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!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!tekecs!jeffw From: jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) Newsgroups: net.music.classical Subject: music and philosophy Message-ID: <3817@tekecs.UUCP> Date: Sat, 2-Jun-84 15:14:24 EDT Article-I.D.: tekecs.3817 Posted: Sat Jun 2 15:14:24 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Jun-84 08:41:39 EDT Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 11 I think I'm beginning to understand Tom Twiss's point - let me put it this way: Each piece of music is part of a philosophical construct. As such, a Cage work is essentially the same as, say, a Beethoven symphony. ok - but here's a semi-rhetorical question: Why don't we just do away with music and talk philosophy instead? I submit that a Beethoven symphony is a much more appropriate rebuttal to this suggestion than any Cage work. And that is why I make the distinction that Cage's work belongs to the realm of philosophy, maybe not *rather* than music, but *more* than music. And *that* is why it doesn't interest me. Jeff Winslow