GMG Classical Music Forum

The Put On of the Century, or the Cage Centenary
Editorial by composer Daniel Asia, faculty at the University of Arizona.
Posted: 01/03/2013 5:34 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-asia/the-put-on-of-the-century_b_2403915.html

It is the John Cage Centenary and the 100th birthday of the Rite of Spring. Why is the former so unimportant, and the latter so important? In the last few weeks I heard four full concerts of Stravinsky's work as part of a festival I ran here in Tucson at the University of Arizona. And last night I heard a gorgeous performance by a gifted colleague of Cage's Sonatas and Interludes, which left me mostly frustrated, angry, and irritated. While Cage is being feted this year among my musical colleagues almost as much as Stravinsky, why should this be so, and what does it mean?

Stravinsky's place in the musical pantheon is clear. He and Schoenberg are certainly the two most important composers of the 20th century. There is of course a vast difference between the two. Stravinsky wrote much music that people actually wish to hear, and Schoenberg did not. Does this matter? I think it does.

Let me make a bold proposition in this regard. Music appeals to the mind, emotions, and body. It unites these three aspects of man in a way that perhaps no other art form does. The greatest music thus in some way taps into the listener's life experience, which is of course a journey over time, from birth to death. It is no surprise that music, and the tonal enterprise broadly interpreted, manifests a similar arc. The greatest of music provides musical experiences in the deepest and richest way possible, that provides a sense of transcendence. While I find this goal in almost all of Stravinsky's music, and while I happen to admire much of Schoenberg's output, I think the latter is less successful at uniting these three spheres on a regular basis.

So this brings us to Maestro Cage. Where in fact does he fall on this spectrum? As we know, Cage was a student of Schoenberg, who clearly intuited that Cage had no feeling for harmony, considered by Schoenberg to be a basic perquisite for a Western composer. Why did Shoenberg think this? Quite simply, harmony, and thus counter-point, has been central to Western music for over a thousand years, and it is one of the glories of Western Civilization, and is a creation of that culture. It has allowed for some of the greatest artistic achievements of mankind. So what was Cage's response. He famously said that he would knock his head against the wall of harmony and counterpoint, and see what the results were. His philosophical understanding that guided his first works was that music is to sooth the soul and calm the mind. Sonatas and Interludes is emblematic of this first period. Let's see wherein the problems lie.

The work lasts over an hour. Most works in the repertoire of this duration contain a sizeable amount of contrast, musical and emotional. They offer an architectonic form that makes sense of this time frame. Sonatas and Interludes offers many movements that add up to no perceivable aural structure. The emotional landscape is limited and proscribed, ultimately wan and shadowy.

The work is for prepared piano, a creation of Cage's. Various materials are placed between the strings to produce percussive sounds as well as pitched sounds that are outside of common Western tuning. Cage, by necessity, gives up on what is commonly called pitch relations. In his world, all sounds are equal, thus depriving the listener of any hierarchical relationship, and the sense of consonance and dissonance that is created within that environment. The pitch world created is placid and flaccid. While occasional sounds are quite beautiful, the pitches/sounds themselves never quite add up to anything; which is to say melody or motive is rarely present. If it is true that the ear and brain seek to add information up into some form of gestalt, as neuroscientists now tell us, Cage frustrates this possibility. And while music is based on the frustration and ultimate resolution of expectations, the Cageian frustration is never overcome. The materials sound random, dimensionless, adrift, like a wind chime.

The music is mostly quiet, a dynamic associated perhaps with the thoughts of introspection and quietude. Unfortunately, in this music the lack of dynamic quality acts like a gentle tranquilizer, dulling the mind's capability of perception. It does indeed sooth, but so does a nice massage, but the latter is not presented as an artistic expression. The registral range used, that space of high and low frequencies that we hear, is generally rather limited, again producing not much sense of variation. Rhythms are based on a very limited vocabulary that are used over and over ad nauseum, rarely building into any perceivable units.

The result of all of this is a music sadly lacking in any directionality, a music that is essentially rudderless. The music is emotionally bland and lackluster, its contours in this regard terribly narrow. Lastly, rather than engaging the mind, this is a music that purposely demands the mind be held at a distance, in abeyance. Ultimately, the music is simply downright sophomoric and boring. In Cage's latter and final chance period, by the way, matters only got much, much worse in regards to all of the above.

So where does this leave us? Cage argues the following, "If you think something is boring, try doing it for two minutes. If you still think it's boring, try it for four. If you still think it's boring, try it for eight, then sixteen, then thirty-two, and so on and so forth. Soon enough you'll find that it's really not boring at all." I think not, as boredom simply wears you down. And alas, life is too short to waste in boring activities. I think most of my colleagues ultimately think this too. It is not uncommon for composers and musicians to find Cage's ideas intriguing or provocative, but to find these same folks in the lobby during performances of the music, because they find it so tedious. The problem here is that the art itself should be of great interest in any medium, and what is said about it of lesser or secondary interest. This is of course the inverse with Cage.

So why is Cage lauded? I think his transgressive, stick-it-in your face approach finds resonance with those who think they hate the Western musical tradition, for its supposed patriarchal and masterwork approach. I think his oceanic view of rationality versus chance finds acceptance in a time which is profoundly anti-rational, and therefore unwilling to make serious artistic judgements regarding real quality, including those of genre. I think his trickster qualities, borrowed from the ultimate trickster, Duchamp, perfectly reflect our time's sense of profound unseriousness. Because, while art for most is not a matter of life or death, it does profoundly reflect our understanding and approach to ultimate values, and I have never heard "fun" described as an ultimate value to rival those old fogies of beauty, truth, and justice. But I fear this is where we are now in the culture.

So, if you want the real thing, forgo Cage for Stravinsky. Listen for starters to the earth-shattering Rite, the remarkably pithy Three Japanese Lyrics, the transcendent Symphony of Psalms, and In Memoriam Dylan Thomas. In a few years time, Cage will be a small footnote to all of this, remembered if at all, for his self-advertising, whimsy and smile, and love of mushrooms. But for his music, not a chance.

*yawn*

"I don't get this, and I don't want anybody else to get this, either!"  yap yap yap
"A bold proposition!  A bold proposition!"
The essay is actually fun to read if you are super-rich like me, and can pay Harry Shearer to call you up and read it to you with his Ned Flanders voice.

I didn't read the whole article, but the few last sentences did get me in the mood for some Stravinsky. Thanks, Daniel Asia! Hahaha....

There's something essentially boring about living in secular neoliberal society that prompts this kind of alternative (i.e. either/or, i.e. without [external] alternatives)-cum-ultimatum kind of mentality.  How could anyone ever have taken the program vs. absolute debate seriously, ever?  How could anyone ever have taken the Stravinsky or Schoenberg debate seriously?   That's relatively recent history!  (Of course, those examples were from epochs arguably quite a bit less secular or "neoliberal" than our own.)

I guess these kinds of false dilemma and false debates are still preferable to pogroms, lynching, and ethnic cleansing, all of which also make life more "interesting".  People who can't handle four and half minutes of freedom or gently mandated reflection, probably don't need to be dictating aesthetics to others: that's all I'm saying.  I've seen stodgy classical audiences during at least a couple performances of 4'33"---only to pick arguably the most exceptional and extreme of Cage's very large body of very beautiful and quite traditionally-musical works---and these audiences (sometimes including the trained musicians on stage) performed badly.  The only pretense on the scene is on these dismissers' parts: that they already know what Cage has to offer and can therefore take an educated pass on it, or still further, belittle it. 

Like I said, yawn yawn yawn.  That dogmatic, theological Old World is finished, dead by its own mismanagement and bloated self-satisfaction and contempt for the people who did its manual labor for it.  And to think: I barely even listen to Cage-type music these days.  I can't even participate properly in that cool contemporary composers thread because my tastes have become so conservative and I can't even remember what to recommend in terms of recent developments in the music.  Even my current interests and curmudgeonly disgust with hipsters and decadent art-school types makes it in my own self-interest to enjoy articles like the D. Asia one above, but I don't.  It just sounds like the same tone that people who hate (traditional) classical music use: "We have rock music now [or substitute whatever is hot for the next ~15 minutes], why do we need those moldy old patriarchal sounds?"  *Sigh*  I regret ever listening to anyone who took Hannibal Lecter seriously as a metaphor for lovers of so-called High Culture; but now I know that that metaphor didn't come from nowhere. 

Apparently learning is no match for knowing; there's just no need for the former when you've got the latter.  The second obviates the first.  Humankind is doomed.

These kinds of articles don't surprise me and they really should be ignored because they're insignificant and, if anything, only hurt the author which in this case is Daniel Asia and his own music. I don't like Cage, I don't care about Cage, but people enjoy different things. What's music to my ears is the sound of the nails on the chalkboard to another. I'm the only one in the universe that knows what I like. I don't need some snob like Asia telling me otherwise.

Quote from: James on January 07, 2013, 07:04:40 PM
The Put On of the Century, or the Cage Centenary
Editorial by composer Daniel Asia, faculty at the University of Arizona.

So why is Cage lauded? I think his transgressive, stick-it-in your face approach finds resonance with those who think they hate the Western musical tradition, for its supposed patriarchal and masterwork approach. I think his oceanic view of rationality versus chance finds acceptance in a time which is profoundly anti-rational, and therefore unwilling to make serious artistic judgements regarding real quality, including those of genre. I think his trickster qualities, borrowed from the ultimate trickster, Duchamp, perfectly reflect our time's sense of profound unseriousness. Because, while art for most is not a matter of life or death, it does profoundly reflect our understanding and approach to ultimate values, and I have never heard "fun" described as an ultimate value to rival those old fogies of beauty, truth, and justice. But I fear this is where we are now in the culture.

The highlighted bits show what's wrong (I think!) with this type of musical polemic, the sort of effusion which seems to flow with depressing regularity from the pens of neo-tonal and neo-romantic composers. 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."

Certainly fair enough!  I also should have acknowledged that self-evident [sic!] notions of "progress" were in circulation for a long, long time, and might ever so possibly still be.  Saying that all future music be written within some narrow methodological horizon: that's not progress.  Even saying that we'll know progress when we see it: please.  We might as well say that we know great music when we hear it: really?  Really?  I can believe someone, particularly a connoisseur, knows good music---music well-played---when she hears it.  And I am all for good music.  Why call it "mediocre"?  Why harp on notions of greatness?  Frequently when I hear "greatness" invoked, I wonder if what the person means---even if they don't know they mean it, that is, what they mean in practice---is "greatness" as "really really good"-ness.  What about greatness that transports you to another continent, and you wake beneath strange constellations?  The originary sense of the "great" would seem to be, how do we say it, "temporarily incommensurable"?  That isn't too ponderous, is it? 

Closed horizons are probably necessary for a happy life (I think I'm quoting Nietzsche, but I can't source it, for the moment), so none of this blather about "open-mindedness".  But what strange dogmatism.  Aren't there plenty of people who just love classical music broadly-construed?  I was under the impression that Jed Distler is like this, though I don't read him all the time.

I apologize for going on at length about this.  I don't mind arriving late for the (traditional) classical music party; that's exciting.  But much, much more troubling is the prospect that the worst damage to classical music has been done on the hither side of the city wall.  Where, exactly, are the real barbarians?

Quote from: Mirror Image on January 07, 2013, 08:30:46 PMWhat's music to my ears is the sound of the nails on the chalkboard to another.

What's music to my ears is the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard.

(I was still teaching when chalkboards were replaced by whiteboards. And while the squeek of a whiteboard pen is OK, it's nothing so lovely as fingernails on a chalkboard. ;D)

Quote from: some guy on January 07, 2013, 09:38:22 PM
What's music to my ears is the sound of fingernails on a chalkboard.

Touche! :D

The fact remains that there are more discs of Cage's music in my library than of Stockhausen's. If I had to choose which of those two was the put-on of the century . . . .

Quote from: karlhenning on January 08, 2013, 02:00:16 AM
The fact remains that there are more discs of Cage's music in my library than of Stockhausen's. If I had to choose which of those two was the put-on of the century . . . .

And Stockhausen's can be expensive!   ;D

I read the article and heard nothing afterward...or after word.

Quote from: sanantonio on January 08, 2013, 04:24:42 AM
Mr. Asia, pardon me for saying this, but who cares?

The desire (or need) of some folks to limit what others should enjoy, music-wise but really of any art, baffles me.  I am for more and more and more, not less music to consider and hear. 

:)

(* pounds the table *)

Quote from: sanantonio on January 08, 2013, 04:24:42 AM
Mr. Asia, pardon me for saying this, but who cares?

The desire (or need) of some folks to limit what others should enjoy, music-wise but really of any art, baffles me.  I am for more and more and more, not less music to consider and hear. 

:)

Quote from: karlhenning on January 08, 2013, 05:16:31 AM
(* pounds the table *)

0:)  Amen!   0:)

Possibly because Life is short, Mr. Asia wants us to use our time more profitably by not giving John Cage a chance, and instead wants us to listen to Stravinsky...or Daniel Asia.  He sees his essay as a public service.

From the essay:

Quote
The result of all of this is a music sadly lacking in any directionality, a music that is essentially rudderless. The music is emotionally bland and lackluster, its contours in this regard terribly narrow. Lastly, rather than engaging the mind, this is a music that purposely demands the mind be held at a distance, in abeyance. Ultimately, the music is simply downright sophomoric and boring. In Cage's latter and final chance period, by the way, matters only got much, much worse in regards to all of the above.

Some specific examples of these regrettable qualities would be nice to know, but instead the entire oeuvre of Cage is lumped together.

Some folks simply aren't questioning their own premises.

Quote from: Daniel AsiaThe result of all of this is a music sadly lacking in any directionality, a music that is essentially rudderless.

Now, someone else might have said, The result of all of this is a music felicitously lacking in any directionality, a music that is essentially rudderless.

Quote from: Cato on January 08, 2013, 07:11:01 AM
Some specific examples of these regrettable qualities would be nice to know, but instead the entire oeuvre of Cage is lumped together.

Exactly the same error which our James is happy habitually to fall into.

I remember hearing some of Daniel Asia's music and wishing it was John Cage I was listening to instead. >:D

i like how daniel asia says john cage's music "won't survive the test of time" (not in so many words) while talking about a performance he went to of a 70-year-old piece, frequently performed and recorded despite its length and difficulty, by a dead composer.

(i have a hard time thinking of any music by daniel asia that has "survived the test of time" btw)

Here's the thing, though: for all that people may be critical of Cage, it's absolutely uncontroversial to say that he's one of the most influential figures in 20th century music. Of course, it's also uncontroversial to say that Cage as a composer had severe limitations (when he tried to write in forms related to the Western art music tradition, his weaknesses in harmony and structure are obvious).

But where Cage differs from so many completely forgotten figures is, I think, this: he knew his limitations and embraced them, using them to create his own distinctive style. So works like the String Quartet in Four Parts and the Concerto for Prepared Piano and Orchestra utilise a near-mechanical, very restricted harmonic gamut, and many of the more intuitive later works elide even more of the common techniques of their genre.

Perhaps that makes him a niche composer (and from all I've read about Cage I don't suppose he would have argued with that), but I think it's a bigger niche than Mr. Asia would have us believe. And I certainly find some of the late works quite beautiful (even if many--but not all--are rudderless):

http://www.youtube.com/v/C2iy0z5pb_Y

Spot on, Edward

Quote from: James on January 08, 2013, 08:08:26 AM
I care and value serious artistic judgements regarding real quality, Mr. Asia's assessment of Cage is right on the mark.

::)

Define 'real quality,' James since you're the expert on what constitutes quality music.

Quote from: dyn on January 08, 2013, 08:23:02 AM

(i have a hard time thinking of any music by daniel asia that has "survived the test of time" btw)

As it stands right now, I doubt many people have even heard a work by Asia.

Quote from: James on January 08, 2013, 09:00:01 AM
We don't need to 'define' real quality with words necessarily .. there are countless examples of it within the legacy itself. Asia points this out too ..

Yet another vague comment from the expert on what defines quality.

Quote from: James on January 08, 2013, 08:45:20 AM
it's the culture we live in (sadly), he addresses all that ..

you can dismiss the entire culture in which you live as morally bankrupt, degenerate, etc, but such statements do inevitably have the effect of making you sound like a harmless lunatic.

it also raises the question of why he continues to live in that culture instead of adopting a different one that is more congenial to his sensibilities.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Quote from: James on January 08, 2013, 09:25:23 AM
It's not vague at all actually. Go back and read Asia's article.

I've read it and all I could find is that it's a self-righteous pile of horse dung.

Quote from: James on January 08, 2013, 10:15:57 AM
Again, not really .. but again Asia addresses all of this succinctly and accurately.

Yeah and we all believe him. ::)

James,

In writing instruction, assertions that are unsupported are called empty. Repeating empty assertions and trying to deflect attention away from them with references to "history" and "the legacy" does nothing to fill them with any content.

They are still empty.

Give us some content sometime maybe? We'd be content with that!*

*Pronunciation not included

Quote from: sanantonio on January 08, 2013, 09:36:07 AM
The opinion that John Cage's music is not of "real quality" is out of step with the judgement of history.

Bingo.

Quote from: some guy on January 08, 2013, 10:36:47 AM
James,

In writing instruction, assertions that are unsupported are called empty. Repeating empty assertions and trying to deflect attention away from them with references to "history" and "the legacy" does nothing to fill them with any content.

They are still empty.

Bingo some more.

 ;D  ;D  ;D

Come on, everybody! Let's bingo some more!!

I Ching Bingo! Everybody, into the choppers!

Quote from: James on January 08, 2013, 11:48:35 AM
False .. in a nutshell it's all covered in that article which is nowhere near empty.

Another empty statement.

Quote from: James on January 08, 2013, 01:20:13 PM
Not really, it is all in reference to the article posted .. no deflections, no empty assertions, no instructions. The article sums it up perfectly, so read carefully and really think about what he's saying there ..

LOL … Return of the Son of if you'd just read, and if you just thought a little …

LOL

Quote from: James on January 08, 2013, 01:20:13 PM
Not really, it is all in reference to the article posted .. no deflections, no empty assertions, no instructions. The article sums it up perfectly, so read carefully and really think about what he's saying there ..

I've thought about it and I disagree with it. Now what? More empty from your side of the pond?

Quote from: James on January 08, 2013, 02:07:56 PM
Well .. what was it that you disagreed with? Be specific.

What I find most reprehensible about the article is the tone in which he uses. The tone of the article, for me, is preachy, snobbish, one-sided, and completely ignorant. That's as specific as I need to get. John Cage, even though I dislike a lot of his music, is still a forward thinker and an important 20th Century figure. I may disagree with one of his theories about music, but it doesn't mean that I don't respect the man. I think to suggest 'what people should be listening to' isn't the right attitude when it comes to music. I'll tell you what I'm not going to do: read any more of Daniel Asia's drivel.

FYI, there are some Cage works that I find incredibly beautiful. In A Landscape, for example, is something that I find moving:

http://www.youtube.com/v/XF1DoVdHM9M

Quote from: James on January 08, 2013, 03:22:55 PM
Figures .. it's just his tone? So you've never considered what he's actually saying .. too bad, but not out of sync with regards to what Asia mentions too. And I bet your experience with Cage is less than 1%.

And regarding the piano piece, .. the performance elevates it .. but in the end, Erik Satie was so much better.

;)

How many times do I have to tell you that I HAVE READ THE ARTICLE? The question for you is CAN YOU READ? It doesn't matter if my experience with Cage is 1% or 80%, my point is that Asia's article does a great injustice to the man and his music by smearing it with obnoxious snobbery. Also, how many times do I have to tell you that I'm not a Cage fan? I respect the man greatly, but you continue to wave your little finger and telling everybody that they're somehow wrong for believing what history has already acknowledged him as one of the great innovators of the 20th Century. Whether you disagree or not, go read some books on the history of the 20th Century that are steeped in the facts and I can assure you that Cage is in that book. I own three books on classical music history and in all three books Cage is acknowledged as one of the greatest composers of his time.

Sucks to Mr Asia.

Quote from: karlhenning on January 08, 2013, 03:37:03 PM
Sucks to Mr Asia.

It sucks even more to believe what Asia is writing is somehow the holy truth.

Quote from: Mirror Image on January 08, 2013, 03:42:18 PM
It sucks even more to believe what Asia is writing is somehow the holy truth.

Nah, it's more like Here's a guy whose cultural blindspots and prejudices align perfectly with mine, isn't he a geeenius?

Quote from: karlhenning on January 08, 2013, 03:44:29 PM
Nah, it's more like Here's a guy whose cultural blindspots and prejudices align perfectly with mine, isn't he a geeenius?

Hah! I love it! A geeeeennnnniiusss! Sounds like something James would believe no doubt. :D

I always fancy I see Wile E. Coyote lurking in the wings during these discussions . . . .

 :o

Quote from: karlhenning on January 08, 2013, 03:53:55 PM
I always fancy I see Wile E. Coyote lurking in the wings during these discussions . . . .

Proceed with immediate caution.

Quote from: James on January 08, 2013, 04:21:33 PM
So you can't specifically go into why you disagree with any of the valid points he's made, nor do you have the insight (gained from 1st hand experience) to gauge the reasoning behind his points regarding the topic being discussed to see if they have any merit at all. Talk about empty ..

I don't go into specifics because they're not important. They may be to you and that's fine if they are, but the fact that you agree with Asia speaks volumes about yourself as a listener. By the way, Asia had no valid points.

I have no valid points either then. A lot of us have no valid points.

Quote from: James on January 08, 2013, 04:40:29 PM
Of course they're important, 'the content' of what he said is the point of the thread .. otherwise youre the empty vessel here just making lots of noise. You have nothing thoughtful to counter his points. You have to point out specifically what points he raised that aren't valid and why, not his tone of voice. I bet if you had the capacity to actually breakdown what he said and had the experience under your belt as well  ..  you'd probably come away agreeing with what he said than not.

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.

Quote from: bigshot on January 08, 2013, 04:37:49 PM
I have no valid points either then. A lot of us have no valid points.

You don't need any points when you pick up three different classical history books and all three mention Cage and his importance to the 20th Century. 'Nuff said.

Quote from: James on January 08, 2013, 05:01:11 PM
Still a big zero from you .. and this addresses & means nothing

Like so many of your posts, especially in this thread. Why don't you go start a Daniel Asia thread? Where you can sing the man all the praises for writing such meaningful music that sounds like something someone wrote 40 years ago.

Are there other Concertos for 'Prepared' Instruments?

Some guy: James needs to give specifics.

James: No I don't.

***

James: Mirror needs to give specifics.

[Wait a minute! Say WHAT?]

Here's a comeback for Mirror. My gift.

Mirror: You first, James.

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.

Quote from: James on January 08, 2013, 05:42:56 PM
It doesn't get more specific than, read & address points made in the article.

You're reading far too much into this article.  It says nothing.....except "I like Stravinsky, I hate Cage!"

I love watching James squirm like a salamander.

Quote from: James on January 08, 2013, 06:04:26 PM
No, I'm reading what is exactly written there .. nothing more.

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.   

Quote from: James on January 08, 2013, 06:13:01 PM
lol .. well he does go into it more than that. you have enough to really weigh-in or .. ?

That is the basic premise, and I know enough to judge that it ultimately means nothing. 

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

Quote from: PaulR on January 08, 2013, 06:15:24 PM
That is the basic premise, and I know enough to judge that it ultimately means nothing.

It doesn't matter what you say to James. He just continues to repeat the same crap over and over again.

Quote from: James on January 08, 2013, 06:30:46 PM
Nah .. what he writes carries weight and is valid, especially if you've experienced things. Ultimately it's more about valuing and making serious artistic judgements regarding the art itself. Getting to the truth through all of the bs.

He only carries any weight because you appear to have  the same aesthetic values as Mr. Asia.  You accept the article as fact far too quickly, and ignore the most important line of the article in the conclusion of what kind of music he values.

Quote from: PaulR on January 08, 2013, 06:38:27 PM
He only carries any weight because you appear to have  the same aesthetic values as Mr. Asia.  You accept the article as fact far too quickly, and ignore the most important line of the article in the conclusion of what kind of music he values.

Get ready for a rehash of a previous post by James.

Quote from: Mirror Image on January 08, 2013, 06:39:23 PM
Get ready for a rehash of a previous post by James.

The real crime in this post: it made me re-read some of Adorno's writings.

Quote from: James on January 08, 2013, 06:55:53 PM
It has nothing to do with aesthetic value .. it has to do with musical value. The conclusion is merely a recap of the intro essentially .. the meat is in the body of the article. You're being far too reductive and simplistic and I sense perhaps you don't have any listening experience/perspective on the subject matter to completely understand the points within the article.

The whole article is not about musical value, but rather, Mr. Asia's personal musical taste.  Regardless of what you think of the result of Cage's music, it cannot be argued he didn't leave a mark on 20th century music. 

Quote from: James on January 08, 2013, 07:18:41 PMI could point out several things in there...

But won't.

What a tease.

In essence, we must all read this article of Asia's over and over again until we agree with James.

Um....

Quote from: James on January 08, 2013, 07:18:41 PM
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. 

Quote from: Mirror Image on January 08, 2013, 09:33:54 AM

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.

Quote from: Mirror Image on January 08, 2013, 04:45:15 PM
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)

Quote from: PaulR on January 08, 2013, 05:35:31 PM
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.

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)?

Quote from: PaulR on January 08, 2013, 05:35:31 PM
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.

Quote from: PaulR on January 08, 2013, 06:07:48 PM
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.

Quote from: Sammy on January 08, 2013, 06:22:48 PM
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.

Quote from: Sammy on January 08, 2013, 06:22:48 PM
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.  :D

Quote from: ChamberNut on January 09, 2013, 03:53:04 AM
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.  :D

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

Quote from: Florestan on January 09, 2013, 04:08:15 AM
Wagner would be banned from GMG after no more than a few posts...  ;D

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

Quote from: ChamberNut on January 09, 2013, 03:53:04 AM
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.  :D

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.

Quote from: ChamberNut on January 09, 2013, 04:11:38 AM
And likely Brahms, too.  On Liszt:  "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz".  :D

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.

Quote from: karlhenning on January 09, 2013, 04:13:16 AM
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.

Quote from: ChamberNut on January 09, 2013, 04:15:31 AM
Stravinsky (though you know, Karl, that I absolutely love his music), was one of the worst offenders.

no contest : )

"Stupid quotes" LOL

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

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

Quote from: Eric Rockwell
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.  ;D






*runs away as fast as possible*

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).

Quote from: sanantonio on January 10, 2013, 06:39:16 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: springrite on January 10, 2013, 06:56:23 AM
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.

Quote from: karlhenning on January 10, 2013, 07:01:34 AM


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

That is THE key distinction, yes.

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?

Here is an interesting reply (http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/are-you-putting-me-on/) 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

Quote from: James on January 09, 2013, 03:00:58 AM
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.

Quote from: James on January 10, 2013, 05:31:21 PM
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.

Quote from: Velimir on January 07, 2013, 08:39:35 PM
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...

The libtards foist the Cageian conceit.

I have created a Cage piece in mine own head, playing now,... AND IT SUCKS!! >:D 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? ;D

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!

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. >:D

Quote from: James on January 10, 2013, 05:31:21 PM
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.

Quote from: springrite on January 10, 2013, 08:44:21 PM
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.

Quote from: James on January 11, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
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.

Quote from: PaulR on January 11, 2013, 06:37:31 PM
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.  :P

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..

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.

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.

Quote from: James on January 11, 2013, 06:21:02 PM
Whatever ..  if you actually knew . . . .

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

Quote from: James on January 11, 2013, 09:09:13 PM
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. 

Quote from: karlhenning on January 12, 2013, 04:12:15 AM
That's 2 "little Jimmies" in a row... and I win this round of James Rant Bingo!

:PLOLZ :P

(pounds fist on table, coffee on screen)

Quote from: ChamberNut on January 08, 2013, 05:13:35 PM
Are there other Concertos for 'Prepared' Instruments?

Arvo Pärt's Tabula Rasa for 2 violins, prepared piano and orchestra, which I seem to remember being called a concerto [grosso] somewhere, is probably the most widely loved work involving prepared piano.

An antidote:

https://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/Page?pageName=pages/listen/winter2012_cage.jsp

Quote from: James on January 17, 2013, 01:49:53 PM
"The problem here is that the art itself should be of great interest in any medium, and what is said about it of lesser or secondary interest. This is of course the inverse with Cage."

Yeah, you continue to believe that, James. Nobody's buying it.

Quote from: some guy on January 17, 2013, 09:14:19 AM
An antidote:

https://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/Page?pageName=pages/listen/winter2012_cage.jsp

John Cage is a social worker.


He just sounds like a west coast liberal trying to get into naivete's pants by using the language of mysticism. A typical atheist child of religious parents, he seeks nothing less than the undermining of the western tradition which he sees as the patriarchal church that must be destroyed. He's no worse than anyone else from California.

Look, ok, maybe if I was on 'shrooms I'd be like wow man Cage is soooo soft... wow, can I touch you...

and, frankly, he DOES write Mushroom Music, as you KNOW!! Right? Mr. Mushroom?

Yea, you DO want Cage when you're tripping (NO Zappa!! :o), or going to sleep,... but, when the f*** in our busy f****** day  where I have to make it through this banker thieved world,... and I'm supposed to just....


AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!

Fuck, the mere THOUGHT of Cage sends me into a rage!! >:D How bout I exhume him and yell in his skull, "Are you STILL listening??" Fuuuuuu... can't you guys see that he wants you to listen like a pansy?

My new piece:

FOR CAGE, for 73 fully-automatic, banned, assualt weapons

There, LISTEN to that, muthafuuuuuu-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-uu-u... it jammed....


This is the liberal agenda at work here folks. First, Cage, then, Obama. You see how it works?? :-\

This is NOT about music.

Here... why don't you LISTEN when the politicians are lying to you?? LISTEN to the sound of you grandchildrens' freedoms evaporate. LISTEN to the hungry bellies. LISTEN LISTEN LISTEN

Oh yea, brutha,... Eyes hears da musick!


Thank you John Cage for open my ears to the screams of the slaughtered. You did so much for mankind. Western music traditions BAD! >:D,... Christianity BAD! >:D,... spaced out hippie listeners GOOD! :-* hippies who will grow up to be the politicians of California, GOO... NO, BAD!!!!

BAD!!!!


I just want to slug John Cage in the jaw, call it Art, and make bank, YO! The mere thought IS.

Let Cage listen to the weeping and gnashing of teeth. Burn in Hell, John Cage, and listen to your eternal torment.

And, since there's no God for Cage, no one should be able to say that anything I said can be construed as negative,... right? All is accepted, right? Even Cage's destruction MUST be accepted, and his Forgetting must be accepted.

Death to the Demon John Cage, Long Live the New Music

mmmtay!

Now listening to:

Uninterrupted Rest by Takemitsu






Wait, wrong thread but somehow fitting?

Well, here we go. Asia has written an additional piece on Cage, apparently a response to the criticism for his first article. I think he's really gone off the deep end here.

QuoteThe struggle against ungrateful popinjays must be a struggle against fetishism, escapism, and obscurantism, or it is doomed to failure.

Let me address John Cage as if it he were alive today, in the present. He must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why Mr. Cage is so desperate to bring discord, confusion, and frustration into our personal and public lives; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if Mr. Cage also realized that I would be grateful if he would take a little time from his rigorous schedule to raise issues, as opposed to guns or knives. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens. To add another dimension to this argument, let me mention that in asserting that he can override nature, Mr. Cage demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. Even without the soulless ideology of antagonism in the picture, we can still say that he likes silencing any criticism of the brainwashing and double standards that he has increasingly been practicing. That's the most damnable thing about him.

My goal is to embark on a new path towards change. I will not stint in my labor in this direction. When I have succeeded, the whole world will know that the only winners in Mr. Cage's games are ambulance services and funeral homes. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that Mr. Cage presents himself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. He is eloquent in his denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors sententious bums. And here we have the ultimate irony because I love hearing the claims of a jaundiced lowlife who doesn't realize that he's a jaundiced lowlife. As a case in point, consider Mr. Cage's claim that his mistakes are always someone else's fault. Such claims always make me laugh because, as we all know, Mr. Cage has planted his janissaries everywhere. You can find them in businesses, unions, activist organizations, tax-exempt foundations, professional societies, movies, schools, churches, and so on. Not only does this subversive approach enhance Mr. Cage's ability to leave a generation of people planted in the mud of a phlegmatic world to begin a new life in the shadows of deconstructionism, but it also provides irrefutable evidence that I can really suggest how he ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with Mr. Cage himself.

Now that this letter has come to an end, I indubitably hope you walk away from it realizing that I don't care to share the same planet as Mr. John Cage once did.

Quote from: The Six on January 21, 2013, 11:11:28 AM
Well, here we go. Asia has written an additional piece on Cage, apparently a response to the criticism for his first article. I think he's really gone off the deep end here.

The fact that Asia continues to 'beat a dead horse' shows his blatant inferiority and unwillingness to accept what history has already established. Asia simply has nothing better to do I suppose. Too bad he'll be forgotten while Cage will still be remembered. I suppose this is what is tearing away at Asia in the end? So, in order to cope with these feelings, he felt the need to do the public a favor by denouncing Cage's music and ideology. I say whatever helps him sleep better at night. Personally, I would rather be doing other things.

Quote from: The Six on January 21, 2013, 11:11:28 AM
Well, here we go. Asia has written an additional piece on Cage, apparently a response to the criticism for his first article. I think he's really gone off the deep end here.

Where? Where did this additional piece appear?

Quote from: Mirror Image on January 21, 2013, 11:18:25 AM
The fact that Asia continues to 'beat a dead horse' shows his blatant inferiority and unwillingness to accept what history has already established. Asia simply has nothing better to do I suppose. Too bad he'll be forgotten while Cage will still be remembered. I suppose this is what is tearing away at Asia in the end? So, in order to cope with these feelings, he felt the need to do the public a favor by denouncing Cage's music and ideology. I say whatever helps him sleep better at night. Personally, I would rather be doing other things.

Interesting you'd say all that, because, and you won't believe this, but it looks like Asia has actually been reading GMG, and has posted a rebuttal on his blog! He actually singles you out. Here's part of it.

Quote...Here's a letter that dares not let Mr. Mirror Image off the hook.  Mirror Image says that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications. Should we care that large numbers of duplicitous, smarmy peculators actually believe such petty things? Should we try to convince them otherwise? I don't think so. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that his wheelings and dealings are as predictable as sunrise. Whenever I guide the world into an age of peace, justice, and solidarity, Mr. Image's invariant response is to make bribery legal and part of business as usual.

The basal lie that underlies all of Mr. Image's snippy ideals is that people find his unrelenting, over-the-top hostility rather refreshing. Translation: Mr. Image's crimes are victimless. I doubt you need any help from me to identify the supreme idiocy of those views, but you should nevertheless be aware that whenever anyone states the obvious—that Mr. Image's perverted, satanic bruta fulmina are like an onion that reveals layer after layer of savagism—discussion naturally progresses towards the question, "Why does Mr. Image insist on boring holes in the hull of the boat in which he himself is also a passenger?"

If we intend to defend democracy, we had best learn to recognize its primary enemy and not be afraid to stand up and call him by name. That name is Mr. Mirror Image.

Wow, MI--who knew? You're the primary enemy of Democracy!

Quote from: sanantonio on January 21, 2013, 11:18:49 AM
Unfortunately, Daniel Asia has now become a pest . . . his vitriol towards John Cage demeans him and cheapens his credibility.

Sad.

:(

Agreed.

 ???
Way to destroy the last bit of his credibility.

And perhaps mr. Asia should look into a mirror and see if he can find the real culprit...

"perverted, satanic bruta fulmina"

I am sooooo jealous now. No one's ever said that kind of thing about me.

What about me? I'm perverted and satanic. I have bruta fulmina, especially after eating habanero salsa.

I just don't understand how Mirror gets all the attention. >:(

( ;D)

Quote from: some guy on January 21, 2013, 01:56:03 PM
"perverted, satanic bruta fulmina"...

I just don't understand how Mirror gets all the attention. >:(

( ;D)

Quote from: karlhenning on January 21, 2013, 12:58:01 PM
Wow, MI--who knew? You're the primary enemy of Democracy!

And here I thought Cato was Enemy #1 of Democracy!   0:)

As a Latin teacher, I do like "bruta fulmina."   8)   Although it is untrue here, unless referring to Mr. Asia himself!

As a composer of absolutely no renown, who has stopped composing many decades ago, let me state the following: insistence on silencing the competition is always a sign of weakness, not unlike Communist regimes which censor everything to control the minds of their subjects.  When I was creating quarter-tone works, I would not have thought of writing essays proscribing composers working in regular tonality, so that my potential audience could restrict their ears to the glories of 24-notes per octave.

The Six: can you provide a link to the blog where you found the ad hominem response?  (I will not call it a rebuttal, since it lacks specific quotations for argumentation.)

And did anyone focus on this highly curious sentence quoted from Professor Asia's blog?

QuoteWhenever I guide the world into an age of peace, justice, and solidarity, Mr. Image's invariant response is to make bribery legal and part of business as usual.

Does anyone find the opening clause just a little bit scary?   :o :o :o

Yeesh. And again, I say: Yeesh.

Quote from: Cato on January 21, 2013, 03:05:22 PM
The Six: can you provide a link to the blog where you found the ad hominem response?  (I will not call it a rebuttal, since it lacks specific quotations for argumentation.)

Why, certainly!

http://www.pakin.org/complaint/

Nice riposte to Asia here (http://cedartavern.tumblr.com/post/40075316666/reacting-to-daniel-asia).

Quote from: The Six on January 21, 2013, 03:18:55 PM
Why, certainly!

http://www.pakin.org/complaint/

Hm, are you sure that's the right page?

If you look carefully, you'll see it's exactly the right page.

Wow, Asia singled me out? WTF? This is hilarious. :P

Maybe I should write an article about how Asia's music will be completely irrelevant to future generations. That said, I do actually like some of Asia's compositions. I heard his Symphony No. 3 about a week or so ago. Not bad!

Quote from: karlhenning on January 21, 2013, 12:58:01 PM
Wow, MI--who knew? You're the primary enemy of Democracy!

Yeah, I wasn't expecting this. I wonder if Asia even understands the concept of a democracy? Anybody?

Quote from: some guy on January 21, 2013, 01:56:03 PM
"perverted, satanic bruta fulmina"

I am sooooo jealous now. No one's ever said that kind of thing about me.

What about me? I'm perverted and satanic. I have bruta fulmina, especially after eating habanero salsa.

I just don't understand how Mirror gets all the attention. >:(

( ;D)

Beats the hell out of me, some guy. I'm as confused about all of this as you are. But I love being a "perverted, satanic bruta fulmina." Whatever this means.

By the way, I'd at least like a legitimate link to this blog post, otherwise, who do I believe?

Quote from: Mirror Image on January 21, 2013, 04:03:41 PM
Beats the hell out of me, some guy. I'm as confused about all of this as you are. But I love being a "perverted, satanic bruta fulmina." Whatever this means.

"Brutus" gives us the word "brute," from the original Latin meaning of "dull."

"Bruta fulmina" means therefore "dumb lightning strikes," i.e. throwing lightning bolts around and not really aiming at anything specific.

YOU are now officially a GMG Hero!   $:)  Assuming that The 6 is not "pranking" everyone!  :o

Well, who cares?   Let's make Mirror Image a hero anyway!   0:)

Should we remind Daniel Asia of Stravinsky compositions e.g. Threni and Requiem Canticles and the Variations In Memoriam Aldous Huxley ?

Quote from: Cato on January 21, 2013, 04:16:49 PM
"Brutus" gives us the word "brute," from the original Latin meaning of "dull."

"Bruta fulmina" means therefore "dumb lightning strikes," i.e. throwing lightning bolts around and not really aiming at anything specific.

YOU are now officially a GMG Hero!   $:)  Assuming that The 6 is not "pranking" everyone!  :o

Well, who cares?   Let's make Mirror Image a hero anyway!   0:)

Should we remind Daniel Asia of Stravinsky compositions e.g. Threni and Requiem Canticles and the Variations In Memoriam Aldous Huxley ?

I'll take Asia's insults as a compliment then, especially considering their source! :) Thanks for clearing that up, Cato. I'll defend Cage and his ideals until I'm blue in the face. The whole point of my argument is simple: Cage is a pioneer and Asia can't accept it.

It is a prank. Just read the link carefully.

Nice prank! :D I feel for it. :)

Quote from: Mirror Image on January 21, 2013, 05:22:27 PM
Nice prank! :D I feel for it. :)

What is sad is that Asia's style somewhat fits the software for the Complaint Letter!   ;D

As mentioned, we will not revoke Mirror Image's Hero Status!  0:)

Quote from: Cato on January 21, 2013, 05:41:31 PM
What is sad is that Asia's style somewhat fits the software for the Complaint Letter!   ;D

As mentioned, we will not revoke Mirror Image's Hero Status!  0:)

Ha! I should have read the article more carefully because one of the most important ingredients was missing from that article: Cage.

Quote from: Cato on January 21, 2013, 04:16:49 PM
Assuming that The 6 is not "pranking" everyone! 

He just did, with great success!  ;D ;D ;D Kudos to him!  :D

Seriously, guys, it was obvious from the first two sentences of the initial "quotation" that something is wrong. As for the MI ad hominem it should have raised more than one suspicion right off the start, yet not the slightest was expressed. How on earth could anyone of you take those fabrications for real is beyond me.  ;D ;D ;D

Is it perhaps because  your dislike of Asia blinds you about obvious facts just like his dislike of Cage does the same for him?  ;D ;D ;D

With all the genuine complaints against Asia's initial rant, I think the protesters diffuse some of their own cause with the "Whoa, who nominated Stravinsky and Schoenberg The Most Important Composers of the Century?" gambit. The preeminence and influence of these two, while open to discussion and expansion, do not really suffer the question.

Quote from: karlhenning on January 22, 2013, 01:50:35 AM
With all the genuine complaints against Asia's initial rant, I think the protesters diffuse some of their own cause with the "Whoa, who nominated Stravinsky and Schoenberg The Most Important Composers of the Century?" gambit. The preeminence and influence of these two, while open to discussion and expansion, do not really suffer the question.

I noticed that also, and thought it was a very weak counter-argument. 

Better to stick with evidence: e.g. does Mr. Asia offer a universe of sound different from those of other composers, or does it sound like X, Y, and Z?  Has he e.g. invented a new instrument, or used classic ideas in a unique way, or...?

Whether he is a traditionalist or not, is the result compelling or interesting in any way?

In this day and age, Asia could have very well written a counter argument to my own. It is very possible that Asia could have read this whole thread. How are we to know that he has or hasn't? You can never be too careful on the Internet. Some strange things happen for sure.

Quote from: Mirror Image on January 22, 2013, 07:47:29 AM
In this day and age, Asia could have very well written a counter argument to my own. It is very possible that Asia could have read this whole thread. How are we to know that he has or hasn't? You can never be too careful on the Internet. Some strange things happen for sure.

Maybe James is Daniel Asia in disguise.

Quote from: PaulR on January 22, 2013, 10:30:11 AM
Maybe James is Daniel Asia in disguise.

Perhaps. :D

Quote from: PaulR on January 22, 2013, 10:30:11 AM
Maybe James is Daniel Asia in disguise.

Pfffff

Quote from: Florestan on January 22, 2013, 12:00:48 AM
should have raised more than one suspicion right off the start, yet not the slightest was expressed. How on earth could anyone of you take those fabrications for real is beyond me.  ;D ;D ;D

These are the same people lambasting me, waaaah!!!!

"You have heard it said" that Cage does not create masterpieces.  But I'm not sure Cage was even interested in creating masterpieces.  The greatness of 4'33" is not in how complex or dramatic or moving it is in itself, but in how it gets the audience to listen in a different way than it would to (for example) Beethoven or even John Adams.  It is not, nor was ever intended to be, "a masterpiece;" rather, like the few other Cage pieces I've actually heard, it is something for the moment.

And that is a valid approach to music, the most evanescent of the fine arts (with drama).  It's very like the art of improvisation: not to create music that will "stand the test of time," but to create a set of conditions to enable musicians to play the right notes in the right way for the moment.  As a local Denver poet asks, "What shall we do with this moment we are in?"

I might add that this is the approach that conductor Sergiu Celibidache took.  He never took his orchestras into a recording studio; his entire career was built on live performances, where it is not "posterity" or "history" that judges a performance, but rather a particular group of people in a particular section of space-time. -- Actually, this is the approach every great musician takes, even literalists like Lorin Maazel or Pierre Boulez.  No matter how "great" the written music is or how stringent the rehearsals have been, every performance is only the best it can be for the moment the players, singers and audience are in.

John Cage, more than almost any other composer, "composed" his "music" not for "history and posterity," but rather to allow singular moments of greatness, different every time musicians and an audience come together.  That is his legacy.  And that is why he will be remembered, if he is remembered--and I for one hope he will be remembered.

And I, for my part, am still waiting for an argument. Sure, there's been a lot of quarreling, and there's been the usual portion of unsupported assertions (which are great for quarreling), but an argument. Not so much. :blank:

Anyway, I do think it matters what you listen to. What you don't listen to maybe not so much. But what you do listen to? Yeah that's important. (If I stopped here, that would be an unsupported assertion. I'd fit right in!) What you listen to is what engages you, or what you are able to engage with. That's at least information, information that can be used by another listener. What one doesn't listen to, however, is just a blank. Or at best rejection. A lot of people think that these negative things are also important. I disagree.

Quote from: sanantonio on June 16, 2013, 10:39:58 AMPeople like Daniel Asia and John Adams, I think protest too much.

What confuses me is that anyone is particularly interested in what composers say about music.  They strike me as a self-obsessed, narcissistic lot, by and large.

Quote from: Scarpia on June 16, 2013, 10:54:01 AM
What confuses me is that anyone is particularly interested in what composers say about music. They strike me as a self-obsessed, narcissistic lot, by and large.

Should we then dismiss all that Karl said about music?  ;D

Jokes aside, this is like saying that nobody should be interested in what writers say about literature, painters about painting or philosophers about philosophy. Implying that these people are just automata with no meaningful insights about their trade --- an absurd claim.

Quote from: Florestan on June 16, 2013, 12:01:57 PMJokes aside, this is like saying that nobody should be interested in what writers say about literature, painters about painting or philosophers about philosophy. Implying that these people are just automata with no meaningful insights about their trade --- an absurd claim.

I did not say anything about what anyone else  should be interested in.  However, I am equally uninterested in what painters say about painting, writers say about literature, etc.  Artists will sometimes say things about their own work which I find interesting if it gives some insight into a particular work, but I am completely uninterested in what artists say about the work of other artists or their art-form in general.  I wouldn't claim that are automata, just that they tend to be self-obsessed and the opinions not particularly interesting to me.  Should I care the Tchaikovski ridiculted Brahms, who ridiculed just about everyone who was born after Beethoven?  I don't.

Quote from: jochanaan on June 16, 2013, 07:57:20 AM
"You have heard it said" that Cage does not create masterpieces.  But I'm not sure Cage was even interested in creating masterpieces.  The greatness of 4'33" is not in how complex or dramatic or moving it is in itself, but in how it gets the audience to listen in a different way than it would to (for example) Beethoven or even John Adams.  It is not, nor was ever intended to be, "a masterpiece;" rather, like the few other Cage pieces I've actually heard, it is something for the moment.

And that is a valid approach to music, the most evanescent of the fine arts (with drama).  It's very like the art of improvisation: not to create music that will "stand the test of time," but to create a set of conditions to enable musicians to play the right notes in the right way for the moment.  As a local Denver poet asks, "What shall we do with this moment we are in?"

I might add that this is the approach that conductor Sergiu Celibidache took.  He never took his orchestras into a recording studio; his entire career was built on live performances, where it is not "posterity" or "history" that judges a performance, but rather a particular group of people in a particular section of space-time. -- Actually, this is the approach every great musician takes, even literalists like Lorin Maazel or Pierre Boulez.  No matter how "great" the written music is or how stringent the rehearsals have been, every performance is only the best it can be for the moment the players, singers and audience are in.

John Cage, more than almost any other composer, "composed" his "music" not for "history and posterity," but rather to allow singular moments of greatness, different every time musicians and an audience come together.  That is his legacy.  And that is why he will be remembered, if he is remembered--and I for one hope he will be remembered.

Quote from: sanantonio on June 16, 2013, 08:15:17 AM
I listen to Cage more than John Adams; which is not hard since I don't listen to Adams anymore.  After listening to several of his works I realized his music did not interest me.  John Cage's music does interest me.

And no argument will change these facts.  Not that it matters what I listen to or don't listen to ...

I agree with both these sage posts.

Quote from: Florestan on June 16, 2013, 12:01:57 PM
Should we then dismiss all that Karl said about music?  ;D

Well, maybe you should, though I hope I am no narcissist.

Quote from: Scarpia on June 16, 2013, 12:29:20 PMthey tend to be self-obsessed

Might be worth considering to try to jettison this notion. I've met hundreds of composers. Very few of them were self-obsessed. If I've noticed any tendency, it's that "they" (those people!) tend to be very nice and generous and interesting.

Quote from: some guy on June 16, 2013, 02:05:58 PM
Might be worth considering to try to jettison this notion. I've met hundreds of composers. Very few of them were self-obsessed. If I've noticed any tendency, it's that "they" (those people!) tend to be very nice and generous and interesting.

True, but OTOH composers have their own artistic goals, and those might influence their views and writings. And I don't care too much about people's dislikes. What they like interests me. (You said sth similar earlier, IIRC)

Most of the composers i've met have been quite nice and friendly (I hope I am, too); they do however tend to have rather idiosyncratic views about music which in light of history often come across as misjudgments. Famously, Tchaikovsky disliked Brahms, Chopin thought Beethoven mediocre and Mick Jagger called rock 'n' roll a dead end. John Adams claiming Cage to be irrelevant is merely following a time-honoured tradition.

(Composers also tend to become more narcissistic and self-obsessed with fame. I mean, look at Wagner. Or Michael Jackson.)

Quote from: some guy on June 16, 2013, 02:05:58 PM
Might be worth considering to try to jettison this notion. I've met hundreds of composers. Very few of them were self-obsessed. If I've noticed any tendency, it's that "they" (those people!) tend to be very nice and generous and interesting.

The question is not in whether the composers I listen to are nice or would be pleasant to chat with at a cocktail party.  The question is whether I should be interested if composer X criticizes composers Y's music.  The answer is, I am not.  When composer X criticizes composer Y I assume that composer X is jealous that composer Y's music gets played where composer X's music doesn't.  Perhaps there are even-tempered, quite reasonable composers who express well-judged opinions about music by other composers.  Does that sound like the biography of any composer we read about in the history books?  I am quite sure I do not want to hear the music written by such composers!

Quote from: Scarpia on June 16, 2013, 03:23:03 PMPerhaps there are even-tempered, quite reasonable composers who express well-judged opinions about music by other composers.  Does that sound like the biography of any composer we read about in the history books?  I am quite sure I do not want to hear the music written by such composers!

Havergal Brian wrote tons of laudatory reviews and articles on composers. These two books of his writings are over 800 pages long.

(http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/jan2011/HBonmusic1.jpg) (http://photos.imageevent.com/sgtrock/jan2011/HBonmusic2.jpg)

He didn't seem to have a jealous bone in his body; he promoted his contemporaries in a way he never promoted his own works. But maybe this proves your point  ;)  But I hope not. His music is worth hearing.

Sarge

Quote from: Scarpia on June 16, 2013, 03:23:03 PM
... When composer X criticizes composer Y I assume that composer X is jealous that composer Y's music gets played where composer X's music doesn't.

The error, of course, is in going from this appears to be the case at times to, this must always be the case.

Quote from: karlhenning on June 16, 2013, 01:52:08 PM
Well, maybe you should, though I hope I am no narcissist.

You have never impressed me as such, my friend.

This has become more controversial than I intended.  I do not mean to assert that all composers have personality disorders and are intrinsically unable to discuss music other than their own.  I am just saying that I don't find that the fact that they are composers makes them any more likely to have an opinion that I find interesting or useful.  As I mentioned above (and others expressed a similar opinion) a truly great composer probably has a strong artistic vision and may have a skewed view of the works of others.

As far as Brian is concerned, he made his living as a music reviewer, no?  I'm sure he had to write nice reviews to earn his bread.  But again, I feel no temptation to read them.

Quote from: karlhenning on June 16, 2013, 01:52:08 PM
Well, maybe you should, though I hope I am no narcissist.

Nope on both accounts.  :D

Thank you for your kind words, gents.

Quote from: some guy on June 16, 2013, 02:05:58 PM
Might be worth considering to try to jettison this notion. I've met hundreds of composers. Very few of them were self-obsessed. If I've noticed any tendency, it's that "they" (those people!) tend to be very nice and generous and interesting.

Your response does have me wondering, just how many composers our Scarps has met, so that we understand the sampling upon which his conclusions are founded . . . .

Quote from: sanantonio on June 17, 2013, 04:32:53 AM
Composers (also performers), and like any large group of people, will contain all kinds of people.  And I am sure that there are some whose motives are not pure when they criticize one of their colleagues.  However, I think generally composers can offer insights about the craft of composition that non-professional listeners will not. 

This is why the articles by Daniel Asia are troublesome for me.  What I get from his comments about Cage (and also Carter) is a sincere difficulty understanding music for which he has no natural inclination. It is music which runs counter to his instincts and values and as a composer and he cannot help but express exasperation.

What is lacking, however, and what I feel is what the backlash is premised upon, is his lack of consideration that the deficiency in within himself and not the music.

Precisamente.

Quote from: karlhenning on June 17, 2013, 03:50:29 AM
Your response does have me wondering, just how many composers our Scarps has met, so that we understand the sampling upon which his conclusions are founded . . . .

None that I know of.  I was referring to composers of note whose comments I have encountered (Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Liszt, Weber, etc).

Quote from: James on June 17, 2013, 01:55:13 PM
Yes big name composers are experts in the field.

And even "big name...experts" can have blind spots. :)

Quote from: James on June 17, 2013, 01:55:13 PM... there are composers like Boulez, Carter and many others who have judged Cage negatively as well...

I wonder just how "negative" those judgments are, when taken in context.  And I submit that Boulez and Carter may not be the best judges of Cage's musical happenings, because both composers, as great as they are, tend to "micro-manage" their music.  Boulez, in particular, is an advocate of "total serialism" in which every aspect of the composition is strictly ordered--exactly the opposite of Cage's approach.

Quote from: jochanaan on June 17, 2013, 02:16:05 PM
And even "big name...experts" can have blind spots. :)I wonder just how "negative" those judgments are, when taken in context.  And I submit that Boulez and Carter may not be the best judges of Cage's musical happenings, because both composers, as great as they are, tend to "micro-manage" their music.  Boulez, in particular, is an advocate of "total serialism" in which every aspect of the composition is strictly ordered--exactly the opposite of Cage's approach.

Boulez has said a lot in his younger days, about Stravinsky, Bartók, opera, etc. His negative views are probably among the ones I least concern myself with.

Quote from: James on June 17, 2013, 01:55:13 PM
Yes big name composers are experts in the field. And Asia is not the only one, neither is Adams .. there are composers like Boulez, Carter and many others who have judged Cage negatively as well. Asia completely understands & hears Cage & his music .. and his judgements are well considered and steeped in first-hand experience with it. If you listen carefully & think about what he says in that video in this thread where he is debating with those guys you'll see he speaks a lot of truth on the matter.

The recipe seems to be that when you don't like someone, you line up as many famous people as you can find who have said nasty things about that someone and decide those famous are obviously very wise.  What do I care if Boulez or Carter ridicules Cage?  I can listen for myself.

Quote from: karlhenning on June 17, 2013, 03:50:29 AM
Your response does have me wondering, just how many composers our Scarps has met, so that we understand the sampling upon which his conclusions are founded . . . .

I think a big factor in this is that the quotes from composers that get mythologized and anthologized tend to be soundbites. A 20-page analysis of the positives and negatives a composer finds in another's oeuvre isn't going to be read much outside the academic community; a snarky one-liner will be.  (Similarly with positive soundbites, which are often more memorable for their rhetoric than their intellectual content, if any.)

I enjoy Cage's music, but with that smirk I'm convinced he was trolling at least some of the time.

Please, not every prankster is a troll.  The faculty of Distinction is a mark of intelligence.

Quote from: James on June 17, 2013, 03:34:35 PM
This recipe is only in your own mind, and I only mentioned them in passing,  .. if the topic doesn't concern you, then don't worry about it.

No, James, I've also noticed your tendency to bring in "authoritative" quotes to make your point.  That was actually one of the points I tried to make with my earlier post, beginning with "You have heard it said"--a reference to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), in which several times He says "You have heard it said...But I say..."  That was how He taught "with authority, and not as the scribes" who were always quoting some "authoritative" rabbi.

Now, I make no pretense to "authority," being only an instrumentalist with some experience in orchestral playing and a few personal preferences--but I'd rather stand on my own opinions.  Anyone is always free to disagree with them.  After all, they're only my opinions. :) If an "authority" happens to agree with me, that's fine too--but it's basically irrelevant to my views.

Quote from: sanantonio on June 20, 2013, 09:18:09 AM
I wanted to develop this idea a bit more -

What Boulez discovered after writing in the total serialism method, and after confronting John Cage's philosophy, was that both complete serialism and absolute chance leave the composer with little to no control over the composition process.  This, for Boulez was an untenable situation, and I think he has spent the rest of his career trying to reconcile the conflict between serialism and chance in his composing.

Too bad he couldn't escape from those false paradoxes and just write music.

Quote from: jochanaan on June 17, 2013, 02:16:05 PM
Boulez, in particular, is an advocate of "total serialism" in which every aspect of the composition is strictly ordered--exactly the opposite of Cage's approach.

Boulez dabbled in "total serialism" for only a couple of pieces in the 1950s. After that, he adopted chance procedures for over a decade, and in his later works not only are durations not subject to a row, but he doesn't even write 12-tone serialism any more. Your understanding of Boulez's music is very off.

Quote from: CRCulver on June 25, 2013, 10:35:23 AM
Boulez dabbled in "total serialism" for only a couple of pieces in the 1950s. After that, he adopted chance procedures for over a decade, and in his later works not only are durations not subject to a row, but he doesn't even write 12-tone serialism any more. Your understanding of Boulez's music is very off.

Correction noted and accepted. :)

I think people should be able to listen to absolutely anything they like and not have the apologize for it.  Trouble arises when they attempt to proselytize others and ram it down everybody's throats.  That is a disturbingly common tendency and is what really gets others' backs up, I think.

I don't like Cage;  never did, never will.  Frankly, I've often wondered if he wasn't just a cult figure people attached themselves to so that they could feel cool or trendy.  Whatever the reason for his popularity with some people, I'm glad they enjoy it all. 

When I was in Salzburg in 2011 they were preparing a concert of Cage's music for the Festival and there were images of Cage around the city.  Somebody thinks he's OK, that's for sure.  He just doesn't float my boat.  I think the writer of the original article which inspired this thread is entitled to his opinion.  We should play the ball and not the man.

Quote from: Silk on July 08, 2013, 08:59:14 PMTrouble arises when they attempt to proselytize others and ram it down everybody's throats.  That is a disturbingly common tendency and is what really gets others' backs up, I think.

I disagree. In my experience, this is not what happens at all. In my experience, "others" back are already up before the conversation even starts.

I also don't see a lot of proselytizing. I think that's a chimera. What I do see is very strong reactions to anyone who enjoys, appreciates, understands Cage's music. One only has to express a liking for it for a half a dozen people to instantly jump in with the "you're trying to ram it down our throats" cry. I ain't buyin' it. People who like Cage are, by and large, just not the ramming type. I think there's a lot of ramming, but it ain't from the Cage fans by any means.

What I do see from that group is reactions to people who dismiss Cage without cause (yeah, yeah, I know, they think they have a lot of cause--they don't), who use their personal dislike to perpetrate all sorts of rudenesses against Cage, against twentieth and twenty-first music generally, and against anyone who's crazy enough to report as actually liking the crap. That's what I see, and it ain't pretty. Nope.

Quote from: Silk on July 08, 2013, 08:59:14 PM
I don't like Cage;  never did, never will.

Only two of those statements are fact.  The last, is a tendentious determination.

That is all.

(No . . . not quite all.  The last being of its nature non-fact, it is apt to cast the very first statement as tendentious determination, as well, n'est-ce pas?)

Quote from: James on July 09, 2013, 03:08:21 AM...far more knowledge & experience than you could ever realize to come to the conclusions that they do....

Is that so? And do any of us get to see what that knowledge and experience consists of? Not a chance. All we deserve is the bare assertion. Balls to that, I say. Besides, even if you did know, and were able to articulate, what that knowledge and experience is, I would still want to see some evidence for the "more...than you could ever realize" part of things.

That implies a far more intimate knowledge of me and my ideas than you have ever shown any evidence of having.

Just more empty assertions.

And, just for your information, support for an assertion consists of something other than another empty assertion. Even dozens of empty assertions by other people still does not constitute support.

Dead coyote meat is great. A thousand flies can't be wrong!!

And, we'll repeat for the benefit of the folks at home:  Let's take as an example Glenn Gould's disdain for Mozart.  Even the fact that Gould is an artist himself does not make his disdain somehow equivalent to another artist's enthusiasm for Mozart.

No doubt, Cage was no Mozart. Or, more accurately, Cage's work is probably not on quite the plane of Mozart's.  But the principle holds true.  No one's scorn for Cage's work is at all "equivalent" ("equal but opposite") to, say, Michael's enthusiasm and admiration for Cage.

Much less the ad infinitum bla-bla-blah empty assertions.

Quote from: karlhenning on July 09, 2013, 10:35:45 AM
And, we'll repeat for the benefit of the folks at home:  Let's take as an example Glenn Gould's disdain for Mozart.  Even the fact that Gould is an artist himself does not make his disdain somehow equivalent to another artist's enthusiasm for Mozart.

I wonder how much of that disdain was genuine and how much of it just a marketing strategy. After all, Gould's rendition of Mozart's Piano Sonatas are among the most idiomatic and intense.  :)

Quote from: Florestan on July 09, 2013, 10:43:37 AM
I wonder how much of that disdain was genuine and how much of it just a marketing strategy.

Excellent point. I've had similar thouhts more than once about Stravinsky's bons mots.

Quote from: karlhenning on July 09, 2013, 10:45:50 AM
Excellent point. I've had similar thouhts more than once about Stravinsky's bons mots.

He, he... precisamente.  :D

Quote from: Florestan on July 09, 2013, 10:43:37 AM
I wonder how much of that disdain was genuine and how much of it just a marketing strategy. After all, Gould's rendition of Mozart's Piano Sonatas are among the most idiomatic and intense.  :)

Gould also expressed distain for the preludes in Bach's WTC. 

Gould had astonishing keyboard virtuosity but I don't hear an artistic 'vision' in his playing (except that every note must be separated from every other note and played with utterly unvarying dynamics and legato).  There are few things I find less interesting than Glen Gould's views on music.

FWIW, I have yet to dig properly into the collection of Gould's essays.

Quote from: karlhenning on July 09, 2013, 11:37:42 AM
FWIW, I have yet to dig properly into the collection of Gould's essays.

Maybe I'm being cranky about Gould, but after neglecting him for many years I've recently decided to give him a chance.  Listening to his set of Partitas, he's convinced me that I hate Bach.  I have to stop and switch to someone else to remind myself that I actually love Bach.  (Although, admittedly Gould is delightful in some of Bach's fugues, particularly short ones where his tediously uniform articulation does not have time to grate on the ears.)

Quote from: Scarpia on July 09, 2013, 11:33:43 AMThere are few things I find less interesting than Glen Gould's views on music.

I find Gould's views extremely interesting...even when I am violently disagreeing with him. Ref his Mozart (and Beethoven): the works he supposedly hated the most, he gave the most individual interpretations to. Fascinating. At least I find it so.

Sarge

Quote from: Scarpia on July 09, 2013, 11:47:53 AM
Maybe I'm being cranky about Gould, but after neglecting him for many years I've recently decided to give him a chance.  Listening to his set of Partitas, he's convinced me that I hate Bach.  I have to stop and switch to someone else to remind myself that I actually love Bach.  (Although, admittedly Gould is delightful in some of Bach's fugues, particularly short ones where his tediously uniform articulation does not have time to grate on the ears.)

Truth to tell, I am puzzled at the fervor for Gould.  At times, it reminds me of a cult.

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 09, 2013, 11:50:55 AM
I find Gould's views extremely interesting...even when I am violently disagreeing with him.

Yes, from the little I have read so far, Sarge, I think I am with you.

Quote from: karlhenning on July 09, 2013, 11:59:46 AM
Truth to tell, I am puzzled at the fervor for Gould.  At times, it reminds me of a cult.

So far, the Gould Cult (of which I'm a member) has not asked us to drink Kool-Aid. If they do, it might just make me reconsider my allegiance  ;)

Sarge

Funny, though, Sarge: you don't act like a member of a cult  0:)

Quote from: karlhenning on July 09, 2013, 12:11:07 PM
Funny, though, Sarge: you don't act like a member of a cult  0:)

I gave up proselytizing years ago. A fool's game. I've become a Gouldian hermit  :D

Sarge

Quote from: Scarpia on July 09, 2013, 11:47:53 AM
Maybe I'm being cranky about Gould, but after neglecting him for many years I've recently decided to give him a chance.  Listening to his set of Partitas, he's convinced me that I hate Bach.

That surprises me.  I find his recording of the Partitas absolutely stunning, especially No. 4.  The only other piano set I'd put at Gould's level comes from Craig Sheppard.

Quote from: Sammy on July 09, 2013, 01:32:12 PM
That surprises me.  I find his recording of the Partitas absolutely stunning, especially No. 4.  The only other piano set I'd put at Gould's level comes from Craig Sheppard.

I enjoyed some of the initial movements, particularly where there was counterpoint, but I found the dances did not dance.

Quote from: Scarpia on July 09, 2013, 01:37:42 PM
I enjoyed some of the initial movements, particularly where there was counterpoint, but I found the dances did not dance.

Okay.  I'm not a big fan of dancing or humor in classical music, but I am a big fan of giving equal weight to each musical line; this is where Gould is astounding.

Quote from: Sammy on July 09, 2013, 01:32:12 PM
That surprises me.  I find his recording of the Partitas absolutely stunning, especially No. 4.  The only other piano set I'd put at Gould's level comes from Craig Sheppard.

For the Partitas, I still have a soft spot for Schiff's Decca recording, which was the first I heard of that music. I also like Hewitt and Perahia.  How would you characterize Sheppard's style?

Quote from: Sammy on July 09, 2013, 01:52:32 PM
Okay.  I'm not a big fan of dancing or humor in classical music, but I am a big fan of giving equal weight to each musical line; this is where Gould is astounding.

They are dances, after all.  :)   I don't fault Gould for giving equal weight to each musical line, perhaps I fault him for giving equal weight to each note.  Astounding, I agree with, fully.  :)

Quote from: karlhenning on July 09, 2013, 02:04:21 AM
Only two of those statements are fact.  The last, is a tendentious determination.

That is all.

(No . . . not quite all.  The last being of its nature non-fact, it is apt to cast the very first statement as tendentious determination, as well, n'est-ce pas?)

And your response is pseudo intellectual cant.  Sorry, I don't speak French.  Does that make you feel more superior now?

Quote from: some guy on July 08, 2013, 10:12:37 PM
I disagree. In my experience, this is not what happens at all. In my experience, "others" back are already up before the conversation even starts.

I also don't see a lot of proselytizing. I think that's a chimera. What I do see is very strong reactions to anyone who enjoys, appreciates, understands Cage's music. One only has to express a liking for it for a half a dozen people to instantly jump in with the "you're trying to ram it down our throats" cry. I ain't buyin' it. People who like Cage are, by and large, just not the ramming type. I think there's a lot of ramming, but it ain't from the Cage fans by any means.

What I do see from that group is reactions to people who dismiss Cage without cause (yeah, yeah, I know, they think they have a lot of cause--they don't), who use their personal dislike to perpetrate all sorts of rudenesses against Cage, against twentieth and twenty-first music generally, and against anyone who's crazy enough to report as actually liking the crap. That's what I see, and it ain't pretty. Nope.

There's an awful lot of aggression and anger in this posting.  Seems to me I've read all this before elsewhere.

Quote from: Silk on July 09, 2013, 03:55:02 PM
There's an awful lot of aggression and anger in this posting.  Seems to me I've read all this before elsewhere.

There seems to be an awful of anger in your last two posts.  :)

I find myself in general agreement with Some Guy's post, although I am not a fan of Cage (actually have never heard a note that he has written).  The article at the beginning of the thread was extremely mean spirited, written by an academic dung-beatle of a composer who gets off by criticizing a composer who, to some extent, has changed the way people think about music.  I also find myself with much less patience towards people who want to tell you that the music you love is "noise" or somehow unworthy compared to people who are perhaps over-enthusiastic about advocating the music they love.

Quote from: Silk on July 09, 2013, 03:53:33 PM
And your response is pseudo intellectual cant.  Sorry, I don't speak French.  Does that make you feel more superior now?

Two things. One, Karl is a bona fide* intellectual, who was just saying something logical. Nuttin' cant-like about it. Two, n'est-ce pas is a very common French phrase, used often enough in English for every English-speaker to know it well, as I am sure that you do.

If only you and I were at dinner right now. I could say "bon appetit" to you and see if you bit my head off for speaking French to you. rrrRRRAARrrrr.

*genuine ( :))

Aggression again.  "Bite" your head off?  That would be a truly unpalatable experience.

What the hell is a "bona fide" intellectual doing wasting his/her time on a message-board?  (BTW:  most "intellectuals" don't have to resort to cant!  Unless, of course....).  Surely there are 'peers' in academe which would satisfy intellectual needs!!  Unless, of course,.....

It seems there are many "unless, of course" individuals who frequent message-boards.  God spare us from intellectuals who don't have enough to do, for whatever reason.  Nothing slips through their nets.  Ever vigilant to write the wrongs of this world, they don't mind pulling rank to correct the 'opinions' of others.

Sigh.

Quote from: Scarpia on July 09, 2013, 01:52:45 PM
For the Partitas, I still have a soft spot for Schiff's Decca recording, which was the first I heard of that music. I also like Hewitt and Perahia.  How would you characterize Sheppard's style?

I consider his style very similar to Gould's, but without the grunting that some folks hate and with much better sound quality.

Quote from: Sammy on July 09, 2013, 07:04:52 PM
I consider his style very similar to Gould's, but without the grunting that some folks hate and with much better sound quality.

I listened to some excerpts of his WTC on his own web site.  He does have a clarity of execution in the fugues which is Gouldesq.  But I started with the C-major prelude from WTC I.  Gould famously plays every note in the arpeggiated chords as an individual, staccato plunk, but Sheppard plays it like a human being would play it.  So, I'd say Sheppard lacks Gould's deranged eccentricity.  From what I have heard, I like Sheppard a lot.

Quote from: Silk on July 09, 2013, 03:53:33 PM
And your response is pseudo intellectual cant.  Sorry, I don't speak French.  Does that make you feel more superior now?

My post addressed the content. Yours evades the point, to luxuriate in ad hominem. Do you feel you've "won"?

Quote from: some guy on July 09, 2013, 04:38:51 PM
Two things. One, Karl is a bona fide* intellectual, who was just saying something logical. Nuttin' cant-like about it.

You are kind, sieur, and beyond my desert.  In this thread particularly, I suppose, if a preference for discussing ideas over personal remark gives an intellectual impression, I suppose I oughtn't be surprised, though I cannot claim any signal merit.

Anyway, when James says Value judgements from knowledgable people within the field has [sic] always been an important [sic], he always means to add, But only when they agree with my viewpoint. Otherwise they're just stupid quotes.

(One step further along the rabbit trail! :)) I find it interesting that Glenn Gould, after an early career performing in public, stopped performing and concentrated on recording, while (for example) Leonard Bernstein focused more and more on live recordings, most of his later recording being live, and Sergiu Celibidache never went into a studio at all!  Now, I have heard none of Gould's later recordings, but I wonder how much his idiosyncrasies were due to his reclusive, hyper-controlling personality.  I can't imagine him communicating in any real sense with even a record-based "audience."  Yet whatever one can say about Bernstein's and Celibidache's performances, they always had a deep effect on the audience, as evidenced by the applause.

To tie this back to the original thread, Mr. Cage was above all (if I understand him rightly) driven to create musical "happenings" (to use a Sixties word), one-time events never to be duplicated but open to the spark of genius/insight/wonder/ecstasy for which, I dare say, all of us hunger.  Mr. Gould was, or became, more like the early Boulez in his need to polish and perfect a musical "sculpture," while Bernstein and Celibidache were more like Cage in desiring to participate in "happenings."

(I hasten to add that making a quasi-permanent "sculpture" of music is a legitimate way.  Stravinsky followed a similar way, saying "The more art is controlled, limited, worked over, the more it is free..."  But there are limitations to this approach, as Boulez apparently discovered, especially in music, the most evanescent of the arts.)

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 09, 2013, 11:50:55 AM
I find Gould's views extremely interesting...even when I am violently disagreeing with him.

Actually, for me the most interesting views (be they on music, literature, art, politics or whatever) are those which I violently disagree with. They compel me to react, to find and formulate cogent arguments for refuting them, to think and to express myself --- a world in which everybody would agree with my own views would be Hell on Earth...  ;D

Quote
Ref his Mozart (and Beethoven): the works he supposedly hated the most, he gave the most individual interpretations to. Fascinating. At least I find it so.

+1.  8)

Quote from: Sammy on July 09, 2013, 01:52:32 PM
I'm not a big fan of dancing or humor in classical music,

Haydn and Mozart would look at you exactly as a calf would look at a new gate (Romanian idiomatic expression meaning your stance would be completely incomprehensible to them...  :D )

Quote from: Florestan on July 10, 2013, 08:37:11 AM
--- a world in which everybody would agree with my own views would be Hell on Earth...

Hell, indeed, in what place soever.

Quote from: jochanaan on July 10, 2013, 07:45:36 AM
Now, I have heard none of Gould's later recordings, but I wonder how much his idiosyncrasies were due to his reclusive, hyper-controlling personality.  I can't imagine him communicating in any real sense with even a record-based "audience." 

FWIW, I find his performances of Orlando Gibbons & William Byrd music, and Richard Strauss Piano Sonata to be among the most heartfelt and heart wrenching ever.

Silk, it's more like academics are profoundly disturbed that ordinary people yet with some intelligence actually engage with their subject matter. Cliquey ivory towers tell them no one without a PhD and three years of shuffling other people's concepts around should exist who knows what they're talking about- the problem for them is that music is an experience not a bunch of intellectual arguments.

Quote from: Silk on July 09, 2013, 04:49:08 PM
Aggression again.  "Bite" your head off?  That would be a truly unpalatable experience.

What the hell is a "bona fide" intellectual doing wasting his/her time on a message-board?  (BTW:  most "intellectuals" don't have to resort to cant!  Unless, of course....).  Surely there are 'peers' in academe which would satisfy intellectual needs!!  Unless, of course,.....

It seems there are many "unless, of course" individuals who frequent message-boards.  God spare us from intellectuals who don't have enough to do, for whatever reason.  Nothing slips through their nets.  Ever vigilant to write the wrongs of this world, they don't mind pulling rank to correct the 'opinions' of others.

Sigh.

Quote from: Sean on July 10, 2013, 08:56:07 AM
Silk, it's more like academics are profoundly disturbed that ordinary people yet with some intelligence actually engage with their subject matter. Cliquey ivory towers tell them no one without a PhD and three years of shuffling other people's concepts around should exist who knows what they're talking about- the problem for them is that music is an experience not a bunch of intellectual arguments.

The problem is, who are you talking about, Sean?  Not Daniel Asia, who is a composer (and has been a conductor) himself; compared to your esteemed self, it is Asia for whom music is an experience and not a bunch of intellectual arguments.

(Fair disclosure: I've not listened to any of Asia's work, having realized that the only reason I would, stems from this . . . journalistic stunt.)

jochanaan

QuoteNow, I have heard none of Gould's later recordings, but I wonder how much his idiosyncrasies were due to his reclusive, hyper-controlling personality.  I can't imagine him communicating in any real sense with even a record-based "audience."

Yes but the nature of Bach's music isn't to communicate in that sense and Gould admired it because the formal achievements come first and thus with emotion thereafter having good grounds- he couldn't take Chopin for instance very seriously.

Karl

Sure, I haven't looked at the article in question and I'm just ranting. I had some bad experiences with academia and wasn't able to find a niche in it but in my fantasies it doesn't have to be like that... At least not outside subjects having strong experiential aspects- such as music and Indian culture that I studied...

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on July 09, 2013, 11:50:55 AM
I find Gould's views extremely interesting...even when I am violently disagreeing with him. Ref his Mozart (and Beethoven): the works he supposedly hated the most, he gave the most individual interpretations to. Fascinating. At least I find it so.

Your implication that I am uninterested in Gould's writings because I disagree or presume that I disagree with him is off the mark.  Opinions I disagree with are interesting to explore if they come from a capable and generous mind.  Gould's talent was in his fingers.  My reaction to Gould was that his head was full of narcissism and compulsiveness, and was not a place I took pleasure in visiting.

Quote from: Sean on July 10, 2013, 09:14:07 AMI had some bad experiences with academia....

Interesting how some points cannot--cannot--be made without lumping. Blacks, gays, women, academics.

I too have had bad experiences. With individuals. Some of those individuals were academics, some were lawyers, some were cops, some were women, some were contractors, some were laborers.

Extrapolating from any of those that all members of that group are equally bad would be to blind myself to the palpable fact that not all members of any group are identical to each other, not even the groups that are self-made, like Republicans or Miami Heat fans.

Academia is a concept. Its only reality is conceptual. People are rather more solid and rather less likely to fit into neat prejudicial categories.

some guy

QuoteAcademia is a concept. Its only reality is conceptual. People are rather more solid and rather less likely to fit into neat prejudicial categories.

Some categories have selection criteria that promote certain types of people and my experience of academia in music and South Asian departments has been quite extraordinarily negative. The problem is that at universities people study, which is an intellectual or reasoning-based process. And this contrasts starkly with the real nature of that very subject matter, which is experiential, intuitive and immediate.

Consequently there's a great deal of self-deception going on in these departments when they select for academics who are in their subjects for reasons other than a genuine personal engagement with them per se: music academics don't listen to music and India academics aren't Hindu nor travel there. The result is both castle-in-the-sky theorizing and a hatred for the occasional genuine student.

I also used to work in construction, and met some extremely unpleasant characters. But the most depraved nobodies I've ever come across are in music and South Asia academia.

More on this some other time.

By the way I'm presently working in academia.

Quote from: Sean on July 10, 2013, 12:29:56 PMBy the way I'm presently working in academia.

So now you're a depraved nobody too?

Quote from: Scarpia on July 10, 2013, 12:32:23 PM
So now you're a depraved nobody too?

Well actually I have a course to give in American culture, so I'm excused...

bazinga!  :)

Quote from: Sean on July 10, 2013, 01:13:25 PM
Well actually I have a course to give in American culture,

That should be a well-rounded set of presentations.  :laugh:

Sammy, James I put the boot in where it's due and give credit where it's due; I've visited the US on seven occasions and I basically like it of course.

Quote from: Sean on July 10, 2013, 08:42:12 PMI put the boot in where it's due and give credit where it's due....

Supreme executive power, eh?

Interesting.

I'm keen to see how all that works out.

some guy

Oh yes, I have a captive audience, you're right, I impose on them badly in telling them how it is.

Actually one of my 'co'-Western lecturers recently observed my Cold War presentation and has since developed a frosty relationship with me, a marginal improvement over its previous paralytic fear and avoidance.

The exchange of emails was quite insightful over his being incensed at my pointing out millions of deaths from sicko US bombing while at the same time horrified at pictures of burning children, objecting to both in psychotic doublethink. Most zombies that make up humanity will support any socially sanctioned drivel.

Actually most Chinese students, who I often have to put right to the dismay of the northern Maoists, still grasp at the notion of America being the world's leading country with its fake toilet paper currency, when of course it's already China.

(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m71/SeanMcHugh02/China%20Zhuhai/102_1343.jpg)

You're welcome to my in-progress lecture files....

https://app.box.com/s/5e9ar4dif3eyq937kh33

Simple ppts on the Vietnam War, leading to Apocalypse Now Redux

https://app.box.com/s/q83zmglccigtyvtb65fv

And on US-Chinese inventions

https://app.box.com/s/rh91397ph1695kwfamxo

War with America by umbrellas...

(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m71/SeanMcHugh02/China%20Zhuhai/003_zps15eb3d53.jpg)

Quote from: some guy on July 10, 2013, 09:41:04 PM
Supreme executive power, eh?

Interesting.

I'm keen to see how all that works out.

The key is, that Sean knows it all, and certainly better than anyone else. Otherwise this system would fall flat on its face.

Why should alleging Cage's non-importance be so important to Asia?

The put on of the century is that this thread is still going.

(* chortle *)

Quote from: The Six on July 11, 2013, 10:14:53 AM
The put on of the century is that this thread is still going.

Thanks for the chuckle! ;D

Hoy there, jo!

Quote from: karlhenning on July 11, 2013, 10:37:22 AM
(* chortle *)

The Put-On of the Century, or the Asia Rantatorium: I thought we had a brand new thread!   :laugh:

Daniel Asia: my wife has a theory about men named "Daniel" having a tendency, in general, to be Peter Pans, pueri aeterni, who need a good smack in the face (metaphorically, or...maybe an actual one) to get them to grow up!

More than once has the theory been proven true!   ;D

Quote from: karlhenning on July 11, 2013, 05:57:38 AM
Why should alleging Cage's non-importance be so important to Asia?

For James to agree with....?  ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: Cato on July 11, 2013, 11:06:23 AM
The Put-On of the Century, or the Asia Rantatorium: I thought we had a brand new thread!   :laugh:

Daniel Asia: my wife has a theory about men named "Daniel" having a tendency, in general, to be Peter Pans, pueri aeterni, who need a good smack in the face (metaphorically, or...maybe an actual one) to get them to grow up!

More than once has the theory been proven true!   ;D

Now, [b} Leo[/b]! You're being unfair to Daniel Defoe & Daniel Webster ...  ;D

Quote from: Florestan on July 11, 2013, 12:05:45 PM
You're being unfair to Daniel Defoe & Daniel Webster ...  ;D

Heh-heh!  And unfair to the "original" Daniel in the Bible!  0:)   That's why I was careful to include "tendency" and "in general" !   ;)

Quote from: Cato on July 11, 2013, 12:35:59 PM
Heh-heh!  And unfair to the "original" Daniel in the Bible!  0:)   

How could I forget him?  ;D Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner!

Somewhere, Abednago is cheering . . . .

Quote from: Sean on July 10, 2013, 08:42:12 PM
Sammy, James I put the boot in where it's due and give credit where it's due; I've visited the US on seven occasions and I basically like it of course.

What a hoot!  You're giving presentations on American culture based on a few visits to our fine nation.  Don't you see anything wrong with this picture?

It's up there with the talk he was asked to do on Le marteau.  (Why should back-of-the-envelope-level knowledge be any obstacle to speaking in front of a group of saps people?)

Quote from: Sammy on July 11, 2013, 02:34:32 PM
What a hoot!  You're giving presentations on American culture based on a few visits to our fine nation.  Don't you see anything wrong with this picture?

Over here Americans are given British culture to do and Britons are given American culture- critical distance and all that...