The Put On of the Century, or the Cage Centenary

[PaulR]

Not really my friend, I could point out several things in there that lay outside of that and are in fact dealing with core musical values, historical/cultural context, philosophy, vocabulary, characteristics etc. .. I think you missed the boat on this one, try reading the body of the article again, carefully. Perhaps listen to a whole bunch of Cage first though ..

Then do so.  I am merely stating what I get out of this article, which is really just basically an op-ed piece of a composer who doesn't respect John Cage. 

[Mirror Image]

ATTENTION GMG: JAMES IS RIGHT AND WE'RE ALL WRONG!!!

This quote is becoming more and more true each time I read one of James' responses.

[bigshot]

How many times do I have to say this I HAVE READ THE ARTICLE!!! CAN YOU NOT READ, James? Do you need some glasses? I disagree with you and Asia for the afore mentioned point I made: Cage was an important composer because history has already weighed in his influence. He's in the books, James. Anything I say, you say, or Asia says is moot at this juncture. History has been kind to Mr. Cage.

Appeal to Authority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

[bigshot]

The whole article seemed like another composer stating why the music s/he likes and/or writes is the only valid type of music.

I think it's saying that randomness abrogrates responsibility to organize music into a form that expresses the intent of the composer.

[some guy]

Bigshot, did you read the wiki article you linked to?

Where in there is a description of what Mirror Image said? The claim was made that Cage is not historically important, which was simply countered by referring to a couple of history books. There's nothing in that scenario that is anything like using authority to make (or even support) a point about Cage or Cage's value.

History says Cage is inconsequential.

Three history books say Cage is consequential.

Done.

(Not "Cage is consequential because three history books say so," which would be an appeal the authority but not, I hasten to add, an illogical one, unless you want to argue that the authors of those books were not legitimate experts in their field.)

As for abrogating (only one 'r'), there has sure been a lot of that going around....

And as for "expressing the intent of the composer," in literary criticism, there's a word for that, fallacy. The intentional fallacy. There's a wiki article on that, too (since we're being intellectually lazy and letting wiki do our work--an appeal to authority?). And if the intentional fallacy is true for writing (which is made up of words, which do have specific meanings), then how much more is it true for music (which is made up of sounds, which do not have specific meanings)?

[Karl Henning]

The whole article seemed like another composer stating why the music s/he likes and/or writes is the only valid type of music.  This article, as other people say, is empty and only mentions what he likes.  No matter how accurate or inaccurate his "points" are.

Surgically done, Paul.

[Karl Henning]

His main point was that he hated the fact that people remember Cage, but wants to say he thinks Stravinsky is the "real deal".  There is nothing connecting the two besides the century of Cage's birth be in last year, and the premier of the Rite this year.   

Precisamente. There is no reason why the cultured listener should not simply like (and hold in high rehard) both Cage & Igor Fyodorovich.

[Karl Henning]

I don't think kindly of composers who dump on other composers in a public setting.

But that is because you are a man of taste and refinement, and possess a sense of the fitness of certain things.

[Brahmsian]

I don't think kindly of composers who dump on other composers in a public setting.

That is true, Don.  However, that's nothing new.  Been going on for centuries.

Stravinsky, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Wagner and countless others have dumped their unfavourable opinions about other composers in public.  If they'd live in today's age, they'd be doing it on a daily basis on their Facebook or Twitter feeds. 

[Florestan]

That is true, Don.  However, that's nothing new.  Been going on for centuries.

Stravinsky, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Wagner and countless others have dumped their unfavourable opinions about other composers in public.  If they'd live in today's age, they'd be doing it on a daily basis on their Facebook or Twitter feeds. 

Wagner would be banned from GMG after no more than a few posts for trolling, igniting flame wars, anti-semitism or what else...

[Brahmsian]

Wagner would be banned from GMG after no more than a few posts... 

And likely Brahms, too.  On Liszt:  "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz". 

[Karl Henning]

Stravinsky, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Wagner and countless others have dumped their unfavourable opinions about other composers in public.  If they'd live in today's age, they'd be doing it on a daily basis on their Facebook or Twitter feeds. 

Well, if you have in mind Tchaikovsky's description of Brahms as a "talentless bastard," I believe that was in his diary, and so, hardly public (by intent).  Of course, there may be other composers of whom Пётр Ильич expressed public disapproval, who at present escape me . . . .

Stravinsky at least had the social virtue of being witty about. Wagner seriously set the ball rolling with the If you fully appreciate my geeeenius, you will hate those whom I hate vibe.

[Karl Henning]

And likely Brahms, too.  On Liszt:  "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz". 

Harsh on a father-in-law who was always supportive of his music.

But of course, Wagner felt that even his ingratitude smacked of geeenius.

[Brahmsian]

Stravinsky at least had the social virtue of being witty about. Wagner seriously set the ball rolling with the If you fully appreciate my geeeenius, you will hate those whom I hate vibe.[/font]

Stravinsky (though you know, Karl, that I absolutely love his music), was one of the worst offenders.

His views on Vivaldi, Prokofiev, late Beethoven....and I'm sure many others.

[Karl Henning]

Stravinsky (though you know, Karl, that I absolutely love his music), was one of the worst offenders.

no contest : )

[Karl Henning]

"Stupid quotes" LOL

[Mirror Image]

I can't believe this thread has run for six pages already.

[not edward]

I like the use of the passive voice in that article to indicate that the author is using a straw-man argument.

[Florestan]

Then they will point to the fact that the "silent" piece was very difficult for Cage to write. He states it took him five years of work, and this is said without irony. Like the other claims, this one is ridiculous

Not ridiculous at all. Perhaps he tried hard for 5 years to really write something and, after so many sketches and variants, he just threw everything in the dustbin, took a new blank sheet and... bingo!: finally found the result satisfying. 






*runs away as fast as possible*

[Karl Henning]

And the revival of one of the laziest fallacies in 20^th-century music (the fallacy which James & al. somehow think is "the logical clincher"): that questions about this one piece, 4'33", "mean" that none of the music which Cage has written is . . . choose what adjective soever suits the bogus thesis (genuine, great, intentional, blah-blah-blah).