Dear Mathias, Many thanks for your message. I'm surprised and disappointed that you think my message (reproduced below) is immoderate. Perhaps we should clarify exactly what it is we are talking about.
Some people have tried to widen the debate to embrace the music of various 20th-century composers: Mike Wilson mentioned Berg, Messiaen, Boulez; Dante Rosati mentioned Xenakis, Stockhausen, Ligeti, and Lutoslawski; Tom Beck mentioned Boulez, Messiaen and Webern. I do not know the music of these composers, and have nothing to say about them. The discussion, as far as I am concerned, is about one composition by John Cage, which consists of four and a half minutes (or thereabouts) of silence. To me that is utterly ridiculous. Others may, of course, disagree. How they feel about it is entirely up to them. Yet I would take their point of view more seriously, if I knew that they regularly attended concerts consisting entirely of similar compositions, or that they frequently bought CD's of silence composed by other composers too. You mention resentment. I cannot be a resentment-listener resenting the music I hear, because, as far as Cage's offering is concerned, I have heard nothing to be resentful about. What I do resent, though, is the baggage which goes with it: being told that I have missed the point, that I have no sense of humour, or that I do not understand what it is all about. That's tantamount to saying, "If you don't admire this charade of four and a half minutes' silence, you're thick and stupid." That really won't do. Actually I think you are wrong to suggest that my postings to the List are always moderate. Sometimes I do argue a case strongly, as Ariel Abramovich and Michael Thomas will know, both having received a broadside from me recently about copyright. We all presented our arguments to support our different points of view, and we still disagree. That's fine. I respect them both, and bear no rancour. Maybe we'll find some common ground on a different thread. I certainly hope so. In the meantime here are the opening bars of two pieces for lute: 1) John Dowland _a________________d____a__f_d_c__a_____ _a____d_b_|_a_____a__|_b___________|_e_ _b____a___|_b__d_____|_b______d____|_f_ ____c_____|_c________|_____________|_e_ __________|__________|_d___________|_c_ _a________|_a________|_____________|___ 2) John Cage _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ One is music. The other isn't. Best wishes, Stewart. ----- Original Message ----- From: ""Mathias R�sel"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lutelist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 9:41 AM Subject: Re: John Cage on Lute > Dear Stewart, > > I'm sorry to say that I'd rather have expected some kind of a moderate statement the way > this list has been used to hear from you. > > To say that something you do not understand or do not find what you expect to find in it > is not art or is not beautiful or uplifting (and what else you said) is simply to show > that you do not understand or find what you expect to find. > > I think it was Adorno who called this kind of an attitude towards music that of a > resentment-listener (Ressentiment-Hoerer), and it was not meant as a compliment. > > > "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > Dear Doctor Oakroot, > > > > To say that someone is missing the point pre-supposes that there is > > a point in the first place. There is no point in a > > pseudo-performance, where an audience is conned into listening to > > nothing. There may be some clever idea behind it all to justify the > > unjustifiable, but four and half minutes of silence is not music. It > > is not art. It is neither beautiful nor uplifting. It has no virtue. > > It has no meaning. It is utterly worthless. By purporting to be > > music, it is a lie - a shameful con - an insult to the intelligence > > and sensitivity of the audience. In fact the audience is put in a > > no-win situation: either they look stupid by accepting that the > > performance has merit; or they are made to look stupid, because, > > when they reject the charade for the meaningless poppycock that it > > is, they are told that they miss the point, or they lack a sense of > > humour. One is reminded of the story of the Emperor's new clothes, > > where a little boy - the only person with a modicum of common > > sense - unmasks the charlatans for what they are. > > > > What irritates me about the purveyors of such tosh is their tacit > > assumption that we should take any of it at all seriously. I have > > had the misfortune to witness one of these ridiculous so-called > > performances some years ago on an early music course. One of the > > tutors, an excellent recorder player, took his turn on stage, but > > instead of playing music like everyone else, he pranced about > > pretending to play. It was not funny. He looked a fool, and I felt > > cheated. If I'd known he wasn't going to play anything, I'd have > > gone to the pub instead. Instead I wasted my time. Who knows? I may > > have missed some subtle, questioning-the-existence-of-it-all point, > > but I certainly missed a good pint. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Stewart. > > -- > Regards, > > Mathias > > Mathias Roesel, Grosze Annenstrasze 5, 28199 Bremen, Deutschland/ Germany, T/F +49 - 421 - > 165 49 97, Fax +49 1805 060 334 480 67, E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
