From: mclaren
Subject: Muddy thinking, the scientific method and John
Cage - part 2 of 2
--
In the previous post, I mentioned that
the scientific method is crucially important in
microtonality. As Aristotle points out in the Rhetoric:
"A speech has two parts. You must state you case,
and you must prove it. You cannot either state your
case and omit to prove it, or prove it without
having first stated it." This is known as a tautology--it
is clearly true no matter who says it, since it amounts
to the statement "an argument must have 2 parts to be
convincing, and any argument which does not have 2 parts
is not convincing." Clearly this kind of logically
self-evident tautology is an alien concept to Eric Lyon
and Greg Taylor: but to therest of us, it's obvious.
So here's concrete proof of my claim for the importance
of the scientific method in dealing with microtonality.
Tune up an open "fifth" in which the fifth has the ratio
2^[3/5]. This is an interval of 720 cents. If you play
this interval bare using a timbre with integer harmonics
and plenty of high overtones, the interval will be hard
to take. It may even grate on your ears.
Now, however, play the progression I-IV-V-I in such
bare fifths, same timbre, but with I, IV, V and I in
15-TET. You will suddenly discover that the interval
which sounded grating in the first instance now sounds
remarkably euphonious and concordant.
The ear, in short, readily accepts the 720-cent "perfect"
fifth as part of a multiple-of-5/oct equal tempered
microtonal scale.
This example can be repeated with 7-TET "perfect" fifths,
which are nearly as far from just fifths (685.4 cents)
as is the flagrantly non-just 720-cent fifth of 5-TET,
yet which in the context of the 7-TET scale sound
astonishingly euphonius and perfectly acceptable.
Now tune up the 19-tet perfect fifth and play the
progression I-IV-V-I. You'll discover that the
progression sounds all but indistinguishable from the
same progression in 12-tet, except that if you
use full triads the chords sounds slightly smoother
in 19-tet.
Yet theorists condemned 19-tet throughout the 19th
century because of its supposedly "unacceptable"
7-cent-flat perfect fifths. Barbour dismissed
19-tet as "musically useless" for this reason--
yet he never even *heard* music in 19-tet.
Without experiment to serve as a check on our purely
mathematical calculations, we cannot even begin to
approach microtonality in an intelligent way.
Instead, we would find ourselves flailing like bugs
stuck in yogurt, as Eric Lyon and Greg Taylor have
done repeatedly on this tuning forum. Without physical
and psychoacoustic experiments to back up our claims,
we would make foolish unproven statements which turn
out to be nonsense--as Eric Lyon and Greg Taylor have
done repeatedly on this tuning forum.
--
It's worth taking two posts to discuss the various
remarkably feeble defenses offered in service of
John Cage, charlatan, because these wan and etiolated
arguments in favor of Cage are symptomatic of the
faulty reasoning and fuzzy grasp of fact found all
too often on this tuning forum and throughout society
in general (I'm talking about American society here
--I can't speak for Europe).
Yes, ladies 'n gents, there's a *REASON* why
psychic help phone lines are so popular
in America nowadays...
Fuzzy thinking and slipshod logic lead to a pervasive
abuse of words, a wanton violation of their recognized
meanings, a disdain and a contempt for precision
in the use of the English language.
To use a word so fundamental to the outlook of modern
western culture as "experimental" (in the way Cage
does) and willfully pervert its recognized meaning is
to grossly and culpably misuse the word "experimental."
This, both Cage and Lyon have done by claiming that
it means something other than its dictionary definition
as soon as we kidnap the poor word "experiment," jam
a hood over its head, stick a gun in its back, and
frog-march it into the realm of modern music.
Of course, if we want to make up the meaning of the
words we use, we are certainly free to do so. Thus I can
refer to Eric Lyon as a slubberdegullion and explain by
this that slubberdegullion means "fine fellow."
If we choose to go this route, we will quickly come
a-cropper, and our discourse will degenerate into
pure nonsense. We will straightways wind up talking
about the importance of sofas in swimming pools
("sofa" here means "mathematics," while "swimming
pool" in this context means "tuning system") and so on.
The only alternative, ladies and gentlement, is to
think clearly and use words with some concern for
their recognized meanings.
--
This points up the Bengal Tiger trap hidden in my
previous post, and into which Eric Lyon so fulsomely
tumbled.
"A man may take to drink because he feels himself to
be a failure, and then fail all the more completely
because he drinks. It is rather the same thing [with]
the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate
because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of
our language makes it easier for us to have foolish
thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible."
[Orwell, George, "Orwell: The Complete Essays, 1963,
pg. 163]
Alas, careless and sloppy use of words--particularly
of terms borrowed from the sciences--is a chronic
problem in music theory and indeed in all post-1945
art theory. While John Cage was irremediably sloppy
and careless in his use of words, he is far from
atypical of modern art theorists; in fact Cage's
incoherenece and murkiness is symptomic of a
larger problem. As Orwell points out, "In certain
kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism
and literary criticism, it is normal to come across
long passages which are almost completely lacking
in meaning." [Orwell, op cit., pg. 168]
--Also in modernist postwar music theory, one needs
must add. The culprit, again, is the willfull misuse
and shameless abuse of scientific terms.
Eric Lyon himself touches on this important problem
when he states "indeed the confusion of artistic and
scientific methodologies is one major reason that
many American university music departments have
become somewhat inhospitable for artists."
To put it bluntly, if you propose to use terms borrowed
from the sciences you had better use them properly
and with some understanding. Cage did not.
Eric Lyon does not. Most modern "music theorists"
do not.
If you fail to properly use terms borrowed from
the sciences, you are practicing pseudo-science.
Another word for a person who practices
pseudo-science is "charlatan"--
which the American College Dictionary defines as
"1. One who pretends to more knowledge than he
has; a quack." John Cage and his rivals at Darmstadt,
along with Pierre Boulez' group in Paris were,
by dictionary definition, charlatans one and all.
They spouted meaningless pseudo-scientific
drivel, and the intent of their "theories" appears
to have been to obfuscate and impress, rather than to
elucidate and specify.
This is the charge made against John Cage in my
topic 3 of TD 803, and the charge stands. Eric
Lyon has not refuted the charge, since clearly
he does not understand the dictionary definition
of "experimental" any better than John Cage
did.
I don't blame Eric Lyon for this, any more than I
hold Greg Taylor responsible for the fractured logic
and twisted reasoning of his posts. Clearly these
people are the victims of an educational system
which has turned out college graduates who can't
locate England on a world map and who think
Neville Chamberlain was a basketball player.
Because they have never been taught to think
clearly or trouble themselves about the meaning
of the words they use, these casualties of a failed
system of so-called "higher" education are singularly
vulnerable to argument by authority and proof
by assertion.
Lyon tries his hand at the latter when he states
"The most cursory glance at Cage's writings
displays his obvious intelligence and musical
knowledge."
This is an attempt at proof by mere unsubstantiated
claim. As we all know, this is no proof at all.
Countless crackpots have uttered unsubstantiated
claims with great conviction... which claims turn
out to be utter bilge.
The most memorable example? Cyrus Teed.
This 19th century cult leader claimed that the
earth was not spherical but hollow and that we
all live on the inside. Teed stated that the
convexity of the earth's surface was due to
"an unfortunate optical illusion."
Teed made his claim with great authority,
enough to convince hundreds of followers.
Need I say more?
Perhaps I do. Lyon speaks of what we learn from
"the most cursory glance at the writings of John
Cage."
Fine. Let's take a cursory glance.
Cage writes:
"Does being musical make one automatically stupid and unable
to listen? Then don't you think one should put a stop to studying
music? Where are your thinking caps?" [Cage, John, "Silence,"
page 49]
Let's see:
Studying music must...therefore "make one automatically stupid."
Right.
--
Again:
"For in this new music nothing takes place but sounds: those
that are notated and those that not." [Cage, John, "Silence,"
page 7]
This is true of *all* music. And so what? A fine example
of a meaningless truism, since music by definition involves
sounds, and all sounds performed in a musical concert are
either notated, or not notated.
This like saying "The visual arts involve optical aesthetic
objects" or "the defining quality of a circle is its circularity."
In short, this is trivial crap dolled up in pompous
language to pass as profundity. Typical of Cage's writing.
--
Again:
"What might have given rise, by reason of
the high degree of indeterminacy, to no
matter what eventuality (to a process)
becomes productive as a time-object."
[Cage, J., "Silence," pg. 28]
A simpler way to say this is: "shit happens."
Why didn't Cage say that? Could it be because
if he did, we would realize how assininely
otiose the statement is?
Any "thing" which "gives rise" to "no matter
what eventuality" eventually becomes "a
time-object" in music. This is as true
as it is meaningless.
--
Again:
"Musical habits include...the study of the
timbres, single and in combination of a limited
number of sound-producing mechanisms. In
mathematical terms these all concern discrete
steps." [Cage, John, "Silence," page 9]
Here Cage makes the ignorant blunder of
claiming that all sounds have spectra which
can be described in "discrete steps." This
is completely wrong. In fact, many acoustic sounds
have continuous spectra--all noisy sounds do.
Cymbals, fricatives, plosives, whispered
speech, flute multiphonics, loud brass notes, sul
ponticello violin or viola or bass or 'cello
notes; shaken thunder sheets, guiros,
guajiras, shakers, rasps, drums, brushed
metal plates, banged rocks, tambourines, etc.
Only a very few instruments exhibit
anything *like* discrete overtones
and even then--as Xavier Sera showed in his
Stanford doctoral thesis--*all* sounds
have an acoustically important stochastic
(contuous spectrum, essentially a noise)
component, which (if left out) renders the
resynthesis much more "artificial" and harf proof by authority.
The Bible states that the earth was created in
seven days. Who wants to argue in favor of this
claim? This "authoritative" claim contradicts all
available fossil evidence, all available radiocarbon
evidence, isotoptic-proportion evidence, evidence
from the microwave background radiation of the universe,
evidence from radial red shifts of distant galaxies,
ad infinitum.
Proof by authority might have passed muster back
when the Inquisition was burning witches, but
that method of proof doesn't cut it nowadays,
Eric.
In fact, authorities, as history shows, are usually
*wrong.*
Aristotle is a superb example.
Aristotle claimed that ice floats because its shape
does not pierce the surface of water, while iron
sinks because iron objects' shape do pierce the
surface of water.
Aristotle's authoritative statement was believed
for thousands of years, simply because Aristotle
was THE AUTHORITY. No one dared question THE
AUITHORITY...until Galileo in the 1550s placed a
thin iron needle on the surface of a pan of water
and showed that the iron needle floated; then
he pushed a piece of ice under the water and
showed that even though its shape pierced the
surface of the water the piece of ice inevitably
rose to the surface.
(Notice that the quote by Aristotle which begins
this post does NOT constitute an appeal to authority,
since it is a tautology which is logically necessarily
true regardless who states it. Naturally, foolish
and mudddleheaded forum subscribers will predictably
claim that my quote of this tautology shows that I'm
kowtowing to authority. This kind of "logic" is about
on a bacterial level: if I quote Archimedes to the
effect that pi is an irrational, then presumably this
is "an appeal to authority." Clearly such befuddle
forum subsribers don't understand the difference between
statements which require proof--such as "John Cage's
idea of 'experimental composition' was a good idea'--and
statements which do not require proof--like "everything
in the universe is either a dog or not a dog."
--
In short, proof by authority is meaningless
because *no* authority is omniscient. No matter
how prestigious any high panjandrum, s/he
can be utterly and completely wrong. An excellent
modern example is Linus Pauling's proposed structure
for the DNA molecule. Pauling's model used 3 strands
of nucleic acid, a structure which could not have
held together at the molecular level. Pauling was
a genius, a Nobel prize winner, an authority on
chemistry, and he was also 100% dead wrong.
If we wish to separate truth from nonsense and
gibberish from meaningful statements, we must
have recourse to evidence from the physical
world. Nothing else will do.
So please, people, stop quoting authority figures.
I don't give a fat rat's ass what Milton Babbitt
or John Cage or Bach or Beethoven or the King of
Siam or Allah or Boddhisatva says, this means
*NOTHING* to me.
I'm from Missouri. I have to be shown. Authority
figures mean *zero*. If you claim there will
be a dawn tomorrow, your unsubstantiated
opinion is amusing and no doubt charmingly
naive; but if you want anyone to *believe*
that there will be a dawn tomorrow, you had better
run us through orbital dynamics and observed
measurement of the planets' orbits, Newton's
law of gravitation and the 3 laws of motion
along with plenty of experimental evidence for
'em and (just to be on the safe side) an extensive
computer simulation of the solar system to
make sure it doesn't exhibit radically chaotic
behavior. *Then* we'll believe there *might* be
a dawn tomorrow.
Otherwise, your statements amount to meaningless
unproven gibberish--exactly like the statements
of Eric Lyon and John Cage.
--
Sadly, Eric Lyons' arguments conform to the
tried and true principles of pseudo-science.
Instead of proof, he offers only assertion;
instead of reference to physical evidence,
he genuflects to authority figures; and
instead of using precisely defined terms
clearly and coherently, he grossly misuses
recognized scientific terms. (Viz., the word
"experiment.")
Thus, predictably, Lyon offers no evidence to
back up his unsubstantiated claim that "the most
cursory glance at Cage's writings displays his
obvious intelligence and musical knowledge"
other than testimony to that effect by Milton
Babbitt. Since Babbitt is (if possible) even
more musically and scientifically and
mathematically incompetent than John Cage,
this is like using the testimony of a witch
doctor to back up the claims of a dowser.
In fact, the most cursory glance at Cage's
writings demonstrates 4 qualities:
[1] Disdain for the recognized meaning
of words; [2] incoherent reasoning
and disjointed logic; [3] contempt for
scientifically demonstrated facts; [4] a profound
ignorance of music, mathematics, science,
statistics and the laws of probability.
--
Unlike Eric Lyon and so many other casualties of
our intellectually bankrupt system of higher
education who've attempted in vain to rescue
John Cage from the consequences of his own gross
incompetence, I propose to substantiate my
claims that John Cage is a charlatan. I will
demonstrate quote by quote and fact by fact
that John Cage is a musical swindler "who pretends
to more knowledge than he has; a quack." (The
dictionary definition of a charlatan.)
And in fact the proof is set forth in a series
of 16 posts on John Cage coming up directly.
This constant knee-jerk defense of John Cage's
scientific illiteracies is no surprise; this is
typical, usual, standard, ordinary and quotidian
for the academic establishment and those whose
reasoning capacities have been blunted by extensive
exposure to it.
And so the persistent defense of Cage's idiocies
and quackeries on this forum is not alarming at all.
It is to be expected. Having never been taught to
think, what else can most of the forum subscribers
do other than hysterically deny obvious facts?
What *is* alarming is the uniformly low quality
of reasoning and the utter lack of hard evidence
produced by John Cage's defenders on this forum.
Their feeble efforts serve as a brutal indictment of
our failed system of "higher "education, and in particular
of college professors' complete failure to teach
students to think clearly, respect evidence, instill
scholarship and inculcate a respect for logic.
Indeed, "A bill of indictment for the professors'
crimes against higher education would be lengthy.
"Here is a partial one:
*They are overpaid, grotesquely underworked, and
the architects of academia's vast empire of waste.
*They have abandoned their teaching responsibilities
and their students. (..)
*In pursuit of their own interests--research, academic
politicking, cushier grants--they have left the nation's
students in the care of an ill-trained, ill-paid, and bitter
academic underclass.
*They have distorted university curriculums to accomodate
their own narrow and selfish interests rather than the
interests of their students.
*They have created a culture in which bad teaching goes
unnoticed...and good teaching is penalized.
*They insist that their obligations to research justify
their flight from the college classroom despite the fact
that fewer than one in ten ever makes any significant
contribution to their field. (..)
*They have cloaked their scholarship in stupefying,
inscrutable jurgon. This conceals the fact that much of
what passes for research is inane.
*In tens of thousands of books and hundreds of thousands
of journal articles, they have perverted the system of
academic publishing into a shceme that serves only to
advance academic careers and bloat libraries with masses
of unread, unreadable, and worthless pablum.
*They have twisted the ideals of academic freedom into
a system in which they are accountable to no one, while
they employ their own rigid methods of thought control
to stamp out original thinkers and dissenters.
*In the liberal arts, the professors' obsession with
trendy theory--which is financially rewarding--has
transformed the humanities into models of inhumanity
and literature into departments of illiteracy.
*In the social sciences, professors have created cults
of pseudo-science packed with what one critic calls
"sorcerors clad in the paraphenalia of science...woolly-
minded lost souls yearning for gurus," more concerned
with methodology and mindless quantification than
with addressing any significant social questions.
(..) *In schools of education, their disdain for
teaching and the arrogance with which they treat
their student has turned the universities into the
home office of educational mediocrity, poisoning the
entire educational system from top to bottom.
*They have constructed machinery that so far has
frustrated or sabotaged every effort at meaningful
reform that might interfere with their boondoggle.
*Finally, it has been the professors' relentless drive
for advancement that has turned American universities
into vast factories of junkthink, the byproduct of academe's
endless capacity to take even the richest elements of
civilization and disfigure them..." [Sykes, Charles J.,
Profscam: Professors and the Demise of Higher
Education. Regnery Gateway: Washington DC, 1988,
pp. 6-7]
Thus, it ill behooves me to criticize those like Eric Lyons
and Greg Taylor, since they are merely the symptoms
of the disease--namely, those "vast factories of junkthink"
called univerities.
Obsessed with defending intellectually bankrupt charlatans
like John Cage, the music professors in the universities of the
world have no time to explore new microtonal realms. And
so it's no surprise that J.A.M. Salinas complains of a grossly
inadequate university education which purports to have
familiarized him every aspect of avant-garde music and yet
left him uniformed about even the barest elements of
microtonality.
Since microtonality is the cutting edge of today's music,
it demands the utmost in clear thinking and the highest
regard for acoustics and mathematics if we are to come to
terms with the subject. This leaves most university professors
of modern music completely out of the picture, since like
John Cage himself and all too many of his would-be defenders
on this tuning forum, nearly all university music professors
are pervasively ignorant of acoustics, physics and mathematics,
consistently unable to write or think clearly, systematically
unaware of and disdainful of the facts of modern psychoacoustics,
and almost universally incompetent in and ignorant of basic
music theory and music history. (The few exceptions--Allan
Strange, Brian Belet, William Alves, William Schottstaedt,
Chris Chafe, John Chowning, et alii--merely prove this rule.)
This is why it's so important to examine close up the full
depth of Cage's charlatanry, and to contrast it at every turn
with the manifold theoretical and acoustical depths of
microtonality. Cage's swindles and perversions of 12-TET
music theory are the disease; microtonality is the cure.
--mclaren
