John Cage

Nicely said.

A toast to pushing the line!

Another toast to Beethoven (may he rest in peace)

And three cheers for artistic expression!! :(

And three cheers for artistic expression!! smile.gif

Add a fourth!

And yes, I am a post-modernist thinker. Scientific, not at all. I suck at science. Humanist, absolutely.

This is amusing, because humanism is a product of the enlightenment, a predominantly scientific way of seeing the world.

To me, all religions are Mans attempts at grasping the spiritual world, just as all styles of music, no matter how outlandish they are, are all Mans attempts at grasping the artistic world.

I agree. All religions and mythologies are glimmers of truth upon the human imagination. -C.S. Lewis, paraphrased

Music is art. Art is anything that is organised to give an emotional response, whether it is beauty, sadness, happiness, or even anger.

Everything is art, as long as the creator's work intentionally gives off an emotional response.

Surely you must see the fallacy in saying EVERYTHING is art. Indeed, the original meaning of the word art meant "artisan," or craftsman. A craftsman is one who has a highly developed skill in either performance or the creation of an object or other work. To make art synonymous with everything merely creates an obstacle to understanding. "Art" already describes a very clear idea.

And that argument you made about inateness. I remember banging on pots and pans when I was little. It was innate.

So John Cage is as innovative as a 5 year old. Exactly.

The sciences are art. Politics is an art. Music is an art.

This is definitely true, as each of these involve a very developed craft, whether it be skillfully manipulating algebraic expressions, persuading audiences, or evoking emotional or intellectual reponses in a listener.

John Cage is what he does.

"I have nothing to say, and I am saying it." - John Cage.

The history of the human race is a great canvas of unbelievable color. And John Cage is just one of its painters, and he is no fraud because he has created an emotional response from you - that of disgust. An emotional response nonetheless.

I'm not disgusted by John Cage. I merely find it amusing that anyone takes him seriously.

You see, Derek, and those of your mind, I just am so opposed to your single minded, "Tonal music is the only music", because it just reminds me so much of those Fundamentalists who believe - nay, know - that their religion is the only possible religion. There are just so many different styles of music out there, and new ones are being created every day it seems, and as long as you have such an arrogant look at the world, then that's perhaps the greatest insult to any true artist.

Did I ever say tonal music is the only music? I thought I've made it clear several times that I listen to many atonal works, and thoroughly enjoy them. I don't like pure 12-tone serialism---it produces very boring music. Atonality though, as I'm sure you'd agree, encompasses a broader spectrum of musical styles.

And this goes for you to, N.Z. Canzano. You're a good guy, probably, but this is a response to one of your questions earlier. You really are brutishly arrogant. Just look at life with a new pair of aviators or something.

N.S. Canzano is a very clear headed young man. Being a firey adolescent full of vigor and rage is not mutually exclusive with having a solid, clear headed worldview. (or at least, in this case, a solid view of musical aesthetics)

Why can't the lot of you guys just love music for what it is? Why must it be scrutinized because it doesn't follow your way of doing things? Why can't you just listen to it and instead of critiquing it for what it isn't, why not critique it for what it is? It's disgusting, really. You'll get nowhere in the real world as artists if you are ignorant to the rest of music. If I were to just sit at the piano, bang down on some keys, that would be art. Why? Because I'd be expressing my rage at stupid hoity-toity snobs like you.

I thought I made it clear that my musical aesthetic/philosophy does not involve scrutiny. I might think about music theory sometimes because it is a habit of us Western composers to do so, and I find it amusing, but in terms of creating music, I find it totally useless. I compose via my own personal knowledge, which involves no scrutiny. All it involves is enjoying music for itself.

When you look at rap music, give it a chance. I mean, the rhythms are music, beating down on those techno talking drums. They're lyrics are about the same kind of themes that people have always been singing about - cars, girls, and money - or at least their historical equivalents. Jazz music is insanely complicated. Nowhere in the classical world ill you find such wild crazy harmonies as in bebop. Yet you accuse of being free and formless. Bebop's form IS freedom. Sure, you have the head - the main melody - but after that the jam session just goes on and on. Jazz music is perhaps more akin to oral communication than any other Western style - saxes playing a purely improvised solo, interrupted by the trumpet, with the drums doing something crazy and avante-garde. 12 Tone Music took art music to a whole new level, with the theory that mathematics is beautiful. Mathematics is beautiful. Not to me, mind you, but to others. Now look at funk and heavy metal. Crazy music, crazy lifestyles, yet they all express the artist in their own ways. Harsh distorsions might turn you off, but they are still music. Yours are not the only set of legitimate ears.

Pardon my bluntness, but Jesus H. Christ.

Apparently, like most closed-minded postmodernists, you haven't read my entire post. I made it very clear several times that I do not think Western music is superior, and enjoy musics from all over the world. I also enjoy listening to rap, but only those underground varieties which do not sport disgraceful lyrics. Finally, death metal is one of my favorite genres. Some days I enjoy listening to it MORE than classical music.

And: 12-tone music is hardly rule-based. There are only a few basic guidelines to follow, and from that point on, it's free and easy sailing. This is why twelve-tone music doesn't all sound the same, surprise surprise.

I agree it doesn't all sound the same. Some of it is quite good. Keith Jarrett sometimes improvises upon 12 tone rows, though he doesn't use them quite so strictly as Schoenberg. Because he uses intuition to explore this technique, it comes out sounding much more interesting than a composed 12-tone piece.

Monkeysinfezzes, very well said.

I admire John Cage's ability to completed rethink the concept of music. That is a great accomplishment. I agree that in the traditional sense of the word, he is not a composer/musician. However, whether you believe he is a composer/musician or not it completely subjective and doesn't matter: the fact that he did what he did has caused great amounts of ink to be spilled on the topic of "what is music," and THAT is truly an amazing accomplishment. I wish the world had more people like John Cage.

I'm afraid that whether or not John Cage's 4' 33" seconds is music is not a subjective consideration. It is not music.

I have a great idea for a revolution in the culinary arts. Does food have to taste good? Lets put a bunch of people around a table and make them eat a pile of vomit, and see what the general consensus is. Perhaps I will be hailed as a revolutionary henceforth, by kind-hearted thinkers like yourself.

Also, it isn't John Cage who accomplished all the reaction to him. It is all his followers and supporters who actually take him seriously. I'm trying to persuade you and others who think like you that John Cage was in fact not a revolutionary, was not an innovator, did not compose music (except for his prepared piano works, of course), and is not worthy of being in the same textbook as Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, or even Arnold Schoenberg!

Without it, music would remain static through the ages, never progressing, never attempting to rethink itself. I am sorry to say, but I very strongly disagree with this statement (although i also very strong respect your opinion and option to believe it :)).

I thought I carefully explained above that my view (and anyone who agrees with me) is a great supporter of innovation, though intuitive composition, whether that be through improvisation, or imagination with a Finale program.

Total silence does not involve intuition, a well honed craft, or skill of any sort. Neither does random snaps, crackles, and pops. That is why I can't consider these to be innovations.

I am researching an essay on Schoenberg's String Quartet No. 2 and have come across a speech given my pianist Glenn Gould which I wanted to share with everyone. I am very curious to hear what you think about this sentiment.

"...we are accustomed to the idea that music which is rigidly legislated, as Schoenberg's music is popularly supposed to be, is complicated or in some way difficult to understand. But it seems to me that this is not at all the same thing as complication. I do not believe that a language like Schoenberg's, which tries so hard to be logical, to trumpet its logic with organic proof of a raison d'etre, is a language which in the true sense of the word is complicted. In my view, the really complex language is the one in which not only are there certain rules and regulations, but in which there is also an element that is not quite susceptible to proof, not entirely demostrable, but which to a degree is concealed and subliminal. In other words, I suggest to you that the most complicated endeavours in art are those in which the process of rational decision is closely allied with the instinctive process."

Mr. Gould then goes on to explain that, using this logic, he finds Schoenberg's 12-note-system of composition simple, while the music of Wagner, Mahler, and Struass, which pushed tonality to its breaking point, was the truly complicated music.

Discuss!

Glenn Gould summed up my own view of personal knowledge quite succinctly in this post by our friend Cavatina. Though the quote didn't go on to include Gould's words, Cavatina also points out Glenn Gould's view that Schoenberg's 12 tone system is simple. This is precisely why I don't find it as interesting, it lacks that intuitive complex element that Glenn Gould is talking about.

I think you'll all agree that total silence, 12 radios tuned to random stations, an organ with weights on its keys, and snaps, crackles, and pops, do not involve a process of rational decision, OR an instinctive process.

This is, again, why I do not consider John Cage a revolutionary or an innovator by any stretch of the imagination.

I think you'll all agree that total silence, 12 radios tuned to random stations, an organ with weights on its keys, and snaps, crackles, and pops, do not involve a process of rational decision, OR an instinctive process.

This is, again, why I do not consider John Cage a revolutionary or an innovator by any stretch of the imagination.

Fair enough... I just like the fact that he makes us think about what music really is... that's all.

I just find it amusing, and a symptom of the times, that we actually had to think about that at all. lol :)

I just find it amusing, and a symptom of the times, that we actually had to think about that at all. lol :)

I guess people like Cage wanted that... so fait accomplis.

Glenn Gould summed up my own view of personal knowledge quite succinctly in this post by our friend Cavatina. Though the quote didn't go on to include Gould's words, Cavatina also points out Glenn Gould's view that Schoenberg's 12 tone system is simple. This is precisely why I don't find it as interesting, it lacks that intuitive complex element that Glenn Gould is talking about.

I think you'll all agree that total silence, 12 radios tuned to random stations, an organ with weights on its keys, and snaps, crackles, and pops, do not involve a process of rational decision, OR an instinctive process.

This is, again, why I do not consider John Cage a revolutionary or an innovator by any stretch of the imagination.

That's interesting - I disagree with Gould's analysis of serialism as simple music because of its lack of unproveable material. I feel that serialism contains just as much unproveable sound as does a Mahler, a Debussy, a Bach, by nature of its construction. While Schoenberg would construct pieces around pure rows, and not repeat pitches until the row was finished, and not use varied octaves until the row was finished (for purely philosophical consideration - ask me about it sometime :)), other composers, such as Anton von Webern, would divide his rows into trichords, which he would then invert, permute, and/or retrograde each trichord in order to create new rows as he went. The fundamental construction of sound is intuitive. The unproveable material of a serial piece is the row itself. The composer intuits which notes will sound the way he wants them to next to the others within the original row, and only then does mathematics take over. For instance, Webern avoided almost all structures of tonality within his rows. Alban Berg, however, constructed his rows to form tonal major and minor trichords, though he did not often split his rows into those trichords.

And again, I disagree with the assertion that total silence, 12 radios, prepared organs, and random sounds do not involve rational decision or instinctive process. The first thing we were told in our composition class here at Oberlin was that in the world, there is sound all around us - and that the vast majority of the sound all around us is not natural, as it was thousands of years ago. It takes a rational decision to pay attention to the ambient noise in our lives, I think, or an instinct to listen. I think it takes a rational decision which weights to put on which keys of an organ, just as it takes a rational decision which objects to lay across a piano string (the tables of preparation for the piano pieces, by the way, are extraordinarily intricate), and a rational decision to tune 12 radios differently. Surely that couldn't just happen by accident! And moreover, it takes an instinct to guess at what sound may come out of a composition. I believe that is the fundamental reason why Cage's music IS music - that no matter what process he uses, his listeners must use their instincts to the fullest of their capability to guess what sound is coming, or a rational decision to listen to the sounds as they come, and reason it for themselves.

-------

Sorry - off-topic, but interesting anyway.

I heard a piece by Elliott Carter the other day: Etude #7 - it's a single pitch, articulated by the entrances and exits of the instruments - and I think it's possibly one of the most engaging pieces I've ever heard. It's not that long (because it's only one pitch), but it holds your attention throughout it.

And again, I disagree with the assertion that total silence, 12 radios, prepared organs, and random sounds do not involve rational decision or instinctive process. The first thing we were told in our composition class here at Oberlin was that in the world, there is sound all around us - and that the vast majority of the sound all around us is not natural, as it was thousands of years ago. It takes a rational decision to pay attention to the ambient noise in our lives, I think, or an instinct to listen. I think it takes a rational decision which weights to put on which keys of an organ, just as it takes a rational decision which objects to lay across a piano string (the tables of preparation for the piano pieces, by the way, are extraordinarily intricate), and a rational decision to tune 12 radios differently. Surely that couldn't just happen by accident! And moreover, it takes an instinct to guess at what sound may come out of a composition. I believe that is the fundamental reason why Cage's music IS music - that no matter what process he uses, his listeners must use their instincts to the fullest of their capability to guess what sound is coming, or a rational decision to listen to the sounds as they come, and reason it for themselves.

Somehow I am not at all surprised you have been brainwashed by a kooky modern composition class.

I'm not a music student, but

I did take a Western Music History class, and the textbook doesn't even so much as mention Rachmaninov. It does, however, mention Cage.

I'm sorry, but if you do a survey course whose purpose is to OPEN THE MINDS OF COLLEGE STUDENTs, for HEAVEN'S SAKE don't try to convince them 4' 33" of total silence is music.

Play them the Rach 2....

Anyway...yes, it takes just about as much rational decision to put a weight on a key as it does to take a trip to the loo.

Don't you see the stark contrast between someone who composes a gorgeous piano concerto and someone who turns on 12 radios? One of these exhibits a highly refined, hard-won CRAFT which has purpose, meaning, and Love all throughout it. The other...is just hot-air of people who actually think it is profound. It is nonsense.

I pity you and all music students who are force fed this b.s. I wish some of you would make me proud, and stand up for what is true and beautiful in this world!

Nevermind. I am aware that most modern music composition curricula are quite universalist and do allow composition students to write works which are both traditional and avante-garde.

Which is all well and good, I suppose. I just find the whole thing about John Cage to be puerile and silly. Finally, the fact that Rachmaninov was excluded from a WESTERN MUSIC HISTORY TEXTBOOK just ticks me off. Something fierce.

And if you try to defend Rachmaninov's omission from the textbook....I'm afraid my head will explode. I'll decide all of music academia is rebelling against Truth, Beauty and Love and I will be their sworn enemy for all eternity.

I have to agree. The academic view of music has become too broad to be meaningful. I think this is because everyone is scared to death (and they should be) that there really is nothing truly new to be done with music. Broadening the definition to infinity seems to create endless new worlds to explore in music, but I'm not buying it. Again, I have to draw a line somewhere.

I personally think music is far too vast to have exhausted all the possibilities.

What puzzles me is that people don't even want anything remotely familiar when they find something new.

It seems to me this is inconsistent with actual musical practice and history. If one contrasts one composer with an immediate predecessor, one does not find something so profoundly new that it sounds as though that composer were not influenced by his predecessor. Even Schoenberg could be said to have been influenced by Wagner, he just added the straw that broke the tonal camel's back.

Ever hear the intro to that one C major string quartet by Mozart? (actually I forget preciesly which key or opus number, I'll look it up if you want) It practically sounds atonal. Some of Bach's more chromatic fugues have an almost atonal sound to them.

It seems to me nobody has really INNOVATED in music, they have DISCOVERED. (and not via some scientific process or mathematical process...by INTUITION)

True originality, it seems to me, is more like a fingerprint. If you write a lot of your own music, and don't SET OUT to imitate any particular composer, you will undoubtedly have your own distinct voice.

I would actually go out on a limb and say that those who are obsessed with finding something profoundly new won't really understand music until they can again listen to the Moonlight sonata and enjoy it.

Music isn't about being new. It isn't about being revolutionary.

Music is written by humans, who are leading human lives. Do human lives ever exhibit anything profoundly original?

Where does that obsession come from anyway?

It seems to me that our own worship of ourselves, in the form of Humanism, maybe what causes us to have such intense faith in our Glorious Progress and Originality. We see ourselves as Gods---and Gods, as everyone knows, are true innovators and originators.

Perhaps that is misdirected religious fervor?

Somehow I am not at all surprised you have been brainwashed by a kooky modern composition class.

Please, don't treat me like that... I haven't been brainwashed. I still take issue with much of the music I'm assigned to listen to for my composition class on many levels, but that doesn't preclude my ability to see that which is profound, beautiful, sublime, whichever, about it.

I'm not a music student, but

I did take a Western Music History class, and the textbook doesn't even so much as mention Rachmaninov. It does, however, mention Cage.

Unforgivable not to mention Rachmanianov, I agree.

I'm sorry, but if you do a survey course whose purpose is to OPEN THE MINDS OF COLLEGE STUDENTs, for HEAVEN'S SAKE don't try to convince them 4' 33" of total silence is music.

Umm... the purpose of a survey course to open the minds of college taking a closed-minded stance? I think not. I doubt very much the course actually CONVINCES that 4'33" is music - it simply takes the artistic standpoint that it is in order to make a point about the development and history of music. And don't take the stance that 4'33" is silence, because it's not. It's designed to draw attention to ambient noise, which it does admirably.

Anyway...yes, it takes just about as much rational decision to put a weight on a key as it does to take a trip to the loo.

I'm afraid here you missed my point. It was not so much that the decision was to place weights on the keys as much as it is what weight to place on which keys. Clearly a heavier weight will be larger, cover more key area, while a smaller weight will take up less keyspace, generating a lighter sound. Now, if you say that that takes as much rational decision as a trip to the loo, I'd expect you to be able to conciously generate different sized feces in accordance with some design or other.

Don't you see the stark contrast between someone who composes a gorgeous piano concerto and someone who turns on 12 radios? One of these exhibits a highly refined, hard-won CRAFT which has purpose, meaning, and Love all throughout it. The other...is just hot-air of people who actually think it is profound. It is nonsense.

Yes, I see the contrast. But the contrast does not preclude the other's purpose, meaning, or love.

I pity you and all music students who are force fed this b.s. I wish some of you would make me proud, and stand up for what is true and beautiful in this world!

Don't pity me - it's condescending - and we're not force-fed this b.s. I know half my composition class would take your side of the argument. Some of us do make you proud, but most of us work in the in-between space - working to reconcile John Cage's philosophy with YOUR concept of truth and beauty.

Not to mention, I feel you missed the point of what I said about constant ambient noise. It wasn't remotely connected to John Cage - it was actually brought up in a discussion about listening to live performance rather than recorded music, and the importance of really listening to music. I mean, have you listened to a piece on recording and then heard it live, and noticed how it sounds SO different, because a recording doesn't pick up all the overtones of the instruments?

The actual instance that brought up the discussion was this: there had been a performance of Beethoven's 7th in the concert hall here - which has long windows near the ceiling. Now, at the same time as the performance was going on, a thunderstorm hit. And as the symphony reached its peak, the storm moved directly overhead. The thunder was so loud it could be heard inside the hall, and lighting was flashing around the windows at the top of the hall. This ambient noise (what Cage is concerned with in many pieces) lent something extra to the music. An act of chance (without intuition or rationale) made the piece more true and beautiful!

I suppose the reason I take issue with your definition of what music is is this: according to your definition, you would say that bird-song is not music, but if someone were to tape-record it, transcribe it note-for-note for violin, and have that performed, it would be music, despite the fact that it was a product of the natural world at its inception. Now, I'm not heavily religious, but that seems to be more blasphemous to nature, to the concept of truth and beauty, and/or (if you're so inclined) the work of god/gods/higher powers than John Cage's work.

Umm... the purpose of a survey course to open the minds of college taking a closed-minded stance? I think not. I doubt very much the course actually CONVINCES that 4'33" is music - it simply takes the artistic standpoint that it is in order to make a point about the development and history of music. And don't take the stance that 4'33" is silence, because it's not. It's designed to draw attention to ambient noise, which it does admirably.

One of the things I find irritating about the way you and others like you treat ME and other like minded thinkers, is that you try to act as though you're so open minded and we're the closed minded ones.

Don't call me closed minded---I used to only listen to Bach and Beethoven and Chopin and death metal and hardly anything else. Now I listen to music from all over the world and enjoy many atonal works. I have drawn the line at people who bang pots together and try to claim that total silence is music. Don't you think that's reasonable?

Isn't it closed minded for someone to exclude Rachmaninov from a textbook? If you're going to pretend to be open minded (speaking to everyone who shares your views, not you specifically) please be consistent about it!

I suppose the reason I take issue with your definition of what music is is this: according to your definition, you would say that bird-song is not music, but if someone were to tape-record it, transcribe it note-for-note for violin, and have that performed, it would be music, despite the fact that it was a product of the natural world at its inception. Now, I'm not heavily religious, but that seems to be more blasphemous to nature, to the concept of truth and beauty, and/or (if you're so inclined) the work of god/gods/higher powers than John Cage's work.

That's right. bird-song is not music. It is musical. This is a distinct idea from determining whether something IS music. Something can be LIKE music and not BE music.

You're right, however, if it were transcribed for violin, then it would be music. Actually...I'm not so sure it would be even in that case. This would not be the result of craftsmanship, or as Gould put it, a process of rational decision closely allied with the instinctive process.

Pure bird sounds transcribed note for note for orchestra would probably get kind of boring after a while. It would be pleasant to listen to, I suppose, but it would be boring.

It is more interesting when a composer, such as Vivaldi, merely takes inspiration from bird-song, and incorporates that into his own intuition as he writes a beautiful violin concerto.

Last time I checked, a tree full of birds can't write a violin concerto like Spring from the four seasons.

My apologies - my remark about closed-mindedness was aimed specifically at the class that excludes any consideration of John Cage's work as music, not at yourself or anyone else who has already considered it and found it lacking.

It wasn't just you, Chris, several people have posted on your side of the argument accusing me of being a Western elitist who won't give anything with any dissonance in it the time of day.

Anyone want to follow up my recent posts? :laugh: Or shall we conclude that John Cage wasn't in fact, a composer, but rather a creative Sound Technician?

Let's stop including him in music textbooks. He doesn't belong there. Rachmaninoff, on the other hand, does.

The fact that we're actually having this debate at all is, I think, the strongest reason FOR including him in music textbooks, don't you think? Granted, not theory textbooks, but history is not a clear-cut study, nor has it ever been. History has long been about debate and fuzzy answers. I agree that any music history textbook that CONVINCES that Cage's work is music is skewed, but so is the textbook that leaves him out entirely. Much modern music is a reconciliation of sorts between Cage's music and traditional music, and the fact that Cage's admittedly extreme views engendered the rise of not only New Complexity and modern Musique Concrete and Elektronische Musik practices but also the practice of including "non-musical" sounds in everyday pop music I believe has earned him a place in music textbooks, regardless of whether that book calls his work music or not.

Bear in mind that it is possible to call Cage's work music without considering him a composer (though I do, for his practice of ordering sound is exactly what composers do, though his rules were much more liberal than most) or even a musician at all, but for simplicity's sake alone. So don't be so quick to condemn a textbook that includes Cage in its annals. There's a reason he's there.

On the other hand, please feel free to vent your righteous fury about Rachmanianoff not being included. You'll get no argument from me on that account.

I'm glad you agree with me about Rachmaninoff. I had a similar debate months before and someone came to the defense of the textbook author, to my great consternation and irritation. I think the guy was just being a stuck up know it all. It seems to me music History shouldn't be about the most "influential" people but about who has created immortal music that has moved millions of people. Cage could hardly be said to be amongst those.

Anyway, it seems to me at this point its a matter of whether or not you really find it valuable to consider whether snaps, crackles and pops or total silence is music.

I really don't understand what you think you're getting out of pondering this supposedly deep question. I suppose since you and thousands of others do that is why Cage is being included.

I don't feel that our craft as Composers is any less free or is any more constrained if we were to totally ignore the man's ideas.

If that textbook HAD included Rachmaninoff, I probably wouldn't be on such a quest. I feel that if the attitude of the academic author is this sort of liberal, all inclusiveness, nicey nicey attitude, I wouldn't mind if he had Rachmaninoff in there AND Cage, but to exclude Rach and include Cage just seems rather hypocritical to me.

I'd actually go out on a limb and say cause the author was a liberal, he hated America so the fact that Rach loved America, became an American citizen, and wrote his own arrangement of the Star Spangled Banner just might be testament to this particular author's political beliefs! hahahaha.

Before you jump to conclusions---I don't think all liberals hate America, quite the contrary. And I realize that some of you are Canadian, I'm speaking from an American perspective here. Finally, I'm a libertarian, not a conservative. lol

I think the point that's being missed on this historical basis is the point of HISTORY. History is about influence, not about beauty or emotional movement. The history books' overview of Adolf Hitler shows him to have done nothing of immortal beauty, but he did have influence. If one chooses to study music HISTORY, it is fallacious to ignore any influential music, no matter the circumstance of its immortal beauty.

Incidentally, it is also academically unsound to assume that the reason Rachmanianoff wasn't in the textbook you read has anything to do with the author's politics. This is pure speculation, and is inappropriate for use in a debate. Find evidence before making such statements, please.

History is about influence, not about beauty or emotional movement.

Then using that criterion, Rachmaninoff should be included in a truly equitable music textbook by virtue of his extraordinary contribution to the Russian Orthodox liturgy - an achievement of his that gets short shrift routinely. I've brought this up once before, and no one even commented on it. His output of religious music is considered by most experts in the field to be the greatest pinnacle of the genre. The Orthodox liturgy has seen nothing greater before or since, even from Bortniansky.

Rachmaninoff's piano pieces and concerti may not have had great influence, but his liturgical music certainly did.

Mm, I haven't heard any of Rachmanianoff's liturgical music, though I should do so. I think we've already established that said textbook (omitting Rachmanianoff) is not exactly the best one out there...

Give Rachmaninoff's so-called "Vespers" a listen, written about 1915. And leave all your expectations of Rachmaninoff at the door when you do. It's completely different from anything else in his catalogue.

First let me say my comments about the author's politics were meant to be humorous, that was not a serious argument on my part. I qualified that with "going out on a limb"

I think the point that's being missed on this historical basis is the point of HISTORY. History is about influence, not about beauty or emotional movement. The history books' overview of Adolf Hitler shows him to have done nothing of immortal beauty, but he did have influence. If one chooses to study music HISTORY, it is fallacious to ignore any influential music, no matter the circumstance of its immortal beauty.

So my question then is why do so many people consider Cage influential? Has anyone followed up his "innovations" with even newer, better total silence? More surprising twists in the ambient sound? More incisive crashes of pots and pans?

Forgive me but that anyone takes him seriously...I'll say once and for all, is just silly.

It is not John Cage that has caused my reaction---it is silly people who actually think he had anything interesting to say, that I am reacting to. It is your silliness that has made him a part of history textbooks, not his profundity. If musical academia weren't a bunch of crazy post-modernists, he would have been laughed at and never taken seriously to begin with.

Of course, it all doesn't matter that much. Crazy people who suggest that 12 radios turned to random stations is something to be taken seriously or thought about for more than two seconds can't really hurt anyone.

Its just silly...might as well go out to the playground and pretend to be Mega Man X, and call that music. Can I be in a textbook too?

I like you Derek.

Much of what you said is how I feel. In fact, John Cage's... stuff... is the only work by a so-called composer that I can think of that I would say isn't music. I used to believe that anything could be music depending on how it is perceived... but using that logic, what is music anyway? Why should we even use the term "music" at all if it has no real meaning? If any combination of sounds can be music, even without organization, then why wouldn't we just use the word "sounds?" It's much simpler that way.

In my opinion, music can be as odd and modern as one can imagine, as long as it has tone or rhythm. I, for one, love modern music. I enjoy atonal music, occassionally serialism, and other avant garde techniques. But I refuse to believe that 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence is music. It isn't. Sure, one can attempt to justify it by saying that the noise of the audience is the music - but I think this is ridiculous. I doubt that Cage really thought that. He was putting on an act, and an entertaining one at that. But I can't imagine why ANYONE considers that "serious music."

12 different radios on different stations? Sure, that may be music, but that's not a PIECE of music. It's 12 different radios tuned to different stations. Now, if somebody had composed 12 different parts for a piece and played them on 12 different radio stations at once, they could call it an actual composition. But, merely playing 12 different radios on random stations... that's not a musical composition, that's an experiment in sound. The two are not always synonymous.