Cage should be studied seriously.  Why? Because of what he makes us think
about the meaning of music.  What he did doesn't invalidate (at least for
me) music that apparently owes more to tradition, but it does tend to call
into question the philosphical underpinnings on which "meaning" is created
in that tradition.  And this is a good thing.  As far as most of his chance
music is concerned, I really can't tell much difference between it and the
idea that I might myself set aside 20 minutes, or an hour, or two hours,
and "create" my own composition out of the sounds I hear within that
time frame.  This would presumably be as close as sound gets to actual
experience--because it IS actual experience, that doesn't "represent"
or stand for anything else.  But then you get back to the whole point
about "art"--that it's ARTificial.  It's created by humans; it stands for
something else, IN ADDITION to being enjoyable for its own sake.  It seems
to me Cage, rather than breaking down the "barrier between life and art",
succeeded in reducing the human creative act (insofar as it results in a
"product") to the bare minimum.  One could also argue that he turns each
of us into "creators" by eliminating the need for trying to figure out
what the composer "meant." In the postmodern world, at least, that type
of listener-composer relationship seems to have been moribund anyhow.
"Music means whatever I think it means to me." "I didn't like that piece
because it just isn't ME." Bleagh.

Chris Bonds