Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site tekecs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!bmcg!cepu!trwrba!trwrb!sdcrdcf!hplabs!tektronix!orca!tekecs!jeffw
From: jeffw@tekecs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.music,net.music.classical
Subject: As long as we're talking about Cage...
Message-ID: <3745@tekecs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 2-May-84 16:44:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekecs.3745
Posted: Wed May  2 16:44:29 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 6-May-84 00:46:33 EDT
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 28

Karl Malik rightly pointed out that the object of Cage's work (let's defer
the use of the term "music" for now) is pure sound - free of emotional or
intellectual manipulation.

Also free of emotional or intellectual content. And therefore interest.
Now, I am admittedly biased, but I think Cage's work has attraction
for two reasons:

 1. There is a certain segment of humanity that can watch (or listen to)
random patterns for hours (well, maybe half-hours) on end and remain
captivated. 

 2. There is another group which will flock to any public figure who so
much as mumbles about some kind of Eastern philosophy. I know virtually
nothing about Zen, but I have grave suspicions that Cage doesn't really
know much more. Anyone have more than an opinion on this?

I believe that music should communicate some sense of beauty to its listeners.
That doesn't mean "prettiness"; it doesn't rule out violence or perversity
(for example, Strauss's "Salome" and "Elektra"). Pure randomness is, by
definition, communication of nothing. The people in 1. are receiving no
communication, they're merely being hypnotized. I think Cage's work is
too close to this to be called music. 

Now, I can think of at least one counter-argument to this, but I think
I'll see if anyone who believes it more than I will post it.

				Jeff Winslow