Michael Boo Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 (edited) OK, this music sucks. Because you haven't yet developed the background to appreciate it? Wouldn't it be better to say something like, "I don't get it" or "I don't understand it" or "It's not my cup of tea" than to emperically state that the music sucks, inferring that there's no redeeming value to anything about it? What did you think about anything before you were taught about it, or anyone before you learned more about them? Think of the foods you didn't like when younger that you like now...the books you didn't like then that you understand now, the scenes of nature that you took for granted then that you enjoy looking at now...the list goes on and on. Just saying something sucks when you haven't yet been exposed to much of it or educated yourself about why it exists and what it might have to offer just implies an unwillingness to consider that your own personal worldview might still be in transition. (Edited for spelling.) Edited August 27, 2007 by Michael Boo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einstein On The Beach Posted August 27, 2007 Author Share Posted August 27, 2007 Because you haven't yet developed the background to appreciate it? Wouldn't it be better to say something like, "I don't get it" or "I don't understand it" or "It's not my cup of tea" than to emperically state that the music sucks, inferring that there's no redeeming value to anything about it?What did you think about anything before you were taught about it, or anyone before you learned more about them? Think of the foods you didn't like when younger that you like now...the books you didn't like then that you understand now, the scenes of nature that yu took for granted then that you enjoy looking at now...the list goes on and on. Just saying something sucks when you haven't yet been exposed to much of it or educated yourself about why it exists and what it might have to offer just implies an unwillingness to consider that your own personal worldview might still be in transition. Thank you Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troon8 Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 I can see it now: "On the field..performing their show...'The Works of John Cage & Ornette Coleman..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einstein On The Beach Posted August 27, 2007 Author Share Posted August 27, 2007 By the way, Hrothgar, O Wise One, what is wrong with the two pieces/videos that I posted? I mean, if you can give me a pretty thought out and rational explanation then I'm obviously going to be cool with it (Christ, I'm not going to get mad at anyone if they can't get into John Cage, that's just silly and beyond snobby). However just stomping into this thread and going, "YO MAN THIS SUCKS" and trudging back out is just beyond..well..I don't know, but it's pretty begrudgingly ignorant and frustrating to people in this thread actually participating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 I'm not even talking about making any of this work with what the sheets say (it doesn't come close to complying with what the top Box wants, but I also don't care). The corps could get last place, just do some Cage. I will settle for nothing less :P But of course you're right, I definitely see what you're getting at. I think that everyone that gets really into exploring what is possible with music gets into that 'John Cage is genius' phase. It will pass. When I was in that phase as a student, I was completely obsessive about reading everything I could get my hands on that he wrote and spent forever in the library digging up old recordings and videos (man, what I would have done with YouTube back then... I think my head would have exploded). Anyway, I think the great thing about Cage and the like is that they challenge you to give up your conventions about what is and what is not art and the relationship between the performance and the performer (who is really in charge? is the audience even relevant? is the performer or piece even relevant? does anyone really care?). Back when I was in that phase, I was required to perform (or have performed) a certain number of new compositions on campus. I got stuck with a lot of noon concerts, which sucked with my schedule, since I had no break for lunch. I figured why not combine the two, and wrote a piece 'Watched Pot'... where I brought in a hotplate, a pan of water, an onion, tomato sauce and dry spaghetti... for something that was a bit of Cage meets stomp... for lunch. Chopped up the onions, played the dry spaghetti for a bit like snare brushes. Dropped the spaghetti in the water. Read a book for a bit (tapping foot, turning page, opening lid, etc.), then finished the performance by slurping down the pasta. One show I did years ago with a modern dance company... i played a six pack of Budweiser during the performance... and gradually drank and crushed each can as the show went on. It was choreographed and all written out. The show went almost 90 minutes, where I finished the whole six pack by the end. This same show ran 5 nights a week for 3 weeks... and was pretty rough by the end. Anyway, a similar concept could be interesting for drum corps (not the beer, but wouldn't that be cool?)... but something could be consumed, or destroyed or even constructed during the course of the performance. Many small parts of something could be unnoticeably brought onto the field by performers and slowly assembled or built during the performance. Lumber, hammers and nails are all legal. So are saws. Forget rolling props out on the field... actually BUILD them during the show. Each hammer stroke and board pass perfectly choreographed and timed. Why not? Along those lines, why is any group obligated to use a fixed set of marching percussion instruments? Why not use the same technique on all kinds of other objects? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvertrombone Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 John Cage is like Michael Cesario. You can never have too much.Time for someone to make a "Needs more Cage" poster. (And before anyone thinks I'm being totally sarcastic, a long time ago, I was a (minor) pen pal of Cage, resulting from a conversation at a party after performing under his baton. Got to go find that macrobiotic cookbook he wrote and sent me.) You performed a what under John Cage with a baton?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrothgar15 Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Because you haven't yet developed the background to appreciate it? Wouldn't it be better to say something like, "I don't get it" or "I don't understand it" or "It's not my cup of tea" than to emperically state that the music sucks, inferring that there's no redeeming value to anything about it?What did you think about anything before you were taught about it, or anyone before you learned more about them? Think of the foods you didn't like when younger that you like now...the books you didn't like then that you understand now, the scenes of nature that yu took for granted then that you enjoy looking at now...the list goes on and on. Just saying something sucks when you haven't yet been exposed to much of it or educated yourself about why it exists and what it might have to offer just implies an unwillingness to consider that your own personal worldview might still be in transition. No, it really does suck. It's a bunch of arbitrary notes and it's not pleasing to listen to it all. Think about it whatever you want, I think it's sucks; that's my opinion and it's as valid as yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 No, it really does suck. It's a bunch of arbitrary notes and it's not pleasing to listen to it all. Ah... You are missing the whole point. Should music be pleasing to listen to? Should music actually be a pleasant experience? Cage is questions, not answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrothgar15 Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Ah...You are missing the whole point. Should music be pleasing to listen to? Should music actually be a pleasant experience? Cage is questions, not answers. I think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 You performed a what under John Cage with a baton?? "Atlas Eclipticalis." And a rabid ferel cat with flatulance, but I won't go there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.