Cage’s 34’46.776’’ for two pianists

[Sean]

It's a point of view. Though endless hours of hard work and cast-iron discipline are not enough, on their own, to guarantee anything. And while Cage obviously worked hard all his life and had plenty of discipline (though I can't be sure about its iron content), his work was not about producing quality results so much as it was about inviting (encouraging) the listener to become a more serious and disciplined part of the situation. And that's a point of view, too.
On this topic, I've never seen you do anything but present the same unsubstantiated assertions, over and over and over and over again. Yawn. Catison's well reasoned post may be something you disagree with. BS it's not. Unsubstantiated assertions on the other hand....

Whatever else James thinks, I'm with him 100% on this thread.

[CD]

^^ Couldn't have asked for a better dismantling of James's argument, really.

[Franco]

Most serious musicians and music lovers I know see Cage (and conceptual art) in the same light.

Oh, I guess that settles it.  Your circle of what, a few dozen, even say, a few hundred, people agree with your assessment and so it must be true.

My experience is just the opposite (based on more than the people I know): the general critical opinion that John Cage is one of the most important thinkers, not just composers, of the 20th century and whose work has influenced much of what has occurred in various artistic disciplines in the last half of the 20th century and beyond.

[knight66]

James, What does, 'art is about deeds' mean?

Mike

[some guy]

Get a grip please.

Yes, I see. Well, here's a exhortatory cliche for you, too, then:

Give it up!

What do you get out of going onto every thread that so much as mentions Cage in order to trot out the same two or three dismissive assertions about him and his music and his admirers? What sort of strange inner compulsion are you satisfying by doing this?

And what good do you think you're doing? I for one have been listening to music all my life and to classical ever since I first heard some (about fifty years ago). I have spent my life around music and musicians, listening, talking, thinking. Many of your heros are also mine. So if I appreciate Cage, why make sure every time I mention his name that you chime in with your same two or three unsupported deprecations? Are you thinking maybe that I will turn my back on a lifetime of listening and enjoyment because you say that some of the things I love aren't worth loving? Now THAT would indeed be daft!

You're talking to peers here, James, people with the similar chops to your own. You don't seem to understand that. Similar backgrounds in music, similar depth and breadth of experience, similar intelligence musically. But that doesn't enter into it for you, apparently. Only James has chops. Only James' opinions on things are valuable. Really, doesn't that seem just a trifle arrogant, even to you?

[knight66]

Yes, I assume you accept that many 'deeds' are nothing to do with art. So, what do you mean when you say that art is about deeds? Do you mean there has to be a 'deed' in the creation of it; or that art only describes deeds....or what?

Mike

[CD]

For him, art is a deed-restricted community.

Basically it comes down to Cage not having the "Pierre Boulez Certified 100% Seal of Approval™". Any other explanation is just bending over backwards to justify this.

[Franco]

For him, art is a deed-restricted community.

Basically it comes down to Cage not having the "Pierre Boulez Certified 100% Seal of Approval™". Any other explanation is just bending over backwards to justify this.

A funny statement, since Boulez was very taken with Cage's work, esp. in the first decade of the 1950s, and is quoted as seeing Cage as a kind of soul-mate in his approach to rhythm.  Cage moved on other things while Boulez went into complete serialization.

[CD]

A funny statement, since Boulez was very taken with Cage's work, esp. in the first decade of the 1950s, and is quoted as seeing Cage as a kind of soul-mate in his approach to rhythm.  Cage moved on other things while Boulez went into complete serialization.

Well, there you go! Some people still learn new things.

[knight66]

Perhaps my question was too difficult or too trivial.

'i do it because it may cause reflection and thought, about what you like and why, it's quality etc'

In a way that is what the likes of Cage attempted. Duchamp as usual gets a sideswipe mention, though some of his 'found objects' were supposed to do just what you suggest that you were doing, provoking thought; though with humour and a lightness of touch.

'The creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his contribution to the creative act'

Mike

[knight66]

No, you got me. Is a novel not art?

Mike

[knight66]

Odd, I was wondering the same thing about you.

So, really, anything is a deed and can therefore be art.

If publishing a book is a deed, so is publishing that Cage piece. What your argument boils down to is a matter of taste, as for your definition of Art....needs working on.

Mike

[knight66]

Sorry James, but I do think your whole 'deeds' thing is a tangle of your own making.

Not all conceptual art is nonsense, though a lot is. Not all art can be absorbed without explanation. There are many hidden meanings in Renaissance painting that we only now understand if someone explains it. Our society is different from theirs and has different codes.

So, even with the obvious high art, there is a lot to be gained by explanation.

I suppose that anything you cannot get anything out of; which requires explanation for you to understand what the artist is up to is not art....but it does consist of deeds. It is often 'art' in the opinion of others.

As I suggest, drop the whole deeds issue and go back to the drawing board.

Mike

[some guy]

some guy, i do it because it may cause reflection and thought, about what you like and why, it's quality etc...

a) your peers already have spent decades on reflection and thought. b) your dismissive remarks are much more likely to cause either annoyance or bemusement, depending on the mood of your reader. c) you're assuming that your judgments about what i like (what i know well) are more valuable to me (are better for me) than my own ideas.

i know many stubborn people never wake up or change their minds

What you don't seem able to recognize or acknowledge (or even consider) is that perhaps in this regard it is you who are the stubborn one, eh? I have certainly felt over the years that on this Cage question you will never wake up or change your mind. Indeed, I'm questioning right now my own motives for continuing to address you as if any thing I can say to you will be, as you say, worth it!!

I'll close with these observations: We are your peers, James; maybe even your superiors. We have as much experience as you do, or more. We don't need your tender solicitations, really we don't. (Even the tender innocence of less experienced listeners doesn't really need your sagacious guidance away from the pitfalls of concept art.) Enjoying Cage and Fluxus and the like is not going to do anyone any sort of damage. Not likely. Why, I can (and do) both enjoy them and appreciate the towering genius of the likes of Stockhausen and Boulez.

[Franco]

We've just read James' appraisal; here's the consensus as reported by The New York Times in 1987:

THE IMPACT AND INFLUENCE OF JOHN CAGE

And this also from the NYT, this year.

In the music world, of course, Mr. Cage's influence was extremely far-reaching. He started a revolution by proposing that composers could jettison the musical language that had evolved over the last seven centuries, and in doing so he opened the door to Minimalism, performance art and virtually every other branch of the musical avant-garde. Composers as different in style from one another -- and from Mr. Cage -- as Philip Glass, Morton Feldman, Earle Brown and Frederic Rzewski have cited Mr. Cage as a beacon that helped light their own paths.

So you have a choice when considering John Cage's importance and artistic merit:

There's James (no last name) on the GMG Internet Forum

Or

Philip Glass, Morton Feldman, Earle Brown and Frederic Rzewski, among others from various artistic fields cited in the two NYT articles.

[CD]

some guy, i do it because it may cause reflection and thought, about what you like and why, it's quality etc...i know many stubborn people never wake up or change their minds, and are unwilling to really think about it, consuming all kinds of drek...but some do come around and say "you know, he was right about that", and that alone is worth it.

Sorry to repost, but this is just hilarious.

[Guido]

I have no idea what degree system you are using, but that isn't right at all.

4*60 + 33 = 273 which is the amount of degrees in C below 0 that is absolute zero.

Didn't know this by the way.