source file: mills2.txt Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 21:57:17 -0700 Subject: Mclaren on Cage From: eric@cmlab.sfc.keio.ac.jp (Eric Lyon) How does he do it? Somehow Brian Mclaren manages to goad me into defending John Cage, a composer who has never been in my top 20, and who, I agree with Brian, is probably overrated. Nonetheless, with so many legitimate ways to criticize Cage, Mclaren manages to find some bafflingly inane ones instead. Mclaren challenges Cage's status as an experimental composer as follows: >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...? . Most of these questions are irrelevant because musical experimentation does not equal scientific experimentation. The main difference is that the scientist makes the utmost effort to *disprove* his hypothesis to determine its veracity. The composer attempts to *prove* his through the creation of works of great power and beauty. One sees the absurdity of some of these questions by asking what mathematical model or experimental hypothesis Beethoven was investigating through the composition of the Grosse Fuge. Perhaps he was attempting to compose out a Schenkerian Urlinie with the clunkiest counterpoint available with contemporary counterpuntal technology? Indeed the confusion of artistic and scientific methodologies is one major reason that many American university music departments have become somewhat inhospitable for artists. But I digress as usual. Cage states his hypothesis plainly enough. Sounds that we normally filter out as noise can function as music. This is a logical extension of the ideas of Varese, namely the liberation of sound. Further, Cage posits that interesting things can happen when situations are constructed to push listener and performer outside of a preprogrammed timetable (score), i.e. Indeterminacy. A few comments. I don't find this an efficient way to work personally. I have heard several recordings of Cage which I find sonically stunning, and which are a direct result of Cage's method of setting up musical events. There are a few really powerful "composed" pieces by Cage such as the Three Dances for Two Prepared Pianos which demonstrate considerable musical skill in rhythmic, sonic and temporal organization which clearly demonstrate that Cage was not a musical charlatan. While I don't find Cage's hypotheses particularly useful for my own compositional work, I don't deny their existence as Brian does. Brian also compares Cage to Xenakis: >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. This is the sort of writing by Brian which irritates some people. The most cursory glance at Cage's writings displays his obvious intelligence and musical knowledge. I quote from a lecture by Milton Babbitt in which he described his meeting with Cage: "He is a highly intelligent, completely honest person, with whom I had no basis for discussion on music." Babbitt is honorable enough to not gratuitously insult someone whose musical values are orthagonal to his own. An observation about computer programming. It does not require much intelligence to program a computer. Cage's use of randomness required awareness during every random decision and therefore it's silly to imply that Cage's use of randomness is less "efficient" than Xenakis any more than a watercolor painting is less efficient than a mass-produced poster. Cage was certainly intelligent enough to program a computer but it would have defeated the purpose of his goals for using the technique, i.e. observing all intermediate results in the compositional and performance process. When I did a residency at UPIC, I learned that Xenakis is a terrible programmer. But nobody at UPIC says that his lack of programming ability represents a lack of talent and intelligence. In fact many consider him to be an intellectual and musical giant. The point being, if Brian wishes his criticisms of other composers to be taken seriously, he should make serious criticism, rather than frivolous charges and gratuitous insults. Eric Lyon . Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 07:39 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA07874; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 07:39:26 +0200 Received: from dub-img-5.compuserve.com by ns (smtpxd); id XA07861 Received: by dub-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id BAA15693; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 01:39:24 -0400 Date: 12 Aug 96 01:37:59 EDT From: Gary Morrison <71670.2576@CompuServe.COM> To: Manuel Op de Coul <"COUL%VBV65.decnet"@ezh.nl> Subject: RE: Fwd: FW: Ariane 5 news note Message-Id: <960812053758_71670.2576_HHB37-8@CompuServe.COM> Yeah, I saw that thing on Discovery about the Columbia 757 crash as well. Sounds like a miscommunication compounded by pilot error. Drag... The TWA investigation of course was far more difficult because the entire wreckage is buried on the continental shelf. Bigger drag... Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 10:50 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA09136; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 10:50:43 +0200 Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA09139 Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) for id BAA20215; Mon, 12 Aug 1996 01:50:41 -0700 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 01:50:41 -0700 Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960812084843.006986e0@adnc.com> Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu