|
John W
|
 |
« Reply #60 on: 13:55:08, 09-02-2008 » |
|
Suffice to say I know when someone is mocking me. Good day, "matron"
(another American ignorant asks: what is meant by "matron" here?)
C Dish, Oh, the 'matron' isn't mocking, it's a reference to a saying in the Carry On films here, probably Carry On Doctor, by the gay actor Kenneth Williams, but I don't mock gay people here or anywhere, and I don't know if you're gay; I adored the late Kenneth Williams and loved all his lines in the films. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Morticia
|
|
« Reply #61 on: 14:34:22, 09-02-2008 » |
|
Enter Mort wearing her Mod bonnet.
Can we please stick to discussing Cage and/or 4' 33"? I`m sure we can create a Carry On room if necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #62 on: 14:45:48, 09-02-2008 » |
|
Enter Mort wearing her Mod bonnet.
Can we please stick to discussing Cage and/or 4' 33"? I`m sure we can create a Carry On room if necessary.
Yes Madam - here we go... 1.......2.......3.......4....4.55Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
|
« Reply #63 on: 15:54:07, 09-02-2008 » |
|
I found great originality in my students' compositions at GCSE and A level, and no we didn't just use the computer, it was pencil and manuscript work .
but A, you've made it clear whenever you've posted about modern music that "great originality" isn't something you place any value on. Not true Richard, only originality which isn't music anymore. I have said often that it has to have a melody ( of some sort) a few lines that sound pleasant to go with it and .... sound.A |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Well, there you are.
|
|
|
|
A
|
|
« Reply #64 on: 15:56:15, 09-02-2008 » |
|
The comment about Rauschenberg's White paintings is relevant.
The comment about Rauschenberg's paintings would be relevant if this were a serious discussion of the work of John Cage. However, it's not. Instead it is using one relatively unimportant piece of Cage's that's acquired notoriety to pillory contemporary music as a whole. It's the taxi-driver's argument - if one modern building has caused a scandal, then all modern architecture is rubbish. If one model suffers anorexia, the entire fashion industry is a pack of vicious brutes. It's a peculiarly British kind of argument which you won't see used in other countries. It's what keeps Britain backward. Not at all as far as I'm concerned Reiner. I seem unable to make the point that no sound is not music. Contemporary music has sound and therefore is on a different level. Other Cage works are a different cup of tea . .. not particularly my scene but I can at least appreciate their worth. A |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Well, there you are.
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #65 on: 15:58:15, 09-02-2008 » |
|
The comment about Rauschenberg's paintings would be relevant if this were a serious discussion of the work of John Cage. However, it's not. Instead it is using one relatively unimportant piece of Cage's that's acquired notoriety to pillory contemporary music as a whole. It's the taxi-driver's argument - if one modern building has caused a scandal, then all modern architecture is rubbish. If one model suffers anorexia, the entire fashion industry is a pack of vicious brutes. You do have a point here, Reiner, as Richard notes. But I still think you're basically doing what you criticise others for doing, i.e. coming into a discussion in which at least some participants are trying to talk about something specific, and making comments which take it back to a level of useless generality. It's a peculiarly British kind of argument which you won't see used in other countries. It's what keeps Britain backward.
Now you sound like Ian! A, I'm really not hung up on this 'music' question at all. How would you react to the discussion if we said, OK, we're not claiming 4'33" is music, we just find it an interesting artistic/aesthetic statement. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
A
|
|
« Reply #66 on: 15:58:26, 09-02-2008 » |
|
"4'33" is no longer a work of music, in the same way that the Tate Bricks aren't scupture - both works have become brickbats, the stock-in-trade of the Richard Littlejohns and Julie Burchills, and stand as an iconic shorthand for all other works their denigrators believe must probably exist and would be even worse. So no serious discussion is possible.  There is much in what you say, Reiner. but... but... Richard you mock me for saying far less than this...  A |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Well, there you are.
|
|
|
|
A
|
|
« Reply #67 on: 15:59:51, 09-02-2008 » |
|
Enter Mort wearing her Mod bonnet.
Can we please stick to discussing Cage and/or 4' 33"? I`m sure we can create a Carry On room if necessary.
Yes Madam - here we go... 1.......2.......3.......4....4.55Baz Don't you mean .. here we go 4..3..3..? A  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Well, there you are.
|
|
|
|
A
|
|
« Reply #68 on: 16:02:05, 09-02-2008 » |
|
A, I'm really not hung up on this 'music' question at all. How would you react to the discussion if we said, OK, we're not claiming 4'33" is music, we just find it an interesting artistic/aesthetic statement.
Yep, I can do that ... great t-is-n !! thanks . A |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Well, there you are.
|
|
|
|
Reiner Torheit
|
|
« Reply #69 on: 20:08:32, 09-02-2008 » |
|
Now you sound like Ian!
You know how to wound a man, Tinners  But I am quite serious in my intentions here, and it is not at all the reductio ad infantilum you hint at. The accretion of sensationalist sentiment connected with the work (equally by its detractors and supporters) has altered our perception of it entirely beyond anything the composer may have intended. It's become a byword for everything that's "wrong" with contemporary music, and comes with so much baggage attached that all discussion is reduced to panto-season "Oh yes it is! / Oh no it isn't!" badinage. It's a red rag to a bull, in just the same way that if you want to derail a discussion about opera you can mention fat sopranos in horned helmets. In short - everything's already been said, nothing further will be gained from weary repetition of the "points" that have been endlessly made, and it's really time to move on. A lot has been said in contemporary music since this (unimportant) piece, and I think the contemporary music advocates make a great mistake in rising to the goading of the wind-up artists in the mistaken belief that there's a "cause" that needs winning here. There isn't, it will never be "won", and any idea that a greater respect for contemporary music might result from such a "win" is utterly illusory. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"I was, for several months, mutely in love with a coloratura soprano, who seemed to me to have wafted straight from Paradise to the stage of the Odessa Opera-House"
- Leon Trotsky, "My Life"
|
|
|
|
autoharp
|
|
« Reply #70 on: 20:46:08, 09-02-2008 » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Andy D
|
|
« Reply #71 on: 20:57:49, 09-02-2008 » |
|
 A: That square is black. B: That square is white. A: That square is black. B: That square is white. A: That square is black. B: That square is white. A: That square is black. B: That square is white. A: That square is black. B: That square is white. A: That square is black. B: That square is white. A: That square is black. B: That square is white........................................................... So no serious discussion is possible.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #72 on: 22:18:19, 09-02-2008 » |
|
A: That square is black. B: That square is white. A: That square is black. B: That square is white. A: That square is black. B: That square is white. A: That square is black. B: That square is white. A: That square is black. B: That square is white. A: That square is black. B: That square is white. A: That square is black. B: That square is white........................................................... So no serious discussion is possible.
For goodness' sake let's just stck with Pythagoras!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
|
« Reply #73 on: 22:22:25, 09-02-2008 » |
|
Now that IS logical Baz A |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Well, there you are.
|
|
|
|
