Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 41011121314
Results 196 to 210 of 210

Thread: John Cage

  1. #196
    Senior Member philoctetes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    406
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aleazk View Post
    As I said, I read a bit of the book (there's a free online version in the author's page). It seemed fine to me, although not particularly interesting or more insightful than the already existing standard theory, the geometric part seems like an overkill to me. Again, there seems to be a gap between those who are thoroughly familiar with mathematics and have used it in really profound applications (both in physics as well as pure math) and those who are only superficially familiar with it and only know these applications in music and maybe some other elementary applications as well. I don't mean to sound derogatory with this, it's just an observation, if it floats your boat, I have nothing against that. But, in my case, having seen geometry in action in other realms (like General Relativity, Yang--Mills fields, Hamiltonian mechanics, etc., the applications in physics are really endless), I have, due to that, a rather clear idea regarding what are the profound insights that geometrical ideas bring to those fields and when it's worth the trouble of applying those complex concepts. In this musical example, I really don't see the necessity of geometry for having a clear understanding of tonal harmony, even when, indeed, it can be applied to it and some musical notions be re-interpreted in geometric language. But the gain in insight is not that big, at least to me, so it's not worth the trouble for me. This often happens in physics too.
    Let's face it, this is the way theories in the arts are bottled nowadays, with all the features attributable to scientific systems even though they have little in common. This allow people who have never solved an ODE, who don't know that i is a number, the nerve to pretend they know what they're talking about. Twenty years ago I argued with my lit-doc sister about uncertainty principles in art, and I lost because she's the less informed one and doesn't know it. We no longer talk about those things now. I've had a similar experience with millions with the same outcome he's much more congenial now than he was then. So I don't bother trying to tell these people what they don't know as long as they continue to argue about it. I am happier to hold back and focus on my own ignorance and what I want to learn. While millions is reading Riemann music theory, I'm reading about the theory of Indian music: did you know that the minor seventh is voiced by the elephant?
    Last edited by philoctetes; Oct-07-2018 at 16:21.

  2. Likes aleazk liked this post
  3. #197
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Sparwood, BC, Canada.
    Posts
    40
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I find Cage's musical output gimmicky, much like the art of Andy Warhol. It makes money, but does it make music? I quote my late brother: "If it doesn't have rhythm, harmony and melody, it isn't music."

  4. #198
    Senior Member philoctetes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    406
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    There is music for listeners and music for the people who play it. Different rules apply. The idea that music must have clear rhythm or melody is a listener's bias. I believe entertainment is not essential to music but is DERIVED from music.

    When musicians play for themselves, they often break rules that listeners demand. They extemporate, improvise, and experiment. I have a few jazz theory books on the harmonic foundations for this. What cracks me up most of all is how a huge % of music listeners claim to require rhythm in music, yet they have complete phobia for the interesting poly rhythms used in modern jazz, e.g Paul Motian and his followers....

    I recall a latin quotation from last week's court hearings that I could apply to conservative tastes in music.
    Last edited by philoctetes; Oct-07-2018 at 16:34.

  5. Likes aleazk liked this post
  6. #199
    Senior Member philoctetes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    406
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Cage is important as an aesthetic innovator. The Cage aesthetic is a huge influence that actually has positive effects on people, just don't attribute that to Cage or make them listen to his actual work and the public will be happy to hear his voice derived through others, from Miles to Wadada to Kaiser and Chen and so on, pick your own faves... through all the uses of silence for dramatic emphasis in modern music and soundtracks... so the argument against him is what's most annoying, most detrimental, most anti-progressive argument of all, stale as a dead horses breath..

  7. Likes aleazk, EddieRUKiddingVarese liked this post
  8. #200
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Sparwood, BC, Canada.
    Posts
    40
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    The rhythm need not be Oom-Pa-Pa. My iPhone is blue toothed to the hearing aids. Music on my phone includes classical organ (Craig Cramer), Dixieland Jazz (The Left Bank Bearcats), U2, American Authors, Pachelbel and Jean-François Paillard.
    And for another Genre, [6] on the FM band in my radio is C&W.

    I find Cage tiresome for the most part. It's empty music.

  9. #201
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    4,001
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by philoctetes View Post
    Let's face it, this is the way theories in the arts are bottled nowadays, with all the features attributable to scientific systems even though they have little in common. This allow people who have never solved an ODE, who don't know that i is a number, the nerve to pretend they know what they're talking about. Twenty years ago I argued with my lit-doc sister about uncertainty principles in art, and I lost because she's the less informed one and doesn't know it. We no longer talk about those things now. I've had a similar experience with millions with the same outcome he's much more congenial now than he was then. So I don't bother trying to tell these people what they don't know as long as they continue to argue about it. I am happier to hold back and focus on my own ignorance and what I want to learn. While millions is reading Riemann music theory, I'm reading about the theory of Indian music: did you know that the minor seventh is voiced by the elephant?
    As a logician, I sometimes get annoyed that there are people who know that 1 is a number, people who have never looked at ZF, and then have the nerve to pretend to know what they’re talking about. And don’t get me started about infinity.

  10. Likes EddieRUKiddingVarese liked this post
  11. #202
    Senior Member philoctetes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    406
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Then let's avoid each other and be the worse off for it as a species, but better off as individuals.

    Have fun reinventing the wheel while others fly over your head. Ther's obviously good reason that music theorists cite mathematicians and not logicians for inspiration. Even if we sense it's a sham, the scientists among us should feel honored. These cross-references, while they may divide the argumentative, also serve to get people to think and read more adventurously, and that's good. I just give up trying to argue about fundamentals with someone who can't do the fundamental math itself.

    I'm in the mood for Norgaard. There is always a bigger number, isn't there? a/b -> inf as b->0, for all a, so if you problems with inf, you have problems with zero as well, but perhaps don't know it. So much for logic.

    Maybe we should eliminate negative numbers too.
    Last edited by philoctetes; Oct-07-2018 at 18:27.

  12. Likes aleazk liked this post
  13. #203
    Senior Member aleazk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,751
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Since we are in a Cage thread, let's use the usual terminology of these battles. I think that the framing of musical concepts into supposed complex and rigorous mathematical systems is mostly gimmicky. Not that math can't be used in music. I have no problem with serial composers using concepts and terms from set theory, congruences, transformations, finite groups, matrices, etc., since it's actually pertinent there. But when they cease to be useful, better to stop adding more mathematical concepts. But some others seem to think that the more baroque in appearence something is presented, then the more insighful and profound must be, just because of that. And when some others with a more extensive background in those mathematical tools point out the lack of any genuine or interesting motivation for their use, they are ignored or criticized.

    If they teach something in math is to present theories in the most simple and conceptually economic way possible.
    Last edited by aleazk; Oct-07-2018 at 18:45.

  14. Likes EddieRUKiddingVarese liked this post
  15. #204
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    4,001
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by philoctetes View Post
    Then let's avoid each other and be the worse off for it as a species, but better off as individuals.

    Have fun reinventing the wheel while others fly over your head. Ther's obviously good reason that music theorists cite mathematicians and not logicians for inspiration. Even if we sense it's a sham, the scientists among us should feel honored. These cross-references, while they may divide the argumentative, also serve to get people to think and read more adventurously, and that's good. I just give up trying to argue about fundamentals with someone who can't do the fundamental math itself.

    I'm in the mood for Norgaard. There is always a bigger number, isn't there? a/b -> inf as b->0, for all a, so if you problems with inf, you have problems with zero as well, but perhaps don't know it. So much for logic.

    Maybe we should eliminate negative numbers too.
    I don't have a problem with infinity, I have a problem about people talking about it with an air of authority who haven't studied the continuum hypothesis.

  16. Likes philoctetes liked this post
  17. #205
    Senior Member philoctetes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    406
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Ya know, I'll take a $15 CD of Cage over a $M self-shredding Banksy any day.

    But there is something very 4'33" about the Banksy. The reactions of elitists at the auction was priceless.
    Last edited by philoctetes; Oct-07-2018 at 18:55.

  18. #206
    Senior Member aleazk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,751
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by philoctetes View Post
    Then let's avoid each other and be the worse off for it as a species, but better off as individuals.

    Have fun reinventing the wheel while others fly over your head. Ther's obviously good reason that music theorists cite mathematicians and not logicians for inspiration. Even if we sense it's a sham, the scientists among us should feel honored. These cross-references, while they may divide the argumentative, also serve to get people to think and read more adventurously, and that's good. I just give up trying to argue about fundamentals with someone who can't do the fundamental math itself.

    I'm in the mood for Norgaard. There is always a bigger number, isn't there? a/b -> inf as b->0, for all a, so if you problems with inf, you have problems with zero as well, but perhaps don't know it. So much for logic.

    Maybe we should eliminate negative numbers too.
    I think the guy who did this geometric theory of tonality knows what he's talking about, but deludes himself in thinking he did some discovery with profound implications for music. And then you have the mere repeaters, who cannot really grasp the concepts at hand, but do grasp the delusion and make it transitive to themselves for having the 'merit' of reading about this theory.
    Last edited by aleazk; Oct-07-2018 at 18:54.

  19. Likes philoctetes liked this post
  20. #207
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,858
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mandryka View Post
    Thank you Tortkis. Let me rephrase one of my questions, which was really about performers’ discretion. After Cage had written an etude using his notation, did he have a conception of how it should sound? That’s to say, how tightly does the the notation determine the performance?

    Cage may have used randomness to remove some of his will, his intention. But in practice is it just replaced by the performer’s will?

    I would like someone to make a YouTube video where they write a piano piece in the style of these etudes australes using Cage’s method.
    As far as I understand, Cage was lenient to differences from the score if they were due to the limitations of the performers' skills, the instruments, or the circumstance, as long as the performers tried to follow the score as much as possible and didn't use their cliche. I read that Tudor altered certain parts of the score when he played Music of Changes. I don't know what Cage thought about it. When they were working on Freeman Etudes, Cage agreed with Zukofsky (though reluctantly) that "the individual violinist, when it became absolutely necessary, would make such changes [e.g. expanding time, changing stringing, timbre substitutions, etc.] as he or she saw fit, preserving the original and its intent to the greatest possible extent." Ichiyanagi, who played Cage's works with him, said that Cage was very sensitive about playing differently from fixed scores, and when there was openness (unspecified in the scores), he had his preferred way to interpret it.

  21. #208
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    4,001
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Claudio Crismani's recording of the etudes is so different from the rest, I find it hard to recognise as the same music sometimes if I compare what he does to (eg) Liebner, Sultan . . .

  22. #209
    Senior Member arpeggio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Burke, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,255
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I am not a fan of Cage. For every Cage work that I like there are a least a dozen that I hate.

    In spite of this I enjoy reading these discussions. For me I prefer them to debates on who was a greater Mahler conductor: Bernstein or Karajan.
    It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. And I am a very ingenious fellow

  23. #210
    Senior Member EddieRUKiddingVarese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Father of Electronic muse
    Posts
    4,973
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    May this thread run as long and ASLSP
    "Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes"

  24. Likes hpowders liked this post
Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 41011121314

Similar Threads

  1. John Williams
    By Edward Elgar in forum The Movie Corner: Music for Cinema and TV
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: Jan-17-2018, 23:01
  2. Composer John Smith
    By Delphi in forum Today's Composers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Apr-18-2008, 01:18
  3. victoria de los angeles and john cameron
    By istabraq in forum Community Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Nov-11-2007, 11:30
  4. What's John Williams composing now?
    By Edward Elgar in forum Today's Composers
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: May-21-2007, 03:50
  5. newby saying hello
    By Andante in forum New Members - Introductions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: Nov-04-2006, 16:53

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •