The Put On of the Century, or the Cage Centenary

[Karl Henning]

Maybe for you and others who agree with the conclusions - but for me, they represent a wish by the authors to truncate reality in order to fit their comfort zone.

So far as the horse is concerned, the blinders are a part of himself.

[springrite]

No discussion about Cage ever leads anywhere. Everyone will remain wherever they were.

As for me, I have become a bigger Cage fan over the past 10 years. In fact, he is fast coming into my top... uh... maybe between 11 and 20.

[Karl Henning]

No discussion about Cage ever leads anywhere. Everyone will remain wherever they were.

As for me, I have become a bigger Cage fan over the past 10 years. In fact, he is fast coming into my top... uh... maybe between 11 and 20.

You see, my dear fellow?— you do not remain where you were.

Ah, but then: you are actually listening, and not merely opining.

[springrite]

Ah, but then: you are actually listening, and not merely opining.[/font]

That is THE key distinction, yes.

[Karl Henning]

The question of the composer's intent is indeed the key here, though not strictly in the derisive way in which Mr Asia suggests.

Cage wished to compose, but did not consent to compose the way in which others intended for him to do so. So much of The Respectful Opposition's discussion of the question boils down to You do not agree to abide by Our Rules, so we declare your work "Inauthentic."

But what if Cage did not care? What if the many of us who enjoy Cage's music, and enjoy it as art no less than we might enjoy the music of (say) Stockhausen, what if we should not care?

[bhodges]

Here is an interesting reply from composer Dan Joseph on New Music Box. He writes, "...John Cage is our country's most important and influential musical thinker," and he might be right.

--Bruce

[Sammy]

Informed people who express strong opinions are often viewed with disdain & hostility .. people shouldn't be so swift to jump those conclusions.

You're a hoot.  I have no disdain or hostility toward Asia; my respect for him simply dropped some.  I do hope that Asia at some point will realize that he lowered himself through his remarks about a fellow composer.

[Mirror Image]

Based on the musical result? Nahh, few musicians would agree and his argument is weak, weak, weak. Cage was importing/deriving philosophy, inspiration etc rooted from things that aren't remotely American at all. .. Reality is, Cage didn't put much thought into what he was doing at all, but then again .. that was the intention. He consulted coin tosses and I Ching ... We're all better composers than Cage.

Thanks for this, I needed a good laugh today. Even as much as I avoid guys like Cage, I'm not about to deny his influence and importance on post-WII classical music. You can continue your little game of we're all wrong and you're right, but it's really getting old, man. It really is.

[ibanezmonster]

The argument is largely based on their own personal thoughts and feelings, without any deeper research, and amounts to saying "I don't like this music, therefore nobody else does."

The lack of understanding that there are more realities than one's own is like going back to being a infant. Unless they all have solipsistic beliefs...

[snyprrr]

The libtards foist the Cageian conceit.

I have created a Cage piece in mine own head, playing now,... AND IT SUCKS!! It is totally valid that I need not experience one iota of Cage's music, according to his own conceit, in order to judge it on its qualities, its one overriding quality: "'eh'-ness".

I just created a 20 minute tape piece. Wanna hear it?

I just created 1000 tape pieces. Wanna hear them?

I'm breathing,... so, this is my 'symphony', my breathing and the sound of blood rushing.

Oh, what a revelation.


I love it when libtards don't 'understand' why someone isn't 'getting it'. THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!! There, no go and buy you $20 cds with hardly any music on them. Or just open the flippin' window and listen to nature or the 'hood.

All of John Cage's legacy will rot. 'Nothing' can go ahead and be his legacy. Being politically correct at the expense of true CREATIVE genius can be his legacy. Permissiveness is NOT genius.

Any and every rant against Cage is a glorious work of creative genius, just like his bs. My Posts should have Opus Numbers!!!

I skullF*** the memory of Cage and he likes it!! That's the problem with total permissiveness: you permit your own destruction. Thankfully Cage's own coming oblivion can be KNOWN!

All is NOT valid.

Be negated, thou!!










Well, I feel better!

[snyprrr]

Name me a worthy Composer who can take V=Cage in the afterlife. I think Bach would beat the stuffing out of him for disrespecting music. Brahms was pretty sturdy too.


I'm drinking AT you Cage. I'm drinking AT you.

[springrite]

Based on the musical result? Nahh, few musicians would agree and his argument is weak, weak, weak. Cage was importing/deriving philosophy, inspiration etc rooted from things that aren't remotely American at all. .. Reality is, Cage didn't put much thought into what he was doing at all, but then again .. that was the intention. He consulted coin tosses and I Ching ... We're all better composers than Cage.

No, we are not all better composers than Cage. You are, second only to Stockhausen of course.

[Karl Henning]

No, we are not all better composers than Cage. You are, second only to Stockhausen of course.

Well, James isn't putting too much thought into what he's doing here.

[PaulR]

Whatever ..  if you actually knew real musicians .. most of them don't give a shit about Cage's crap. This includes most big name composers .. incl. 2 of your favorites Boulez & Carter . ..

Evidence doesn't support claim (or Boulez's words).  Boulez and Stockhausen both incorporated aspects of "chance" in their works (Not in the Cageian spirit nor method) after meeting Cage's music. 

From Robert P. Morgan's book "20th century Music":

"Stockhausen, in one of his earliest articles, praised the American [Cage] for his tendency to invent uniquely constructed timbral materials for each composition, a tendency he regarded as consistent with integral serialism."

It could be said that the end aural result of both the Cage system of chance (giving up all control of the music) and integral serialism (complete control of musical material) are the same.

[ibanezmonster]

It could be said that the end aural result of both the Cage system of chance (giving up all control of the music) and integral serialism (complete control of musical material) are the same.

Likewise, both communism and anarchy lead to the same result: chaos and death. 

[snyprrr]

AAAhhhh, this Thread burns... I'm melting ...

Yea, I'm ready to put down the baseball bat. I gotta sound:

fap fap fap fap

Oh, I'm just incorrigible. Alright, I've had enough. Say goodnight Gracie..

[PaulR]

James,

For all your "listening" to Stockhausen, Boulez and company, this conversation has proved that you have blinders on to anything that does not conform to your narrow view of musical history.  I get that you do not care nor appreciate John Cage and trying to do everything possible to discredit Cage.  Instead of arguing what Robert P. Morgan (historian on the faculty at Yale) says about Stockhausen and the compatibility of chance and integral serialism (which Morgan states is from Stockhausen's own writings), you attack my age and my how much I listen to Stockhausen, Boulez, and/or Cage.

You claim I am out of my depths for "googling" the information.  While not true, I have the book in question and another book about music post-1945 by Paul Griffiths, this is a bad thing?  Are we not supposed to find information that backs up our points instead of going on random tangents that you are a better composer than he is?  Listening only goes so far.  There are materials one can use (I know, I can hardly believe that is the case) that have more detailed information about the music itself, or the influences of the music.  The point I made was not that Cage changed the music of Stockhausen and Boulez forever, but rather, Cage did leave a mark on them, and influenced their thoughts on how to create music.  Which is a fact you rather just gloss over and forget about.

For your last attack on me, have you actually listened to any integral serialist piece?  Anything by John Cage without the prejudice and bias against John Cage that you have?  No, I do not mean playing it on your CD player/record player/however you digest your music.  But rather, actually "listen" to it?  It is not about quantity of years or quantity of music that you listen to--but rather--the quality of your listening.  If you came across two pieces that you did not know the background too--one completely left to chance in the composition of the piece (Performer has no say in it, every performance will more or less be the exact same thing) and the other a piece of integral serialism--for the average person, it would be very hard to distinguish one from the other.

Then again, I should have known better when you claimed a short blog post on a non-scholarly site by a composer who has an axe to grind contained important and insightful comments against Cage.  It was dumb of me to even bother with trying to discuss this with you when you refused to explain what you found in the article that was so enlightening and demanded everyone who questioned you to read the article a thousand times trying to find anything that was objectively bad about John Cage's music and not Asia's own personal subjective opinions.  Silly me, I should have known better than to waste my time on this whole thread. 

I hope you find enjoyment in your future hearings of Stockhausen and your continued bashing of Cage.  Have a good day.

[Mirror Image]

Paul, it's useless to argue with James. He's just going to keep telling you that you're wrong and that he's right. It's his way or the highway. The guy apparently can't read, but I think with some hard work, he'll be able to one day, he just needs more time.

[Karl Henning]

Whatever ..  if you actually knew . . . .

That's 2 "little Jimmies" in a row... and I win this round of James Rant Bingo!

[PaulR]

I don't have a narrow view of musical history .. not all history is great however. I'm just stating facts. You sound like someone who's digging into reference books .. but have no real intimate experience & knowledge with the output of any of these guys as a listener. I'll leave it at that, if you did, you 'd have a better handle/perspective on those articles, it's not my job to point shit out to you, you either understand it from experience or you waste your time trying to talk about stuff that you clearly don't have much background in.

If you actually had a real view of music history, and not the one you constructed to fit your point of view, you would realize that the article you posted had nothing of substance in it.  There are better articles that dealt with criticism of Cage than Asia's blog post, but you'd rather have this worthless article so you can go on a soapbox and rant on how bad John Cage was as a composer, and/or musical thinker.  You dismiss the more "objective" reference books (from authors that I find more credible than you) and go for the "subjective" stance of "listening experience" (whatever that means).  You may have more "experience", but all that experience means nothing, if you cannot comprehend your own thoughts.  I told you what I got the article.  What I read into it, what I saw.  If this was a more scholarly article, I might have tried to summarize and critique it.  But as it is, it wasn't and had no substance.  When people asked you what there was to see, you failed to produce an answer of what is in the article.  As someone who makes a claim that Cage was not a great composer, that IS your responsibility.  Even if it means more work for you to do.  I'm done with your arrogant and condescending views.  I hope you have a good life, and get a better understanding of the output and legacy of those composers.