At 12:34 PM 2/7/05 -0500, Phil Daley wrote: >The first question: "Was this (Cage's) music as successful (moving, >exciting, attractive) as other musics?" >I don't see how anyone can argue a yes answer to this question. The >"scientific proof" would be that pretty much no one has ever heard of him >(outside of academic music people).
I'll argue yes, and easily. I'm not an academic, and never have been. But I have lived through the era when Cage's works fit in beautifully with the temper of the times. His performances were filled with energetic people who loved the sounds and intimately understood this music. HPSCHD on recording was an inspiration to me with its lustrous mix. And even up here, the Yellow Barn Festival was sold out to hear one of Cage's brand new pieces for two dozen strings. Captivating, beautiful, spectacular recordings that may change your definition of "success" include the choral pieces by Ars Nova, Christina Fong's violin renderings, the Stephen Drury keyboard interpretations (the fantastic "In a Landscape" CD), and the untouchable "Singing Through" recording in which Joan LaBarbara just plain knocks 'em dead. If by 'other musics' you mean the bulk of music people listen to and buy, then Mozart can't hold a candle in this argument either. But there are many measures of success that include both Mozart and Cage as 'moving, exciting, attractive' -- and I'll take the latter any day of the week. >If the second question had been: "Has other music, composed on the same >principle, been more successful?" > >The answer would be "NO". There's a world of them out there. But I can only sputter at such a statement. Dennis _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
