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