# Hostile territory?



## godzillaviolist (Jan 21, 2005)

hello,
I've noticed that there seems to be a dinstinct hostility to music of the last 200 years here... I was quite suprised by the "worst composers" thread. I expected to find Schoenberg there, but Strauss? Stravinsky? I love baroque music, but I love later musical styles too. I think people should seperate personal taste from over all quality. I don't like Mahler, in fact I'd rather staple my toes to a cat than attend a Mahler symphony, but I can still see the greatness in his music. 
Anyone here like music by people who didn't wear powdered wigs?  
godzilla


----------



## Daniel (Jul 11, 2004)

I think, it was clear in this thread, that it WAS personal taste not quality?

Greetings,
Daniel


----------



## godzillaviolist (Jan 21, 2005)

*Worst?*

But the WORST somehow implies that they had no talent, could not compose. I can see someone thinking a composer had less talent than imagined, but saying people like Stravinsky had NO talent or even ability is pushing it. All truly awfull composers disappear quickly after their lifetime. Composers remain popular only if there is some quality in their music, whether the individual appreciates it or not.


----------



## Daniel (Jul 11, 2004)

True, the title might be confusing! Anyway I respect them, they just don't to have to tell ME something.


----------



## JANK (Dec 20, 2005)

I can't stand Webern's music but I love Shoenberg and Berg. The fact that some people say that Mahler is the worst composer comes to me as intriguing. Either they've never heard any music later than Mahler or they are just plain naive.


----------



## glezzery (Apr 3, 2006)

Webern, Schoenberg, Stravinsky etc. DON'T belong on any ones Worst list! They are GIANTS!
Maybe it should be "who is your LEAST FAVORITE Wellknown composer"! If one is making a list of worst and the criteria is quality, HOW ON EARTH does Stravinsky, Webern,Berg make the LIST! Ludicrous!
godzillaviolist brings up a good point. Classical has been dying for years. Most classical radio plays the same top 100 pieces that show up in every poll and every year, as if most people who claim to love music actually hate it! I mean, COME ON, how many times is one supposed to hear Vivaldi sawing through a circle of fifths? How many timeas does one have to hear DADADA-DADADA-DADADA-DAAA- DADADA_DADADA_DADADA DAAAA(Mozart)! Haydn is great and all, but this stuff is JUST THE BEGINNING OF A FANTASTIC EXPLORATION OF MUSIC! The folks that are supporting the last vestiges of the classical business are the folks that think the Brandenburgs are the only piece of music ever written! How about some Bartok, Veress, Webern, Walton, Barber, Nielsen.......


----------



## soul_syringe (Apr 18, 2006)

least-loved personally? 
schubert and schuman... sorry...


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Well I for one like Modern composers more than the old greats


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2013)

When I want what only Pergolesi can give me, I listen to Pergolesi. I certainly don't whinge about how he never did this or that cool thing that Vivaldi always did. If I want what only Vivaldi can give me, I listen to Vivaldi. It's easy.

What maybe is slightly more difficult (by all reports, impossible for some people) is letting each composer, each piece say to you whatever it is that it has to say. Accepting that. Letting that be the thing that you want. Not wanting it ahead of time, but wanting whatever you get when you get it.

I cannot do that, myself, for every piece I hear. But going into each audition of each piece with that attitude does mean that I end up, as a practical matter, enjoying quite a lot more different things than I would if I had expectations, if I had strict ideas as to what music should do, if, encountering piece that didn't do that, I would then reject them. It is difficult to enjoy a piece that you've already rejected.

Nor would I, once I had failed to like something, expend any energy at all trying to convince people that my failure meant that the music itself is crap or that people who like it are deluded or that the person who wrote it is trying to destroy art music or that it would be better if no one listened to it again, ever--all of which are familiar and oft-repeated responses to music that people have disliked.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

godzillaviolist said:


> hello,
> I've noticed that there seems to be a dinstinct hostility to music of the last 200 years here... I was quite suprised by the "worst composers" thread. I expected to find Schoenberg there, but Strauss? Stravinsky? I love baroque music, but I love later musical styles too. I think people should seperate personal taste from over all quality. I don't like Mahler, in fact I'd rather staple my toes to a cat than attend a Mahler symphony, but I can still see the greatness in his music.
> Anyone here like music by people who didn't wear powdered wigs?
> godzilla


In fact, many folks here at TC avoid music written by folks who wore powdered wigs.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Major necro alert! This thread goes back to 2005. That was last decade guys! Almost as long as going back to the era of bewigged composers. Well, not quite.

But I think this topic is still of some relevance here now. A perennial issue that seems to pop up often.

I personally don't dislike wigs, or Renaissance or early music for that matter. Eg. I've been listening to Haydn lately. However I listen to more music coming after late Mozart, late Haydn, and Beethoven than that of before. I acknowledge the likes of J.S. Bach as great even though I don't like everything by him. But I got much less time for some composers who weren't wigs than those who where. Eg. Wagner or some other things that are beyond my threshold of enjoyment (incl. some contemporary stuff - its got nothing to do with era in that case, just personal taste, perception, all that).

But people are free to enjoy or not enjoy whatever music they want. I see it as a smorgasbord or menu from which you chose what you want. There are no 'shoulds' in music imo. The big thing I've learnt over the years on this forum is to not be too hard on peope for expressing their tastes. Even if they go overboard a bit. If I criticise them for that, I may as well criticise my own limitations as a listener. Its a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

But judging from recent controversies, these thread topics proved 'hostile territory' so to speak:
- John Cage
- The atonalists and serialists
- Contemporary classical music
- The who is greater type threads, eg. Beethoven versus Mozart
...I'm sure there is more but I forget...


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

The thread is indeed still relevant. Unfortunately, there are a few outspoken members who find it necessary to ventilate their negative opinions on selected composers (or even complete genres) continuously, often repeatedly in the same thread. Note that there is an important difference between statements like "I do not care for the works of composer X" (which is fine), and "Composer X is total rubbish" or even "Composer X is a fraud" (which will draw heated reactions from people who do like X).


----------



## Bone (Jan 19, 2013)

Art Rock said:


> The thread is indeed still relevant. Unfortunately, there are a few outspoken members who find it necessary to ventilate their negative opinions on selected composers (or even complete genres) continuously, often repeatedly in the same thread. Note that there is an important difference between statements like "I do not care for the works of composer X" (which is fine), and "Composer X is total rubbish" or even "Composer X is a fraud" (which will draw heated reactions from people who do like X).


Agreed (and rubbish is an underused word here in America).


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*TC is Cool*

I know this is a delicate subject, but there is another forum where the situation is much worse. There is a group of refugees who have gathered here and we have formed our own little group. The latest is really cool. He is a music history prof who really knows his stuff.

The situation has gotten so toxic over there that in the past month there have been only two threads about modernistic music and one of them was trashing Xenakis. It has been months since anyone has mentioned Cage or Schoenberg.

This is one of the reasons that some of the proponants of modernistic music get so defensive. We do not want the same thing to occur here.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Art Rock said:


> ... Note that there is an important difference between statements like "I do not care for the works of composer X" (which is fine), and "Composer X is total rubbish" or even "Composer X is a fraud" (which will draw heated reactions from people who do like X).


I can see the distinction but ultimately I cannot control others, I can only control myself, my own reactions. So if I reply to that sort of extreme statement, I try do it calmly and as objectively as possible, not shoot the messenger, not bring other things into the conversation (eg. blaming the person or making accusations about them etc.). I don't preach here, I say this to myself all the time and I have failed to do this myself a good few times.



arpeggio said:


> I know this is a delicate subject, but there is another forum where the situation is much worse. There is a group of refugees who have gathered here and we have formed our own little group. The latest is really cool. He is a music history prof who really knows his stuff.
> 
> The situation has gotten so toxic over there that in the past month there have been only two threads about modernistic music and one of them was trashing Xenakis. It has been months since anyone has mentioned Cage or Schoenberg.
> 
> This is one of the reasons that some of the proponants of modernistic music get so defensive. We do not want the same thing to occur here.


Well I know what you mean but its the way one delivers a message, or counters an opinion one doesn't agree with, its less about the content. I mean I can say that those people saying Xenakis is rubbish, I can say what they're talking is rubbish. But that's likely to garner a 'toxic' vibe, a negative reaction, then others may join in the fracas. Far better to say why I don't agree with that assessment of Xenakis and say give examples of his music that I think proves he's a great composer etc. Conversation is a two way street, its a meeting of ideas, its a dialogue. Its seeing what the other person thinks. Its for me about being able to speak my mind without being howled down. But again, ultimately if I want to stop a bad vibe with some member, I put them on my ignore list. This I have done recently and its the best way to deal with things that repeatedly annoy me. So again, I can only control what I do, not others.

& who had that idea? Which great man I admire? The author of the quote of my signature, M.K. Gandhi!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Well, to play devil's advocate a bit... Stravinsky certainly wasn't the worst, but he was a promise that went unfulfilled. Early in his career, he came on like gangbusters with totally new innovations, but as time went by, his music became more constrained and mannered.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Well, to play devil's advocate a bit... Stravinsky certainly wasn't the worst, but he was a promise that went unfulfilled. Early in his career, he came on like gangbusters with totally new innovations, but as time went by, his music became more constrained and mannered.


I disagree. The Firebird is far more derivative than Symphony of Psalms, and he continued to write unique and brilliant works up until the Requiem Canticles. His late music may be emotionally restrained, but it is not constrained, and it is all the better for art that he refused to repeat himself. Which works do you feel are especially "constrained" or "mannered"?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Well, to play devil's advocate a bit... Stravinsky certainly wasn't the worst, but he was a promise that went unfulfilled.


I don't see it that way. He made a promise, he fulfilled it, and he moved on.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Some threads I made became quite hostile, like this, not surprising given the controversial topic and perhaps the way I put things in my opening post:
http://www.talkclassical.com/21360-composers-weaknesses-yuck-factor.html

And this one was not of my making, but the topic again being controversial as is anything involving Nazis, and yeah, I got emotional!
http://www.talkclassical.com/23118-unwelcome-anniversary.html


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

To the OP: you can't take posts in a thread called "Worst composers" seriously. Those kinds of threads are just excuses to blow off steam. I don't think there's any special hostility towards classical music of the last 200 years here, other than that it's easier to hate someone who is closer to our own time than someone who lived 400 years ago; those people were so different from us that it's harder to relate to them.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I was referring to the progression from Firebird to Rite to Petrouchka. That was a huge leap forward. After that, he seemed to pull back and ended up in a formal neoclassical sort of place. Like a wave charging forward, then receding. Picasso was similar.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

bigshot said:


> I was referring to the progression from Firebird to Rite to Petrouchka. That was a huge leap forward. After that, he seemed to pull back and ended up in a formal neoclassical sort of place. Like a wave charging forward, then receding. Picasso was similar.


It was Firebird - Petrushka - Rite. And that was followed up by the wonderfully dynamic and extremely Russian Les Noces, where the rhythm and pseudo-folk music of the Rite was boiled down to its most essential elements.

And his Neoclassicism is not any kind of comfortable regression, unlike Strauss's affectations of old Vienna in Rosenkavelier. He continued to develop his style, which was far from "academic" or "formal", as vigorously as before. Stravinsky's Neoclassicism was not something that he simply used as a formula to turn out new compositions.


----------



## SamBryant (Feb 9, 2013)

Xaltotun said:


> To the OP: you can't take posts in a thread called "Worst composers" seriously. Those kinds of threads are just excuses to blow off steam. I don't think there's any special hostility towards classical music of the last 200 years here, other than that it's easier to hate someone who is closer to our own time than someone who lived 400 years ago; those people were so different from us that it's harder to relate to them.


I see what you're saying, but I think the OP has a point. People hate contemporary classical music in a way that the contemporary intelligensia never did with 18th century music. And when they don't hate it, they flat out ignore it. When is the last time you heard someone say their favorite time in classical music was after 1950? Not to say that there aren't fans of contemporary classical (I myself am one of them). They are just more rare.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

godzillaviolist said:


> hello,
> I've noticed that there seems to be a dinstinct hostility to music of the last 200 years here...


What a coincidence. 200 years ago was 1813, when Beethoven had burned out his middle period and was about to embark on his late music, which everybody now recognizes as strained and (at best) faux-profound. And after that, well, there's hardly anything worth writing home about. So 200 years sounds about right. :devil:


----------



## SamBryant (Feb 9, 2013)

KenOC said:


> What a coincidence. 200 years ago was 1813, when Beethoven had burned out his middle period and was about to embark on his late music, which everybody now recognizes as strained and (at best) faux-profound. And after that, well, there's hardly anything worth writing home about. So 200 years sounds about right. :devil:


I can't tell whether or not you are being serious, but if you are, that is a ridiculous point of view


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

SamBryant said:


> I can't tell whether or not you are being serious, but if you are, that is a ridiculous point of view


And can you (ahem) demonstrate that your view of my view is correct?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Not that it was a formula. It just wasn't a direction the rest of the world followed any more. I'm not saying that Stravinsky (or Picasso) weren't being true to their muse. They just weren't leading the charge any more.

Maybe it's just a time and place thing.


----------



## SamBryant (Feb 9, 2013)

KenOC said:


> And can you (ahem) demonstrate that your view of my view is correct?


Well without actually discussing the music itself, sheer probably would suggest that given how prominent and important music was in the 19th century, that were are at least some composers born with considerable talent. Or did all of humanity's musical ability just "disappear" from the gene pool.

It's hard for me to say something like "No, Bartok's Concerto is an objectively good piece of music", because you would of course just deny that. Instead I will say that a large portion of people who seriously study classical music consider Beethoven's 9th symphony to be one of the greatest pieces of music ever written. So I don't just disagree with the statement, "everybody now recognizes [Beethoven's late music] as strained and (at best) faux-profound.", it is also objectively false.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Granted I misspoke with the term "everybody." I should have said, of course "everybody with an adequate sense of discernment." See, for instance, Spohr: "Yes, I must even reckon the much admired Ninth Symphony among these, the three first movements of which seem to me, despite some solitary flashes of genius, worse than all the eight previous symphonies. The fourth movement is, in my opinion, so monstrous and tasteless and, in its grasp of Schiller's Ode, so trivial that I cannot understand how a genius like Beethoven could have written it."


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

SamBryant said:


> I can't tell whether or not you are being serious, but if you are, that is a ridiculous point of view


_KenOC_ is messing with you.


----------



## SamBryant (Feb 9, 2013)

KenOC said:


> What a coincidence. 200 years ago was 1813, when Beethoven had burned out his middle period and was about to embark on his late music, which everybody now recognizes as strained and (at best) faux-profound. And after that, well, there's hardly anything worth writing home about. So 200 years sounds about right. :devil:


I think that all music is decadent and inferior to 4'33. 4'33 is the the sound of nature, the music of God. Anyone who thinks that they can compose music on par with God is an arrogant fool.


----------



## SamBryant (Feb 9, 2013)

KenOC said:


> The fourth movement is, in my opinion, so monstrous and tasteless and, in its grasp of Schiller's Ode, so trivial that I cannot understand how a genius like Beethoven could have written it."


To be frank, I almost somewhat agree with this. Although I love the movement, the patchwork of themes and references, like the Turkish theme, can come off as slightly gaudy.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2013)

SamBryant said:


> I think that all music except for 4:33 is decadent and inferior. 4:33 is the the sound of nature, the music of God. Anyone who thinks that they can compose music on par with God is an arrogant fool.


Can you please expand on that statement! I am not sure if you are for or against 4:33 ?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

KenOC said:


> What a coincidence. 200 years ago was 1813, when Beethoven had burned out his middle period and was about to embark on his late music, which everybody now recognizes as strained and (at best) faux-profound. And after that, well, there's hardly anything worth writing home about. So 200 years sounds about right. :devil:


"Everybody" who is this everybody--I can't possibly agree with this.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> _KenOC_ is messing with you.


I ccertainly hope so or I will have to revise my whole opinion of him !


----------



## SamBryant (Feb 9, 2013)

Andante said:


> Can you please expand on that statement! I am not sure if you are for or against 4:33 ?


I was being facetious.


----------



## SamBryant (Feb 9, 2013)

But now that we're on the subject. In my eyes, 4'33 was an interesting statement, but nothing more. I like things that challenge preconceived notions that we all inevitably have. They require us to think in novel ways. If you get past that initial feeling that you are being poked fun at, 4'33 makes you think about silence and sound in a way you might not have before. Do I think it's a brilliant statement? not really.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2013)

SamBryant said:


> I was being facetious.


Ahhhhh way above my head


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2013)

SamBryant said:


> 4'33 makes you think about silence and sound in a way you might not have before. Do I think it's a brilliant statement? not really.


A brilliant statement??? no. Silence is silence an absence of sound. so all in all he was taking the psis


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2013)

SamBryant said:


> When is the last time you heard someone say their favorite time in classical music was after 1950?


My favorite time in classical music is 1950 to now.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

From 1900 and I'd agree


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

SamBryant said:


> But now that we're on the subject. In my eyes, 4'33 was an interesting statement, but nothing more. I like things that challenge preconceived notions that we all inevitably have. They require us to think in novel ways. If you get past that initial feeling that you are being poked fun at, 4'33 makes you think about silence and sound in a way you might not have before. Do I think it's a brilliant statement? not really.


I'm not sure I should ask,but what is 4'33" for goodness sake ?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Silence 

Four minutes, thirty-three seconds is a three-movement composition by American experimental composer John Cage (1912–1992). It was composed in 1952 for any instrument (or combination of instruments), and the score instructs the performer not to play the instrument during the entire duration of the piece throughout the three movements


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Let us not forget Cage's:

0'00" (4'33" No. 2), solo for any performer (1962)

Extensively revised.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Silence
> 
> Four minutes, thirty-three seconds is a three-movement composition by American experimental composer John Cage (1912-1992). It was composed in 1952 for any instrument (or combination of instruments), and the score instructs the performer not to play the instrument during the entire duration of the piece throughout the three movements


Have you heard 4'33" mix/feat walking in the bats cave or something like that?! Quite interesting!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

I particular like the 3rd movement, all movements are very good for my record player

Also its similarity to the four side of the Joe Jackson's LP Big world - at least Cage is shorter. still haven't quite got into that 4th side!

And its got less notes then Zappa's black page............


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

SamBryant said:


> I see what you're saying, but I think the OP has a point. People hate contemporary classical music in a way that the contemporary intelligensia never did with 18th century music. And when they don't hate it, they flat out ignore it. When is the last time you heard someone say their favorite time in classical music was after 1950? Not to say that there aren't fans of contemporary classical (I myself am one of them). They are just more rare.


My favorite period is probably about 1900 to 1950, but my second favorite period is 1950 to now.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2013)

The biggest fault with 4:33 is that the scoring for the presto was too loud in the dreg section, apart from that the only other thing wrong IMO of course is that it just does not sound right.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> My favorite period is probably about 1900 to 1950, but my second favorite period is 1950 to now.


My favorite period is from about 1500 to 1990. Before that I have an issue with the wind instruments. After about 1990 the chaff hasn't been removed from the grain, have to do my own threshing - and I'm getting too old for all that exercise.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2013)

If I couldn't do my own threshing, I would rather die.

And I would never have found all those tasty grains that nourish me so much!

I turn 61 next month. Shall we have a chronology smackdown here?


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

That probably accounts for the hostility noted, too much threshing not enough gleaning.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2013)

some guy said:


> If I couldn't do my own threshing, I would rather die.
> 
> And I would never have found all those tasty grains that nourish me so much!
> 
> I turn 61 next month. Shall we have a chronology smackdown here?


What! are you a sadist?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Andante said:


> The biggest fault with 4:33 is that the scoring for the presto was too loud in the dreg section, apart from that the only other thing wrong IMO of course is that it just does not sound right.


The problem with jokes about 4'33'' is that they are always extremely unimaginative, have been done a million times, and aren't really funny o3o Yet it seems every single person in the universe must tell their own pointless variation of it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> The problem with jokes about 4'33'' is that they are always extremely unimaginative, have been done a million times, and aren't really funny o3o Yet it seems every single person in the universe must tell their own pointless variation of it.


The moral is that we need to try for newer and more imaginative jokes, right?


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2013)

BurningDesire said:


> The problem with jokes about 4'33'' is that they are always extremely unimaginative, have been done a million times, and aren't really funny o3o Yet it seems every single person in the universe must tell their own pointless variation of it.


Ahhhh at last you speak to me I thought I had been relegated to your "Ignore" list, I await with bated breath to hear more of your (original) words of wisdom :kiss:


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Silence
> 
> Four minutes, thirty-three seconds is a three-movement composition by American experimental composer John Cage (1912-1992). It was composed in 1952 for any instrument (or combination of instruments), and the score instructs the performer not to play the instrument during the entire duration of the piece throughout the three movements


Yes I have heard of it---what nonsense !!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

quack said:


> That probably accounts for the hostility noted, too much threshing not enough gleaning.


The threshing comes first. There is a diminishing returns factor in both operations.


----------



## rrudolph (Sep 15, 2011)

SamBryant said:


> I think that all music is decadent and inferior to 4'33. 4'33 is the the sound of nature, the music of God. Anyone who thinks that they can compose music on par with God is an arrogant fool.


I feel that the music of God's later period is rather pedestrian and academic. I much prefer his earlier, more innovative stuff.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

rrudolph said:


> I feel that the music of God's later period is rather pedestrian and academic. I much prefer his earlier, more innovative stuff.


Yeah, he´s become a bit anonymous, hasn´t he.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2013)

moody said:


> Yes I have heard of it---what nonsense !!


Here's another common pattern in these discussions, the substitution of curt dismissal for exposition. It's as if we have gone back to the time of legend when language was magical, when just saying something made it so.

You cannot explain something you believe, something you feel? But you're convinced that your feelings are true? Simply assert and voilà, the thing you have said is true!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

What can you say about nothing?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> What can you say about nothing?


If you're talking about 4'33", I'd guess that was Cage's whole point (knowing his interest in Zen Buddhism). But anyway, I've never heard the work.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2013)

I dunno. Call the most ostentatiously "everything" piece "nothing" maybe?

Music up to that point had been a matter of exclusion, especially since Beethoven--exclude everything but these particular notes played in this particular order. Anything else is an interruption, a distraction, from that exclusionary situation.

4'33" does just the opposite, it includes everything that had been previously processed as interruption, distraction--unwelcome sounds (even if the sounds themselves were pleasant*). Unwelcome simply by the context: they are not the sounds of that particular piece as written down and performed in that particular concert.

Hundreds of years of thinking of music in that way is not going to be overturned in just a few decades or so. It is clear that 4'33" is destined to be important for quite a long time, as long as it takes for people generally to really feel that all sounds are welcome, on their own terms, not because of some artificially constructed context that excludes them.

*I can open a can of worms as deftly as the next guy. But just think of something _you_ think is pleasant, some piece of music, maybe. Now think of a completely different piece of music that you also think is pleasant. If the first one is playing, you are not likely to want the second one to start playing, too, are you? Somehow, that second, also pleasant on its own terms piece is no longer pleasant. It is an interruption, a distraction, unwelcome. Not because it's bad on its own, but because of the context. Cage questioned the context. And for that, he will be continued to be excoriated for the forseeable future.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2013)

And did he tell you all this SG ??


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2013)

He told this to everyone in published works.

We generally talked about other things. (And when we played chess, we didn't talk at all.)


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

quack said:


> That probably accounts for the hostility noted, too much threshing not enough gleaning.


Threshing, demolishing, discrediting, yeah we're good at that here with these "hostile" topics.

But now my philosophy is simple saying: _If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen_.

& I personally can't stand it, in any case its fruitless, tends to turn into an 'all or nothing' (dichotomy) black versus white type bunfight, so thanks but no thanks to that. Waste of time.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

It's going to take a couple of generations for us to appreciate everything about nothing.


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2013)

bigshot said:


> It's going to take a couple of generations for us to appreciate everything about nothing.


Much ado about nothing eh Dogberry


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2013)

So there ya have it godzillaviolist. Hostile territory.

Who knows why? Just the way it goes. 

And there are no consequences for the hostility, so it continues unchecked and unabated.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I'm more amused than hostile. Observing emperors in underpants is terrific fun.


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2013)

some guy said:


> So there ya have it godzillaviolist. Hostile territory.
> 
> Who knows why? Just the way it goes.
> 
> And there are no consequences for the hostility, so it continues unchecked and unabated.


Don't take it to heart someguy it could have been worse he could have actually composed something


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

some guy said:


> Here's another common pattern in these discussions, the substitution of curt dismissal for exposition. It's as if we have gone back to the time of legend when language was magical, when just saying something made it so.
> 
> You cannot explain something you believe, something you feel? But you're convinced that your feelings are true? Simply assert and voilà, the thing you have said is true!


Now,now sir,don't get excitable you might burst a fuffy valve !


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

I heard an interesting story today,
Apparently the Vienna Philhamonic was due to play 4"33'but due to a mix-up didn't turn up.
A schrammel band offered to take their place but naturally people were doubtful.
In the event all was well and everyone said that they really couldn't tell the difference.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

moody said:


> I heard an interesting story today,
> Apparently the Vienna Philhamonic was due to play 4"33'but due to a mix-up didn't turn up.
> A schrammel band offered to take their place but naturally people were doubtful.
> In the event all was well and everyone said that they really couldn't tell the difference.


They should have been able to, if they had both performances to compare. The VPO is a larger group, significantly increasing the likelihood that one or more of the members would snore.


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2013)

My, my, my. We ARE having fun here, aren't we?

Just a load of yucks here. 4'33", hahahahahahahahaha.

Reminds me of a Father Brown story by G.K. Chesterton, in which everyone says that no one came to the apartment where the murder took place. Turns out, the murderer was the postman, an invisible person, not counted as a person, and who actually removed the body (of a very tiny man), in his postal sack without anyone noticing.

So here you have a group of bullyboys, secure in their opinions, as all bullyboys are, laughing their derrieres off at the same feeble joke, which comes down to this: there's a living room in a house that is full of all sorts of things, a stereo, bookcases, plants, tables, a tv, chairs, a fireplace, pictures on every wall. One thing is missing. A couch. And for the bullyboys, a couch is the one essential thing for a living room. A living room without a couch is, ipso facto, an empty room.

Now there's funny! A room full of chairs and tables and tvs and stereos and pictures and plants and books is "empty" because it doesn't have a couch. Hilarious!! Huh huh huh. Yuck yuck yuck. That empty room is so funny, huh huh huh.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Too many hahas there for a sane person.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> They should have been able to, if they had both performances to compare. The VPO is a larger group, significantly increasing the likelihood that one or more of the members would snore.


Haven't you heard the Led Zeppelin version of 4'33" (note not 4sec/ 33mins, as per post #73- now that would be something)


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Too many hahas there for a sane person.


My point exactly.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Haven't you heard the Led Zeppelin version of 4'33" (note not 4sec/ 33mins, as per post #73- now that would be something)


No. I have knowingly heard about 30" of Led Zeppelin - no wait, that was Jefferson Airplane. I have never knowingly heard any Led Zeppelin. (Zeppelin - Airplane, you see the confusion?)


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> No. I have knowingly heard about 30" of Led Zeppelin - no wait, that was Jefferson Airplane. I have never knowingly heard any Led Zeppelin. (Zeppelin - Airplane, you see the confusion?)


Are you saying the Jefferson Airplane version of 4'33" is better?


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> They should have been able to, if they had both performances to compare. The VPO is a larger group, significantly increasing the likelihood that one or more of the members would snore.


I like the cut of yer jib, Hilly!!!!

"Now hear this....Obama's State of the Union tonight"!! You would be HOPING for 4.33!


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2013)

some guy said:


> My, my, my. We ARE having fun here, aren't we?
> 
> Just a load of yucks here. 4'33", hahahahahahahahaha.
> 
> ...


Take the rest of the week off immediately!!


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2013)

bigshot said:


> What can you say about nothing?


Boom Boom!!


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2013)

Is there a doctor in the house?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

My local symphony has decided to incorporate modern conceptual music into their programs a little at a time. They play thirty seconds of 4:33 between each movement of a Beethoven symphony!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Did someone call for a Doctor


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2013)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Did someone call for a Doctor
> 
> View attachment 13121


Well, er, yes.....Dr. Strangelove (tries to strangle self with leather glove while making Nazi salute!).


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

bigshot said:


> My local symphony has decided to incorporate modern onceptual music into their programs a little at a time. They play thirty seconds of 4:33 between each movement of a Beethoven symphony!


Could you sing us some of it.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Sure. I can even sing it with laryngitis! In fact, it's BETTER that way!


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2013)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Well, er, yes.....Dr. Strangelove (tries to strangle self with leather glove while making Nazi salute!).


I was thinking more of "Dr Foster" if you remember he made a journey to the city of Gloucester when it was raining and had a wee accident in a small amount of H2O which emerged him up to his centre of gravity needless to say he never made that trip again


----------

