What's it all about, then? - J Cage

[french frank]

I'm losing patience. This thread will be sent to the basement if silly point-scoring continues.

From there I will rescue genuine attempts at discussing the Cage and put them on the H&N thread.

From where I sit, bullying happens on both sides.

[amateur51]

I'm losing patience. This thread will be sent to the basement if silly point-scoring continues.

From there I will rescue genuine attempts at discussing the Cage and put them on the H&N thread.

From where I sit, bullying happens on both sides.

About time too. BTW, I can see three sides

[Bryn]

I'm losing patience. This thread will be sent to the basement if silly point-scoring continues.

From there I will rescue genuine attempts at discussing the Cage and put them on the H&N thread.

From where I sit, bullying happens on both sides.

Hmm, well the thread is of your making frenchie, poor decision to create it that it was, in my view.

[french frank]

Hmm, well the thread is of your making frenchie, poor decision to create it that it was, in my view.

Well, blame yourself, Bryn. I would have turned a blind eye to the questionable use of an emoticon, but your response broke the House Rules and got a predictable retaliation from the member targeted. To which you responded again.

To be clear: it does not break the House Rules to make disparaging comments about John Cage who is a) erstwhile and b) not a forum member. It does break the House Rules to make disparaging comments about other members. The House Rules are clearly posted and I would draw your attention to:

"In posting on this forum you accept the conditions and undertake to respect the House Rules."

The intention was that the serious discussion should continue on the H&N thread and the contumely be transferred to Platform 3 where it is less out of place. But in the end my view is that such exchanges make the forum look foolish if they continue.

[doversoul1]

Hmm, well the thread is of your making frenchie, poor decision to create it that it was, in my view.

I was beginning to wonder if you and others need people like Mr Pee & Co. to stir you up so that you can go on reacting rather than concentrating on discussing the music. Why did you not stay on the original thread and continue your discussion? You must know by now that your ‘opponents’ on this matter have no intention of engaging in genuine discussion. Surely there is no need for you to be involved in their game of throwing silly jokes and emoticons about?

[aeolium]

The sad thing is, that imo the most eloquent and interesting contribution about the piece came on this thread, not the one on the Hear and Now forum, and that was S_A's msg 51, especially the penultimate sentence. Irrespective of whether you agree or disagree with it, it is obviously the product of much thought about the piece, and I thought clearly and elegantly expressed - absolutely not a "Pseud's Corner" contribution, as some alleged. Unfortunately it is now buried among a lot of mudslinging in a thread which may well be prematurely closed.

[french frank]

The sad thing is, that imo the most eloquent and interesting contribution about the piece came on this thread, not the one on the Hear and Now forum, and that was S_A's msg 51, especially the penultimate sentence. Irrespective of whether you agree or disagree with it, it is obviously the product of much thought about the piece, and I thought clearly and elegantly expressed - absolutely not a "Pseud's Corner" contribution, as some alleged. Unfortunately it is now buried among a lot of mudslinging in a thread which may well be prematurely closed.

No, it won't be lost. I intend to return relevant contributions to the original thread.

[Bryn]

Well, blame yourself, Bryn. I would have turned a blind eye to the questionable use of an emoticon, but your response broke the House Rules and got a predictable retaliation from the member targeted. To which you responded again.

To be clear: it does not break the House Rules to make disparaging comments about John Cage who is a) erstwhile and b) not a forum member. It does break the House Rules to make disparaging comments about other members. The House Rules are clearly posted and I would draw your attention to:

"In posting on this forum you accept the conditions and undertake to respect the House Rules."

The intention was that the serious discussion should continue on the H&N thread and the contumely be transferred to Platform 3 where it is less out of place. But in the end my view is that such exchanges make the forum look foolish if they continue.

Given what you say there, frenchie, it is more than a little surprising that you did not contact me by Private Message or email to try and resolve any issues raised with you concerning perceived breaking of House Rules. If I and others here who recognise the musical value Cage's work were to hit the "!" button every time our detractors made disparaging remarks about us you would get no rest. It's an old trick which you must surely be aware of to phrase snide attacks in honeyed terms, then exploit the complaints procedure to try an silence those who respond robustly. I need hardly name names regarding the highly suspect use of "bws" or proclamations that one uses the ignore facility against particular contributors. A strict interpretation of the spirit of the House Rule you quote would include the barring of such behaviour. (the proclamation of the use of the ignore function, rather than its use as such).

I do not envy you your responsibility in adjudicating such matter, but I continue to consider your handling of this particular set of circumstances to have fallen short of what might be expected.

[french frank]

Given what you say there, frenchie, it is more than a little surprising that you did not contact me by Private Message or email to try and resolve any issues raised with you concerning perceived breaking of House Rules. ... I do not envy you your responsibility in adjudicating such matter, but I continue to consider your handling of this particular set of circumstances to have fallen short of what might be expected.

I'm very happy for your criticism of my administration decisions to be public, Bryn. It's only in very unusual circumstances that I would edit or remove a post unless someone complained ('reactive moderation'). I still think that it's better to have a thread for those who want to either ridicule or retaliate and I shall continue to separate them. This is administration, or housekeeping, rather than moderation.

It was, may I respectfully suggest, the fact that you posted a link on H&N to what you regarded as a salient point in your diverted post which at once sent everyone over to Platform 3 where once again there was a mix of valuable posts and others which didn't contribute to the debate. If you had copied your salient point from the diverted post back on to H&N, removing the then irrelevant riposte I would suggest that that would assisted my intention to keep warring parties apart. Mere disagreement or alternative views tend not to derail discussion.

There are two boards - The Choir/Choral Evensong and Hear & Now - where certain lines of dissent are not, in my view, appropriate. Such dissent can be aired on Platform 3 not on boards dedicated for other purposes. Members who 'invade' dedicated boards inappropriately (in my view) will be excluded from those boards. They should say what they want to say on Platform 3.

I hope this explanation is helpful.

[Panjandrum]

Ok, I was intending to remain silent but further posts have decided me in favour of a short reply. In my time posting on this forum, this is the first time I have actually attacked a composition (as opposed to attacks on Radio 3 management etc). I have an extremely wide taste in "classical" (sic) music which encompasses renaissance through to contemporary composers (including atonal and serialists). In fact, I have signally defended composers who frequently come in for attack on these boards (e.g. Brahms, Liszt, Berlioz, Xenakis). My initial post, which was intended to be humourous was motivated by what I considered to be po-faced dogma over a piece which even its composer intended facetiously. In fact, I even qualified my views to state that I respected its place as a piece of 20th century agitprop.

On the subject as to whether no criticism should be allowed on these boards of any composer,or any composition, can I remind forum members that there is a specific thread devoted to the worst pieces of classical music. Another well known forum member has a pavlovian response to the name of "Liszt", and will take any and every opportunity to denigrate that composer's every composition: I don't see his postings being assailed by diatribe and gratuitous insult; although I, for one, take as much irritation from these knee-jerk responses as the Cage-ites do when their hero is slighted.

Lastly, there has also been an unfortunate demonstration of parti pris in some of the posts by those members who, while ostensibly taking a patrician, disinterested stance have rather pulled the rug from under themselves by attacking a certain member of this forum and myself for immoderate language while conniving at the same tactics employed by "the other side". Tellingly, one member referred to the pro Cage lobby as his "friends" - a bit of a giveaway.

[french frank]

I have an extremely wide taste in "classical" (sic) music which encompasses renaissance through to contemporary composers (including atonal and serialists). In fact, I have signally defended composers who frequently come in for attack on these boards (e.g. Brahms, Liszt, Berlioz, Xenakis). My initial post, which was intended to be humourous was motivated by what I considered to be po-faced dogma over a piece which even its composer intended facetiously. In fact, I even qualified my views to state that I respected its place as a piece of 20th century agitprop.

May I say that you are still free to post on the H&N board. It would really need continual interruptions of a similar nature before I would take action.

You're quite right that some composers do arouse extremes of view, sensitivities even, on opposing sides. It does therefore seem to me that it's common sense to tread carefully where predictable responses are likely to be aroused. Not to do so looks like provocation; not to realise that you're likely to provoke is a bit short-sighted, perhaps?

I think I was being even-handed in moving both sides of the argument - once it became a bit of a squabble.

[Bryn]

My initial post, which was intended to be humourous was motivated by what I considered to be po-faced dogma over a piece which even its composer intended facetiously.

An empty assertion closes that quote. Far from intending the work as you claim, Cage often stated that he regarded it as his most important composition. If you take the trouble to do a little background reading on the process he used in composing the work you will discover that the lack of intentional sound produced by the performer was not established at the outset. It came about as the result of the chance operations used to determine what was to be played. See, for instance, http://solomonsmusic.net/4min33se.htm#Composition . It was the recurrent emergence of even numbers from the random process employed that determined that no tones were to be played by the performer.

[Panjandrum]

It does therefore seem to me that it's common sense to tread carefully where predictable responses are likely to be aroused. Not to do so looks like provocation; not to realise that you're likely to provoke is a bit short-sighted, perhaps?

I think I was being even-handed in moving both sides of the argument - once it became a bit of a squabble.

I have no criticism of your moderation of the thread FF. However, while the response was predictable, I don't think that considerations of probable outcomes alone should curtail freedom of speech. As I said before it was the ex cathedra nature of the initial postings which prompted my postings than the work itself.

[MrGongGong]

The initial post was a quote from something I said about 4:33" being "one of the most important works of the 20th Century IMV"

NOTE the IMV which I always understood to mean IN MY VIEW

the sad thing about this discussion IMV
is that responses which say
"It's not music"........ end of
or
"It's all a con trick" ......... end of

are simply stating opinions as facts , for which you would fail your GCSE exams let alone any more sophisticated discussions about music
as i've said (too many times ?) it matters little whether you like it of not
some people can't get over that hurdle and seem intent on simply stating the same thing over and over
OK we get it, you don't like it, you don't think it's music ......... as many a teenager might say "that effects me how ?"

The rather brilliant Trevor Wishart wrote the rather brilliant (IMV !!!!!) book "On Sonic Art" which is about music , though he got so fed up with stupid arguments about "non music" that he came up with the , now widely used, term "Sonic Art"..............

IMV

Trevor's music is music
as is 4:33"
as is The Matthew Passion
as is Bell Ringing (but bell ringers might tell you otherwise !!)

It can be an interesting discussion as to WHAT EXACTLY a sonic event needs to be termed music but that needs to be INFORMED not simply stating points of opinion

I sometimes suggest that students (particularly BA or MA ones !) go and listen to performances of music that they think they will hate as they will learn much more from the experience and maybe get an insight into their own listening strategies and internal processes ..................I found that the Mendelssohn octet is rather wonderful by this process but that Elijah is pants (IMV !!!!)

[amateur51]

I have no criticism of your moderation of the thread FF. However, while the response was predictable, I don't think that considerations of probable outcomes alone should curtail freedom of speech. As I said before it was the ex cathedra nature of the initial postings which prompted my postings than the work itself.

I'd like to suggest that Healey's Law of Holes applies