Scholarly discussion of the music of John Cage.

["S.E.M. Ensemble" <>]

Title: Re: [silence] Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: Cage's prejudices

By "musicology research" I mean taking something out of context and making simplistic conclusions. And mainly the belief that everything can be logically explained. Sorry to sound “mean-spirited.” I may be mean (not consciously), but I am certainly not mean-spirited. And never forget what Varese said about analysis.
My appologies.
PK


On 6/22/11 12:52 PM, "Rob Haskins" <> wrote:

> So far, Petr, I'm not sure what you've offered to the discussion that needs opposition, intelligent or otherwise. I'm also not sure whether or not to interpret your remarks about "musicology research" (whatever you mean by that) as a mean-spirited swipe. Perhaps you might clarify that.
>
> In what way are my thoughts about Cage's writings (or Ian's, or Sara's) merely opinion? And what is empirical knowledge? How do you propose applying it to this discussion?
>
> All best,
> Rob
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:45 PM, S.E.M. Ensemble <> wrote:
> > Don’t go too much into the tendency of making analysis according to “musicology research.” Things are much more complex than any analyzing inquiry can absorb (remember what Varese said about analysis). The issues most important cannot be analyzed anyway. 
> >
> > I am thinking about large scale project(s) in connection with Cage’s 100 in 2012/13. Would be nice to have someone on board who could intelligently oppose me, not as a result of different opinions, but empirical knowledge.
> > PK
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6/22/11 11:00 AM, "Rob Haskins" < <http://> > wrote:
> >
> > > Wow, the Silence list remains dormant, almost nonexistent, for months and then this burst of activity happens. Lovely. 
> > >
> > > I think there's been a tendency, especially in musicology, to try to keep the music value free: to discuss music and music, art for art's sake. That's begun to break down (has been for some time, since the 1980s). Cage is ripe for the kind of interrogation Ian proposes. And while I sympathize with Stefano's view--that he pointed toward the problem in a way that invited people to look at it anew with the hope of solving it--I wish he could have been a little more proactive about it himself. His beliefs in anarchism prevented him, for instance, from signing on to protest anything one way or the other, because (I think) he feared that speaking in support for it might have coerced others who could not think as clearly or carefully into taking on that belief or cause inauthentically.  The subtle power structures that exist today can easily appropriate and subvert this kind of thinking.
> > >
> > > best,
> > > Rob
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Stefano Pocci < <http://> > wrote:
> > > >      
> > > >  On 06/21/2011 07:42 PM, Ian Pace wrote: 
> > > > > Cage spoke and wrote often about his social/political views; it was hardly as if he was disengaged from debate. And on several occasions he made very explicit his opposition to active politics and protest movements, as with: 
> > > > >  
> > > > >  'I am interested in social ends, but not in political ends, because politics deals with power, and society deals with numbers of individuals; and I'm interested in both single individuals and large numbers or medium numbers or any kinds or numbers of individuals. In other words, I'm interested in society, not for purposes of power, but for purposes of cooperation and enjoyment. ' (Interview in Source (1969), cited in Richard Kostelanetz, Conversing with Cage, second edition (New York and London: Routledge, 2003), p. 274) 
> > > > >  
> > > > >  or 
> > > > >  
> > > > >  My notion of how to proceed in a society to bring change is not to protest the thing that is evil, but rather to let it die its own death. And I think we can state that the power structure is dying because it cannot make any inspiring statements about what it is doing. 
> > > > >  
> > > > >  I think that protests about these things, contrary to what has been said, will give it the kind of life that a fire is given when you fan it, and that it would be best to ignore it, put your attention elsewhere, take actions of another kind of positive nature, rather than continue to give life to the negative by negating it. (Cage, 'Diary: How to Improve the World (You Will Only Make Matters Worse) Continued 1968 (Revised)', in M; Writings '67-'72 (Middletown, CN: Wesleyan University Press, 1969), p. 12) 
> > > > >  
> > > > >  or 
> > > > >  
> > > > >  'Protest movements could quite easily, ad despite themselves, lead in the opposite direction, to a reinforcement of law and order. There is in acceptance and non-violence an underestimated revolutionary force. but instead, protest is all too often absorbed into the flow of power, because it limits itself to reaching for the same old mechanisms of power, which is the worst way to challenge authority! We'll never get away from it that way!' (Interviewed by Daniel Charles, c. 1970, in For the Birds (London: Marion Boyars, 1981), p. 236) 
> > > > >  
> > > > >  The last comment in particular makes a lot of powerful points, but Cage's resignation (with respect to 'acceptance', non-violence is another matter) seems particularly casual in light of some of the achievements of protest in the years leading up to then. How would Rosa Parks have felt about this, say? The second quote I find actually quite crass when considering the vital work of human rights organisations or dissident groups in bringing to wider attention terrible human rights abuses in various regimes, and protesting these - I am pretty sure many such regimes would prefer Cage's option. With respect to lynchings, Jim Crow laws, etc., would it have been 'best to ignore it, put your attention elsewhere'? 
> > > > >  
> > > > >  If Cage simply had not had much to say about any form of politics, it would be one thing, but this was far from the case. As he had so much to say on this subject, it's only fair that these might be interrogated. If it is all right to cite them positively, as many writers on Cage have done, then it should be all right to look at them more critically as well. 
> > > > >  
> > > > >  Best, 
> > > > >  Ian 
> > > > >  
> > > > >  
> > > > >  
> > > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  Great discussion, thanks a lot to everyone involved.
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  I'd like to quote Satie as Cage did in his lecture for the French composer when the latter says:
> > > >  
> > > >  "Personally, I am neither good nor bad. I sway, if one may say that. Actually I have never done anyone any harm - or good either."
> > > >  
> > > >  or Buckminster Fuller when he said that "he was working to make the existent system obsolete". (I think) I can see why Cage mentioned these lines or why he was so into Duchamp's works which were not a matter of "being bad or good" but something beyond this uninteresting polar situation. It's the same thread (to me) that ties the anarchy and politics issues and the way he treated them. Or maybe re-treated them:-)
> > > >  
> > > >  Ian anticipated me with a couple of appropriate quotations such as: "protesting it's like throwing gas over a fire" or "protest is being absorbed by the power forces". Cage would rather continue without a qualm on his path (emptiness-silence) following his strict principles (which don't imply contradiction with anarchy as I had wrongly thought so far) as that's the way to forge ahead (citing his "living on water" mesostic here). I feel like the reason why these statements still generate this kind of discussions must be found both in a more critical (and fairer) view of Cage's opinions and in his being outside any kind of model we try to place him in.
> > > >  
> > > >  Of course the real troubles (racism, poverty, wars, political climate, etc) he was surrounded by remained, which is why his acceptance position was sometimes valued as a retreat/defeat and therefore inserted again in the cause-effect scheme such acceptance refused. But even if we state that his thoughts weren't practical/concrete enough, had the remedies then devised proved to work so far? At least Cage offers a different (I should have said "outside") point of view that (hopefully) compels us to think of a new kind of solution.
> > > >  
> > > >  Ian is right when he says that "...With respect to lynchings, Jim Crow laws, etc., would it have been 'best to ignore it, put your attention elsewhere'?". Of course not. But (I think) Cage was pointing at the root of the issue. WHY those things happened and HOW TO prevent them to happen again. We need a long-term solution as well as a immediate one for present troubles, that's the big challenge.
> > > >
> > > >