From McLaren

From: mclaren
Subject: The adoration of the Cage-i...part 2
--
John Chalmers has suggested that John Cage is
a worthwhile composer because, after all, he is "the
major 20th American experimental composer."
This raises some fascinating questions:
Exactly what is an experimental composer?
Which hypothesis does the experimental composer
conduct an experiment to test? What is the
experimental control? What kind of statistical
methods does the experimental composer use
to analyze hi/r results--linear regression, chi
square, least squares, ANOVA? What and
where is the mathematical model upon which the
experimental composer's hypothesis is based?
Which laws of nature does the experimental
composer seek to investigate...? ...Or is, perhaps,
the term "experimental" used merely to indicate
a certain glamorous intention to be "scientific,"
in the same way that advertisements for
astrological services include the phrase
"scientifically calculated using the latest
astrological computer program"...?
As it happens, Iannis Xenakis is the composer
most often described in the press and by
audiences as "the major 20th century
experimental composer." In fact Xenakis
succeeded where Caged failed: using a computer,
Xenakis could toss millions of coins in the time
it took Cage to toss one, and with a computer
program Xenakis could direct the ensemble
statistics of his coin-tosses, whereas Cage
could never do anything more than generate a
random noise stream. Because using a computer
would have required talent and intelligence,
Cage chose instead to spout a steady stream of
double-talk. On the other hand, one could also
argue that Morton Feldman succeeded where
Cage failed. In fact so *many* other composers
produced interesting music using techniques
with which Cage failed to produce anything
listenable that it's clear the difference is *not*
due to...uh, well...chance.
Rather, the difference can only be explained
by Cage's utter lack of musical talent.
However, John Chalmers wasn't the only
subscriber who rushed out of the shower to
Cage's aid.
A number of other forum subscribers have
staunchly "defended" Cage by pointing out that
"he changed how we listened to music," that
he wrote amusing prose, that he was the
first to compose with the I Ching, etc., etc.
So, in the same spirit, here's a list of reasons why
we should listen to John Cage's music:
* John Cage was a great modern composer
because he was tall.
* John Cage was a great modern composer
because he liked mushrooms.
* John Cage was a great modern composer
because he wore flannel shirts.
* John Cage was a great modern composer
because Ecuador is a land-locked country.
* John Cage was a great modern composer
because the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle
ended the war of Austrian succession in
1748.
Take your pick!
Of course no one has yet suggested that John
Cage was a worthwhile composer on the basis that
he could actually compose interesting music.
No, we all know that would be *pushing it too
far*.
After all, even for the most gullible forum
subscriber...credulity has its limits.
--
In a related nugget of wisdom, Paul Rapoport
lamented the "Cage-bashing" that has gone
on. This is presumably the new description
for telling self-evident truths--we now call it
"bashing," along the lines, no doubt, of
the omnipresent Political Correctness. Thus
one can't call someone fat nowadays: s/he is
"weight-challenged." Saying someone is
fat is vile and outrageous; it's "weight-bashing."
In the same vein, let's have no more of this
condemnation of Hitler for slaughtering 6
million Jews. That's "Hitler-bashing." Similarly,
John Wayne Gacy was no doubt "compassion-
challenged," and we should all refrain from
"Gacy-bashing." For that matter, we should
write to the National Insitute of Health and
urge that the battle against cancer be ended
posthaste.
That, after all, is "cancer-bashing."
Perhaps John Cage is a great modern composer
because (as P.T. Barnum put it) there's
a sucker born every minute...
--
In Tuning Digest 784 Greg Taylor offered
an enooooooormous post in response to my
modest proposal re: the "accepted canon" of
classical music. Without offering any
facts or data to back up his sentiments,
the thrust of Taylor's several thousand
words of verbiage seems to be: "I don't like
mclaren."
This can be shortened immensely and vast
amounts of internet bandwidth saved if
Taylor simply posts "IDLM" in response to
my posts.
In fact, the process can be streamlined
even further by writing a 'bot which
spits out the string "IDLM" to the tuning
forum at random intervals.
This would enlighten us at least as much
as Taylor's actual posts, and save enormous
amounts of time and bandwidth.
--mclaren



Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Sun, 11 Aug 1996 01:05 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA06943; Sun, 11 Aug 1996 01:05:14 +0200
Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA06941
Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
for id QAA01593; Sat, 10 Aug 1996 16:05:12 -0700
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 16:05:12 -0700
Message-Id: <960810190150_381694222@emout18.mail.aol.com>
Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu