Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site lasspvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!lasspvax!gtaylor From: gtaylor@lasspvax.UUCP (Greg Taylor) Newsgroups: net.music.classical Subject: Re: discussion Message-ID: <157@lasspvax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 20-Dec-84 10:17:23 EST Article-I.D.: lasspvax.157 Posted: Thu Dec 20 10:17:23 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 22-Dec-84 00:42:31 EST References: <> <> Reply-To: gtaylor@lasspvax.UUCP (Greg Taylor) Organization: Theory Center (Cornell University) Lines: 62 Summary: In article <> jwg@lanierrnd.UUCP (Joe Guthridge) writes: > >This brings me to one of the points I was trying to wrestle with. >How many of you out there enjoy John Cage's music? Do you enjoy the idea >of what he is doing, the act of doing it, the sounds produced while >doing it, or just the fact that someone has to do it :-} ? > >Needless to say I don't. I'm trying to educate my taste in music, and >here's a big question I confront often: > SHOULD I enjoy this? I'd say offhand that you've gotta think through some pretty basic notions of what constitutes Art. The whole basis of the *SHOULD* I argument involves making some serious choices on whether or not you wish to locate yourself within the critical institutions of Music as "high art" (as we in the West call it.....). You may have noticed that this newsgroup is chockablock with those who ascribe to the "at some point the institution went off the track..." point of view. I am personally quite leery of doing something like that. Seems to me that the easiest way to wander into the minefield is to try being an historical secessionist. Why not argue your case from within the traditions of twentieth century music. As for Cage, why not hunt up some composers whose work is formally related to Cages's aesthetic of construction but acheive different results (you might try Takemitsu, Gavin Bryars, Michael Nyman (early stuff). If you're intelligent enough to separate the method from the result, then is your objection to Cage as a cultural figure, or the output of his designated system of compositions? Better yet, why not hang on and wait for another wave of fashion more in keeping with your personal tastes? In keeping me biases out there in public, I would have to say that I *do* subscribe to a promarily institutional view of what constitutes Art (the advent of Post-Modernism has made that a lot easier). So I *am* biased. a>It's true that there's music that almost everyone agrees is bad, and some that >almost everyone agrees is good. In fact, outside those classifications, >people can often agree that piece A is better than piece B. But what is >the object of good taste in music? A friend once told me, "If I don't >enjoy a piece, it's my problem." That's an easy and good answer to >the problem, but I can't live with that. Is there always an answer to >whether a piece is good or bad? Is there sometimes an answer? > I would say that the object of good taste is nill in music: that's entirely a question of personal choice. As long as you choose to locate your tastes within the confines of *I* like or *dont* like. The trouble comes when you don your priestly garments and decide that anything you don't like must therefore be suspect as art. As Karl Malik so patiently points out, that often happens if you're unwilling to *really* spend the time with something and listen to it. You may find after doing that that you really don't care for it (that sums up me and Wagner (the Laurie Anderson of the 19th century) pretty well). The judgement of the institution is *always* provisional-time has a way of shaking those things out. If you're interested in chasing after this idea, why don't you ask someone (preferably a literary scholar, since the Musical version of this kind of criticism has only recently started early) about "reception criticism" or *Rezeptionsgeschichte*....a field that is very interested in the way in which a given view of Art and Artists changes over time. >As an aside, I'm convinced that opera is an acquired taste. Flame me. > No flames from here. In fact, the operatic folks have always been my paradigm case of the possible abuses of the "I don't like it, it must not be Art" school. Well, gotta go. This is a bit rambly, so let me condense. If Art is not your adversary, you'll live a longer and happier life. Of course, the newsgroup is awash with real "Romantics," so at least the arguments will be interesting. Ubi Caritas, Greg