trolls" work.


Ah, but do they _accomplish_ anything?


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Elgarian said:


> Ah, but do they _accomplish_ anything?


I have seen some very successful trolls. Perhaps the best of all, from the point of view of this Board, was an individual infamous for his views on the authenticity of certain very highly acclaimed 18th C composers. He caused mayhem here and it was a long time before he was dealt with properly because he was so good at deflecting criticism. All this was especially surprising given his previous track record on previous boards where he had either wrecked them completely or been banned after having caused a great deal of trouble.

If you "Google" something like "how to be a troll" you'll find some very amusing sites giving advice to would-be trollers on how to pursue and refine their art. I've read most of them (for the sake of amusement I stress!) and it gives you quite a spooky feeling. It's not always easy to identify a troll but a big warning sign is when somebody new to a Forum, who hasn't established any kind of presence or credibility as being genuinely interested in the topic of that board, throws in a contentious statement or quotation that is designed to shake the confidence of existing members. Trollers aim to set off a fiery debate, to which they may add occasionally a few stupid comments in order to stoke up the flames a bit more, in the hope that eventually a huge row has erupted. If that aim is achieved they then sit back on their water bongs, or whatever, and have a good laugh.

There have been several threads on this Forum where such action has been abundantly clear, which threads in the end had to be closed. There was a very long one on religion, for example, which should have been closed very much sooner than it was because it nothing other than a clear attack on Christianity which was obvious virtually from the outset.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Actually I was just making a very feeble quasi-joke. So feeble, indeed, and so quasi-, that it, too, failed to accomplish anything. 

Enough.


----------



## Dont (Oct 3, 2010)

Just by a quotation I have been accused for trolling(which is a very cheap word by the way). The ones who doesnt appreciate Cage, how do they think about Bartok I wonder? What do they think about his quartets?
If you can understand Bartok, you are one step away from understanding Cage.

Very (not so) senior member, thanks for not taking me seriously. So people shouldnt open topics unless they post like, 50 messages?
Its so funny people cant see the difference between a serious discussion and a joke. Just like when people cant understand what is art and what is garbage.



Elgarian said:


> I think I've 'worked on it' enough for now. I found it interesting in the first instance to consider what he might have meant, but I think it would probably 'accomplish nothing' if I were to pursue the matter any further.


I think you should know when you really dont want to understand something. It's pointless to debate when you really dont try to understand. I've tried to show you that the last person to insult, to lower a music is a musician. And you just didnt get it. So now, you are like: so what?..



Edward Elgar said:


> Nothing practical is accomplished by writing, hearing or playing a piece of music. You can't live off music or any art for that matter. A doctor who saves lives or even the local greengrocer serves more practical purpose than any musician.
> 
> However, art is not within the realm of the practical. It means nothing to those who don't like it and means everything to those who do. It's both worthless and priceless. I imagine much of Cage's music seems worthless to a lot of people, but then again, so was Mozart's in his day.


To all of you who thought that I (or Cage) was trying to degrade music(especially classical music), you are wrong.
Calling music worthless doesnt make it worthless and calling music priceless(meaning: precious) doesnt make it priceless. Debating if music is an accomplishment or not, here or any other place, is meaningless. Music's worth is just in itself, and stays in itself and dies in itself(when music finish). 
"Is it really die when music finish?" is another debate. But it may be more beautiful to see it that way, because mortality may make ourselves enjoy it more.

Its just very insensible and cruel to say that bach is more accomplished than vivaldi(in a musical way). Which can be easily said while comparing, harmony, structure, technique etc.
Accomplishment debate is one of the most fundamental and most made debates in music history, actually it may be the most debated. Which is meaningless. It doesnt add any real value to music. It doesnt make any music any more beautiful. It just degrades it.

Dear Edward,
Your arguments are very realistic and valid.
However saying music doesnt have any practical valuecant be right 
I have more to say on Edwards post. Later.


----------



## Dont (Oct 3, 2010)

Here is one more quote from John Cage for those who needs a last bit of electricity for their bulb:

*The first question I ask myself when something doesn't seem to be beautiful is why do I think it's not beautiful. And very shortly you discover that there is no reason.*


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Nothing has been accomplished by posting this thread.
Nothing has been accomplished by reading this thread.
Nothing has been accomplished by replying to this thread.

MY LIFE IS MEANINGLESS


----------



## Dont (Oct 3, 2010)

Ravellian said:


> Nothing has been accomplished by posting this thread.
> Nothing has been accomplished by reading this thread.
> Nothing has been accomplished by replying to this thread.
> 
> *MY LIFE IS MEANINGLESS*


Is that an argument?


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Cage was a colorful and amusing personality,but he wasn't really even a composer.
He liked to say all kinds of quasi profound mystical pronunciations about music ,aesthetics and philosophy which were really nothing but a lot of fashionable psychobabble and his "compositions" were really nothing but a collection of gimmicks.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

"Quasi profound statements" should really be pseudo profound statements.
Cage was always making all manner of meaningless and pretentious statements which his followers and admirers would accept as true with utter gullibility.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

Yes, he is one of those that have forseen that there will be such thing as wikiquote which will collect quotes by famous people that are totally out of context but still sound clever. Many of those visionaries straved all their lifes for being in top ten of most creative creators of catchy, "quasi profound statements" that internet users will put into their signatures on discussing boards. Oscar Wilde was greater than Cage, he forseen this in XIXth century.


----------



## Dont (Oct 3, 2010)

Who is out of context Aramis?

How the hell this thread turned from a discussion to "he is new so he must be trying to stand out" thread?

Its really a harsh thing to say for someone who is just trying to get an opinion about something. I'm not really a Cage admirer or something. Maybe wrong forum for this kind of discussion perhaps?

superhorn, we get it, you dont like Cage, any other information you want to share?


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Dont said:


> Who is out of context Aramis?
> 
> How the hell this thread turned from a discussion to "he is new so he must be trying to stand out" thread?
> 
> ...


I can't think of any other sizeable classical music Forums where you would likely get any better response than you have had here. In the case of one or two other Forums, things might have been a lot rougher. If you want to post selective quotes by a very marginal composer which appear to undermine what most people take for granted as essential features of one of their main interests, then you can't expect much sympathy. I don't think you have done yourself any favours by the quality of your responses and elaborations, none of which makes much sense to me.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2010)

Dont said:


> Who is out of context Aramis?
> 
> How the hell this thread turned from a discussion to "he is new so he must be trying to stand out" thread?
> 
> ...


The simple fact of the matter is that the quote you posted is almost certainly going to stir up controversy and debate and emotion. Many people here have deep feelings regarding music. No doubt this was the intention of Cage in making the statement. Whether he said it out of some deeply pondered thoughts rolling in his head, or merely to stir the pot, and feign intellectuality by throwing the statement out, and when others pondered it deeply, they would assume that he must also have done the same.

But it seems a bit naive to post such a quote and not anticipate that it would stir up controversy.

The quote seems ridiculous to me. After the massive output of geniuses of the likes of Beethoven, Bach, Brahms, Mahler, Haydn, etc., along comes Cage, who does such things as have a performer sit quietly at a piano for 4 minutes and 33 seconds, call that a musical composition, and then proclaim that there is nothing accomplished in writing, performing, or listening to music doesn't really pass the laugh test. In Cage's case, as I said before, this is quote believable. But for others, who actually left us with music of some worth, it seems a bit like a slap in the face, to have such a statement made by one who contributed so little.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2010)

Well, it is certainly interesting how judgmental people are who seem unable or unwilling to do anything more themselves than name calling.

Just a little reality check. Calling someone a troll doesn't make them one. Yes, Mr. Newman was a royal pain in the tush, but it took more than one thread to get him banned. Dont doesn't seem to be a troll at all far as I can see. Which isn't very far as there's only this one thread. He has been a trifle impatient with some of Elgarian's comments. (How many people have NOT been impatient, once or twice, with other people's comments??) Otherwise, I think that perhaps it would be more seemly if superhorn and very senior [edit: and now DrMike] would enter into the discussion instead of just making derogatory comments about Cage. (Do ad homs against dead composers count or just the ones against other members??)

Enter into the discussion or just stay away.*

Speaking of which, I wonder if we'd get any further along if we looked at what "accomplish" means. Not at what it means for each of us, which we've already done, a little bit, but what "accomplish" means when applied to the arts. Is it a word that has validity for other endeavors, maybe, for medicine or engineering? And is it perhaps misapplied to the arts? And what is the consequence of that? Perhaps that we start to have expectations for the arts that they cannot (and should not) fulfill. Perhaps that some arts, or some some artifacts (pieces, paintings, sculptures) _seem_ to fulfill those expectations and are consequently valued over the ones that do not?

If any of those are true, then Cage's remark is a healthy and necessary re-evaluation of the situation, one that could lead us back to a more honest and useful (!) relationship with the arts.

*Entering into a discussion does not mean, just by the way, simply agreeing with whatever the OP says. It will of course involve disagreement. But discussion, properly so-called, does not include name-calling and attacks of the people. Those things are not a legitimate part of a discussion.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Dont said:


> Here is one more quote from John Cage for those who needs a last bit of electricity for their bulb:
> 
> *The first question I ask myself when something doesn't seem to be beautiful is why do I think it's not beautiful. And very shortly you discover that there is no reason.*


if he had this way of reasoning even while eating, he probably cannot distinguish chocolate from...


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

superhorn said:


> Cage was a colorful and amusing personality,but he wasn't really even a composer.


Thanks for letting me know that. I foolishly thought that someone who wrote music could be classified as a composer:tiphat:



DrMike said:


> But for others, who actually left us with music of some worth, it seems a bit like a slap in the face, to have such a statement made by one who contributed so little.


Again thanks for informing me that Cage was a poor composer who produced music of little worth. I'll alter my opinion of him accordingly.:tiphat:



Artemis said:


> If you want to post selective quotes by a very marginal composer which appear to undermine what most people take for granted as essential features of one of their main interests, then you can't expect much sympathy


He may well be marginal, but any mention of him gaurantees a multiple page thread.

If I put my (slightly more) serious hat on for a moment. Philosophical threads like this will inevitably transform into arguments about semantics, the shortcomings of language etc.

They are, however, pretty good for winding people up.:devil:

I thought the title was pretty funny - 'Lets discuss music'. On a music discussion form.:lol:


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2010)

Yes, funny and sad. Of the dozen or so music discussion boards I've visited (some of whom I've joined and contribute to), on only one can you be absolutely guaranteed that music will be discussed. (And TalkClassical is _not_ that one!)

On all the others, musical matters serve merely as the catalyst for talking about anything _but_ music.

So yes, let's by all means discuss music, _for a change!!_


----------



## Nicola (Nov 25, 2007)

Argos said:


> I thought the title was pretty funny - 'Lets discuss music'. On a music discussion form.:lol:


Hilarious in fact.

What's your take on all this, then? Can you possibly tell us what you think Cage's observations quoted in the OP actually mean, and whether you think they're valid.

Don't stint now. Suppose you were explaining it one of your non-musical colleagues and you wanted to make sure they understood all the subtleties of Cage's comments.

I shall sit here expectantly awaiting your clarifications.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Dont said:


> It's pointless to debate when you really dont try to understand. I've tried to show you that the last person to insult, to lower a music is a musician. And you just didnt get it. So now, you are like: so what?..


This isn't a good way to invite people to engage in amicable discussion, you know. I rather thought I'd spent quite a lot of time considering the statements you posted, to the best of my ability; I wasn't at all sure that I was right. Indeed, I admitted I wasn't clear about the matter. I'm still not clear about the matter, even after reading your posts, and it seems to me quite reasonable to question the value of pursuing it further. But regardless of that, I'm afraid the impatient tone of your post means my interest in continuing the discussion has now completely gone.


----------



## Nicola (Nov 25, 2007)

Elgarian said:


> This isn't a good way to invite people to engage in amicable discussion, you know. I rather thought I'd spent quite a lot of time considering the statements you posted, to the best of my ability; I wasn't at all sure that I was right. Indeed, I admitted I wasn't clear about the matter. *I'm still not clear about the matter, even after reading your posts, and it seems to me quite reasonable to question the value of pursuing it further.* But regardless of that, I'm afraid the impatient tone of your post means my interest in continuing the discussion has now completely gone.


None of us is clear, except perhaps Argus whose further views I am looking forward to immensely.

Could I respectfully ask others to join me in warmly welcoming Argus's thoughts on this matter. I'm sure hoping he will be able to enlighten us as to what all that seeming nonsense quoted in the OP is all about.


----------



## Keikobad (Jul 9, 2010)

I might ask the very same question about watching competitive sports. It accomplishes nothing whatsoever. Unlike the adept performance of neurosurgical procedures (in which lives are held in the balance), neither sporting nor musical events have any long lasting value to the onlooker or listener (apart from affording them a sort of mental elation).


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2010)

I think Keikobad's correct to mention sports. I don't think, however, that "nothing is accomplished" translates into "no lasting value," though.

That's been a rather troublesome trend on this thread, to see "nothing is accomplished" as equivalent to "meaningless" or "valueless." I don't think that's true at all.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2010)

Argus said:


> Thanks for letting me know that. I foolishly thought that someone who wrote music could be classified as a composer:tiphat:
> 
> Again thanks for informing me that Cage was a poor composer who produced music of little worth. I'll alter my opinion of him accordingly.:tiphat:
> 
> ...


Well, if you take Cage at his word with that quote, then he accomplished nothing by writing music. So I don't think it is a stretch to say that, if you have accomplished nothing, than nothing is certainly of little worth.

But my point seems to be lost here. Don't take my word - it is just my opinion. I don't bring musical expertise, beyond just that of an enthusiast. And in the same vein, don't let Cage's utterances extend beyond his own sphere. When you consider the vast world of music, of all that it encompasses, then to make a blanket statement such as he made seems just as absurd to me as my pronouncements on Cage seem to you. In certain limited circumstances, I would heartily agree with Cage (his own 4'33", rap music, just for some examples), but in general I reject his assertion. The simplest reason being that he is asserting an absolute negative. All you need is a single instance where something is accomplished to destroy his assertion. You can't prove a negative.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2010)

I wonder if it's time to inject a larger chunk of Cage's assertion. I don't know if this will help, but here goes:

"Instantaneous and unpredictable, 
nothing is accomplished by writing a piece of music. 
Nothing is accomplished by hearing a piece of music. 
Nothing is accomplished by playing a piece of music. 

Our ears are now in excellent condition." 

And maybe some background, too. Cage was asked to provide a manifesto on music, and that was his response.

There's a similar kind of comment that goes like this: 

"I have nothing to say 
and I am saying it." 

Which is all well and good all by itself, but it's much better with its punch line, which is 

"And that is poetry 
as I needed it."

And I think the quote Dont gave us is better with its punch line, too. That is, after all, the whole reason for the tripartite assertion, to lead to the conclusion, our ears are now in excellent condition.

So, is that better?

Worse?

Still the same?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I get a sense that Cage was alluding to the differences between the physical/material/external and psychological/spiritual(?)/internal worlds. Of course there are differneces between, say, building a house and writing a symphony. One serves a strictly utilitarian purpose, the other is a piece of art, which has no purpose beyond itself. I don't think that Cage's opinion is very controversial, it just points to the difference between art and non-art, for want of a better term. Of course, you can get situtations where say a house can be a piece of art as well (eg. the creations of Antonio Gaudi), but Cage was speaking about music, which is not perceived a strictly phsysical thing. It does exist as musical notes on a page, but to be realised it has to be played. Music is a temporal thing, it comes and goes, and has to be repeated, whereas a thing like a building, sculpture, or a painting exists as a physical thing. There can be plans or sketches for these things (like a musical score), but in reality they exist as three dimensional objects, whereas music is just sound - very ephemeral compared to the physical world...


----------



## Dont (Oct 3, 2010)

Very Senior Member said:


> I can't think of any other sizeable classical music Forums where you would likely get any better response than you have had here. In the case of one or two other Forums, things might have been a lot rougher. If you want to post selective quotes by a very *marginal* composer which appear to undermine what most people take for granted as essential features of one of their main interests, then you can't expect much sympathy. I don't think you have done yourself any favours by the quality of your responses and elaborations, none of which makes much sense to me.


By other forums I didnt meant classical music discussion forums. What I meant was; maybe you think that this topic is more suitable for other discussion forum other than music?

I must say I expected controversy but not without some ideas. There were some good ideas, but not as much as I expected, there are many more can be said about this discussion but it just goes around in circles.



Elgarian said:


> *I'm still not clear about the matter, even after reading your posts, and it seems to me quite reasonable to question the value of pursuing it further.* But regardless of that, I'm afraid the impatient tone of your post means my interest in continuing the discussion has now completely gone.


For me there is nothing unclear about it here:


Elgarian said:


> I think I've 'worked on it' enough for now. I found it interesting in the first instance to consider what he might have meant, *but I think it would probably 'accomplish nothing' if I were to pursue the matter any further.*


I've always been someone with extreme ideas so its no wonder it turns out like this. However generally I'm good at explaining what I'm trying to say, but my english maybe lacking, or maybe I'm just not comfortable enough to debate on this level. You see, its not my native language. I'm sorry if its my fault.



some guy said:


> Speaking of which, I wonder if we'd get any further along if we looked at what "accomplish" means. Not at what it means for each of us, which we've already done, a little bit, but *what "accomplish" means when applied to the arts. Is it a word that has validity for other endeavors, maybe, for medicine or engineering? And is it perhaps misapplied to the arts? *And what is the consequence of that? Perhaps that we start to have expectations for the arts that they cannot (and should not) fulfill. Perhaps that some arts, or some some artifacts (pieces, paintings, sculptures) _seem_ to fulfill those expectations and are consequently valued over the ones that do not?


Exactly.
Achievements are important for politicians, military, finance...
Yes, they are important for artists too. Because they need to prove themselves to make audience listen. Thats why people implement hierarchy into arts, like who is better, "who is da best?"
For most people even this is sufficient. However for some people, there is more to music than this. There is just a certain beauty of it. For the people who want to cherish the music with all their life force, I think they should stop worrying about achievements and just accept art as it is.

YOU CANT UNDERSTAND A VALUE OF AN ART WITH COMPARING IT TO ANOTHER.

This is not Cage...
Maybe its time we forget about Cage.

Tell me, am I the only one who find comparing composers annoying and childish?
(of course, comparing in a value wise, accomplishment, points, chips...)


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2010)

Andre said:


> I get a sense that Cage was alluding to the differences between the physical/material/external and psychological/spiritual(?)/internal worlds. Of course there are differneces between, say, building a house and writing a symphony. One serves a strictly utilitarian purpose, the other is a piece of art, which has no purpose beyond itself. I don't think that Cage's opinion is very controversial, it just points to the difference between art and non-art, for want of a better term. Of course, you can get situtations where say a house can be a piece of art as well (eg. the creations of Antonio Gaudi), but Cage was speaking about music, which is not perceived a strictly phsysical thing. It does exist as musical notes on a page, but to be realised it has to be played. Music is a temporal thing, it comes and goes, and has to be repeated, whereas a thing like a building, sculpture, or a painting exists as a physical thing. There can be plans or sketches for these things (like a musical score), but in reality they exist as three dimensional objects, whereas music is just sound - very ephemeral compared to the physical world...


But sound is a very real thing. Sound waves can be measured. They have amplitude and frequency. We have instruments that can measure sound. It can be transmitted from one place to another. It is not really an abstract concept like, say, emotion, or faith, which have no real objective means by which they can be measured.

A musician works in the media of sound, shapes the sound to their liking, and then transmits that sound to others, whether by direct performance, or by providing a blueprint to others as to how the sound is to be shaped. In many ways it is much more enduring than other physical creations, such as your example of a house. How many houses built during the Renaissance period are still with us? How much music from the Renaissance is still with us?

In fact, given the right conditions, music, or sound, could exist indefinitely. We say that music is finite, but only because, as those sound waves interact with other objects, they lose energy and eventually become lost completely. With less obstructions, sound can be carried much further.


----------



## Dont (Oct 3, 2010)

DrMike,
Sound definitely is a physical thing. 

I think what Andre was trying to say was that value of music however cant be measured.

Its the same as paintings, if you think you can measure paintings just by their colors and proportions than of course you can measure music too by its loudness and frequencies.

Andre, yes my point exactly, you cant valuate music by comparing.
edit:
However this doesnt make music insufficient valueless or ugly. Hope that wasnt what you were trying to say.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

Looking at "Dont"s recent posts, the fog seems to have lifted somewhat in that it would seem that he likes the Cage quotes in the OP because he thinks that Cage was making the point that there is no satisfactory way of comparing "accomplishment" levels between composers or their music. Hence he believes that these quotes support his own view that there is no objective appraisal method for ranking composers or their music. It's not that "Dont" thinks Cage was making any disparaging comments about the value of music itself, or the abilities of listeners to appreciate it.

Given this, I doubt that Cage meant what "Dont" has surmised. If Cage did mean this he chose a very obscure way of making a simple point. The issue that "Dont" has singled out for scrutiny is one that has been discussed ad nauseam in various places under more more obvious guises elsewhere on this Board on previous occasions. It didn't really need the Cage quotes to introduce yet another attempt at dissecting the issues in this area. Possibly because "Dont" is new to T-C he wasn't aware that this type of discussion is very old hat. Just for the record, I don't buy into this notion that the quality of composers or their music can't be compared objectively. For me, popular opinion by the educated masses is a pretty good way of sifting wheat from chaff in all artistic spheres, and non-artistic spheres in large measure too.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2010)

Dont said:


> DrMike,
> Sound definitely is a physical thing.
> 
> I think what Andre was trying to say was that value of music however cant be measured.
> ...


But music, like anything else that is created by man, definitely has value. And it is measured the exact same way as anything else - by how much people care for it. Going back to the simple example of a house - in an affluent society, where we have division of labor, and we aren't at a level of mere subsistence, houses have real value. But go and build a mansion for a group of nomads, dependent on migrating with the food supply, and that mansion would be near worthless. A finely aged steak prepared at a top notch steakhouse will command top dollar. But take it to a group of vegetarians, and you couldn't even give it away.

Value can absolutely be measured. We measure the value of something based on the demand for it. And we can also measure the value of something based on the skill that went into its creation. Consider, for example, a finely crafted Swiss watch versus a cheap digital watch. Both will do the same thing - tell time. Yet the skill that went into creating the Swiss watch imparts a higher value. However, while the Swiss watch has the higher intrinsic value, based on the craftsmanship, whether someone is willing to pay a higher price for it sets the realistic value.

With music, both of these measures of value can be applied - the skill that was applied in creating the music, as well as the demand for the music. And lets stay focused here - we aren't talking about value on an individual basis. This is general value. There is no doubt that any give piece of music will have a higher value for one person over another. But in the larger perspective, the music of Beethoven can quite objectively be said to be more valued than that of John Cage. Not for everybody, but for the majority, certainly.

This is not meant to offend anybody, but if this was the intent behind Cage's statement, then it might also be a little self-serving, in order to, by eliminating the issue of value, basically elevate the level of his music to that of, say, Beethoven, or, put another way, to lower Beethoven's music to his level. If we say that nothing is accomplished in creating music, and all music holds no intrinsic value, then one piece is just as good as the next, with only individual subjectivity defining what will generate more demand. And from the perspective of one who has not achieved value in the general sense, this is a major boon.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Dont said:


> DrMike,
> Sound definitely is a physical thing.
> 
> I think what Andre was trying to say was that value of music however cant be measured.
> ...


maybe you can't "measure" art in a precise way, but notwithstanding that, the same music produce similar effects on a lot of people. There's a degree of subjectivity of course, but there's also a lot of objectivity determined by the proportions of the physical phenomenom called music. (it's the same when you look at a beautiful woman and an ugly one, there are different tastes but everybody could recognize the beauty).
And that "common ground" is the thing that make music communication, a language, an universal language.
When a person tell one thing and another have not the possibility to understand that thing, there's no communication, there's no language and there's no art.
This is a thing that Cage seems not to understand when he says that "The first question I ask myself when something doesn't seem to be beautiful is why do I think it's not beautiful. And very shortly you discover that there is no reason."

I know that Cage wasn't interested by harmony, and in fact some of his music (i have to say that however i don't know a lot of his work) seems incredibly simple if not banal under this aspect. There is a disease (but i don't know the specific name of it in english) where the people who are affected by this disease can't recognize well pitch heights of the notes (at various degrees). I often wonder if maybe John Cage was affected by this (pretty common) desease.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

some guy said:


> I wonder if it's time to inject a larger chunk of Cage's assertion. I don't know if this will help, but here goes:
> 
> "Instantaneous and unpredictable,
> nothing is accomplished by writing a piece of music.
> ...


It's typical of *some guy* to bring to the discussion some interesting stuff that drags me back in despite myself .... we should have brought up the all-important 'context' before now. Can't imagine what we were thinking of.

My first observation is that the context illuminates a lot less than I'd have hoped it would. Cage seems _either_ to be saying something so profound and on the edge of expressibility that it can't be said clearly; or to be saying something intelligible very ineffectively. Either way, as a manifesto on music it doesn't seem to me to be satisfactorily expressed. The really important thing, though, is that I now see it was intended as _his own personal manifesto about music_. That makes a big difference to how I'd approach what he's saying.

One possible interpretation might be that he's saying that composing, listening to, or playing music are activities that need no reference outside themselves. They're self-sufficient. There's no end product, there's only the activity, sufficient unto itself. If he means it in that sense, then I think he's trying to extricate some notion of the 'purely musical' from the complex 'life' mix that the act of listening invariably has, and asserting that it merely 'is'. So whereas Elgar, say, commented on his 1st symphony as expressing 'a wide experience of human life with a great charity (love) and a massive hope in the future', Cage will have none of that. Clearly here Elgar is seeing his music in terms of 'accomplishing' something beyond the purely musical, and Cage would distance himself completely from any such notion. For him there is only the composing, the playing, the listening. There is no purpose beyond the activity itself.

If that is indeed something approaching what he means, then again I'm inclined to ask - why just say this about music? One could take this (in my view, sterile) approach to any art. A poem (like the one *someguy* quotes) becomes merely a 'word object', a painting a 'visual aesthetic object', and so on. And I can see this approach might have a kind of academic interest all its own. But I can't relate it to the way I engage with music, poetry, or painting. The 'purely musical' is only one aspect among many, because of the extreme complexity of the relation between 'art' on the one hand, and 'life' on the other. So whether we like it or not, something _is_ 'accomplished' (that is, something beyond the purely musical) when most of us listen to music. We feel as if we've been shown something important, perhaps; or we just plain feel _better_ (as I did in hospital, listening to Mozart), or we're inspired in some way. The bugle that blows when the soldier is charging the enemy (to use the old Vaughan Williams anecdote) _is_ accomplishing something beyond the purely musical. Cage, presumably, will have nothing to do with associations between music, bugles and soldiers? Which is his perfectly respectable right, but it's a million miles away from my own personal music manifesto and, I imagine, from that of almost the entirety of music listeners throughout history.

Or ... it could be that I still don't have the foggiest idea what he's talking about.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

This thread has blown out of all proportions, as usual with the mediocre stuff that Cage produced, musical or not. I guess that's what Cage's controversial art and quotes are good at doing, if nothing else. :lol:


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2010)

If HarpsichordConcerto and his adjectives will permit....

Elgarian, you tempt me to reproduce an entire essay of Cage's in which he makes this point, not quite so poetically, but still the same point, nothing is accomplished by composing, performing, or listening to music. There'd be some context for the other kids, eh?

But people who are really interested can find the essay and read it for themselves. I will report that in that essay, Cage is at some pains to identify what he thinks is valuable.

Sound.*

He always wanted to nudge listeners away from preconceptions about music and art so that they could really listen. So that they could experience the real value of sound, not just pre-approved sounds, not just canonically sanctified sounds, but all sound.

He is not, here as elsewhere, interested in nothing. He was interested in all the somethings that have been marginalized by traditional thinking. He wanted to include rather than exclude.

That's the importance of the punch-line, you see. "Our ears are now in excellent condition." That's the whole point of his manifesto, to get our ears into excellent condition.

Here's the crux, "A sound accomplishes nothing; without it life would not last out the instant."

Clearly for Cage "accomplish nothing" does NOT translate into "valueless."


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

some guy said:


> He always wanted to nudge listeners away from preconceptions about music and art so that they could really listen. So that they could experience the real value of sound, not just pre-approved sounds, not just canonically sanctified sounds, but all sound.
> 
> He is not, here as elsewhere, interested in nothing. He was interested in all the somethings that have been marginalized by traditional thinking. He wanted to include rather than exclude.
> 
> ...


I disagree with Harpsichord Concerto - I think there's something very interesting and worthwhile to talk about here, though I feel that only now are we getting to it.

I think I understand everything *some guy* says here (except for the Cage quote about life not lasting out the instant - that remains impenetrable). I not only understand it; I think I agree with all of it, in principle. So I think what this comes down to for me may be mostly a reservation about Cage's way of expressing himself. (I don't find the original lines poetic - I find them an ambiguous muddle.)

I need no convincing that the notion of attuning our ears to marginalised sounds is potentially a hugely enriching one - just as the notion of attuning our eyes to marginalised sights is, similarly (something I've spent a lot of my own time doing, to greatly enriching effect). But _even there_, and having conceded that, when I return to Cage's actual words I feel that all this stuff about 'accomplishing' is a red herring, and obscures the point - if indeed this is the point he's trying to make.

So I think what all this amounts to is that I can (in principle) acknowledge the value of *some guy*'s interpretation of Cage's manifesto, but I'd never myself have come to interpret Cage's words in that way.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

:tiphat:


----------



## Dont (Oct 3, 2010)

DrMike said:


> But music, like anything else that is created by man, definitely has value. And it is measured the exact same way as anything else - by how much people care for it. Going back to the simple example of a house - in an affluent society, where we have division of labor, and we aren't at a level of mere subsistence, houses have real value. But go and build a mansion for a group of nomads, dependent on migrating with the food supply, and that mansion would be near worthless. A finely aged steak prepared at a top notch steakhouse will command top dollar. But take it to a group of vegetarians, and you couldn't even give it away.
> 
> Value can absolutely be measured. We measure the value of something based on the demand for it. And we can also measure the value of something based on the skill that went into its creation. Consider, for example, a finely crafted Swiss watch versus a cheap digital watch. Both will do the same thing - tell time. Yet the skill that went into creating the Swiss watch imparts a higher value. However, while the Swiss watch has the higher intrinsic value, based on the craftsmanship, whether someone is willing to pay a higher price for it sets the realistic value.
> 
> ...


Value of a house, or a meal... Are we talking about marketing now?
This is exactly why I say you cant measure music...

You are blindly putting some composer in a higher place and some in lower by using your feelings as a medium and you call it "objectively"(edit: I could have say it with better words, sorry).

Lets just forget about Cage, I'm sure, you could at any number of composers instead of him, even if you had given many composers the same value, you would have just given all of them the same number, so there is no real difference.

It looks like I failed to explain that accomplishments and value(in emotional way) are 2 different things.

It looks like You and I, we look music very differently(I thought we could have been the same). I always see music as a tool of understanding and a thing of beauty. There are poorly written music in this world of course. But I dont see how you can value thoughtfully written music by very simple human emotions and naming them.



norman bates said:


> maybe you can't "measure" art in a precise way, but notwithstanding that, the same music produce similar effects on a lot of people. There's a degree of subjectivity of course, but there's also a lot of objectivity determined by the proportions of the physical phenomenom called music. (it's the same when you look at a beautiful woman and an ugly one, there are different tastes but everybody could recognize the beauty).
> And that "common ground" is the thing that make music communication, a language, an universal language.
> When a person tell one thing and another have not the possibility to understand that thing, there's no communication, there's no language and there's no art.
> This is a thing that Cage seems not to understand when he says that "The first question I ask myself when something doesn't seem to be beautiful is why do I think it's not beautiful. And very shortly you discover that there is no reason."
> ...


Its my honest opinion that, not always everyone can see a women's beauty, and I think thats whats special about that particular women.

I dont know when this thread's going to stop torturing Cage. I feel particularly its my fault. I've just picked his words because it explained my thoughts clearly(I thought It would anyway). I hope people stop throwing stones.

You just cant measure music. Do you really think you can?
So, we measure music by the crowds is that it? Than pop is the best music of the world 

My understanding of music is, there is no common ground and there is no "objectivity"(Of course there cant be no real objectivity in humans, thats a fact).



Elgarian said:


> It's typical of *some guy* to bring to the discussion some interesting stuff that drags me back in despite myself .... we should have brought up the all-important 'context' before now. Can't imagine what we were thinking of.
> 
> My first observation is that the context illuminates a lot less than I'd have hoped it would. Cage seems _either_ to be saying something so profound and on the edge of expressibility that it can't be said clearly; or to be saying something intelligible very ineffectively. Either way, as a manifesto on music it doesn't seem to me to be satisfactorily expressed. The really important thing, though, is that I now see it was intended as _his own personal manifesto about music_. That makes a big difference to how I'd approach what he's saying.
> 
> ...


You are not alone in this one. Many people find their selves too far away from understanding him, even if they wanted to. I cant say you are wrong about Cage having none of Elgar. You are completely right. 
However he has something, and you are plain wrong saying that he has nothing.

He excluded music from other arts and life, because he is a musician. If that was the thing that worried you then you can relax. I can safely say that, the same thing can said about the other arts too. He is just trying to break a wall here, a wall of prejudgement.
You know, people did this many times over thousands of years and every time they just discovered something new.

Maybe he just meant that the music has nothing to do with writing, hearing or reading(playing) it(even if these are the only way we connect with music).
Maybe he just meant musics criteria is feelings or something even bigger than that.

Maybe I was wrong. Maybe he didnt meant music accomplishes nothing, maybe he just meant that accomplishments of music is nothing to do with writing, hearing or playing but its accomplishment is through feelings or life itself?

Its not a big leap here, either way he is just trying to destroy some preconceptions.

Maybe really nothing is accomplished by writing, hearing and playing a music...


----------



## Dont (Oct 3, 2010)

some guy,
Maybe it will help to say that, cage is not criticizing music. What he is criticizing more is how we understand music. Then maybe people will realize that these words are not demeaning but they are for us to understand music more. 
Many people seem to miss this point.

And thanks for the info. I dont really know much about Cage and I find him more interesting when I do.

Argus, a little warning here, that photo may have been edited somehow


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

I think Cage wants us to lower our expectations and to keep it real. He must have heard his own music. It's about time.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Dont said:


> Argus, a little warning here, that photo may have been edited somehow


You know the old saying 'A picture speaks a thousand words', well in this case it only says 5 (or 6, 7 or 8 depending upon expansion of the acronym), 'John Cage is one BAMF.

Can you please edit the title of the thread to 'John Cage is one BAMF'. Then the title can better represent the content herein.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Dont said:


> I cant say you are wrong about Cage having none of Elgar. You are completely right.
> However he has something, and you are plain wrong saying that he has nothing.


I'll freely admit that I can be plain wrong about pretty well everything, but in this case you're seriously misrepresenting what I said. _I didn't say Cage had nothing._ I said that what he seemed to be suggesting would _to me_ be sterile, and that I couldn't relate it to my own experience of music. That's not wrong, it's correct: that is, it's a correct statement about me and my own musical manifesto, compared with my (perhaps inaccurate) understanding of Cage's.

However, since I made the post you refer to here, I've moved on somewhat, in the light of *someguy*'s illuminating remarks - see my subsequent post (#62).


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2010)

Serge, "lower" is exactly the wrong word. In so far as Cage was interested in expectations, he would have wanted us to eliminate them. And, it's probably important to mention this, he was interested in things for himself. He was willing to share those interests and to explain those interests, but he never had any need for everyone else to share them. His whole approach was invitation not coercion.

Elgarian, poetry is ambiguous. That's one of its chief characteristics. Muddle not so much! (Though some of Milton....) The sticking point still seems to be the word "accomplish." And I think it's because our North American (largely) and Western (mostly) ideas have inextricably bound together notions of accomplishment and value.

Well, accomplishment points to an external value, not the thing in itself but what the thing can do/produce/accomplish. Cage was interested in finding value in things in themselves. In mere existence, if you would. That's not a very congenial philosophy to anyone judges things by results, as most of us do.

Otherwise, yes Dont, Cage's manifesto is not so much about music as about how we approach music, what we expect, in Serge's words, from it.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Dont said:


> Its my honest opinion that, not always everyone can see a women's beauty, and I think thats whats special about that particular women.


i'm not saying that all people have the same tastes. I'm saying that there is a lot of chance that for a lot of people if you take a photo of Brad Pitt and a photo of Kim Yong Il 99% of people would find Brad Pitt more attractive (and it hasn't nothing to do with sexual tastes)



Dont said:


> I dont know when this thread's going to stop torturing Cage. I feel particularly its my fault. I've just picked his words because it explained my thoughts clearly(I thought It would anyway). I hope people stop throwing stones.


simply i can't agree with his philosophical (sort of) aphorisms, that i don't find particularly clever.



Dont said:


> You just cant measure music. Do you really think you can?


i can't measure it but i know when i find something that i think is beautiful. And strangely, when it happens that i read something on these thing by other listeners (if we're speaking about music, but the same could be sayed about any art, literature, cinema, comics, architecture etc), it happens ALWAYS that i find incredibly similar impressions. How is it possible, if there's not a common ground? Frankly, i don't think you can find a reasonable answer that can contest this.



Dont said:


> So, we measure music by the crowds is that it? Than pop is the best music of the world


i'm not saying that (even if i'm a big listener of pop music), cause popularity in pop music depends by a lot of different factors that often have nothing to do with the quality of the music.



Dont said:


> My understanding of music is, there is no common ground and there is no "objectivity"(Of course there cant be no real objectivity in humans, thats a fact).


if you listen to a major and a minor triad, you find the major triad "happy" and the minor chord more "sad". That's an element of an emotional common ground.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

some guy said:


> Elgarian, poetry is ambiguous. That's one of its chief characteristics. Muddle not so much! (Though some of Milton....)


For the moment, I'll stick with muddle. If someone asked me for my personal music manifesto, I think in the interests of clarity I wouldn't reply with poetry - _if_ it's poetry, which I'm also inclined to question. Now I _could_ foresee a situation where what I was trying to communicate was something near the limits of what language can express, and there a poetic utterance might be appropriate. But is Cage in that position? Is a statement of his manifesto really so close to the borderline of what ordinary language can convey? After all, _you_ did an excellent job of communicating it in fairly plain language. Whatever the value of his intention may be (and you're persuading me of that), he remains guilty of being needlessly obscure, in my eyes (so far).



> The sticking point still seems to be the word "accomplish." And I think it's because our North American (largely) and Western (mostly) ideas have inextricably bound together notions of accomplishment and value.
> 
> Well, accomplishment points to an external value, not the thing in itself but what the thing can do/produce/accomplish. Cage was interested in finding value in things in themselves. In mere existence, if you would. That's not a very congenial philosophy to anyone judges things by results, as most of us do.


This seems to be very close to what I was saying back in #59 - that for Cage 'There is no purpose beyond the activity itself'. So I think I really am getting something like the hang of this, now. This is not so far from Patrick Heron's idea that the exploration of pictorial space in an abstract painting is a sufficient activity in itself, regardless of any reference to a world outside the picture's borders. Now, insofar as this abstract picture here in front of me right now is concerned, he's right. Anyone who's engaged successfully with an abstract painting _knows_ he's right. And if this can be true of painting, it can be true of music, or any art.

So as a personal manifesto for an art of sound, Cage's is no different to Heron's personal manifesto for visual art. The problem only arises if they're assumed to be general statements about music or visual art (which mistake I made at the start of this discussion). If you look at a Constable or a Rembrandt though Heron's filtering lens, you'll miss 95% of what the artist was trying to communicate. The same would be true if you listened to _The Dream of Gerontius_ through Cage's 'zero accomplishment' filter.

What this seems to amount to, is that to approach Cage's art with any hope of success, we need to understand Cage's manifesto. That seems absolutely fine to me, and no more absurd than Heron's approach to painting. But as an aid for approaching art _other than his own,_ that manifesto will generally be less helpful, relatively speaking (and in many cases, I suspect, not very much help at all). It may lead us to hear things differently (if we could achieve the necessary state of detachment), but we'd lose so much in the process.


----------



## Dont (Oct 3, 2010)

norman bates,
By me saying "My understanding of music is, there is no common ground and there is no objectivity", dont you see that I'm trying to explain that I appreciate every music individually? 
By defining a common ground you are just forcing music into something. Just like people forced to become proportionate. You just narrowed down the law of attraction to face proportions.

Its always great to find people with the same tastes. Calling it a "common ground" and forcing things into this common ground is not great. It just makes everything complicated.

Why not forget about "common" sense, everyone, everything, and see an art for itself. See if you can really see what it is.
People should start to realize that composers are human beings and they should try to perceive their works.

And:
First John Cage, now Kim Yong Il. What terrible things to say...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Dont said:


> What he is criticizing more is how we understand music. Then maybe people will realize that these words are not demeaning but they are for us to understand music more.
> Many people seem to miss this point.


Yeah, sure ... We miss the point. Our experience in years of classical music listening taught us nothing about fine music appreciation, as did several centuries of music history and achievement before us. Then came along Mr Cage to get us to re-think it all.

I get it alright. It's not as profound as he (or you) make it out to be.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Dont said:


> norman bates,
> By me saying "My understanding of music is, there is no common ground and there is no objectivity", dont you see that I'm trying to explain that I appreciate every music individually?
> By defining a common ground you are just forcing music into something. Just like people forced to become proportionate. You just narrowed down the law of attraction to face proportions.
> 
> Its always great to find people with the same tastes. Calling it a "common ground" and forcing things into this common ground is not great. *It just makes everything complicated.*


why? 
Answer to my question: when you hear a major and a minor chord you hear the difference that i've said? Yes or no



Dont said:


> Why not forget about "common" sense, everyone, everything, and see an art for itself. See if you can really see what it is.


i cannot understand what you're saying...



Dont said:


> And:
> First John Cage, now Kim Yong Il. What terrible things to say...


i hope that at least the sense was clear :lol:


----------



## Dont (Oct 3, 2010)

You are just labeling everything.
Why cant you just stop that?
You are just trying to add things to music that arent there and it just makes it more complicated.

Yes I can hear the difference between a major chord and a minor chord, I probably feel the same as you do, why not? Although I must say I dont find brad pitt more attractive than Kim Yong Il.

So your point is, there is a common sense, and everything else just, fails?
John Cage's seeing noise as music is just nonsense because no one likes the noise as he is?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Dont said:


> Yes I can hear the difference between a major chord and a minor chord, I probably feel the same as you do, why not?


so, that's the common ground that i was saying.



Dont said:


> Although I must say I dont find brad pitt more attractive than Kim Yong Il.


i don't believe you, sorry. But probably i had to do a female examples, or maybe you have horrible aesthetic tastes 



Dont said:


> So your point is, there is a common sense, and everything else just, fails?
> John Cage's seeing noise as music is just nonsense because no one likes the noise as he is?


no
my point is: there is a part of subjectivity, that depends by different experience, ear training, quantity and quality of music listened. And there's a part of objectivity, that depends on the physical phenomenom (like the perception of a hierarchy of the notes in the tonal system, or the fact that the speed of the music influence the cardiac rhythm and we perceived a fast tempo as exciting). And this is the part the permit comunication.
The point is that, if this is true, to pretend that there's no also that part of objectivity is absurd.

Certainly the problem is not the noise, i like noise too, my favorite musician is sun ra (who made also an album with john cage, a bad album actually )


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2010)

Hey Elgarian, I called it poetry because it's ambiguous and because the lines are broken up in various ways. The original is even more broken up than how I did it in my post. But the simple word processing programs that on-line discussion forums use don't retain all that formatting. You can find it easily enough on-line, though, just by typing Cage, Silence into a search engine. (It's the first thing in that book, _Silence,_ after the foreword, in which Cage says "As I see it, poetry is not prose simply because poetry is in one way or another formalized. It is not poetry by reason of its content or ambiguity but by reason of its allowing musical elements
(time, sound) to be introduced into the world of words.") Apparently Cage only allows the "lines broken up in various ways" part. Which I really don't have any problem with. I ran a poetry workshop for nine years, and the best definition I could ever come up with for poetry that was inclusive enough was "lines broken up." And that doesn't include prose poems, where all the lines go all the way across the page.

So I failed at ever defining poetry to my own satisfaction. But the workshop was fine. After all, it lasted for nine years (and most ventures like that don't last even three) and would have continued had I not moved away.

Cheers,

Michael

(Oh, norman, by the way, I would answer your question "no." That is, I can hear the difference between a major chord and a minor one, but I don't associate those with happiness and sadness. Even when I was a little kid, I didn't. I liked the sound of minor chords. I thought they were more interesting. That's all.)


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

some guy said:


> (Oh, norman, by the way, I would answer your question "no."
> That is, I can hear the difference between a major chord and a minor one, but I don't associate those with happiness and sadness. Even when I was a little kid, I didn't. I liked the sound of minor chords. I thought they were more interesting. That's all.)


Onestly you are the probably first person ever who could not find that difference who i have "met", and i'm not joking. But you probably know that a huge amount of music connected with sadness, anguish, desolation etc utilize a lot of minor chords.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2010)

norman,

I also do not spend a lot of time thinking about "sadness, anguish, desolation etc," or their opposites, when I'm listening to music. The music itself, the harmonies, the melodies, the rhythms, the modulations, the (tone) colors, the dynamics, that has always seemed to me to be so complete that I've never personally felt any need to go beyond that into what I would see as non-musical realities. (Just ask Elgarian for confirmation, if you need it!)

I am aware, of course, how could I not be, that the common idea is that major keys are brighter and more cheerful and minor keys are darker and more melancholy. I also know that there are people who can offer up "dark" pieces in major keys and "bright" pieces in minor keys to rebut that idea. But I can't really participate in that kind of discussion at all.

I suppose that makes me ideally fit for ideas such as Cage's. My experience of music has always been a total and overwhelming experience, very little connected to or affected by traditional notions about what music means. 

Best,

michael


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

some guy said:


> Hey Elgarian, I called it poetry because it's ambiguous and because the lines are broken up in various ways. The original is even more broken up than how I did it in my post. But the simple word processing programs that on-line discussion forums use don't retain all that formatting. You can find it easily enough on-line, though, just by typing Cage, Silence into a search engine. (It's the first thing in that book, _Silence,_ after the foreword, in which Cage says "As I see it, poetry is not prose simply because poetry is in one way or another formalized. It is not poetry by reason of its content or ambiguity but by reason of its allowing musical elements
> (time, sound) to be introduced into the world of words.") Apparently Cage only allows the "lines broken up in various ways" part. Which I really don't have any problem with. I ran a poetry workshop for nine years, and the best definition I could ever come up with for poetry that was inclusive enough was "lines broken up." And that doesn't include prose poems, where all the lines go all the way across the page.


You're doing a great job, here. Thanks for directing me to the original layout of the piece which, I agree, changes everything. That _is_ something we'd both agree to call poetry, even though both of us struggle to define the term. Unusual poetry, but poetry. There's something about the physical layout on the page that invites a kind of meditative response, allowing the eye to move about the page in certain ways. I'm almost inclined to think of this as a kind of illuminated poem, in the sense that the words themselves form the visual illuminating elements. An abstract picture in words, as it were. Seeing this on the page is a completely different experience to just reading the words, or hearing them spoken.

OK, so as I move from total ignorance to only partial ignorance, I see more light. I think if the OP had directed us to an image of the poem/manifesto, rather than the mere words, the discussion would have turned in a different way. I think Cage's purpose would have been demonstrated more effectively. (I even find my objection to the word 'accomplishment' is changing, merely on the basis that it looks interesting on the page.)

Nice one. Thank you. I think the parallel with Heron's philosophy of visual art is very close indeed. I still don't think this is a helpful way of approaching _The Dream of Gerontius_, but it isn't nonsense


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

some guy said:


> norman,
> 
> I also do not spend a lot of time thinking about "sadness, anguish, desolation etc," or their opposites, when I'm listening to music. The music itself, the harmonies, the melodies, the rhythms, the modulations, the (tone) colors, the dynamics, that has always seemed to me to be so complete that I've never personally felt any need to go beyond that into what I would see as non-musical realities. (Just ask Elgarian for confirmation, if you need it!)


*This post has been marked with Elgarian's stamp of affirmation.*


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

some guy said:


> norman,
> 
> I also do not spend a lot of time thinking about "sadness, anguish, desolation etc," or their opposites, when I'm listening to music. The music itself, the harmonies, the melodies, the rhythms, the modulations, the (tone) colors, the dynamics, that has always seemed to me to be so complete that I've never personally felt any need to go beyond that into what I would see as non-musical realities. (Just ask Elgarian for confirmation, if you need it!)


Non musical realities? Wasn't music and art about emotions?


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> Non musical realities? Wasn't music and art about emotions?


It wasn't about emotions in many musical periods.

There are two annoying kind of dudes when it comes to discussing music - people who can't enjoy music as music per se and therefore put most of modern music to one category + they keep writing cliche statements about hearts, emotions and stuff and other people who look at them like they would be inferior and backwarded because they are disturbed with old-fashioned values like emotional/spiritual side of art.

Just understand each other's point of view and I dare say that half of those specific discussions about modern music will be solved immediately.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Aramis said:


> Just understand each other's point of view and I dare say that half of those specific discussions about modern music will be solved immediately.


Words of truth and wisdom.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> *This post has been marked with Elgarian's stamp of affirmation.*


Made me laugh out loud!:tiphat:


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Aramis said:


> It wasn't about emotions in many musical periods.


periods like...?
And so art what was about in these periods?



Aramis said:


> There are two annoying kind of dudes when it comes to discussing music - people who can't enjoy music as music per se and therefore put most of modern music to one category + they keep writing cliche statements about hearts, emotions and stuff and other people who look at them like they would be inferior and backwarded because they are disturbed with old-fashioned values like emotional/spiritual side of art.
> 
> Just understand each other's point of view and I dare say that half of those specific discussions about modern music will be solved immediately.


and your point instead is?
Just curious to know the third way


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> periods like...?
> And so art what was about in these periods?


Must I teach you history of music? Classicism, perfection and beauty of form, late XXth century movements and textures, timbres and pretending to be smart...



> and your point instead is?
> Just curious to know the third way


My point is to understand all ways of enjoying the music. I have my own preferences but I belive I understand what people see in music that I do not enjoy myself. It's silly to bend everything to your expectations, it always results in misunderstanding. Instead of it simply learn about aesthetics of this music and either enjoy it in diffrent way that you're used to either walk away from it after you truely understand it and find it's purposes diffrent from those that you expect.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Must I teach you history of music? Classicism, perfection and beauty of form, late XXth century movements and textures, timbres and pretending to be smart...


ok about some XX century music and conceptual art (the big exception in all history of art), but classicism in my opinion was absolutely about emotion. In a different way from romanticism but however for me there's no doubt that was music made to be emotional.



Aramis said:


> My point is to understand all ways of enjoying the music. I have my own preferences but I belive I understand what people see in music that I do not enjoy myself. It's silly to bend everything to your expectations, it always results in misunderstanding. Instead of it simply learn about aesthetics of this music and either enjoy it in diffrent way that you're used to either walk away from it after you understand it and find it's purposes unacceptable/wrong/diffrent from those that you expect.


the problem for me is to not have prejudices. But when a person knows enough about an argument, i think it's normal to develope also an opinion.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

norman bates said:


> and your point instead is?
> Just curious to know the third way


I hope Aramis will forgive me for commenting (particularly if he disagrees with what I'm going to say), but I think you may be misunderstanding what he said. He was talking about two extreme positions that tend to polarise these discussions, each one rubbishing the other. I don't think he was suggesting there's a 'third' way; rather, there are many ways, all of which involve trying to understanding the point of view of the others as far as is possible.

This makes sense to me, because music (indeed all art) is made by a wide range of artists with a wide range of purposes. At one extreme, there's music that's clearly intended to wring out our heartstrings and make us weep, or march off to battle; at the other, there's a musician simply saying: 'Hey, look at this'. In fact I'd go so far as to say that most of what I'd personally regard as good music encourages a wide spectrum of these responses. If I listen to Elgar's 1st symphony, I feel I'm invited to share some intense emotions, yes; but I'm also shown some musical events that are fascinating in themselves regardless of my emotional state.

But *someguy* has a very different take on this, compared with mine. He finds the 'hey look at this' aspects of music to be so fascinating that the need to embark on an _emotional_ journey isn't a factor for him. For him, I think it would actually get in the way of the chief business of exploring fascinating soundscapes. That's what makes discussing these things with him so valuable, and why I learn so much (sometimes even understanding my own responses better) by kicking ideas around with him.

As time goes on, and I consider all these responses, the more I'm inclined to think that there are as many ways of listening to music as there are listeners. We each dive in and try to make of it the best that we can. If we're successful, significant windows of perception open up that change our ideas of what music can be. If we're unsuccessful, we stay as we are, largely unchanged by the experience. And we may decide that some windows (perhaps, the kind that Cage tends to deal with, for example) offer the kind of view that doesn't interest us right now. That's OK too, though I think it's always best to leave room for future manoeuvreing.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> but classicism in my opinion was absolutely about emotion. In a different way from romanticism but however for me there's no doubt that was music made to be emotional.


You can find some emotions out there for sure but emotions were not among artistic ideas behind this period's music - that's historical fact. I think there was another thread about this subject some time ago.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> I hope Aramis will forgive me for commenting (particularly if he disagrees with what I'm going to say), but I think you may be misunderstanding what he said. He was talking about two extreme positions that tend to polarise these discussions, each one rubbishing the other. I don't think he was suggesting there's a 'third' way; rather, there are many ways, all of which involve trying to understanding the point of view of the others as far as is possible.
> 
> This makes sense to me, because music (indeed all art) is made by a wide range of artists with a wide range of purposes. At one extreme, there's music that's clearly intended to wring out our heartstrings and make us weep, or march off to battle; at the other, there's a musician simply saying: 'Hey, look at this'. In fact I'd go so far as to say that most of what I'd personally regard as good music encourages a wide spectrum of these responses. If I listen to Elgar's 1st symphony, I feel I'm invited to share some intense emotions, yes; but I'm also shown some musical events that are fascinating in themselves regardless of my emotional state.
> 
> ...


oh, don't get me wrong, i absolutely agree on this. I don't think i have a definitive idea on many things.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2010)

If I may, I'd like to finesse a comment of Elgarians about my listening. I do not in any way ignore or downplay emotion. I simply accept it. I'm human, therefore I'm emotional. Easy. The composers don't have to do anything overtly emotional to draw me in. In fact, I'm a little put off by people who try to make me feel any particular way. 

But emotion, sure. I'm profoundly and consistently moved by all the "intellectual" and "experimental" and "avant garde" music I favor. Indeed, if I were not so moved, I wouldn't favor it!


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

some guy said:


> If I may, I'd like to finesse a comment of Elgarians about my listening. I do not in any way ignore or downplay emotion. I simply accept it. I'm human, therefore I'm emotional. Easy. The composers don't have to do anything overtly emotional to draw me in. In fact, I'm a little put off by people who try to make me feel any particular way.
> 
> But emotion, sure. I'm profoundly and consistently moved by all the "intellectual" and "experimental" and "avant garde" music I favor. Indeed, if I were not so moved, I wouldn't favor it!


It's really not easy to express some of this stuff clearly. Yes, I can see my description isn't quite right, when I read it again in the light of your comments, and I didn't intend to portray you as some kind of robotic listening machine (which is how my comments might be misunderstood).

Let me try again. When I listen to Elgar's 1st symphony, impressions crowd in from a wide range of sources - for example, I'm moved by what I might call 'the idea of England'; or my love of the Malvern countryside; or the chivalric ideal. There's something about the structure of the music, and my knowledge of the composer, that sends my imagination off into those extra-musical places - and it will happen whether I want it to or not. And for that particular piece of music, much (not all, but much) of the emotional content lies there, for me (it's much _less_ important if I'm listening to a Mozart piano concerto).

These externals are far less important to you; you actually don't want these flights of fancy, because you want to revel without distraction in the sheer scrunchy actuality of the musical sound field (and hence the sympathy with Cage's manifesto). Your kicks come from _that_, not from an imagined ramble in the Malvern hills.

Does this come closer?

I keep saying it, but the parallel with someone like Patrick Heron is very close. It's no use showing him a Dutch C17th landscape. He wants none of that blue sky and country walk stuff muddled in with his picture-looking. He wants an association-free pictorial space full of colour and shape to explore; and explore it he will, with passion and deep satisfaction.

It makes me wonder whether Cage's troublesome 'accomplishment' word in the original quote might be helpfully replaced by 'freedom from external association':

Writing a piece of music is associated with nothing beyond itself
Hearing a piece of music is associated with nothing beyond itself
Playing a piece of music is associated with nothing beyond itself


----------



## Dont (Oct 3, 2010)

norman bates said:


> so, that's the common ground that i was saying.
> i don't believe you, sorry. But probably i had to do a female examples, or maybe you have horrible aesthetic tastes
> no
> my point is: there is a part of subjectivity, that depends by different experience, ear training, quantity and quality of music listened. And there's a part of objectivity, that depends on the physical phenomenom (like the perception of a hierarchy of the notes in the tonal system, or the fact that the speed of the music influence the cardiac rhythm and we perceived a fast tempo as exciting). And this is the part the permit comunication.
> ...


norman,
I dont have horrible aesthetic tastes, I have a very interesting taste of woman and I have no taste for man. Thats how I am.

I think I couldnt explain myself very well. Even if I hear major chords happy and minor chords sad as you do and even if we feel the same, it doesnt have to be the same for everyone. You cant just say "a major chord is a happy chord" and by looking at some people say thats "objectivity".

*some guy* said that he doesnt feel like you do and he is not alone. I have some friends in conservatory, who dont feel anything happy about a major chord, and I must say they have pretty good ears. And we are just talking about music basics here.

Composers love breaking rules. Cage gone somewhere lots of people couldnt, because of your so called "objectivity". He just made a composition where there is no notes have been played.

It may be just stupid for you but it is not. And it is interesting.
Classical music is very closed to outside world. I believe it shouldnt be. Composers like Cage is trying to give 21th century listeners something. Something that classical music was lacking before.

I must say, I was very conservative about classical music. When this happens, you start to have a cliff with people who dont understand what classical music is. Its especially dangerous when there is no one who have this culture. I'm sure many people understand is.
The quote I wrote didnt change people, just gave me a room to breathe. An understanding. For me, its good to know that music is not about accomplishments. For me, music is a connection. Actually I see it as a study more than anything.

I hope you understand what I mean now that you see where its coming from.

By the way, on my previous posts I was trying to explain something more. For me all composers are worlds away from each other. Of course you can find similarities, but if you just try to understand all of them in the same context, you wont just understand anything about them. You will just make your ego happy.

The most dangerous thing about classical music is: ego. It should be discussed more.


----------



## Guest (Oct 10, 2010)

Elgarian,

I do believe that you have veritably nailed it.:tiphat:

some


----------



## Dont (Oct 3, 2010)

some guy said:


> Elgarian,
> 
> I do believe that you have veritably nailed it.:tiphat:
> 
> some


I concur.

However lets not forget that Cage is interested in Zen very much, and this quote might be a koan.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

some guy said:


> I do believe that you have veritably nailed it.:tiphat:


Hoorah.

You'll notice that I do so at the cost of writing terrible poetry though. I mean, have you tried reading: "Writing a piece of music is associated with nothing beyond itself" out loud? Seriously horrible word music.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Dont said:


> norman,
> I dont have horrible aesthetic tastes, I have a very interesting taste of woman and I have no taste for man. Thats how I am.


i didn't know that one has to be gay to understand if a man is ugly or not.



Dont said:


> I think I couldnt explain myself very well. Even if I hear major chords happy and minor chords sad as you do and even if we feel the same, it doesnt have to be the same for everyone. You cant just say "a major chord is a happy chord" and by looking at some people say thats "objectivity".
> 
> *some guy* said that he doesnt feel like you do and he is not alone. I have some friends in conservatory, who dont feel anything happy about a major chord, and I must say they have pretty good ears. And we are just talking about music basics here.


frankly to me it seems that you are denying pure evidence, is like to say that not every persons see the color "red" as red. Of course, there are daltonics, but in normal persons there are equal perception of what is red. 
And everybody listening to a minor second know that is a very dissonant interval, while the fifth is consonant.

And again, i'm not saying that there's pure objectivity. I'm saying that there's a part in every art that is understandable in the same way by all. Without that, again, there's no comunication. Why communicate if there's not the possibility to understand each other? If i write A and you could understand A or B or Z why i could even try to write anything to communicate something?

In a world of total subjectivity a person listening to 4'33 could hear a loud symphony of an hour. Instead everybody hear silence (or for all cage's admirers: the little sounds of the ambient). 
Art is interesting because of that common ground. You can study while a certain process determine a certain reaction on a lot of people. And while you try to understand this, you understand something of yourself and people.



Dont said:


> Composers love breaking rules. Cage gone somewhere lots of people couldnt, because of your so called "objectivity". He just made a composition where there is no notes have been played.
> 
> It may be just stupid for you but it is not. And it is interesting.
> Classical music is very closed to outside world. I believe it shouldnt be. Composers like Cage is trying to give 21th century listeners something.


What is trying to give with 4'33?! You could listen and concentrate on silence or little noises everywhere! You really need Cage to discover that? 
When i hear what i think is great music, i discover musical things that i didn't know, 4'33 is and was pleonastic. At best it seems to me the old "epater le bourgeois".



Dont said:


> I must say, I was very conservative about classical music.
> 
> When this happens, you start to have a cliff with people who dont understand what classical music is. Its especially dangerous when there is no one who have this culture. I'm sure many people understand is.
> The quote I wrote didnt change people, just gave me a room to breathe. An understanding. For me, its good to know that music is not about accomplishments. For me, music is a connection. Actually I see it as a study more than anything.
> ...


i don't understand this last line.
In what manner ego should influence my comprehension of 4'33?


----------



## Dont (Oct 3, 2010)

norman bates said:


> i didn't know that one has to be gay to understand if a man is ugly or not.


So you are saying, I cant be indifferent towards man?



norman bates said:


> frankly to me it seems that you are denying pure evidence, is like to say that not every persons see the color "red" as red. Of course, there are daltonics, but in normal persons there are equal perception of what is red.
> And everybody listening to a minor second know that is a very dissonant interval, while the fifth is consonant.


And *some guy* is denying pure evidence than?



norman bates said:


> And again, i'm not saying that there's pure objectivity. I'm saying that there's a part in every art that is understandable in the same way by all.


So, if you are accepting the fact that in every art there is a part that everyone understands, you must accept that in every art there is a part that cant be understood by the same logic that everyone uses. I'm trying explore this more mystical part. I'm trying to tell that we should be open minded. This is all there is to it.



norman bates said:


> Without that, again, there's no comunication. Why communicate if there's not the possibility to understand each other? If i write A and you could understand A or B or Z why i could even try to write anything to communicate something?


You are right on target. There is something called objectivity, When everyone sees A they react to it and see the same thing. I dont object to that.
However we are talking about music here. Words and thoughts are overrated. Music is more organic than these. You can see the same notes in music, however, you may or may not feel the same with someone or anyone. You already know that. So why bother trying to "insert" something cold like objectivity into music?

Dont get me wrong, by music I mean a piece of art. Of course there is some kind of objectivity in harmony and counterpoint principles. However I remind you, some kind of objectivity, it can, it did, and always will be arguable.



norman bates said:


> In a world of total subjectivity a person listening to 4'33 could hear a loud symphony of an hour. Instead everybody hear silence (or for all cage's admirers: the little sounds of the ambient).
> Art is interesting because of that common ground. You can study while a certain process determine a certain reaction on a lot of people. And while you try to understand this, you understand something of yourself and people.
> 
> What is trying to give with 4'33?! You could listen and concentrate on silence or little noises everywhere! You really need Cage to discover that?
> When i hear what i think is great music, i discover things that i didn't know, 4'33 is and was pleonastic. At best it seems to me the old "epater le bourgeois".


There is something that you misunderstood here. The 4'33'' is actually a composition. It may not strike you as such at first, but it is an actual creation. Maybe we should first discuss the elements of a composition.

For me a composition should consist of a form, an harmonic structure and an idea(or ideas) to tell using these elements.

In 4'33'', the most obvious element is form. Composers are always playing with many elements of music. However the form is almost always remains unchanged, especially some of the forms are always the same. Its the same for Cage. The form is simple. It's a prelude. It consists of just one part. He used time duration instead of a metronome. In *Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima*, Penderecki did the same thing. Instead of using metronome, he specified the length in seconds. (Please tell me if you find Penderecki's work as music or not?)

The second obvious one is the idea. I'm sure everyone instantly find out there is an idea behind it, pretty obvious one in fact. It just yells: "Every sound is deserved to be listened, every sound is music, therefor is beautiful". I dont know you, but for me listening music means something. The first time in my life I listened "any" sound as music. And I needed Cage for that...

And lastly, there is harmony. Every composer has changed harmony to his needs. There are similarities in some styles but all harmonic structures that composers are using someway different from each other. Harmony shows character. Simple as that.

Cage is not the only one using out of pitch notes. You should be aware of that concept if you heard modern music before.
What Cage did was, he just made harmony so that, he used every sound in the world that is present to the listener. It doesnt mean that harmony is not consistent, on the contrary, it means he just stretched the harmony rules in an unimaginable way.

I hope by now you can understand that he is a composer and used variety of elements in his works. Actually there is more to tell to this piece. Pages more. But I think I made a point. By the way, his later work 0'00'', its his masterpiece. Just made me stand there with amazement.



norman bates said:


> i don't understand this last line.
> In what manner ego should influence my comprehension of 4'33?


To explain this you need to objectively observe and understand *your* point of view. You think he is not a composer, you dont like him because he is not trying to accomplish anything(or because he seems that way). 
Actually he is doing what every other composer is doing. He is putting effort and making you feel.

4'33'' is such a joyful and a very sad song. 
And its just your ego and obsession about accomplishment that keeps you away from understanding that.

Just ask yourself how would you think if Mozart had written this piece.
Thats how you should respect any musical creation.
And your ego is just getting in the way. There is no other reason for you not to understand Cage if there was no ego.

Its not that I'm saying you cant like it. I'm just saying I dont believe you really tried to understand this piece of music, because you dont respect it as such.

Another milestone for me was hearing: "The rest is noise".
It just gives a players music so much depth to know that the rests are as important as notes. Its an invaluable lesson. 
And Cage was my 2nd milestone. What he makes just gives music more meaning.

I hope I made my point.
Sincerely.


----------



## bachbabe (Oct 11, 2010)

I am confused.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Dont said:


> And its just your ego and obsession about accomplishment that keeps you away from understanding that. ... your ego is just getting in the way. There is no other reason for you not to understand Cage if there was no ego. ... Its not that I'm saying you cant like it. I'm just saying I dont believe you really tried to understand this piece of music, because you dont respect it as such.


But we all must make _choices_. Life is simply too short to try everything, and sometimes the effort to understand one particular thing seems unlikely to be rewarding, and we have to choose according to our best lights: _this_, or _that_? So the notion of 'the ego getting in the way' isn't something we can avoid. It's an inevitable condition of life. This morning, do I choose to understand abstract expressionism, Wagner's _Ring_, nuclear physics, or John Cage? Or do I just go and watch the river flow? (When I put it like that, the river-watching sounds good, and relatively ego-liberating I should think.)

I also find myself wondering about the wisdom of one poster diagnosing another as having an 'obsession about accomplishment' because he doesn't appear to understand his point of view on Cage. Obsessions can take many forms, and so can concepts of accomplishment. And an enthusiasm for Cage doesn't imply that one is free from 'obsessions about accomplishment' of other kinds.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Dont said:


> So you are saying, I cant be indifferent towards man?


i'm indifferent too, but i know when a man is ugly or not



Dont said:


> You are right on target. There is something called objectivity, When everyone sees A they react to it and see the same thing. I dont object to that.
> However we are talking about music here. Words and thoughts are overrated. Music is more organic than these. You can see the same notes in music, however, you may or may not feel the same with someone or anyone. You already know that. So why bother trying to "insert" something cold like objectivity into music?


It was just an example, you can take language, you can take, music, you can take colors and paints made of colors. If i say A you understand A. If i play a minor second you hear a dissonant interval, if i paint a picture with red you see the color red. Music is a language.



Dont said:


> There is something that you misunderstood here. The 4'33'' is actually a composition. It may not strike you as such at first, but it is an actual creation. Maybe we should first discuss the elements of a composition.
> 
> For me a composition should consist of a form, an harmonic structure and an idea(or ideas) to tell using these elements.
> 
> In 4'33'', the most obvious element is form. Composers are always playing with many elements of music. However the form is almost always remains unchanged, especially some of the forms are always the same. Its the same for Cage. The form is simple. It's a prelude. It consists of just one part. He used time duration instead of a metronome. In *Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima*, Penderecki did the same thing. Instead of using metronome, he specified the length in seconds. (*Please tell me if you find Penderecki's work as music or not?*)


yes and i like it



Dont said:


> The second obvious one is the idea. I'm sure everyone instantly find out there is an idea behind it, pretty obvious one in fact. It just yells: "Every sound is deserved to be listened, every sound is music, therefor is beautiful". I dont know you, but for me listening music means something. The first time in my life I listened "any" sound as music. And I needed Cage for that...


I don't and for sure Cage wasn't the first to say that. I know of discussions of Thelonious Monkin which said just the same. But i'm not interested to discover who was the first saying this thing. For me, is the simplest of all concepts. I can't take seriously one thing so well-known.



Dont said:


> And lastly, there is harmony. Every composer has changed harmony to his needs. There are similarities in some styles but all harmonic structures that composers are using someway different from each other. Harmony shows character. Simple as that.
> 
> Cage is not the only one using out of pitch notes. You should be aware of that concept if you heard modern music before.
> What Cage did was, he just made harmony so that, he used every sound in the world that is present to the listener.


You know Varese? You know Luigi Russolo? 
Anyway i like for example what i've listened of his prepared piano works. But i don't think is what you're talking about



Dont said:


> It doesnt mean that harmony is not consistent, on the contrary, it means he just stretched the harmony rules in an unimaginable way.


No, and he even said that was not interested in it. 




You think that this piece is harmonically interesting?



Dont said:


> To explain this you need to objectively observe and understand *your* point of view. You think he is not a composer, you dont like him because he is not trying to accomplish anything(or because he seems that way).
> Actually he is doing what every other composer is doing. He is putting effort and making you feel.


Yeah, and i value him as every other composers, by my feelings.



Dont said:


> 4'33'' is such a joyful and a very sad song.
> And its just your ego and obsession about accomplishment that keeps you away from understanding that.


No, the ego was that of John Cage who was a great exibitionist. 
But it would be a fun argument this of the "obsession for accomplishment" if it would be used by the plumber at your home. Oh, but is not art. But the plumber could say, "well, but what it's art?"



Dont said:


> Just ask yourself how would you think if Mozart had written this piece.


You really think that if Mozart made 4'33" i would have a different perception?



Dont said:


> Thats how you should respect any musical creation.
> And your ego is just getting in the way. There is no other reason for you not to understand Cage if there was no ego.
> 
> Its not that I'm saying you cant like it. I'm just saying I dont believe you really tried to understand this piece of music, because you dont respect it as such.


For me there's a difference between art and conceptual art. Art is about emotions. Conceptual art is about art (and thoughts on art). 4'33" for me is bad conceptual art.


----------



## Dont (Oct 3, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> But we all must make _choices_. Life is simply too short to try everything, and sometimes the effort to understand one particular thing seems unlikely to be rewarding, and we have to choose according to our best lights: _this_, or _that_? So the notion of 'the ego getting in the way' isn't something we can avoid. It's an inevitable condition of life. This morning, do I choose to understand abstract expressionism, Wagner's _Ring_, nuclear physics, or John Cage? Or do I just go and watch the river flow? (When I put it like that, the river-watching sounds good, and relatively ego-liberating I should think.)
> 
> I also find myself wondering about the wisdom of one poster diagnosing another as having an 'obsession about accomplishment' because he doesn't appear to understand his point of view on Cage. Obsessions can take many forms, and so can concepts of accomplishment. And an enthusiasm for Cage doesn't imply that one is free from 'obsessions about accomplishment' of other kinds.


Dear Elgarian,
You are right about life being too short. You cant always try to understand everything and there are sometimes things that are not worth understanding. But some particular moments these things can be found worthy. Maybe its just that, you dont feel the need to criticize music like I do. And because of that, this kind of discussion may be pointless to you.

After reading norman's post, I felt that I was wrong to say that his ego was in the way. I think he deserves more credit than that.
However I simply believe that music cant be understood without forgetting any knowledge of music first.

I just dont accept that the music can be measured.
I think there should be some written ethic codes about music. People tend to disregard music very easily sometimes. Which is a pity.

Dear Norman, Thank you for mentioning the composer that I didnt know about before. I think you are underestimating plumbers though.
I know, I'm sometimes worse than those trollers :lol:

I deserve a question to be answered:

Where music goes when music is finished?

Is it continues to live in our minds?
Or what we hear in our minds is just an illusion?


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2010)

norman bates said:


> It was just an example, you can take language, you can take, music, you can take colors and paints made of colors. If i say A you understand A. If i play a minor second you hear a dissonant interval, if i paint a picture with red you see the color red. Music is a language.


We should probably make a new thread for these points. The last one, that music is a language, is about as contentious as "is 4'33" music" and has also been done before. At the risk of taking a whack at a horse that has passed on long ago, let me say that to call music a language is to employ a questionable metaphor. Language has two qualities, fundamental ones, that music does not, lexicography and grammar. Words mean things in a way that tones do not (something, come to think of it, that Cage's koan implies). And words mean only a little bit by themselves, that is, what you get by looking in a dictionary is only a small part of what we call "meaning." The bulk of the rest of that, in writing anyway, is supplied by grammar.

And while music certainly has patterns (which is the basis of the language parallel), they are much more idiosyncratic than the patterns of grammar. A sequence of tones does not convey the same kind of meaning as a sequence of words. And that brings up something perhaps even more pointed about the music as language topic: tones are not at all like words! The basic building blocks of musical structures are nothing like the basic building blocks of grammatical structures.

For the rest of it, the intervals and the colors, you're conflating two different kinds of perception. A musical interval is not like a color. Or, at least, if it is, your comments about the two are not saying the same thing. With intervals, you're talking about a learned perception, about an idea about what the intervals mean (consonance and dissonance). If you were to continue along those lines with color, you would have said something like "red means danger."

And for the *rest* of the rest of it, I'm guessing that you were born after 1952, perhaps quite a long ways afterward. The "message" of _4'33"_ has become fairly well known, although there are still a lot of people who have not come across it. And not everyone agrees with it, either.

Sometime in the late seventies or early eighties, I attended a lecture of Cage's in which someone praised him for being the most important and influential composer of the century for coming up with all those revolutionary ideas. Cage rejected that outright, saying that "these ideas were 'in the air'." He did yeoman's work in _promoting_ "these ideas." Not sure how that makes him an _exhibitionist,_ though.

As with any public figure, the perceptions don't always match up very well with the realities.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

some guy said:


> And while music certainly has patterns (which is the basis of the language parallel), they are much more idiosyncratic than the patterns of grammar. A sequence of tones does not convey the same kind of meaning as a sequence of words. And that brings up something perhaps even more pointed about the music as language topic: tones are not at all like words! The basic building blocks of musical structures are nothing like the basic building blocks of grammatical structures.


Yes. Not like language. Not about _saying_ at all, but about _showing_. I never know whether I truly understand what Wittgenstein meant, but he's good to steal from when you need him - and his distinction between the things that can be _said_ and the things that can be _shown_ is unmissably useful in discussions like these. In that sense a composer isn't _telling_ us something through music; he's _showing_ us something. (Something _musical_, of course.)



> For the rest of it, the intervals and the colors, you're conflating two different kinds of perception. A musical interval is not like a color. Or, at least, if it is, your comments about the two are not saying the same thing. With intervals, you're talking about a learned perception, about an idea about what the intervals mean (consonance and dissonance). If you were to continue along those lines with color, you would have said something like "red means danger."


I don't think that 'red for danger' symbolism is the appropriate one. At this rate, I might have to resurrect my musical analysis of a Cezanne landscape (remember that?). Intervals and colours are different kinds of perceptions, but the parallels between them have long been a source of fascination. (Newton was so intrigued by the relation between them that I understand he actually invented the colour 'indigo' to make the parallels more persuasive.) But seriously, although obviously the sense of sight is very different to the sense of sound, to those who approach them attentively, the relations and modulations of colour that Cezanne uses in a painting can seem closely related to musical relations and modulations. Cezanne himself even spoke in those terms - of producing a 'harmony parallel with Nature'.

The point I'm trying to make is that language is about saying, while painting and music are both about showing - so it's not altogether surprising to find that they do have a deep inner resemblance between themselves that they don't share with language.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

some guy said:


> We should probably make a new thread for these points. The last one, that music is a language, is about as contentious as "is 4'33" music" and has also been done before. At the risk of taking a whack at a horse that has passed on long ago, let me say that to call music a language is to employ a questionable metaphor. Language has two qualities, fundamental ones, that music does not, lexicography and grammar. Words mean things in a way that tones do not (something, come to think of it, that Cage's koan implies). And words mean only a little bit by themselves, that is, what you get by looking in a dictionary is only a small part of what we call "meaning." The bulk of the rest of that, in writing anyway, is supplied by grammar.
> 
> And while music certainly has patterns (which is the basis of the language parallel), they are much more idiosyncratic than the patterns of grammar. A sequence of tones does not convey the same kind of meaning as a sequence of words. And that brings up something perhaps even more pointed about the music as language topic: tones are not at all like words! The basic building blocks of musical structures are nothing like the basic building blocks of grammatical structures.


i know that is a controversial argument. But also admitting that there are differences, when i was talking about the "universal" meaning of intervals (consonance and dissonance), chords, time, dynamic (can you imagine someone who sing a lullaby really loud? No, because we probably associate loud sounds with danger) i was meaning that from single elements (sound, pitch, noises, volume, that we could assimilate to single letters. Another connection is that in poetry the sounds of letters and words is really important) we could obtain musical "words". And like language, where phrases are regulate by rules we could obtain musical phrases. 
Now i don't remember his name, but for example there is a researcher that made a program that permits him to recreate music in the style of a lot of composers. You can give to this program scores of bach, mahler, brahms, debussy etc and this program recreate music that is really similar. I've listened to the results (there are many mp3 on web) and the results especially for not-very modern composers are incredible (Bach most of all). Is it generative grammar?
What i'm saying is that probably there are big clues that music is a real language.



some guy said:


> For the rest of it, the intervals and the colors, you're conflating two different kinds of perception. A musical interval is not like a color. Or, at least, if it is, your comments about the two are not saying the same thing. With intervals, you're talking about a learned perception, about an idea about what the intervals mean (consonance and dissonance). If you were to continue along those lines with color, you would have said something like "red means danger."


i don't know if i could say that red means danger but there are studies of psychological perception of colors, and you know that there are colors classified as warm or cold. And like notes, there are "consonant" contrasts (like, yellow and orange) and dissonant contrasts (like yellow and violet). 
And you probably know of synesthesia, and that a lot of musicians and composers are synesthetes.
Scriabin for example composed with a colored keyboard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Scriabin


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2010)

norman, I wasn't suggesting that red means danger. I was pointing out that you were making two different kinds of statements about intervals and colors *as if they were the same kind of statement.* The statement that red is red is not the same kind of thing as the statement that a minor second is a dissonance. The one is simply a fact; the other is a judgment. Those are two different things.

That "red means danger" in my post was an example of how you could have made your statements similar to each other. Another way would be to leave the red statement as it is and change the interval one to "we recognize the difference between single tones and intervals. Whether the interval is wide, like a fifth, or narrow, like a minor second, we hear it as an interval." Which is very different from what you actually said, you see?

Otherwise, your paragraph on language uses some words that both linguistics and music share, like "phrases," as if that indicated that music is a language. That's because language is metaphorical. We understand things largely by means of metaphor. (Which is another huge can of worms. This is veritably turning into the worm thread.) The danger is always that a metaphor is stated the same way as a fact. "The sun is a star." "The sun is a god."

Mostly, we're able to distinguish the two perfectly well, so it's not really all _that_ dangerous. But occasionally, a metaphor will become commonplace and accepted as a fact, like the "music is a language" one. Oddly enough, the very things about music that are the least like language--music does not have grammar and tones do not have meanings like words do--are the things that allow people to say things like "music is the universal language." (A C major triad is a C major triad in whatever country you're in.* But "window" is "Fenster" in some countries and "fenêtre" in some others and even "окно" in some others.)

But think of something familiar from music, say the opening theme of Beethoven's _[Eroica./I] Does anyone listening to that think they are hearing the same kind of thing as "Norman, be a dear and take the trash out for me"? No.

Sure, there are musical qualities of language, as you point out. But note that no one yet has committed the absurdity of saying that language is a type of music. Or even that language is the universal music. Now that would be a fine howdy-do! So why does it seem sensible and ordinary to say that music, which has a few vague parallels with language, IS a language, but peculiar and silly to say that language, which has many musical qualities, is music?

Besides, music is *food.* I know. I read about it in Shakespeare.

*And as to what a C Major triad "means," well it will mean different things to different people living in the same town--in the same neighborhood. Where's the universality in that?_


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> Besides, music is *food.* I know. I read about it in Shakespeare.


Food *and* alcohol. Don't forget the drink!


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

some guy said:


> norman, I wasn't suggesting that red means danger. I was pointing out that you were making two different kinds of statements about intervals and colors *as if they were the same kind of statement.* The statement that red is red is not the same kind of thing as the statement that a minor second is a dissonance. The one is simply a fact; the other is a judgment. Those are two different things.


i don't think that say that a minor second (in is a dissonance is a judgement. It's physics, as you could see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consonance_and_dissonance

just a fact of numbers of acoustic frequencies and harmonics, as it's the wave lenght of light that you and i perceive as red.



some guy said:


> Otherwise, your paragraph on language uses some words that both linguistics and music share, like "phrases," as if that indicated that music is a language. That's because language is metaphorical. We understand things largely by means of metaphor. (Which is another huge can of worms. This is veritably turning into the worm thread.) The danger is always that a metaphor is stated the same way as a fact. "The sun is a star." "The sun is a god."
> 
> Mostly, we're able to distinguish the two perfectly well, so it's not really all _that_ dangerous. But occasionally, a metaphor will become commonplace and accepted as a fact, like the "music is a language" one. Oddly enough, the very things about music that are the least like language--music does not have grammar and tones do not have meanings like words do--are the things that allow people to say things like "music is the universal language." (A C major triad is a C major triad in whatever country you're in.* But "window" is "Fenster" in some countries and "fenêtre" in some others and even "окно" in some others.)


well, but the meaning of window and fenetre is just the same. As you can call a certain chord C major or Do maggiore but the meaning is what we perceive of the combination of frequencies of C, E and G. You say that meaning of chords is different for everybody, for me is just the same as i have explained above for intervals. Of course, a c major could have different functions in a musical phrase, but also words could assume different meanings in a talk.



some guy said:


> Sure, there are musical qualities of language, as you point out. But note that no one yet has committed the absurdity of saying that language is a type of music. Or even that language is the universal music. Now that would be a fine howdy-do! So why does it seem sensible and ordinary to say that music, which has a few vague parallels with language, IS a language, but peculiar and silly to say that language, which has _many_ musical qualities, is music?


i can't understand this example. To say that Some guy is a member of this forum isn't like to say that all members of this forum are Some guy


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2010)

norman bates said:


> To say that Some guy is a member of this forum isn't like to say that all members of this forum are Some guy


This is not even close to being parallel to what I said.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

interesting article on the correlation between music and language
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=music-and-speech-share-a-code-for-c-2010-06-17


----------

